CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 51
The Commission continued its discussion of compensation for United Nations property (Article 68, paragraph 4) and took up the [Page 537] Yugoslav amendment proposing that compensation paid should be proportionately the same as that granted in the case of reparation [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.21]. The Yugoslav Representative emphasized that he could see no difference between damage suffered by United Nations property within the territory of United Nations and United Nations property in Italy. He pointed out that United Nations property in Italy had been used to contribute to the Axis war effort against the United Nations, and asked that compensation for damage to United Nation property in Italy not be greater than the Commission decided to give for United Nations property in the territory of United Nations. The Byelorussian and Ukrainian Representatives both spoke at some length in favor of the Yugoslav proposal, proclaiming it to be a happy formula for determining the amount of compensation to be paid. The Byelorussian Representative suggested that the United Nations nationals “who poured capital into Fascist Italy” were aware of the risks involved and that these companies probably made profits during the war. He added that total compensation would tend to increase the economic domination of Italy by foreign capital. The Netherlands Representative spoke in favor of the United Kingdom proposal for full compensation pointing out that the Netherlands suffered greatly from the war and was dependent on her foreign investments for reconstruction of her economy.
The Chairman suggested the proposals might be put to a vote. M. Alphand (France) then suggested the French proposed to reduce the number of proposals on compensation by accepting the U.S. draft on paragraph 4 as proposed in the Balkan Commission and asked Mr. Thorp (U.S.) if he would put forward the draft introduced in the Balkan Commission. Mr. Thorp agreed and remarked that this proposal was a modified version in the light of the French and U.K. proposals.33 The Yugoslav Representative objected that it would be difficult to vote on the United States and French texts which did not stipulate any specific percent of reparation. Mr. Thorp and Mr. Gregory pointed out the difficulty of voting for the Yugoslav proposal in view of the fact that the proportion of reparation to damage could not be ascertained by the Conference because the figures on damage submitted in connection with reparation claims would not be agreed officially by the Conference. M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) emphasized the importance of the problem of compensation and asked [Page 538] the Commission for a further discussion of the question of compensation before the vote was taken. He pointed out that the French proposal was contradictory in that it asked for partial compensation in some cases but for full compensation in cases where Italy took special measures against the property as enemy property. In addition, the French and United States proposals attempted to extend the definition of United Nations nationals, which had already been agreed in paragraph 8, and he did not consider this to be appropriate.
After some urging the Belgian, Canadian, Greek and Netherlands Representatives spoke in favor of full compensation. The Czechoslovak Representative explained that although he was in full sympathy with the Yugoslav proposal he had to keep in mind the position of his Delegation with respect to the Rumanian Treaty. Czechoslovakia, he said, had invested heavily in Rumania and, therefore, would abstain from voting on the Yugoslav amendment to the Italian Treaty.
- For documentation on this matter, see the following items in vol. iv: C.P.(Plen) Doc. 26, Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, p. 338; C.P.(Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Economic Commission for the Balkans and Finland on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, p. 434; C.P.(IT/EC) Docs. 58, 59, and 60, French, United States, and British proposals, pp. 784, 785, and 786, respectively; and C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 65, the modified United States proposal presented at the present meeting, p. 787.↩