CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 50
The Commission continued its discussion of Article 26 (Property in the Territory of Allied and Associated Powers). The Byelorussian representative spoke in opposition to the article. He said it was unjust to deprive the Rumanian Government and its nationals of all their foreign assets, particularly in view of the other economic obligations imposed on Rumania and in view of Rumania’s contribution to the defeat of Germany. He supported the Ukrainian amendment put forward at the morning session.20 The Yugoslav representative said the treaty should distinguish between two groups of countries. Those countries such as Germany and Italy which had expanded their economies in preparation for war should be made to undergo an economic disarmament. Those which had a limited economic [Page 529] influence, such as Rumania, even though guilty of joining the Axis, should not have such a heavy economic burden placed upon them. The Yugoslav Delegation therefore opposed article 26 and supported the Ukrainian amendment which provided that Rumanian property rights and assets in the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers be restored. The Czechoslovakian representative agreed with the remarks of the Yugoslav representative except that he would make a further distinction in the second group of countries and consider Hungary in a group that deserved less favorable treatment. He said that his Delegation did not wish to vote against the Ukrainian amendment, but would abstain so as not to prejudice the Czech position on this point in the Hungarian treaty, Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) observed that it appeared from the Ukrainian amendment that the Rumanian Government would receive better treatment in respect to its assets in the territory of the Allied and Associated Powers than these powers would receive of their assets in Rumania and gave examples contrasting the Ukrainian amendment to Article 26 and Article 24 to prove his point. He also replied to various remarks that had been made in support of the Ukrainian amendment, asserting that it was incorrect to suggest that Article 26 would deprive Rumania of all its foreign assets, and that it was incorrect to make an analogy with the burden of reparation since the article dealt with debts as well as claims. He said it was clearly impossible for the Allied and Associated Powers to undo all the action they had taken against enemy property during the war and it was also clearly undesirable to accept a proposal which would make it necessary to return assets to German collaborators. Under these circumstances, Mr. Reinstein said, the U.S. Delegation could not support the Ukrainian amendment. The chairman then called on the Ukrainian representative as the last speaker before a vote was to be taken on the amendment. The Ukrainian representative said he considered it essential to know what Rumanian assets existed abroad, particularly in the U.K. and the U.S. He suggested that these figures be given and that the Rumanian Delegation be invited to appear before the Commission on this matter. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) noted that the Ukrainian Delegation had already made a judgment but now was asking for facts. Nevertheless, he presented figures on Rumanian assets in the U.K. Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) gave figures on Rumanian assets in the U.S. There was then considerable discussion as to whether to hear the Rumanian Delegation. A New Zealand motion not to hear the Rumanian Delegation but to vote immediately on the Ukrainian amendment was defeated by 7 to 6 with one abstention. A USSR motion to hear the Rumanian Delegation the next day was defeated 8 to 5, with one abstention. It was [Page 530] eventually agreed that written questions should be submitted by the Ukrainian, Australian and U.S. Delegations to the chairman and that the replies should be submitted by the Rumanian Delegation not later than Wednesday morning. This decision meant adjournment of discussion of the Ukrainian amendment.