CFM Files

Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Rumania

C.P.(Plen)Doc. 15

Rapporteur: Mr. Karel Lisicky (Delegate of Czechoslovakia)

Mr. Chairman: The Political and Territorial Commission for Roumania has held 12 meetings under the Chairmanship of Mr. Dmitro Manuilsky, Delegate of the Ukraine (whose place was taken after the 5th meeting by Mr. A. M. Baranowsky). The Commission appointed Sir N. J. Wadia, Delegate of India, Vice-Chairman, and Mr. Karel Lisicky, Delegate of Czechoslovakia, Rapporteur.

The Commission’s task was to study certain parts of the Draft Peace Treaty between the Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania and to make recommendations to the Plenary Conference.

The parts of the Draft Treaty referred to it for study are as follows:

Part I Frontiers (Arts. 1 & 2—Annex 1)
Part II Political Clauses (Arts. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).
Part IV Withdrawal of Allied Troops from Roumania (Art. 21).
Part VIII Final clauses (Arts. 35, 36, 37, 38).

In the course of its work the Commission considered:

  • —Eight amendments put forward by the Delegation of Australia, seven of which are quoted in Vol. 1 of Amendments proposed by the Delegations (C.P.(Gen) Doc.1) and numbered B.18, B.20, B.23, B.27, B.29, B.30 and B.31. Their reference was clarified in Documents C.P.(Rou/P)Doc.2, 4 and in Doc.7 which contains the text of the amendment not included in the general collection of amendments C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.
  • —A proposed new article 3A put forward during the course of the discussions by the Delegation of the U.K. (C.P.(Rou/P)Doc.9).
  • —The observations of the Roumanian Government on the Draft Treaty (C.P.(Gen)Doc.3) in so far as they related to Articles within the scope of the Commission and when they were taken up by one of the Delegations which are members of the Commission.

Further, at the time of the discussion of Article 2 of the Draft Treaty, the Commission, on the proposal of the Delegation of Australia, held a joint meeting with the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary at which it heard successive statements from the Delegation of Hungary and of Roumania on the frontier line between Roumania and Hungary. Later, the Commission once again invited the Delegation of Roumania to make a verbal statement on its observations on Articles 7, 8 and 10 of the Draft Treaty.

The Articles submitted for examination by the Commission had already been agreed by the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Four Powers had, however, been unable to reach agreement on Article 36 and had submitted to the Conference two texts, one put forward by the U.K. and the U.S.A., the other by the U.S.S.R.

As a result of its work, the Commission has come to the following conclusions:

1) —Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 35 and 38 and Annex 1 of the Draft Treaty were adopted unanimously, Article 3 was adopted by 11 votes, Bielorussia abstaining; Article 37 by 11 votes, Czechoslovakia voting against.

2) —The text of Article 2 relating to the frontier between Roumania and Hungary was approved by the Commission by 10 votes and 2 abstentions: Australia and the Union of South Africa. This Article was examined and adopted after hearing the Delegations of the two countries concerned and after thorough discussion in the Committee. The representatives of the Four Powers Members of the Council of Foreign Ministers, made to the Commission, at the request of the Delegation of Australia, a statement of the Council’s reasons for proposing the restoration of the former Hungaro-Roumanian frontier as it stood on 1st January, 1938.

3) —As regards Article 36, the Commission adopted after examination the text put forward by the U.K. and the U.S.A. by eight votes to four:

  • —For: U.S.A., Australia, Canada, France, the U.K., India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa.
  • —Against: Bielorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and the U.S.S.R.

In accordance with the provisions of See. VI of the Rules of Procedure, this text, voted by a two-thirds majority, is submitted for approval to the Plenary Conference as a recommendation by the Commission.

[Page 432]

4) —During the examination of the Preamble, the Commission had before it an amendment by the Delegation of Australia (C.P.(Gen) Doc.1B1 and C.P.(Rou/P)Doc.2) and unanimously endorsed the two following proposals, the others contained in this amendment being withdrawn:

—In paragraph 4 of the Preamble, after the words “Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania are respectively desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which”, to add the words “conforming to the principles of justice.”
—In the same paragraph, so as to preserve the logical sequence, to reverse the order of the two parts of the sentence after “conforming to the principles of justice”, so that the paragraph should read as follows: “Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania 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, thereby enabling, etc. . .”.

