CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 50
The Commission took up the Yugoslav amendment to Article 65 on replacement of ships and rolling stock (1.U.18) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.U.18], Mr. Thorp (U.S.) commented that although he sympathized with the desire of Yugoslavia to re-establish its merchant marine he had some difficulty in seeing why ships should be replaced more than any other objects which were lost or destroyed and suggested that the claim should be set against the reparation account. He added that replacement of ships would favor the maritime countries and for this reason would not be just. M. Aroutiunian (USSR) sympathized with the destruction the Yugoslav merchant marine had suffered as result of the war, but pointed out that the restitution article did not recognize the principle of replacement except for the very limited category of objects of cultural value. He suggested that the Yugoslav Delegation withdraw its amendment. Mr. Bartosh (Yugoslavia) remarked that the Yugoslav Delegation had given full consideration to the special problems of shipping before tabling an amendment and considered that it would be only just for Yugoslavia to have its ships replaced. He said he could not withdraw his amendment but would modify it to ask for replacement only for vessels which were seized by the Italian Government in the territorial waters of an occupied country. The Yugoslav amendment as modified was defeated, 12 to 4, with Yugoslavia, Greece, Ukraine and Byelo-russia voting in its favor.
[Page 524]With respect to the Yugoslav amendment on rolling stock, Mr. Aroutiunian remarked that it consisted of two parts, one providing for return and the other for replacement of rolling stock. The return of rolling stock was already provided for under Article 65, and the principle of replacement had been rejected. He asked the Yugoslav representative to reconsider his position. The Yugoslav representative made a lengthy speech during which he commented that the effect of many of the economic articles which were not called reparation provisions really amounted to reparation. In this category he placed the articles providing for restitution, renunciation of claims, Italian property in the territory of Allied and Associated Powers, the industrial, literary and artistic property annex and the special provisions on insurance. These provisions, he said, all provided for a kind of reparation payment to those powers which were highly industrialized and were capital-exporting countries. He remarked that they would not help Albania, Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia. The economic articles taken as a whole divided the claimants into two categories and provided that the occupied countries would receive an insignificant amount of reparation whereas the other countries would benefit greatly from the articles which he had mentioned. He also pointed out that Italy had not upheld its armistice obligation to restitute rolling stock. The amendment was then defeated by a vote of 12 to 4. The Commission then considered the Australian amendment for restitution to Italy by the Allied and Associated Powers of property of religious, literary, artistic or historical value found on Allied or occupied territory.16 Mr. Thorp expressed his sympathy with motives behind the Australian amendment but noted that the United States as an occupying power had maintained a strict policy against looting by the armed forces and that the U.S. was pressing in the Allied Control Council in Germany for restitution to the ex-enemy countries. He also remarked that it would be difficult to impose obligations on Germany in a peace treaty with Italy. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) associated himself with Mr. Thorp’s remarks. The Australian amendment was withdrawn.
The Commission then resumed discussion of the new proposals for compensation in the United Nations property article. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) explained to the Commission that the U.K. still upheld the principle of full compensation because there were only three means for compensating for the property of United Nations nationals: (1) to ask the United Nations national himself to provide the compensation; (2) to place the claim on the United Nations government; and (3) to place the claim on the Italian Government. To carry out the first proposal he said would result in making U.K. nationals provide Italy [Page 525] with sterling credit for Italian rehabilitation. The second would result in a further claim on the British exchequer. He pointed out that the U.K. internal budgetary war costs amounted to 20 billion pounds and that as a result of the war the U.K. was poorer as regards its external assets by 3½ billion pounds. He suggested that for these reasons U.K. was not sympathetic to any proposal requiring that it should pay the bill for destruction of U.K. property in Italy and he emphasized that compensation for property would not be a great burden on Italy but would merely be part of the general problem of Italian economic reconstruction.
- C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 50, the Australian amendment, is not printed.↩