Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 3, 1946, 9:30 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 60

The Commission resumed consideration of Article 16, the report of the Subcommission on a Statute for Trieste⁹¹ and related amendments. Mr. Bennett (U.K.) defended the position taken by the U.K. Delegation in its Draft Statute and, in view of the wide divergencies among the various drafts, supported the French proposal (CP IT/P Doc 105)⁹² of recommendations to the CFM for a Statute. M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) rejected the French proposal and argued generally against the U.S., U.K. and French positions on the Draft Statute. He urged that the Commission endorse the CFM proposal as outlined in Article 16 and leave the details to the CFM. The Representative of Yugoslavia said that his Delegation could agree with certain points of the French proposal but recommended that the unagreed portions be referred to the CFM for decision. Senator Connally (U.S.) supported the French proposal pointing out that, while it did not go as far as the U.S. Delegation would have liked, in the desire to obtain an agreed recommendation to the CFM, the U.S. Delegation would vote for it. He rejected the arguments that a Statute along the lines of the French proposal was undemocratic, pointing out that the Security Council must have an agent and an arm to fulfill its responsibilities with respect to the integrity and independence of the Free Territory and for the protection of the liberties of its citizens.⁹³ The French proposal was likewise supported by the Representatives of Australia, France and China. It was opposed by the Representatives of Byelorussia and Poland.

M. Couve de Murville (France) in an effort to meet certain objections to the French proposal introduced modifications in the language of the first two paragraphs. These modifications were circulated during the meeting as CP IT/P Doc 105, Rev. I.⁹⁴ The only change of substance provided for the approval by the Commission of paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of the CFM decisions outlined in Article 16.

Just before the vote on the French amendment at 2:15 a.m. the Soviet Delegate proposed adjournment. The motion was lost by 11 votes to 9. M. Vyshinsky then requested that all sections and subsections of the French proposal be put to the vote separately. In the voting none of the sections received less than an affirmative vote of 14 to 6, while some received as high as 19. Various amendments were presented to the several sections by the Soviet and Polish Representatives and two Polish amendments to the French proposal were adopted: (1) To add the following phrase to the end of Section III(3) “elected by universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage”, (adopted by 9 votes to 8 with 3 abstentions) (2) To add a new Section IV to the French proposal to provide that Yugoslavia be given a hearing by the CFM before taking final decision on the Statute for Trieste. Mr. Dunn (U.S.) suggested that Italy be included in this amendment as well in accordance with paragraph 3, Article 16 of the CFM decisions. The French Representative agreed to the Polish and American amendment to his proposal and suggested the following wording: “Section IV. The Commission recommends to the Council of Foreign Ministers that Yugoslavia be given an opportunity to present its views before the final decision. The Commission also recommends that an Italian Representative be heard by the Council of Foreign Ministers.” This amendment was adopted without objection. The entire French proposal (Doc 105, Rev. 1) as amended was adopted by the Commission by 14 votes to 6.

The Polish resolution, CP (IT/P) Doc 106,⁹⁵ presented during the morning session to endorse the CFM provisions in Article 16 and to refer the final decision to the CFM was rejected by 14 votes to 6.

The Representative of Yugoslavia introduced and spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment to Article 15 [16], (CP(IT/P) Doc 103).⁹⁶ M. Vyshinsky asked that the Soviet Union’s 10 points with respect to a Statute for Trieste, outlined by M. Molotov in the 22nd meeting of the Commission, be put on the night’s agenda for purposes of voting (CP(IT/P) Doc 46).⁹⁷

The Yugoslav amendment (Doc 103) to Article 16 was voted on section by section at the request of the Yugoslav Delegation. All sections and subsections of the Yugoslav amendment were rejected with no one section receiving more than 6 affirmative votes.

Before voting on the U.S. proposal providing treaty language for Article 16 (CP(IT/P) Doc 16), Mr. Dunn reminded the Commission that paragraph 2 thereof had already been withdrawn by him in a previous meeting. He said that he now wished to withdraw the latter portions of the amendment providing for new Articles 16 (c) and (d) since they were covered in the French proposal. With regard to paragraph 1 of the U.S. proposal, Mr. Dunn accepted a British suggestion to modify the second sentence thereof to read as follows: “They agree that the integrity and independence of this Free Territory shall be assured by the Security Council of the United Nations.” Finally he withdrew from paragraph 4 of the proposal the phrase “upon recommendation of the Provisional Governor”. The Representative of Canada raised certain questions with regard to the language of paragraph 4 which, it was decided would be referred to the Legal and Drafting Commission. The U.S. proposal was divided into four sections for purposes of voting.

At the suggestion of the French Delegate supported by the Yugoslav and Soviet Delegates all of that portion of the U.S. amendment providing for a new Article 16 (b) was referred to the Economic Commission for Italy.⁹⁸ At this point, the Representative of Yugoslavia protested against the continuation of the meeting and said that his Delegation could not consider itself bound by decisions taken under such conditions. He was supported by M. Vyshinsky who moved adjournment a second time at 5:00 a.m. At the Chairman’s insistence that the Commission complete the agenda, he withdrew his motion. The Commission then proceeded to vote on the entire U.S. proposal, as amended, for Article 16, which was adopted by 14 votes to 6.

Finally the Russian 10-point recommendation for a Statute (Doc 46) was put to the vote, section by section. Eight of the 10 points were rejected by various votes while 2 points, paragraphs 5 and 6, were accepted by the Commission, paragraph 5 unanimously and paragraph 6, amended during the discussion, by 18 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. The adopted portions of the Soviet recommendation read as follows: “5. The Governor shall be responsible for the observance of the Statute of the Free Territory.” “6. Legislative authority shall be exercised by a Popular Assembly elected on the basis of proportional representation by means of universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage without distinction as to sex.”

The work of the Commission having been completed except for consideration of the report of the Rapporteur on Friday, October 4 the meeting adjourned at 5:40 a.m.

91. For text, see vol. iv, p. 3.
92. For text, see vol. iv, p. 790.
93. The text of Senator Connally’s statement was released to the press October 2, 1946.
94. For text, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 24, report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 299.
95. For substance of the Polish resolution, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 40th Meeting, October 2, p. 629.
96. For text, see vol. iv, p. 788.
97. See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 22nd Meeting, September 14, p. 650.
98. The proposal was contained in C.P. (IT/P) Doc. 16 (vol. iv, p. 780); it was not considered by the Economic Commission for Italy because of insufficient time, nor was it presented to the Plenary Conference.