CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 54
Mr. Gregory (U.K.) spoke in support of full compensation, justifying it on the grounds of economic feasibility and justice. The Commission then voted on the principle of full compensation, the result being a six-to-six tie, with two abstentions. Those opposed were the U.S., Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia. France and India abstained. The Commission voted on the principle of 25 percent compensation, and defeated it by nine votes to five (U.S., Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia). The principle of 75 percent compensation was then carried by nine votes to four (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia) with one abstention (U.S.).
The Commission considered the text of Article 24, paragraph 4, and took as the basis of discussion the text proposed by the U.S. (CP (B&F/EC) Doc. 29).69 At the suggestion of the Soviet Representative, [Page 573] the Commission agreed to consider the text separately from the extent of compensation. The Commission rejected a Soviet proposal to amend subparagraph (a) so as to provide national treatment for United Nations nationals having direct or indirect beneficial interests in corporations or associations, by a vote of nine to five (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia). The Commission then adopted paragraph (a) as proposed by the U.S. by nine votes to four, with one abstention (Czechoslovakia). M. Bartos (Yugoslavia) spoke in opposition to subparagraph (b), on the ground that it would be unjust to provide more than national treatment for United Nations nationals who had supported, and profited from, the Axis war effort through their participation in corporations or associations which were not regarded as enemies by Rumania during the war. A Soviet proposal to delete subparagraph (b) was defeated and the paragraph was then adopted by nine votes to five. Subparagraph (c) was adopted by the same vote.
M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) opposed subparagraph (a), requiring that fair and equitable treatment be granted United Nations nationals in the allocation of materials and foreign exchange, on the ground that it had been rejected by the CFM in the case of Italy, and that different treatment should not be sought in the case of Rumania. Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) spoke briefly in support of the proposal explaining, in particular, the special problems confronted by the petroleum industry in Rumania. The paragraph was adopted by nine votes to five. The Commission accepted the French version of subparagraph (e), requiring full compensation for losses and damages to United Nations property resulting from special measures directed against United Nations property by the Rumanian Government, the vote being the same as on the preceding paragraphs with the exception that the U.S. voted against the French proposal.
Mr. Gregory said that it was not necessary to consider the text of the U.K. proposal,70 as that proposal did not differ substantially from the U.S. proposal, as amended, except in the principle of full compensation, which had already been settled. M. Gerashchenko stated that the Soviet Delegation withdrew its original proposal and accepted the U.S. proposal with the amendments which had been put forward by the Soviet Delegation. The Chairman noted that the Commission’s report would Record the voting on the extent of compensation and also on the text (apart from the extent of compensation), and that each member would express his preference as to the combination of the extent of compensation and the text.
- For text, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 434, 437.↩
- Not printed.↩