Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

Doc. No. 10 (P).

Memorandum on the Territorial Clauses Concerning the Frontier Between Italy and Yugoslavia and the Frontier of the Free Territory of Trieste (Art. 3, 4 and 16.)

undated

Articles 3, 4 and 16

With reference to the proposals made by the Council of Foreign Ministers in connection with the new Italo-Yugoslav frontier and the creation of the Free Territory of Trieste, the Italian Delegation can only confirm the views already set forth in the Italian Memorandum of September, 1945, and reiterated by President De Gasperi in London (Sept. 18, 1945), in Paris (May 3, 1946) and recently, at the plenary session of the present Conference (August 10, 1946).

Voicing the unanimous wishes of all Italians, and, in particular, of the population concerned—that of Venezia Giulia—the Italian Delegation formally reaffirms that no ethnic, historical, geographical, economic or moral reasons can, in its view, justify the severance from Italy of a population which has always considered itself and desires to remain Italian, as was proved by the impartial investigation carried out by the Committee of Experts for Venezia Giulia, and as could easily be confirmed by consulting the local population.

However, in event of the Italian point of view being rejected and of the creation of a “Free Territory of Trieste” being approved by the Commission the boundaries proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers being adopted as a basis of discussion, the Italian Delegation, subject to the consent which will have to be given by the Italian Constituent Assembly on the substance of the question submits for the Commission’s consideration the following remarks on the frontier in the Gorizia area, and the enlargement of the Free Territory of Trieste.

I. The Frontier in the Upper and Middle Isonzo Valley

The Italo-Yugoslav frontier in this region should be drawn so as to facilitate communications for the local population, to satisfy the essential needs of railway traffic, and to safeguard the development of the Isonzo hydro-electric power stations and their exploitation for the benefit of the zone for which they were built. In this connection the following points should be noted:

a. The new frontier proposed leaves in Yugoslav territory mixed-language groups, naturally linked to the Italian towns in the Friuli plain (Udine and Cividale) by the exigencies of local life and trade. A glance at the map will show that the inhabitants of the Isonzo Valley have excellent main roads and a railway connecting them with Udine and Cividale but are much further away from the main towns of Slovenia, such as Ljubljana, with which they are linked only by secondary roads, often impassable in winter.

b. The new frontier leaves to Yugoslavia part of the territory through which the Predil railway which was intended to form a direct link between Trieste and Austria was to pass. The construction of this line was provided for in the Treaty of St. Germain but was not completed because of the world economic crisis and international events (90 kms. of the line remain to be built). Once built, it will provide the shortest link between Trieste and Central Europe.

Trieste, as everyone is aware, is now connected with its Danubian hinterland by three railways. The longest of these runs entirely through Italian territory (the Trieste-Udine-Pontebba-Tarvisio line). It is single-tracked and was mainly built to serve Venice; technically it would be a very difficult matter to add a second track to this line. The other two railways (the Trieste-Postumia-Ljubljana and the Trieste-Piedicolle-Assling lines) would, according to the frontier proposal made, run entirely through Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia would thus be in a position to control the larger and better section of the railway system joining Trieste with its hinterland in addition to all communications with the rival port of Fiume.

The problem therefore is to place the Free Territory of Trieste and its port on the same footing as the port of Fiume, so as not to leave one and the same State in control of the traffic of both ports. Neither Italy nor Yugoslavia should be in a position to bring economic pressure to bear on the Free Territory by controlling its communications.^* It follows that Trieste should be linked with its hinterland not only by the two railways passing through Yugoslavia, but also by a new and modern line (the Predil line) passing through Italian territory.

Now, if the frontier were drawn as proposed by the French Delegation this requirement would not be fulfilled. The new Predil line would start at Trieste, would have to pass first through Italian, then through Yugoslav territory, and once more re-enter Italy before finally reaching Austrian territory (see map in Annex I).

c. The new frontier leaves the entire course of the Isonzo River north of Gorizia and therefore the big hydro-electric power stations at Doblari and Plava in Yugoslavia. These stations were built by Italy in 1938; their annual output is 130 million kwh. of direct and 100 million kwh. of alternating current. These stations do not serve the areas proposed to be ceded to Yugoslavia. On the other hand, they are indispensable to the Monfalcone and Gorizia areas of Italy and above all to Trieste itself, as was admitted in the Report prepared by the Commission of Investigations (Paras. 48 and 68) and in Annex 9/C of the draft Treaty. The same would apply to the hydro-electric power which might be obtained by a further development of the same river. The zone to be ceded to Yugoslavia never used the power supplied by these plants, as they are served by the power stations at Fiume, Arsa, Aidussina, Idria, Chiapovano and other smaller stations.

The Italian Delegation will submit a special Memorandum on the subject of the guarantees to be given to the Free Territory of Trieste in connection with the electric power to be supplied by the above stations (Annex 9/C).

The transfer of the Isonzo Valley to Yugoslavia would likewise deprive Italy of the control of the water supply used for irrigating the Cormons and Monfalcone plains which will be retained by Italy.

Conclusion: The new Italo-Yugoslav frontier north of Gorizia should run east of the “French line”, following a line which might be considered by a special committee of the Political Commission.

II. Frontier in the Gorizia Area

The line suggested by the Council of Foreign Ministers for the Gorizia area cuts this town in two, breaking up its unity with all the consequences that such a paradoxical situation would entail in a modern city (see map and photographs in Annexes 2 and 3¹).

