CFM Files
United States Delegation Minutes
CFM(D) (46) 116th Meeting
Present
| U.K. | ||
| Mr. Jebb (Chairman) | ||
| Lord Hood | ||
| Mr. Marjoribanks | ||
| U.S.S.R. | U.S.A. | |
| M. Vyshinsky | Mr. Cohen | |
| M. Novikov | Mr. Reber | |
| M. Stetsenko | Mr. Page | |
| France | ||
| M. Couve de Murville | ||
| M. Courcel | ||
| M. Beaumarchais |
Italian Colonies
Mr. Jebb recalled that he had previously suggested that the declaration on the Colonies be circulated to the members of the Conference and that the Deputies also agree that those countries which participated in the liberation of the Colonies should be consulted regarding the disposition of the Colonies.4
M. Vyshinsky stated that he saw no reason why the declaration should not be circulated. With regard to the South African amendment he saw no reason for accepting it or for giving the assurances requested by Mr. Jebb. Mr. Jebb had stated that it would be well to clarify the paragraph in the declaration regarding the obtaining of the views of the other interested governments. This was a question which only the Council of Foreign Ministers could decide and it would be difficult at this stage to make this paragraph more precise. The C.F.M. alone could decide what to do—that is whether the interested governments would be personally consulted or would be requested to submit their written views.
Mr. Jebb stated that when this matter was discussed in the C.F.M. Mr. Bevin had understood that M. Molotov had agreed that the Dominions would be brought in at the time of the discussion of the Colonies.
Mr. Cohen stated that the U.S. Delegation believed that the declaration should be circulated as a Conference document and that it should be incorporated in the treaty as an annex or as a part of the article on the Colonies. With respect to the South African amendment Mr. Cohen agreed with M. Vyshinsky that it would be advisable to reject it. He personally did not like the wording of the amendment. The C.F.M. did not wish to limit the phrase to “interested governments”. Mr. Cohen believed that the C.F.M. certainly had intended to include any government which had actively participated in the fighting in North Africa. But it would not be wise to limit the participation to such governments. There were other governments, such as Egypt, which had not actively fought in North Africa. It seemed to him [Page 510] that it would be helpful to make some statement to the effect that the views of those governments which had actively fought in North Africa would be taken into account when the Colonial question was being discussed.
M. Couve De Murville stated that he did not object to the circulation of the declaration. He did not believe that it would be appropriate to include it in the treaty but he saw no objection to the declaration becoming an annex to the treaty. With respect to the South African amendment he believed that the worries of South Africa were covered by the C.F.M. declaration.
Mr. Jebb stated that all of the Deputies objected to the South African amendment. When proposing it the South African would inquire whether its government would be consulted when the Colonial question was being discussed. The British Delegation would of course have to reply in the affirmative. Mr. Jebb hoped that M. Vyshinsky would not say “perhaps”. He inquired whether M. Vyshinsky could not pass over this matter in discreet silence.
M. Vyshinsky stated that it might be preferable for Mr. Jebb to keep silent until the matter had been disposed of by the C.F.M.
Mr. Jebb stated that he feared that this would be impossible.
M. Vyshinsky stated that paragraph 2 of the declaration spoke of the views of the other interested governments. However, the C.F.M. had not definitely decided who these governments were. Therefore it might be preferable to say that the question had not been solved by the C.F.M. If Mr. Jebb so desired he could state his views on this question.
Mr. Jebb stated that as he recalled it Mr. Bevin had said that he would not object to the Ukranian and White Russian Governments submitting their views.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he did not believe that the question would present any difficulties. He simply did not wish to bind himself on behalf of the C.F.M.
Mr. Cohen stated that all the Deputies had agreed that the language of the declaration was preferable to that proposed by the South African Delegation. On the other hand he hoped that M. Vyshinsky would agree that the Deputies did not wish to do anything which would lead the Conference to believe that the views of those governments which had actively participated in the liberation of North Africa would not be taken into consideration.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he could go no further than the decision of the C.F.M. He was prepared to say that the C.F.M. would fulfill its undertakings. Each Deputy could say what his understanding was of these undertakings but he hoped that such statements would [Page 511] be based on the declaration. He did not know at the present time who would be invited to discuss the Colonial question. This must be decided upon by the C.F.M.
Mr. Cohen suggested that the Deputies agree that Mr. Jebb might say that “other interested governments” included but was not limited to those governments which had actively participated in the liberation of North Africa.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the Deputies consult their Ministers on this point.
The Deputies agreed to M. Vyshinsky’s suggestion.
Mr. Cohen stated that he would like to circulate an amendment to the Article on Italian Colonies. This amendment was not a change in substance but an improvement in language. He expressed the hope that the C.F.M. would find the new draft more appropriate.
M. Vyshinsky stated that paragraph 1 of the U.S. amendment was a very serious change. The article stated that Italy renounced all rights and titles to the Colonies. The new formula was drafted in an entirely new sense and was very vague. It would be difficult to accept it as it went much further than the agreed upon article. With respect to paragraph 2 it repeated the provisions of the declaration. M. Vyshinsky stated that it would be unnecessary to incorporate in the treaty any parts of the declaration. However, this was not his final view since he wished to study the new American proposal.
Mr. Cohen stated that the proposed text in the treaty was defective from a legal point of view as no provision was made as to what would happen if the Four Powers failed to reach agreement in one year. With respect to paragraph 1 the Italian Government had requested that it do no more than accept any decision which would be made at a later date regarding the Colonies. In substance paragraph 1 of the U.S. proposal was the same thing as paragraph 1 of the agreed upon article. Mr. Cohen made it clear that if there were no general agreement on the new American proposal the U.S. Delegation would not press for acceptance and would not present the proposal to the Conference.
M. Couve de Murville stated that his first impression was that the first paragraph of the proposal went beyond the original agreement. However, he believed that his Delegation would be in favor of it. In addition he believed that the French Delegation would favor the second paragraph of the proposal.
Mr. Jebb stated that he would like further time to study the proposal. He could say at the present time that he believed that it was unlikely that the U.K. Delegation would accept the first paragraph. He was of the opinion that if Italy was not obliged by the treaty to [Page 512] renounce all claims to the Colonies difficulties would arise at a later stage. The second paragraph was of lesser importance and was one of drafting from first sight. Mr. Jebb believed that if the declaration were necessary to the treaty the intention of the article from a legal point of view was quite clear. He suggested that the Deputies revert to this matter at the next meeting.
The Deputies agreed to consider this question at the next meeting.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Article 4 of the Hungarian Treaty
Mr. Cohen pointed out that a drafting error had crept into Article 4 of the Hungarian treaty which spoke of “organizations conducting propaganda hostile to the Soviet Union”. The words “to the Soviet Union” had not been included in the Hungarian Armistice or in former drafts of Article 4 which had been agreed upon.
M. Vyshinsky stated that Article 4 as contained in the draft peace treaty was a misprint and should be rectified.
The meeting closed at 1:00 p.m. when the Deputies agreed to meet next Tuesday evening.5
- The declaration, C.F.M. (46) 221 (Revised), July 11, is printed in vol. ii, p. 899. The document was circulated at the Peace Conference as C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 65.↩
- September 24; however, the 117th Meeting did not take place until November 12 in New York. Examination of the Records of the Council of Foreign Ministers and the Deputies does not reveal the cause for the September 22 recess.↩