Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 11, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 39

The Chairman announced that the Commission would proceed to examine the two amendments to Article 2 submitted by Australia and Great Britain. Mr. Stirling (Australia) stated that the Australian amendment (C.P.(H/P)Doc. 6)⁷⁸ would add three additional paragraphs to Article 2. The first paragraph was in effect a restatement of the principles of the minority treaties. There had been criticism in some quarters that Australia was “trying to break in an open door”. However, doors sometimes closed and the Australian Delegation was looking to the future. The Delegate of the U.S.S.R. and Byelo-Russia spoke in no uncertain terms against the amendment, arguing that the Hungarian Government had already taken action to repeal laws of a discriminating nature. Moreover, the preamble of the new democratic constitution of Hungary gave sufficient protection. The Australian amendment trespassed on the sovereignty of Hungary, while the draft treaty and the U.N. Charter covered all eventualities.

The Australian Delegate stated he had hoped to have some positive support for his amendment. Australia, even if 17,000 miles away, was able to see clearly that the question of minorities in Europe was of great importance, particularly after his Delegation’s experience in Paris. He said he would not press for paragraphs 1 and 3 of his amendment. However, the second paragraph of the Australian amendment was designed to give rights to the inhabitants of any “restored” territory. Viscount Hood (U.K.) moved that discussion be deferred until such time as the Commission had taken a decision on the question of ceding territory. M. Novikov (U.S.S.R.), contending that the Australian proposal had been rejected as a whole in two other commissions (Finland and Rumania) stated that there was no purpose in discussing it in connection with ceded territory, since in the case of Hungary, territory would be ceded to an Allied country (i.e., Czechoslovakia). After considerable argument in which the Czech Delegation also spoke in opposition to the Australian amendment, a point of order was raised on the motion for deferment after 2 members had spoken for the U.K. amendment and 2 against. A vote was then taken on the question of postponing further consideration, which resulted in 9 delegations against postponement and 4 in favor (U.K., U.S., Australia, India). Discussion then continued on the Australian amendment. M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) spoke for twenty-minutes against the Australian amendment. He restated the arguments of the Czecholovak and U.S.S.R. Delegations, but sharply attacked Australia’s motives, pointing out its amendment would support reaction in Hungary. The Australian Delegate said rather bitterly that Australia had not made amendments with the idea of helping Australia or any group of countries, but only to further the economic and political stability of Europe. In the future if the treaties broke down, it could not be said that Australia had not attempted to establish at least some principles for peacemaking. The question then came to a vote, in which all members of the Commission were against the second paragraph of the amendment except Australia.

The Chairman proposed that the Commission proceed to examine the U.K. amendment to the same article⁷⁹ but before discussion could be opened the U.S.S.R. Delegate (M. Novikov) raised a point of procedure, contending that in accordance with a letter from the General Secretariat no amendments could be offered after the deadline of August 20, unless they were new proposals or unless amendments were designed to reach a compromise on controversial amendments.⁸⁰ There then followed a two hour discussion on the question of procedure which had all the earmarks of a filibuster. The Chairman suggested this question of procedure be referred to a plenary session of the Conference. The Czechoslovak Delegate moved adjournment, with the U.K. Delegate making it clear that the question should remain on the agenda of the next meeting. The Commission finally adjourned at 8 p.m.

78. The proposals contained in C.P. (H/P) Doc. 6 were as follows:

    Article 2.

    Renumber present Article 2, Article 2 Paragraph (1).

    Add following paragraphs:—

    (2) “Hungary undertakes that in order to fulfil the obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, those obligations shall be recognised as fundamental laws and that no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with those obligations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.”

    (3) “The State to which territory is restored under Article 1 (4) of this Treaty shall take all measures necessary to secure to all persons within the territory, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting.”

    (4) “Such State undertakes that, in order to fulfil its obligations under paragraph 3, those obligations shall be recognised as fundamental laws, and that no law, regulation or official action shall conflict or interfere with those obligations, nor shall any law, regulation or official action prevail over them.”

79. The amendment was proposed in C.P. (H/P) Doc. 10; for text, mutatis mutandis, see footnote 71, p. 418.
80. Regarding the August 20 deadline, see the extract from the Verbatim Record of the 19th Plenary Meeting, August 15, p. 236.