CFM Files

United States Delegation Minutes

secret

Present

U.K.
M. Bevin
M. Alexander
M. Jebb
Interpreter
France U.S.A.
M. Bidault M. Byrnes
M. Couve de Murville Senator Connally
M. Latour du Pain Senator Vandenberg
Interpreter M. Bohlen
U.S.S.R.
M. Molotov
M. Vyshinsky
M. Gusev
M. Pavlov

M. Bidault, who was presiding, said that since M. Bevin had taken the initiative in calling the meeting to examine the schedule of the Conference he would ask M. Bevin to outline his views.

M. Bevin said he had circulated a paper setting forth the suggestions of the British Delegation on the program of the work of the Conference.34 He said it would be impossible to have the Conference interfere [Page 539] once again with the General Assembly or any other international body. If all genuinely desired to terminate the work of the Conference on time, he felt that they could do so. At present certain commissions were not up to schedule and would if left to themselves not have finished their work by October 5. In presenting these suggestions to the Council, he had sought to avoid the procedural debate at the Conference or in the commissions, but at the same time avoid any impression that the Council was taking the matter out of the hands of the Conference. He said further he did not wish to suggest anything which might be utilized for one reason or another to delay the work in the commissions. He said in paragraph 3 his idea was that the Council could meet concurrently with the plenary sessions of the General Assembly, and between the fifth and fifteenth of October the Council could put into final shape a good deal of the treaties, and open questions not decided by the commissions or the plenary sessions could be discussed during that period. He stated he took it to be the clear sense of the Foreign Ministers that they all wished to go to New York for the General Assembly, and he proposed therefore that the Council should work simultaneously in New York. He remarked it would be difficult for him to get to New York before November 1, and he knew that M. Bidault had the problem of the elections, but the Deputies could meet in New York before the Ministers arrived and get the treaties in shape for consideration by the Council.

M. Byrnes said that, as he understood M. Bevin’s suggestion, the first two paragraphs applied to the work of the Conference and the last two to the work of the Council of Foreign Ministers. He agreed with M. Bevin that there should be no suggestion of dictation by the Council, but recalled that some two weeks ago the Secretary General had sent a communication to the presidents of the commissions suggesting that the commissions terminate their work by October 5 and the plenary sessions by October 15. He felt, therefore, that any suggestions from the Council should be in the form of a reply to the Secretary General’s communication. He said he had not fully studied the proposals but he thought that they were satisfactory as to the work of the commissions, namely, that this work should be completed by October 5, and then the report on any outstanding questions submitted to the Conference. He said he also thought that the suggestion to wind up the work of the plenary sessions by October 15 was satisfactory. The plenary sessions, from October 5 to October 15, would give all members of the Conference an opportunity to state their position on any question. As to the third and fourth paragraphs concerning the Council of Foreign Ministers, he felt that if the Conference should wind up as scheduled, the Council might be able to finish the work [Page 540] on the final drafts here in Paris, He would, of course, be glad to welcome them to New York, but he felt that this suggestion was not so agreeable to M. Bidault. He mentioned that he did not personally intend to be present at the opening session of the General Assembly nor to be in regular attendance. He was, therefore, quite prepared to remain here, if his colleagues were willing, in order to finish off the treaties. He felt that a good deal could be done by the Council even before the fifteenth. He said he would like to hear M. Molotov’s views on this subject.

M. Molotov said that he hoped they could work out a schedule for the work of the Conference as that was the only way he saw to expedite the work and meet the deadline of October 23. The Soviet Delegation felt that they must be free by that date so that he and M. Vyshinsky could get to New York by October 22. He felt that this position coincided with that of many of the other delegates at this Conference who also wish to go to the General Assembly. He said he thought that M. Bevin’s suggestion for the commissions to complete their work by October 5 and the plenary sessions by October 15 was acceptable, but, of course, the Conference will have to decide for itself. He also agreed that the Council could meet concurrently with the plenary sessions from the fifth to the fifteenth of October. He said he had an amendment to make to paragraph 1 of M. Bevin’s proposal in order to bring it into conformity with the procedure adopted for the Conference, but he would wait to present this amendment until the general discussion was over.

