CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 37
It was agreed that the stenographic notes of the 10th meeting, as reviewed by the Secretariat, showed that the Record should read that the vote on Article 58 was adjourned and also that the Greek Delegation had initially withdrawn its amendment [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.J.8] with a reservation and not that the reservation had been added later. The Brazilian Delegation withdrew its amendment to Article 62 (CP(Gen)Doc 1E8). Following an explanation by the U.K. Delegate of the difficulties encountered in the reparation processes, the Greek amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1J9) proposing a new Part 4 was considered in two parts, i.e., naval and military. A proposal of the [Page 407] U.K. Delegate for substituting a new text for the first part was adopted as follows:
“As from the entry into force of the present treaty Italy will be invited to become a member of the International Central Board for Minesweeping of European Waters (Mediterranean Zone). She undertakes to maintain the whole of her minesweeping force at the disposal of the Board until the end of the minesweeping period as determined by the International Central Board for Minesweeping of European Waters.”
The French Delegate opposed the second part of the Greek amendment on the grounds that it created an undesirable precedent because mine clearance was very far advanced in many countries and had up to now been accomplished by national means only. He argued that Greece could present claims for the cost of minesweeping as reparations. He further argued that a bad juridical situation would be created by the amendment; for instance, if there were accidents it would be difficult to determine who was responsible for them. M. Dragoumis, the Greek Delegate, withdrew the second part of the amendment. The first part was inserted in the treaty as a new Section 9, Article 62b[62a].
Since the corresponding articles had been adopted, Annexes 4 A, B and 5 A, B and C were considered adopted provisionally.
The Chairman announced that the Italian memorandum59 would be distributed the next day and that it was necessary to postpone the time limit for tabling amendments to the 14th of September instead of the 12th.
General Slavin asked if Article 63 should be considered by the Commission. The matter was referred to the Secretary General for clarification.
A debate developed on the motion of the South African Delegate, General Theron, to invite the Italian representative to present his views before the Commission.60 Admiral Conolly’s proposal was eventually adopted as follows:
“That the Commission invite the Italian representative to speak in answer to questions addressed to him by the Commission and also upon subjects within the mandate of the Military Commission which he might volunteer.”
A time was set for hearing the Italian representative at 24 hours after receipt of the memorandum. This would probably be Thursday, September 12.
The next meeting will be held at 10 a.m., September 11. The agenda will be discussion of the Italian memorandum, but members will be prepared to discuss the Rumanian treaty as well.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:27 p.m.
- For Observations by the Italian Government on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy, see vol. iv, p. 117.↩
- The Delegates of France, Yugoslavia, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union contended that according to the rules of the Commission the Italian representative should be heard only on matters the Commission wished clarified. The Delegates of South Africa and the United Kingdom expressed the opinion that the Italian Delegate should be allowed to speak on any subject within the competence of the Commission.↩