CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 61
M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) proposed that Article 23 (United Nations Property), paragraph 8 of the Hungarian treaty should be modified to extend the concept of “owner” to a United Nation as well as a United Nations national in order to meet the special problem of Czechoslovakia. This proposal was supported by the U.K. and French representatives and was regarded as satisfactory by the Czech representative provided the Czech interpretation of the effect of this modification could be incorporated in the Record of Decisions. After an exchange of views, in which the original Czech interpretation was somewhat modified, a revised text was prepared and unanimously accepted for inclusion in the Record of Decisions of the 44th meeting.15 Paragraph 8 as amended was unanimously agreed.
The revised French proposal regarding the Danube–Sava–Adriatica Railway (Article 23, paragraph 9 of Hungarian treaty) was adopted by 9 votes to 4 with one abstention.16
[Page 671]The Commission voted on the U.S. and U.K. proposals regarding the restoration of rights and interests of persons and associations who had been subjected to racial or religious persecution. The first two paragraphs of the U.S. proposal were rejected by 11 votes to 2 (U.S. and France) with 1 abstention (Czechoslovakia). The first paragraph of the U.K. proposal was adopted by 8 votes to 5 (U.S., Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) with 1 abstention and the second paragraph by 8 votes to 4 (Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia) with 2 abstentions (France and Czechoslovakia).
Article 24 of the Hungarian treaty was unanimously adopted.
The U.S.–U.K. proposal for Article 25 (Hungarian Property in Allied Territory) was adopted as it stood except for the deletion, as in the case of Bulgaria and Rumania, of “literary and artistic” from paragraph 4 and the addition of literary and artistic property to paragraph 5. The voting was not significantly different than in the case of Bulgaria. The Soviet proposal for Article 25 was defeated by 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions.
The Soviet proposal for Article 26 (Renunciation of Claims Against Germany by Hungary) was rejected by 9 votes to 5 and the joint U.S.-U.K.-French proposal was adopted by the same vote.
Article 27 (Debts) was adopted unanimously.
Article 28 (Renunciation of Claims against Allied and Associated Powers) was adopted unanimously with the revision regarding the breaking off of diplomatic relations (para 3) which had been adopted in the Bulgarian and Rumanian treaties.17
The voting on Article 29 (General Economic Relations) was the same as in the case of Bulgaria. The Soviet proposal for para 1(c) was rejected and the U.S.–U.K.–French proposal adopted by 9 votes to 5. The French amendment to 1(c) regarding civil aviation was adopted by 7 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions (India and New Zealand). The Soviet proposal for para 2 (neighboring countries exception to MFN treatment) was rejected and the U.S.–U.K.–French proposal was adopted by 9 votes to 5. Paras 1(a) and (b) were unanimously adopted.18
The Soviet representative, supported by the Byelorussian and Yugoslav representatives, strongly opposed the admission of the new U.S. proposal for Article 29 bis19 identical with the South African proposal regarding payment of fair prices for reparation goods obtained from UN nationals, which was adopted in the case of Rumania by 9 votes to 5, on procedural grounds. Mr. Oliver (U.S.) briefly justified [Page 672] the submission of the amendment on the grounds that a new situation had arisen as a result of the adoption of the South African proposal in the Rumanian treaty and that the members of the Commission were thoroughly familiar with the substance of the amendment and asked that the question of admitting the amendment be put to the Commission. The Commission voted to place the amendment on its agenda by 7 votes to 5 (Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia) with 2 abstentions (U.K. and New Zealand).
- For text of Czechoslovak interpretation, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 34, the Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Hungary, vol. iv, p. 535.↩
- For text, see ibid.↩
- See C.P.(Plen) Doc. 34, vol. iv, p. 535.↩
- Regarding the action of the Commission on article 29, see ibid., p. 545.↩
- For text, see ibid., p. 546.↩