CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 25
The Commission considered the fourth paragraph of the Preamble to the Italian draft treaty and the Netherlands amendment thereto (CP(IT/P) Doc. 8). The amendment was supported by the representative of the Netherlands who declared that it fell into two parts: (1) recognition of the role played by the resistance movement in Italy and (2) reference to Italy’s declaration of war against Japan. The Soviet Delegate said that he supported the first part of the Dutch amendment if there were no objection from the other three Delegates represented on the Council of Foreign Ministers but that he objected to the second part assigning to Italy a cobelligerent status in the war against Japan. The French Delegate supported the first part of the Dutch amendment and suggested that the second part be withdrawn which the representative of the Netherlands promptly acceded to. Thereafter the U.K. and U.S. representatives supported the Dutch amendment as amended. The Yugoslav representative objected to the entire Dutch amendment as superfluous. At the request of the Soviet representative he refused to withdraw his objection and declared that the Yugoslav Delegation would abstain from voting. The Chairman noted the abstention of the Yugoslav Delegation and declared [Page 280] the amendment of the Netherlands, as modified, accepted by the Commission. Paragraph 4 as amended therefore reads as follows:
“Whereas after the said armistice Italian armed forces, both of the government and of the resistance movement, took an active part in the war against Germany and Italy declared war on Germany as from October 13, 1943 and thereby became a co-belligerent against Germany;”
The Commission passed to the consideration of paragraph 5 and the Yugoslav and Australian amendments thereto. The Yugoslav amendment (CP(IT/P) Doc. 5 last paragraph)56 was withdrawn by the Yugoslav Delegation to be considered later in conjunction with Article 78. With reference to the Australian amendment (CP (IT/P) Doc. 15) [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.B.1] the Chairman made two suggestions:
- 1.
- That the substance of the Australian amendment would have to be discussed in connection with Articles 13 and 14 of the draft treaty and therefore that consideration of its inclusion in the Preamble should be postponed until that time.
- 2.
- The Australian amendment was common to all five treaties and therefore the Secretary General had invited the Chairmen and Rapporteurs of the five Commissions to meet and decide on a course of action to be followed when amendments common to all treaties were submitted.
The Chairman asked for approval of his proposals and was supported by the Canadian representative. The Australian representative agreed to defer discussion of his amendment until it came up in the body of the treaty. The representative of the Ukraine proposed that the Commission reject the Australian amendment and not discuss it either now or later. He argued that it was fully covered in Article 14 of the draft treaty. He then referred to an Australian plan to establish a supreme international body to which appeals by persons of minority races could be made and cited Article 2 paragraph 7 of the United Nations Charter as opposing the estalishment of such international authority. The Australian Delegate objected strongly to Manuilsky’s remarks, pointing out that the substance of his proposal was not under discussion and that he and the Canadian had limited themselves to the Chairman’s proposal that it be deferred to a later and more appropriate period. The Soviet representative declared that he was ready to accept the first part of the suggestion of the Chairman if the Australian Delegate agreed. He opposed the second part of the Chair’s suggestion. The Australian Delegate agreed to defer consideration of the Human Rights provisions of his amendment reading “securing to all persons in territories affected by it human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language [Page 281] or religion”. He asked however that the Commission consider now that portion of his amendment which would insert in the fourth paragraph the phrase “conforming to the principles of justice” and include the drafting change transposing two phrases in the latter part of the amendment. This was supported by the United Kingdom representative who declared that he had obtained the agreement of the other representatives on the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Yugoslav representative objected to the Australian amendment in its entirety and proposed a different phraseology. The Yugoslav subamendment was lost by a vote of 13 to 7.57 The Australian amendment as modified by the Australians was thereafter adopted by the Commission with the Yugoslavs dissenting. As approved by the Commission the fifth paragraph of the Preamble with the modified Australian amendment now reads
“Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Italy are respectively desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which, conforming to the principles of justice, will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the events hereinbefore recited and form the basis of friendly relations between them, thereby enabling the Allied and Associated Powers to support Italy’s application to become a member of the United Nations and also to adhere to any convention concluded under the auspices of the United Nations”.
The Chairman recorded however that final consideration of this paragraph of the Preamble will be deferred until the Human Eights provisions referred to in Articles 13 and 14 of the treaty are discussed at which time the Australians may again raise the question of inserting in this paragraph of the Preamble the following clause:
“and securing to all persons in territories affected by it human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion”.
The meeting adjourned at 1:35 p.m.