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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 7, 1946, 3 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 64

The Conference convened to consider the report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy (C.P. Plen. Doc. 24).⁶ Mr. Bevin, who presided, said that the discussion would be limited to the Italian treaty. Senator Connally spoke on behalf of the United States Delegation. His remarks were confined to the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste and the pertinent recommendations of the Italian Political Commission. The Senator said that unless a satisfactory statute assuring the independence and integrity of the Free Territory were generally accepted the obligations of the signatory powers to the treaty toward the people of the area could not be successfully discharged. Any statute for the Free Territory must provide the minimum machinery to secure the implementation of guarantees that the independent character of the Territory will be maintained and the rights and freedoms of its inhabitants fully protected. The Governor will be the agent of the Security Council, he said, and must have sufficient powers to fulfill his responsibilities to that international organization. He continued that there are no economic or physical obstacles to an independent Trieste becoming a prosperous free port for all Central Europe and that action by any one power to prevent or retard this development could only be regarded as political action determined by selfish interests of that state. Complete demilitarization of the area is envisaged, the only exception to this principle being the requirements of the Security Council in the fulfillment of its responsibilities under the statute. The Senator concluded by urging the Conference to adopt the recommendations of the Italian Political Commission with respect to the principles of the Statute as an expression of its own judgment and a guide to the future work of the CFM in the final drafting of the Italian peace treaty. (For full text of the Senator’s remarks see USD(PC)(PR)36.)⁷

Marshal Smuts spoke on behalf of the South African Delegation. He expressed the opinion that the Conference had achieved a large measure of success and expressed gratitude that its work was not ending in failure. He described the problems of the South Tyrol and Trieste as the two most important problems facing the Conference with respect to a peace settlement with Italy, the first having been happily solved through direct negotiations between the Italians and the Austrians⁸ and the second well on its way toward a feasible solution of internationalization. He referred to Italy’s cobelligerency and the splendid resistance of Greece in the early phases of the war as two considerations which had influenced the South African Delegation in its attitude toward these countries during the work of the Conference. He declared that the most important revelation emerging from the Conference was the cleavage between the Slav group and the western democracies. Such a division might prove fatal to the peace of the world, and unless this drift were stopped it might lead to a permanent parting of the ways. He deplored the wide-spread propaganda of ideologies and concluded with an appeal for progress toward a stable peace which all the peoples of the world so desperately desire.

M. Kisselev spoke on behalf of the Byelorussian Delegation. He limited his remarks to attacking the recommendation of the Italian Political Commission providing for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons in Italian territories ceded to other states (Article 13(4)), which was originally a U.S.-Australian proposal. He asked the Commission to reject it. With reference to the citizenship of residents of the Free Territory, he supported the pertinent provisions of the Soviet 10–point proposal for the statute (C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 46).⁹

Mr. Beasley spoke on behalf of the Australian Delegation. He reviewed several of the Australian amendments to the Italian treaty which had been accepted including the creation of a Reparations Commission including Yugoslavia, Greece and Ethiopia. He said that the Australian Delegation would not raise in the Conference its proposal for the establishment of a Court of Human Rights which had been rejected in the Italian Political Commission but indicated that the Australians would continue to develop this proposal in other places and at another time. However, with regard to the Australian proposal for treaty revision and review of the treaties by the signatory powers from time to time (C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 88),¹⁰ which had likewise been rejected in the Italian Political Commission, Mr. Beasley said that his Delegation would raise this amendment again in the Plenary Session and ask for a vote of the Conference on it.

6. For text, see vol. iv, p. 299.
7. For text, see Department of State Bulletin, October 20, 1946, p. 708.
8. For text of the Austrian-Italian agreement of September 5, communicated to the Conference on September 6, see C.P.(Sec) N.S. 119, vol. iv, p. 808.
9. Not printed; for substance, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 22nd Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy. September 14, p. 457.
10. For text, see footnote 68, p. 572.