CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 52
The Commission resumed consideration of Article 17 and related amendments.
Mr. Jebb (UK) replied to yesterday’s question regarding the significance of the phrase “interested governments” in paragraph 2 of the Foreign Ministers declaration on Italian Colonies.41 It meant, he said, that those Allied countries who fought in Africa during the last war will among others be fully consulted on disposal of the Italian Colonies before final decisions are taken by the CFM. The British Delegation, he said, would of course support draft Article 17 and the 4-Power declaration on the Colonies. He outlined British views on the Colonies which, he said, his Government would press on the CFM:
- (1)
- Ethiopian claims to the greater part of Eritrea were justified;
- (2)
- Certain rectifications in favor of Egypt “in the West”;
- (3)
- Special recognition of fact that large numbers of Italians are still living in Tripolitania; and,
- (4)
- The desire for self-government of the Arab communities in Libya.
There was no assurance, he said, that unanimity could be achieved in the CFM and thus the decision would go to the Assembly at UN where the British Government would abide by any solution approved by two-thirds majority. The British would only ask that the CFM or the Assembly not ignore their pledge to the Senussi they would never again be under Italian domination. He defended British Military Government in the African Colonies and recalled the sacrifices [Page 554] of the British Empire, particularly the Dominions in defeating the Axis in North Africa. He concluded that any settlement must be worthy of the men who gave their lives on the sands of Africa, but above all that it be so drawn to prevent forever the repetition of those events requiring such sacrifices. Full text of Jebb’s speech contained in CP(IT/P) Doc. 82.42
M. Moutet (France) outlined the views of France with respect to Article 17 and the Colonies. He recalled that the French Delegation had proposed to the CFM the placing of Italian Colonies under UN trusteeship with Italy acting as trustee. France, however, had finally agreed with the other powers to postpone the final settlement but still felt that the control of the territories should be vested in UN. (For full text of Moutet’s remarks see CP IT/P 72.)42
The representative of Ethiopia rejected the Egyptian claims to the port of Massawa and explained why his Delegation felt it desirable to withdraw the Ethiopian amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1 H 1). The Greek amendment regarding fishing rights in North African waters was likewise withdrawn. M. Ghali Pacha (Egypt) replied to the Ethiopian arguments and maintained Egypt’s claims to Massawa. He thanked the Commission for having heard Egypt’s views and left the Conference hall with his Delegation at the close of discussions on Article 17.
The Brazilian amendment (CP(IT/P) Doc 73)43 to Article 17 was rejected by 18 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. The New Zealand amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1 M 1) was likewise rejected by 16 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions. Thereafter Article 17 was adopted with two Delegates abstaining. (Brazil and Australia)
The representatives of Poland and the Ukraine introduced and spoke in favor of their joint amendment for a new article between Articles 14 and 15 of the draft treaty, (see CP(IT/P)Doc 69). This amendment replaces the original Polish amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1 O 2) and the original Ukraine proposal (CP(Gen)Doc 1 R 2).42 For full text of Polish Delegate’s remarks see CP(IT/P)Doc 67.44 The amendment, which would write into the Italian peace treaty obligations to prohibit the existence or activities of Fascist political and military organizations and other organizations depriving people of their democratic rights “or engaged in propaganda hostile to any one of the United Nations”, was supported by the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. It was opposed by Mr. Dunn and Mr. Jebb on the grounds that it had been considered by the Four sponsoring [Page 555] powers drafting the treaty and deliberately omitted as unnecessary in the light of the measures already taken by the new democratic government of Italy. The amendment was defeated by 9 votes to 8, with 3 abstentions.