CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 46
Mr. Thorp (U.S.) defended at some length the U.S. position on compensation for United Nations property and then informed the Commission that the U.S. Delegation was modifying its position on compensation and would present a substitute draft for paragraph 4, Article 68. Two considerations had influenced the U.S. decision: One, the tendency on the part of many of the delegations to introduce numerous amendments to the treaty, which amounted, in reality, to additional reparation claims and which greatly increased the burden Italy would have to bear; the other, the Italian statement emphasizing the necessity for an evaluation of the total economic burden to be imposed on Italy by the economic clauses. In view of the fact that many countries at the Conference had a direct interest in the amount of compensation to be paid, the new U.S. draft did not specify the percentage of compensation to be paid but would leave that question open for the Commission to decide, although the U.S. would support a figure substantially below 100 percent.49 M. Alphand (France) agreed with the position taken by Mr. Thorp and pointed out that France had supported full compensation, believing this was just and not an undue obstacle to Italian economic recovery. He agreed, also, that since the original French position had been formulated numerous and cumulative claims had been put forward against Italy. He said that the French would submit a new proposal to the Commission which would fall somewhere between the original U.S. and USSR drafts. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) said that the U.K. maintained its position in asking for 100 percent compensation for damage to the property of United Nations’ nationals. M. Aroutiunian then expressed his satisfaction that the U.S. and French Delegations had agreed to the Soviet principle of partial compensation. He said the Soviets had taken the position that compensation should only be partial because of Italian co-belligerency, because damage to other types of property was only to be partially compensated and because full compensation would entail an intolerable burden for the Italian economy. He expressed at some length the previous Soviet position that reparation payments and compensation payments were in fact fully comparable. The Commission approved all of Article 68, except for paragraph 4 which was deferred in view of the new proposals which the French, the U.S., and possibly the U.K., were submitting.50
- The text of Mr. Thorp’s statement was released to the press September 19, 1946.↩
- For texts, see vol. iv, pp. 784, 785, and 786, respectively.↩