M. Bidault said that in his opinion there was no objection to points 1 and 2.

M. Molotov suggested that in place of the second sentence of paragraph 1 the following should be substituted: “The commissions should terminate their work by October 5 and submit their proposals and points of view to the plenary sessions on that date.” He said that he had in mind that the commissions should consider all questions which had been presented to them and that no question should be left open by the commissions. He thought, therefore, it might be wise to ask the Secretary General to draw up a concrete schedule for each commission which would be necessary if the commissions were to get their work done on time.

M. Bevin inquired what would happen if any commission had not despite the plan finished its work by October 5.

M. Molotov said that they should all try to see that a concrete plan was adhered to.

M. Bidault said that he had in mind a rigid schedule which would include the possibility of the commissions applying the rule of cloture in order to terminate the debate.

[Page 541]

M. Molotov said he could assure his colleagues that the Soviet Delegation would adhere strictly to any plan they agreed on here and would ask for no exceptions to it.

M. Bevin remarked that he understood that there were only three commissions, namely, the Balkan Economic, the Italian Economic and Trieste, which were behind schedule.

M. Bidault said he thought it would be possible to draw up a schedule and in order to ensure compliance provide for the right to close off the debate and to set definite dates in the commissions for voting on all questions.

M. Byrnes said that as he understood it M. Molotov was willing to accept the first sentence of paragraph 1, but had doubts about the second. He said he saw some merit in M. Bevin’s suggestion which was to guard against the possibility that a given commission would not for some reason or another have taken action on all the questions before it. Under M. Bevin’s suggestion these questions would still come before the plenary sessions.

M. Molotov replied that the Soviet Delegation felt it would be very inconvenient to have the Conference examine questions which had not been dealt with by the commissions. They desired to help the commissions finish their work and they believed that the procedure established for the Conference should be adhered to and that was that the plenary sessions should give consideration to the reports of the commissions. The plenary sessions would have nothing to consider if there were no reports from the commissions.

M. Bidault said he understood this to mean that with the right of cloture in the commissions, the various clauses would be voted upon, but that in the event that no vote was taken on a certain question, it would be for the Conference to decide what to do about it. He felt, however, that if a proper schedule was drawn up, the commissions would vote.

M. Bevin remarked that in both 1 and 2 of the proposal he wished to safeguard against the possibility that a given commission might not have discussed the question before it or had failed to reach a decision on it. He did not wish to deprive the Conference of its right to vote on any question merely because a commission had failed to do its duty. He was afraid that under M. Molotov’s amendment some important points might go off the agenda simply because some commission had not done its work.

M. Molotov said he thought that the proper procedure was to make sure that the commissions would complete their work. He said that they could not deprive the commissions of the right to examine the questions which had been put before them.

[Page 542]

M. Byrnes said he would like to have a clear understanding of the matter. For example, in the economic commissions, there was the understanding, with respect to reparations, that the Secretary General would fix a given date, say September 30, for a vote on the reparation questions and amendments thereto regardless of debate.

M. Molotov said yes he had some such schedule in mind as the only way of assuring that the commissions would complete their work.

M. Byrnes said he did not object but he wondered if it would not mean that certain commissions would have to vote on two or three questions a day in order to meet the schedule. He, furthermore, did not object to a proposal to limit debate since he felt that for sixty days the Conference had had ample opportunity for unlimited debate. He said he thought that M. Bevin’s views were wise since in the event that some questions had not been considered by a commission by October 5, it would be difficult to get the Conference to accept the view that those questions could not be discussed at the plenary sessions. He felt that every Delegation had some pet amendments and that they might be afraid that theirs might be among those left out.

M. Bidault said he felt that they had been indulging in a somewhat useless discussion for some time since there appeared to be general agreement as to the aim.

M. Bevin said that they could add a sentence to paragraph 2 to the effect that the commissions should adopt a timetable which would assure a final vote on all questions before October 5.

M. Molotov said that the main issue before them was that the Soviet Delegation did not think that any question which had not been considered by the commissions should be considered by the plenary sessions. The commissions should complete their work and report to the Conference, but he felt that if the plenary sessions were to take up questions which had not been considered by the commissions, there would be long debates and endless delays.

