CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 26
The Commission resumed its consideration of the Australian amendment to Article 22 (Reparation) of the Rumanian treaty [C.P. (Gen) Doc. 1.B.24]. The Czechoslovak, Ukrainian, Byelorussian, and Yugoslav representatives strongly attacked the amendment and urged the Commission to adopt Article 22 without amendment. The Canadian representative said that, while he was in agreement with the principles on which the Australian amendment was based, it was necessary to take account of settlements already reached. No one had questioned Rumania’s ability to pay the reparation required by the treaty, and unless evidence should be adduced that the burden was too great, he thought that the decision of the CFM should stand. He wished to point out, however, that the Canadian Delegation might want to question the amounts established in certain other treaties. The Canadian Delegation had been impressed by the Australian arguments regarding the establishment of a Reparation and Restitution [Page 290] Commission with executive functions, as distinguished from the judicial functions of determining the amount of reparation, the methods of payment, allocation among claimants, etc., and it would support the Australian amendment to Article 23 [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.B.25]. The Greek representative clarified his remarks at the previous meeting, which had been misinterpreted by M. Molotov as indicating Greek support for the Australian amendment. He had not intended to take a position on the Australian amendment as a whole, but only to adduce an additional principle to be considered in connection with reparation, namely, that an aggressor, especially one which had suffered less than the victims of aggression and which had resources superior to those of the victims, should not be allowed to recover more rapidly than the victims. The Polish representative, referring to the fact that the Canadian support of the establishment of a Reparation and Restitution Commission was partly based on the fact that Poland had submitted a claim against Rumania, said that the Polish amendment [C.P. (Gen) Doc. 1.0.7] was mainly procedural and that the Polish claim was very limited. In view of this the Polish Delegation had decided to seek a settlement outside of Article 22 and asked the Commission to regard its proposal as non-existent.