The Preamble thus amended was adopted unanimously. The Commission therefore submits it as a recommendation for the approval of the Conference.

5)—As has already been stated, the Delegation of the U.K., after the adoption of Article 3 of the Draft Treaty, proposed the inclusion of Article 3A to read as follows:

“Roumania further undertakes that the laws in force in Roumania shall not, either in their content or in their application, discriminate or entail any discrimination between persons of Roumanian nationality on the ground of their race, sex, language or religion, whether in reference to their persons, property, business, professional or financial interests, status, political or civic rights or any other matters”.

After discussion, this proposal won the support of a majority of seven votes to five.

—Those who voted for were: The United States, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, India, New Zealand, Union of South Africa.

—Those who voted against: Bielorussia, France, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and U.S.S.R.

As the two-thirds majority was not obtained, the Commission under the terms of Sec. VI b of the Rules of Procedure should submit two reports to the Conference and state the respective points of view of the majority and of the minority. But it agreed that its Rapporteur should set forth both points of view in the general report. Thus the presentation of two separate reports is avoided.

The object of this proposal, as the British Delegation has made clear, “is to relieve the suffering of the Jews in Eastern Europe, by specifying the obligation of the Roumanian Government to respect the principle of non-discrimination between Roumanian nationals”.

[Page 433]

According to the minority, this new provision is superfluous; on the one hand its object has already been achieved by Arts. 3 and 4 of the Draft Treaty; on the other, Roumanian legislation has already endorsed and applied the principles stated in this proposal and there is no reason at present for showing distrust of the Roumanian Government on this subject.

The majority, for its part, while recognising the fact that Arts. 3 and 4 of the Draft Treaty already to a great extent deal with the problem raised in the U.K. proposal, affirms that an additional provision serves to complete these Articles and is not superfluous.

It further considers that although the Roumanian laws at present in force are opposed to discrimination between Roumanian nationals, it is nevertheless advisable to confirm an existing juridical situation by introducing a special contractual engagement into the body of the Treaty.

As neither of these two views obtained the necessary two-thirds majority vote, it is for the Plenary Conference to decide the matter by a special vote.

6) —The other amendments of the Delegation of Australia were withdrawn after discussion, in view of the decisions taken by other political and territorial commissions on similar amendments.

The Commission, after taking cognisance of the Roumanian Delegation’s observations, and after hearing the explanations of this Delegation on certain points, did not feel it desirable to adopt the proposals contained in the text of these observations.

Some Roumanian observations were, however, supported by Delegations which are members of this Commission: thus, during the consideration of the Preamble, the Ukrainian Delegation supported by the Czechoslovak Delegation, and later the Czechoslovak Delegation, supported some of the observations of the Roumanian Delegation. During the discussion of Article 3, the Delegation of Bielorussia supported the proposals of the Delegation of Roumania. The Czechoslovak Delegation also supported the observations of the Roumanian Delegation concerning Articles 10 and 37.

The Commission considered that other observations of the Roumanian Delegation were outside its competence and transmitted them either to the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary, or to the Economic Commission for the Balkans.

These were observations submitted orally by the Roumanian Delegation concerning Article 7 of the Draft Treaty and pertaining to the inclusion in the Peace Treaty with Hungary of certain requests by the Roumanian Government.

Such, Mr. Chairman, is a concise report of the work of our Commission and of the results which it has achieved. On behalf of the [Page 434]Political and Territorial Commission for Roumania, I have the honour to lay this report before the Conference for examination and for the approval of its conclusions.

The Commission proposes that the Conference should:

1. —Adopt the recommendations which the Commission has approved unanimously, or by a majority of at least two-thirds.

—All Articles of the Draft Treaty which have been adopted without change.

—The Text of the Preamble, the modifications to which were adopted unanimously.

—The text proposed by the U.K. and U.S. Delegations, for Article 36, which was adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commission.

2.—Agree to examine separately Article 3 A proposed by the U.K. Delegation and approved by the Commission by a majority of seven votes to five.