M. Byrnes said it was for the Conference to determine in plenary session what it would do and not for the Council of Foreign Ministers. He said he was prepared to accept M. Bevin’s suggested addition to paragraph 1. He said, however, he wished to know what would happen on October 5 if a commission had not finished its work.

M. Molotov said if the commission had not finished its work, then there would be no reports by that date and the Conference would have nothing to consider. He repeated that the Soviet Delegation would adhere to any plan they had agreed on and would request no postponement of voting.

M. Bevin said he hoped there was no misunderstanding here, but he understood M. Molotov to say that if the commission had not finished [Page 543] by October 5 there would be nothing in regard to the work of that commission for the Conference to vote on.

M. Molotov said that they all agreed that the commissions should finish their work and then report to the Conference. If they had not done so, there would be no reports.

M. Bevin remarked that that meant that if any commission had not considered a question referred to it, then the plenary conference would have nothing to consider in regard to that question. He said it was for this reason that he had included in his draft a reference to outstanding questions.

M. Molotov remarked that if they could not assure that the commissions would be finished by the fifth of October, how could they speak of the Conference finishing on the fifteenth?

M. Bevin said he agreed, but he wished to avoid any possibility of obstruction in the commissions in order to prevent any given question from reaching the plenary sessions. He said it might provide an excuse for certain commissions not to finish. If certain delegations in a commission were able to obstruct a vote on any given question, there would then be no report to the Conference on that question. He said it was difficult to accept the thesis that the Conference could not consider a question simply because a commission had not done its work.

M. Molotov suggested that they draw up a schedule limiting the number of speakers for or against any question.

M. Bevin said he merely wished to avoid being “dished” as the English expression went, and he did not wish to play in the hands of those who did not intend to act in the spirit of all of them here. He felt he must reserve his right to raise in plenary session any question irrespective of the action of any commission.

M. Molotov said they could not ignore the procedures which they had adopted.

M. Bevin said he thought it was understood that any member of the Conference had a right to raise any question at a plenary session.

M. Byrnes again inquired what would happen in respect of any question which the appropriate commission had not considered by October 5. Would the commission be discharged and if so, what would happen to the question?

M. Molotov said in such a case a few more days might be given to the commission in question.

M. Bidault then suggested that paragraph 2 might read: “The Conference should begin consideration of the reports of the commissions on October 5 and the final vote on all questions referred to it should take place before October 15.”

[Page 544]

M. Molotov said he would accept M. Bidault’s amendment provided the words “since the commissions shall have finished their work by October 5” be placed at the beginning of M. Bidault’s amendment.

M. Bidault said he thought the point raised by M. Molotov was covered by his own proposition since the Conference could not examine reports which it did not have and could not examine them all at once.

M. Molotov said he would like to make more precise paragraph 2 of M. Bevin’s proposition which he felt should read: “The Conference will discuss the reports of the commissions on each treaty separately and will vote on all reports by October 15.” He said he thought each treaty should be considered separately and that they should begin with the one that would be ready first. For example, there are in regard to each treaty three categories of questions: (1) territorial and political; (2) economic, and (3) military. There would thus be reports from three commissions on each treaty, but they should not start with the report of any one of the three commissions, but take all three categories of questions relating to one treaty, dispose of them and then go on to the next treaty.

M. Byrnes said that personally he had thought that it might expedite matters to take it by commission—for example, when the Rumanian Political Committee had completed its work, consider its report in the plenary session without waiting for the economic and military questions relating to Hungary. However, he could see there was much to be said on M. Molotov’s point that it should be done by treaties rather than by commissions, but he saw no reason why if all three categories of questions concerning Rumania were ready, say next week, they should wait until October 5 to consider them.

M. Molotov said he agreed with this.

M. Bevin, however, said he wished time to study the suggestion.

M. Molotov said upon further consideration he would like to think it over before deciding on the order of the treaties since after all the Potsdam decision had set up an order beginning with the Italian treaty.

M. Byrnes then remarked that he had understood M. Molotov to state that he was agreeable to the suggestion to limit debate in the commissions.

