CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 65
Mr. Bevin continued the general discussion on the peace treaty with Italy. In a statement on the work of the Conference as a whole he said that the new methods used at the Conference might prove to be better than those of any other peace conference. He was glad that the ex-enemy states had had such a full hearing which would prevent anyone from saying that the Conference had not examined all the facts. Although he admitted that differences had appeared between some of the nations represented, it was natural that some differences should appear once the unifying pressure of war was relaxed. The last thing that Great Britain wants is the building of groups and counter groups.
Mr. Bevin did not believe that the treaty was harsh as had been said. He recalled the difficulties and ill feeling which rose from the Fiume episode and urged Yugoslavia not to make this same mistake over Trieste. He asked the Conference to approve the “French” line and the French proposal for the statute. He denied that Trieste was a parallel case to Danzig or that Great Britain had any strategic interest in Trieste.
Mr. Bevin hoped that the Plenary Conference would approve the reference in Article 10(a) to the Italo-Austrian agreement on the South Tyrol. He thought that CFM-proposed procedure for the settlement of the question of the Italian colonies was the best; that consideration should be given to the Ethiopian claim to a large part of Eritrea; that self-government for the Libyan Arabs could be reconciled with the presence of large numbers of Italian colonists; and said that Great Britain stood by her pledge to the Senussi for freedom from Italian rule. He added that Britain could not allow conditions which would threaten the security of the Middle East. He opposed the amendment to Article 21 concerning respect for territorial integrity and said that the position of Albania was adequately protected elsewhere in the draft treaty.
In regard to economic questions, Mr. Bevin thought that the present reparations claims were not unreasonable and that full reparation would never be possible. He indicated that Great Britain would consider 75% compensation a satisfactory settlement.
[Page 696]Mr. Bidault said that Italy was by nature peaceful and had been led astray by adventurers. The war between France and Italy had been an unnatural one. Germany, on the other hand, had always fought on the side of aggression. The Italian people could not be considered entirely without responsibility, but the real aspirations of the country were pacific. Italy must be helped to develop its young democracy.
Mr. Bidault said there were three specific problems in which France was interested, i.e., (1) the frontier rectification, (2) reparations, (3) arms limitations. With regard to (1) the treaty would eliminate trifling disputes of long standing. France was determined to examine all questions arising from the decisions of the treaty with the Italian Government. On the second point, France was justified to make a claim but would make only a limited one in order not to hamper the economic recovery of Italy. With regard to (3) the draft treaty reduced the armaments allowed to those necessary for local defense and made participation in a war impossible.
Mr. Bidault said that Italy could not be excluded from the settlement of the colonies and supported the CFM procedure for the settlement. He spoke in favor of the French proposal for the statute of Trieste. He hoped that Yugoslavia would accept an honorable solution to the Trieste question. He concluded by saying that Italy must never be on the wrong side again as a result of too harsh a peace. He hoped that Italy and the other ex-enemy states could join the United Nations.
Dr. Slavik (Czechoslovakia) said that Czechoslovakia had no special demands to make on Italy although she would be justified in doing so. She sympathized with the demands of her fellow Slav state, Yugoslavia. He said that, while Trieste was the port of Central Europe and was a natural outlet for Czechoslovak products, it was ethnically Yugoslav and that the ethnic and economic rights of Yugoslavia should be respected. He had been glad to hear Mr. Bidault say that a compromise could be reached and hoped that one satisfactory to Yugoslavia would be found.
Mr. Claxton (Canada) said that Italy must be helped on the road to recovery. He said that Canada supported the compromise voted with regard to the Italo-Yugoslav and Trieste frontiers and the Statute for the Free Territory.
He thought that the agreement regarding the Tyrolese minority and the transfer of the Dodecanese would contribute to the stability of the peace. He found that Article 17 dealing with the Italian colonies was the best solution now and hoped that the Council of Foreign Ministers would support the Ethiopian claims to a part of Eritrea.
Upon the question of economics the Canadian Delegation supported [Page 697] the Australian proposal for a reparations commission to control reparations payments. Mr. Claxton noted that Canada had made no reparations claims. Since Italy would depend for economic help upon foreign trade, Canada had proposed the extension of most-favored-nation treatment from 18 months to three years.
He urged that the Rules of Procedure used at the Conference be revised when other peace settlements were reached. He concluded by saying that the success of the Conference would be measured by the extent to which the Council of Foreign Ministers acted upon the recommendations of the Conference.