CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 53
The Commission considered the articles relating to Ethiopia (Section VI). The representative of Ethiopia submitted and explained his Delegation’s amendments to Articles 28 and 31 (CP Gen Doc. 1 H 2 and 3). The first part of the Ethiopian amendment (H 2) to Article 28 designed to include diplomatic and consular premises in Italy’s renunciation of property rights in Ethiopia was defeated by 8 votes to 6, with 6 abstentions. The second part of this amendment specifying [Page 567] that parastatal property be included in the above renunciation was adopted by a vote of 9 to 7 with 4 abstentions. Article 28, as amended, was thereafter adopted with the US and Ethiopia abstaining. The Ethiopian amendment (H 3) providing for various drafting changes in Article 31 and the addition of two paragraphs thereto was voted on in five sections: (1) that portion providing for a time limit (18 months) in the restitution of Ethiopian works of art, etc. was adopted by 15 votes to 5; (2) a drafting change to include “archives” was adopted by 16 votes to 4; (3) an additional sentence providing compensation for objects which cannot be restored was defeated by 14 votes to 6; (4) an additional paragraph providing for the restitution of silver, including coin, was defeated by 7 votes to 5 with 8 abstentions; and (5) the first sentence of a second additional paragraph providing that October 3, 1935 should be the controlling date with respect to Ethiopia for the provisions of the Treaty was adopted by 14 votes to 6. (The last sentence of this proposed paragraph was not voted on because considered within the competence of the Economic Commission for Italy). Article 31, as amended, was adopted by the Commission with the U.S. abstaining. Articles 27, 29 and 30 were adopted. In view of their economic implications, Articles 28, 30 and the Ethiopian amendment to Article 31 will be referred to the Economic Commission for Italy for comment.56
The Commission considered Article 38 (War Crimes). The representative of Poland spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 O 4) which would elaborate the language of the draft article and would include a new paragraph obliging Italy to bring to trial persons accused of a long list of crimes, the trial to take place in Italy if the United Nations Government concerned did not request extradition. The amendment was opposed by Senator Connally who declared that the present text of Article 38 had been carefully considered by the Council of Foreign Ministers and was sufficiently sweeping in language to reach those guilty of war crimes. It might be safely left, he said, to the new democratic Italy to try the crimes listed in the Polish amendment which were within the competence of Italian sovereignty.57 At the request of the Polish Delegate his amendment was [Page 568] divided into four parts for purposes of voting: (1) a drafting change in the first line of the article to read “all necessary steps” in place of “the necessary steps” was accepted without objection; (2) the provision requiring surrender of those accused of war crimes “to the United Nations Government concerned” was defeated by 13 votes to 6 with one abstention; (3) the additional phrase to paragraph 1(a) of “irrespective of their nationality” was defeated by 13 votes to 6 with one abstention; and (4) the new paragraph was defeated by 14 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions.
The representative of Greece spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment to Article 38 to include crimes committed against Greek naval forces between September 1939 and October 1940 (for his remarks see CP (IT/P) Doc. 85).58 It was rejected by 16 votes to 2 with 2 abstentions.
The representative of Yugoslavia introduced a new amendment to add Albania to the phrase “Allied and Associated Powers” in Article 38 in order that that country might enjoy similar rights with respect to the apprehension and surrender of war criminals. This amendment was supported by Byelo-russia. It was rejected by 12 votes to 8. Draft article 38 was adopted by the Commission with the Greek Delegation abstaining.
- The Economic Commission for Italy considered this matter at its 33rd Meeting, October 2; see the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, p. 630.↩
- Charles Fahy, Legal Adviser of the Department of States expressed objection to the wording of article 38 in a memorandum for the Secretary of State, September 17. He stated: “Accusation alone should not be sufficient to require compliance with the demand for any individual. The request should be accompanied by some showing of reason to believe a war crime has been committed.” Assistant Secretary of State Dunn stated the following in reply on October 12: “We agree with you that the present draft article is not happily worded. The safeguard against abuse, of course, exists in paragraph 3 of the draft article providing that disagreement concerning the application of the provisions shall come within the competence of the Four Ambassadors in Rome. In effect it passes the ultimate responsibility to the Four Ambassadors in Rome where, in the event of lack of agreement, there would appear to be no compulsion on the Italians to surrender the accused. It was not possible for us to obtain any changes in the wording since Article 38 is an agreed article.” (CFM Files).↩
- Not printed.↩