M. Molotov said he had no objection to limiting orators if his colleagues agreed. There might be some inconvenience to the orators themselves but it would expedite the work. He also thought it might be possible to limit the number of speakers, say one for and one against, or two for and two against any given question.

M. Bidault remarked that that was exactly what he had suggested two hours ago, but no attention had been paid to it.

[Page 545]

M. Molotov said they supported M. Bidault’s proposal and that it was better late than never.

M. Bidault then said he understood that M. Bevin’s text, as amended by M. Molotov, was accepted and that it was understood that the Secretary General would make practical suggestions as to the limitation of debate.

M. Bevin said he could accept M. Bidault’s proposal, which provided that the Conference should begin its discussion in plenary session on October 5 and finish all questions by October 15.

M. Molotov pointed out that he had made an amendment to M. Bidault’s suggestion. He said, however, he would be willing in place of his opening words to substitute the words “in accordance with paragraph 1”. Then the balance of M. Bidault’s suggestion would be acceptable.

M. Byrnes said he did not see why it was necessary to refer to paragraph 1.

M. Molotov replied that his proposal was that the Conference should start its consideration on October 5, but after the commissions had voted on all questions and amendments.

M. Bevin observed that this meant that unless all commissions had finished by October 5, there would be nothing for the Conference to do and any commission which had not finished would have done its work for nothing.

M. Molotov said that he did not mean that all commissions on all treaties must be finished by that date, but if, for example, the three commissions relating to the Italian treaty, that is, political and territorial, economic and military, had already finished, the Conference could discuss the Italian treaty.

M. Bevin inquired what would happen if, for example, the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy had not finished its work by October, would that mean that there would be no discussion of the political and territorial questions relating to Italy?

M. Molotov said no, but the whole treaty must be ready before the plenary sessions would consider it.

M. Bevin said he could not agree. He thought that this would open the door to obstruction in the commissions and could prevent certain questions from coming to the plenary sessions. For example, he said that the question of the Danube had not been discussed in the commissions and it might be possible to prevent this question from coming before the plenary. He felt that under this formula any commission could block the consideration by the Conference of any question.

M. Molotov said he felt there was no basis for this interpretation and it was completely excluded that anyone could prevent the discussion of any part of these treaties.

[Page 546]

M. Bevin said there may be a misunderstanding.

M. Molotov said he thought that the fact was that if any commission was not finished by the fifth, they could be given until the sixth or seventh. He said they should all be prepared to use every effort to finish by October 5. The Soviet Delegation was ready to cooperate fully and he did not see why there should be any delay. As a matter of insurance they could say October 3 instead of October 5 as the deadline for the commissions, and the commissions could work day and night, as well as Sundays, and if they limited the time and number of speakers they could adhere to a schedule.

M. Bevin said he agreed to that but he had not yet gotten an answer to his question as to what happens if a commission breaks down. Would the Conference then have no opportunity to discuss the point in question?

M. Molotov said he had already answered that question.

M. Bevin said he was ready to accept M. Molotov’s amendments, reserving his right to raise at a plenary session any question whether finished by the commission or not.

M. Bidault said that he thought that they were in fact in agreement on paragraphs 1 and 2, and that he proposed to add a third paragraph:

“3. With a view to complying strictly with the above-mentioned dates the competent organs of the Conference should establish a procedure which will include, if necessary, limitation on the length and number of speeches and the possibility of applying cloture on any question.”

M. Bidault’s suggestion was accepted.

M. Byrnes then inquired if it was proposed to discuss paragraphs 3 and 4 dealing with the program of the Conference. If so, he suggested that a clean copy be made of the understanding they had reached with regard to the Conference.

M. Bidault said that as to points 3 and 4 his only observation was that as he had already said, October 23 for both personal and national reasons was the worst possible date for him to be in New York. He said it would be impossible for himself or any French Foreign Minister to go to New York until November. In any case, he could not make any definite commitment as to when he could be there. He said he regretted this, but that circumstances which they all understood made it inevitable.

M. Byrnes said that he was willing to stay here in order to finish the treaties, and inquired whether they could not continue after the fifteenth for a short while, say ten days, and then go to the United States.

