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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

August 10, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 12

Discussion took place on the Yugoslav draft resolution concerning an invitation to Albania to attend the Conference in a consultative capacity (CP/Plen/8A).⁶⁷ The Polish Delegation supported the resolution. Mr. Alexander (U.K.) said the proposal raised certain questions of detail and that the Conference might ask the General Commission to make a recommendation on it. Mr. Tsaldaris (Greece) expounded the Greek view that Albania had been at war with Greece and was certainly not an Allied state which had substantially contributed to the victory in Europe. He felt that to invite Albania would violate the criteria for membership laid down by the inviting powers in the Moscow Agreement of December 1945. The Czechoslovak Delegation stated its view that Albania was entitled to participate in the Conference under conditions determined by the Conference itself. It proposed the following resolution: “The Conference decides to invite Albania in order that it may state its point of view in the Plenary Sessions of the Conference and in the appropriate commissions with regard to the drafting of the peace treaty with Italy.”⁶⁸ Mr. Pijade (Yugoslavia) took strong exception to the views of the Greek Delegation and stated that Mr. Tsaldaris had a few days ago proposed the partition of Albania between Yugoslavia and Greece. He held that the General Commission was not competent to deal with the question of inviting Albania. Mr. Tsaldaris denied the allegation that Greece had proposed the partition of Albania. M. Vyshinski (U.S.S.R.) praised Albania’s effort in the war. He did not believe that the Yugoslav draft resolution should be linked up with other questions but should be settled at once. Mr. Byrnes proposed that the names of Mexico, Cuba and Egypt be inserted in the Czechoslovak proposal after the word “Albania”.⁶⁹ With that change, the resolution would be acceptable to the United States. The Czechoslovak Delegation accepted the amendment. Mr. Hambro (Norway) stated that the Conference could not properly decide this question until it had before it the appropriate documents. The Norwegian Delegation had seen no document stating the requests of Mexico, Cuba and Egypt to be invited. Mr. Alexander proposed general acceptance of the principle of the resolution and reference of the question of procedure to the General Commission.⁷⁰ Further discussion of the matter was deferred until a later meeting.

67. For text, see the Verbatim Record of the 8th Plenary Meeting, p. 148, and footnote 59, p. 160.
68. The Czechoslovak proposal was circulated as C.P.(Plen) 10 A.

69. The United States proposal was circulated as C.P.(Plen) 10 B. Mexico, Cuba, and Egypt had requested United States assistance in securing the right to participate in the Conference. With regard to the desire of Latin American nations to be represented, see telegram 3824, Secdel 585, August 2, to Paris, and Walmsley’s memorandum of August 10, vol. iv, pp. 815 and 830, respectively.

    Ambassador Thurston reported the following in telegram 717 from Mexico City, August 14: “Under-Secretary Foreign Relations: requested me to transmit to Secretary Byrnes on behalf of Mexican Government deepest appreciation Secretary’s personal action in supporting Mexico’s position at Paris Peace Conference.” (740.00119 Council/8–1546)

    Regarding Egypt’s desire to participate in the Conference, see note from the Department of State to the Egyptian Legation, July 25, p. 16, and note from the Egyptian Legation to the Acting Secretary of State, June 18, vol. ii, p. 536.

70. The British proposal was circulated as C.P.(Plen) 10 C.