CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 47
The Commission decided that the Greek amendment (1 J 15) [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.J.15] to Article 68, requiring Italy to restore all rights and interests of Greek Orthodox Establishments in Italy, should be referred to the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, as being more closely related to Article 14 than to Article 68.60 The Commission considered paragraph 1 of Article 69 (Italian Property in the Territory of Allied and Associated Powers). The Yugoslav representative said that the Yugoslav amendment (1 U 22) [C.P.(Gen.) Doc.1.U.22] was designed to make possible the liquidation of property which was Italian at the beginning of the war with Italy or which was acquired by Italians between that date and the entry into force of the treaty. He added that the amendment was necessary in order to get at cloaked transfers of property. Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) said that each country must determine in each case whether there had been a bona fide transfer of ownership. If there had been a bona fide transfer, the treaty should not affect it; if there had not, the property came under paragraph 1. For this reason the amendment was not necessary. The Yugoslav representative thought that the language was too abstract to suit the needs of countries which had been occupied and suggested alternative amendments: (1) an amendment to paragraph 1, providing that the Italian character of property would be determined in accordance with the internal legislation of the country concerned; (2) an amendment to paragraph 2 which would accomplish the same effect as the preceding. The Commission decided to postpone consideration of these amendments until the next meeting.
At the suggestion of the Greek representative, the Commission decided to consider the Greek amendment (1 J 16) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1. J.16] to Article 69 in connection with Annex 3, as it dealt with property in territory to be ceded to Greece. The Ukraine representative spoke against paragraph 1 of Article 69 as making possible a concealed form of reparation. He made a 4–point proposal: (1) the Commission should not act on Article 69 without full hearing and consideration of Italian observations; (2) the Commission should establish a subcommission to ascertain the assets concerned and the claims presented; (3) Article 69 should be amended to provide that no action taken under it should be such as to interfere with Italian reconstruction; [Page 497] (4) Article 69 should be further modified to provide that assets and claims would be assessed by the Four Ambassadors after consultation with their Governments. The Ukraine representative said that Italian property subject to seizure could be valued at $50 million in China, $150 million in the U.S. and $60 million in the U.K. The Chinese representative replied that his Government had already returned Italian property in China to Italian nationals and reserved only the right to claim compensation for losses, amounting to less than $1 million, suffered by Chinese nationals in Italy. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) said that total Italian assets subject to seizure in the U.S. under Article 69 amounted to about $59 million. He was surprised to hear criticism of the right of a country which had supplied $1 billion in aid to Italy, to take such property. The United States would observe the Article as drafted. He said that claims under the Article would probably be rather small and that a considerable amount of Italian property would probably be returned. Mr. Gregory (UK) said that Italian assets in the U.K. subject to seizure under Article 69 could be valued at 10–11 million pounds.