CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 43
M. de Carbonnel (France) said that it had not been possible to consult all the Delegations interested in the question of the definition of UN shipping and therefore suggested that the question be adjourned and that a subcommittee be created to prepare an agreed text for submission to the Commission. The Byelo-Russian representative proposed that the subcommittee be composed of representatives of the USSR, US, UK, France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Greece. The Commission approved these proposals. After a brief discussion, it was also agreed that the Netherlands representative would attend the meeting with the right to be heard.
M. Hajdu (Czechoslovakia) appealed to the United States representative to bring about a reconsideration of the U.S. position with regard to the identified Czech ships which were being held by U.S. [Page 461] authorities. He said that the U.S., without any legal or other pretext, was retaining 48 identified Czech ships, or more than one-third of Czechoslovakia’s Danubian fleet. He noted that Czechoslovakia was very dependent on the Danube and was put in a difficult position by this action. The U.S. attitude was especially difficult to understand in view of the fact that the U.S. had returned identifiable property to Hungary, an ex-enemy. He hoped that all the members of the Commission would share Czechoslovakia’s point of view. He noted that Czechoslovakia was raising this matter before ECOSOC. M. Bartosh (Yugoslavia) said that the Yugoslav Delegation associated itself with the statement of the Czech representative and spoke briefly on the subject of restitution of Yugoslav vessels.
Mr. Thorp (U.S.) said that there had been no suggestion that this matter was related to the Rumanian treaty and that the discussion had merely wasted the Commission’s time. He observed that the matter had been placed on the agenda of the Economic and Social Council with the consent of the United States, where it would receive a full consideration. He suggested that, if these Delegations were really concerned with a solution of this problem, they should participate constructively in the settlement of Article 34, which related to the Danube regime. He then suggested that the Commission continue with the day’s agenda. M. Hajdu replied that the Czechoslovak Delegation considered the problem of justice, friendly relations, and peace as one and indivisible.12
The Commission then continued its consideration of Annex 4C, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 (Shipping). Mr. Gregory (UK) and M. Politis (Greece) supported the inclusion of these provisions in the treaty with the amendments they had put forward.13 M. Geraschenko (USSR) and M. de Carbonnel (France) indicated that the three paragraphs were not necessary and were objectionable in certain respects. Mr. Thorp said that the U.S. Delegation had real difficulty in understanding why ships should receive privileged treatment. A proper and accurate definition of UN ships was necessary, but the treatment of ships should be the same as that provided in Article 24 for other types of property.
- In telegram 4693 (Delsec 963), September 18, from Paris, Thorp in reporting the events of the meeting stated the following: “As far as peace treaties are concerned, Danube barges are no longer valuable as bargaining point. In fact, they are being exaggerated in adverse criticism and publicity, and will undoubtedly be used as diversionary subject when Danube clauses are reached.” (CFM Files). For documentation on the question of the restitution of barges and on the Danube question in general, see vol. v, pp. 223 ff.↩
- The British proposals are printed in the draft treaty with Rumania as unagreed provisions; see vol. iv, p. 87. The Greek amendment is not printed.↩