M. Bevin said that he was agreeable.

[Page 547]

M. Molotov said that the difficulty was that he had to be in New York for the opening of the General Assembly. He said that as he wished to return to Moscow before going to New York, it would be difficult for him to remain in Paris after the fifteenth.

After some discussion, it was decided not to make a definite decision when the Council would convene in New York, but wait and see how much of the final drafting of the treaties had been accomplished by October 15.

M. Bevin, reverting to the question of Conference procedure, said he merely wished to have it clear so that there would be no misunderstanding in regard to what they had accepted. He said he felt that as written the agreement might be interpreted as giving the commissions the power to prevent a question from coming before the plenary conference, and that was why he made his reservation.

M. Molotov replied that the Soviet Delegation had made its proposal in writing and there was no reason to place a wrong interpretation upon it as he felt M. Bevin had done. In the circumstances, he said that there was no agreement.

M. Bevin said he did not wish to put any wrong interpretation on anything nor did he wish to prevent an agreement, but he wished to be assured that in agreeing he was not in any sense depriving the plenary conference of its right to discuss any question whether or not the commission had considered it.

M. Molotov said that the Conference was to examine the reports of the commissions when the commissions in question had completed their deliberations. That means that as long as the commissions on a given treaty have not completed their work, the Conference must wait until they had finished. He said this suggestion may be acceptable or not, but that it was quite clear.

M. Byrnes said that he had understood M. Molotov to say that if on October 5 any given commission, say the Italian Political Commission, had not finished its work, it could have some more time to complete it. He wondered what would happen if a commission refused to complete its work by October 15 when the Conference was supposed to end. He thought that this possibility was what was worrying M. Bevin. In his opinion, however, the Conference could then either insist upon the commission’s report or else discharge the commission.

M. Bevin then stated that he felt that if the Deputies were to follow the work of the commission and let the Ministers know if one or another of the commissions was not keeping to the agreed schedule, that might take care of his concern. He said the Ministers were all pledged to this schedule and they could then consult as to what should be done to take care of any commission which was delaying its work.

M. Molotov said he would agree to that.

[Page 548]

M. Bidault pointed out that in their resolution the commissions were obliged to vote by October 5 and the plenary session by October 15. He felt that this schedule was a safeguard against the possibilities M. Bevin had in mind.

It was agreed that the resolution should be sent to the Deputies for drafting and then to the Secretary General as an answer to his communication concerning a timetable for the Conference. The Secretary General should then call a plenary session and present the suggestion to the Conference for its approval.

[Annex 1]

Suggested Programme

(British)

(1)
Commissions shall report to the Plenary not later than October 5th. Any outstanding points on which by that date no vote has been possible shall be referred to the Plenary for decision.
(2)
The Plenary shall vote on all reports or outstanding points by October 15th.
(3)
As much work as possible will be done in Paris before October 15th by the Council of Foreign Ministers;
(4)
The remaining work will be finished by the Council of Foreign Ministers in New York.

The programme suggested is as follows:

October 5th Commissions end.
October 5–15th Plenary to consider reports of Commissions. Council of Foreign Ministers meets to consider recommendations of Plenary as and when adopted.
October 15th End of Conference.
October 22nd Deputies meet in New York, and prepare final Treaties.
November 1–7th Foreign Ministers meet in New York and take up Deputies’ work.
November 15–20th “Final stage” ends and Treaties are signed.
End of November German talks begin.

[Annex 2]

Text Tentatively Accepted by the Ministers Subject To Drafting

1.
The commissions should submit their reports to the plenary conference by October 5. To arrive at this end they should adopt programs of work and timetables which will ensure a vote being taken [Page 549] in the commissions on all proposals and amendments before that date, after which their reports will be submitted to the plenary conference.
2.
In accordance with paragraph 1, the plenary session should begin consideration of the reports of the commissions on October 5 and the final vote on all questions referred to it should take place before October 15.
3.
With a view to complying strictly with the above-mentioned dates the competent organs of the Conference should establish a procedure which will include, if necessary, limitation on the length and number of speeches and the possibility of applying cloture on any question.
  1. Annex 1 to this document, p. 548.