CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 64
The representative of the Ukrainian SSR, Mr. Manuilsky, reminded the Conference of the continuous efforts made by Yugoslavia, at the Council of Foreign Ministers and at the Peace Conference, to bring about the inclusion in Yugoslavia of the Julian March and [Page 692] Trieste. These are territories, according to Mr. Manuilsky, which were torn away by the Versailles Treaty from Yugoslavia, of which they are rightfully a part. In the course of the Conference, he added, Yugoslavia has reluctantly agreed to the separation of Trieste as a free territory and free port, but the proposal embodied in the French line adds territory to Trieste in the north and south the reasons for which one can’t help but question. Such an addition, Mr. Manuilsky said, cannot be justified on either economic or ethnic grounds—the added area is not required for the shipping or commerce serving the hinterland, and economically it would be a burden rather than an aid to Trieste. It is said that Trieste needs the railway connection with Italy, but only 3–5% of the goods in transit to and from Trieste came over this connection. On the other hand, the French line cuts Slovenia from any outlet to the sea.
If we judge the case of the aggressor and the victim in the same scale, Mr. Manuilsky went on to say, we clearly put a premium on aggression. Yugoslavia has declared that she will not sign a treaty establishing her boundary on the French line. In supporting this boundary let Holland consider what would be her reaction to a proposal separating Rotterdam from Holland, and let Australia consider the same in regard to Darwin or Melbourne. Let France recall her feeling of 1871 when she was stripped of Alsace and Lorraine.
Mr. Manuilsky also expressed his amazement that there had been a refusal to accept the proposal, made on September 16 by Mr. Molotov, that the Free Territory be neutral.11 The Ukrainian Delegation, he added, supports the Yugoslav proposal for a Free Territory of about 88 square kilometers—any other solution would be unjust and would make the Treaty unacceptable to Yugoslavia.
Dr. Quo spoke for the Chinese Delegation. He reviewed Chinese policy in the Commissions with respect to Italy. In the Military Commission, he said, they had agreed to provisions for the prevention of future Italian aggression. In the Economic Commission China had opposed the imposition of heavy reparations which might delay seriously Italy’s economic recovery. China, he added, had demanded no reparations. In the Political Commission China had supported the French proposal of principles for a Statute for the Free Territory of Trieste. China had a special interest in the Italian colonies and had proposed immediate independence for Libya or, if not feasible, trusteeship under the UNO for a limited period looking toward ultimate independence. He expressed satisfaction that no delegation [Page 693] in the Commission had objected to the principle of this proposal and urged its careful consideration on the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Chinese Delegation appreciated the careful consideration which the Council of Foreign Ministers had given to the problems involved in the various peace treaties and the spirit of conciliation which had been required in arriving at a solution. Thus, for this reason, it had supported the CFM decisions for the most part in the light of the larger issues involved. He said that the Chinese Delegation would leave Paris with the feeling that peace can and must be achieved through the application of reason, tolerance and understanding; that all countries must strive for solutions which will never again put civilization in peril.
The Ethiopian Representative said that his Delegation had come to Paris to contribute what it could to the establishment of a basis for a lasting peace. Ethiopia’s own requests, he felt the Conference would agree, were modest ones. In the first place Ethiopia sought justice for the peoples of Eritrea and Somaliland who had suffered under Italy, and also wished to guarantee Ethiopia its access to the sea. He was satisfied that the countries at the Conference have recognized the justice of the Ethiopian requests. He expressed his disappointment, however, at the amount of reparations from Italy awarded to Ethiopia. In spite of the fact that the Ethiopian requests were quite moderate, they had fallen far short of being met. Nevertheless the Ethiopian representative felt that this was a significant day on which peace with Italy was at last being reestablished, a great day especially for Ethiopia which has been longest at war with Italy. He reminded the Conference, moreover, that it was the breach of Ethiopia’s security by Italy which eventually led to the war that has just been concluded.