This line leaves in Yugoslav territory:

• —the suburbs of Vertoiba, San Pietro and Soldano;
• —the springs and water-works of the town’s two sources of water supply, whose capacity is already insufficient to satisfy Gorizia, and requires immediate extension;
• —the old town cemetery and the Jewish cemetery;
• —the sanatorium, the ossuaries and the war memorials erected in honour of the Italian soldiers who died in the 1915–1918 war;
• —the wooded area to the east of the town, which constitutes the town’s lung.

In order to avoid this absurd situation it is, therefore, absolutely necessary to consider a fresh boundary.

The proposed line was evidently drawn with a view to leaving within Yugoslav territory the local routes of communication between Aidussina and the Piedicolle area (which, incidentally carry very little traffic) as well as the Trieste-Piedicolle-Assling-Vienna railway.

Now, it is quite possible to build a loop line stArting at Prevacina, passing through Sanbasso and Britovo and rejoining the existing Isonzo railway near Auzza di Canale. Alternatively, another loop line could be built stArting at Aidussina passing through the Tribussa (Idria) Valley and rejoining the Piedicolle railway at Baccia di Modrea.

The Italian Government is prepared to examine the possibility of co-operating with the Yugoslav Government in building this loop line.

It might be added that both the American and the British line envisaged a somewhat similar territorial solution.

There is no doubt that the French line in the Gorizia area could be modified so as to satisfy both the needs of the city and Yugoslav railway requirements.

III. Enlargement of the Free Territory of Trieste

1. The draft Treaty with Italy provides for the establishment of a “Free Territory of Trieste” bounded by the “French line” (art. 4 and 16 of the draft with some reservations involving minor rectifications suggested by the U.S. Delegation).

2. It may be useful to recall the origin of the French line. It will be remembered that the Council of Foreign Ministers decided, at their London session in September 1945, that the Italo-Yugoslav boundary should be “an ethnic line leaving a minimum of population under alien rule”. The line was also to take into account the economic needs of the population concerned.

A commission of experts was sent to Venezia Giulia and, after an investigation on the spot, submitted a unanimous report in which it recognized, in the case of western and southern Istria, that “the Italian element is located in the towns situated on or near the coast and also inhabits a considerable number of rural localities of western Istria. It constitutes the majority and, in certain instances, almost the whole population in many of the towns on or near the coast, while in certain towns in the interior of western and southern Istria it constitutes an important minority” (para. 76).

However, each of the four delegations constituting the Commission recommended a different line for the future boundary; the American and British lines following more closely the findings of the report, inasmuch as they left to Italy the major part of western and southern Istria.

3. The “French Line” was drawn following the principles of the so-called “ethnic balance”. According to the estimates of the French Experts (which, incidentally, appear to be based on data which, in the Italian Government’s opinion, do not reflect the actual situation) such a line would leave an almost equal number of Italians in Yugoslavia and of Slavs in Italy.

With all due reservations as regards the information on which the estimates of the French Experts were based, or the interpretation by these Experts of the instructions given to them by the Council of Foreign Ministers (London, 19th September, 1945), it is obvious that, as a result of the creation of a “Free Territory of Trieste”, the ethnic balance between Italy and Yugoslavia, which the French Experts were trying to establish has been radically modified.

In fact, if the French line were adopted as the boundary, Venezia Giulia would be split in such a way to leave, according to the 1921 census:

a. About 10.000 Slavs in Italian territory;

b. About 180.000 Italians (including those of Zara and the islands) in Yugoslavia;

c. 266.000 Italians and about 50,000 Slavs in the Free Territory of Trieste.

Thus, the creation of a Free Territory entirely carved out of the territory which the French had intended to award to Italy, has radically altered the balance between the number of Italians and Slavs left outside their respective countries. 266.000 Italians—who through being domiciled west of the French line, were to remain in Italy—are instead severed from their country and included in the Free Territory, while only about 50.000 Slavs—whom the French line had left in Italy—are included in the Free Territory. In other words, while the Italian element is burdened with a further heavy sacrifice, 50.000 Slavs—who, according to the principle of ethnic balance as followed by the French line, should have remained in Italy—are now at least given the advantage of becoming citizens of a Free Territory.

Therefore, in order to re-establish the ethnic balance, the main motive underlying the French line, it would be necessary for the 50.000 and more Slavs now passing from Italy to the Free Territory to be balanced by an equal number of Italians withdrawn from Yugoslav sovereignty and becoming citizens of the Free Territory also. This can be easily arranged by including in the Free Territory the portion of western Istria south of Cittanova contained within the British line.

4. The creation of a Free Territory of Trieste was an expedient devised by the Council of Foreign Ministers as a solution of an extremely difficult problem. It is now necessary to review the entire problem of the frontiers in that area from this new angle. It was decided not to leave Trieste to Italy, and, at the same time, in view of its obviously Italian character, not to give it to Yugoslavia. Now there seems to be no reason why the same principle should not be applied to the Italians who constitute the vast majority of the population of western Istria. In fact, in the area included within the “British line” to the south of the “French line” (see map No. 4) there live, according to the 1921 census, 79.437 Italians and 15.595 Slavs (according to the 1910 census, 66.071 Italians and 34.963 Slavs).

5. Western Istria has been a part of Italy since 1919, but its inhabitants were always a part of the Italian Nation. Their history proves it beyond any possible doubt.

Western Istria, as above defined, is so undeniably Italian that, if we admit the principle of the Atlantic Charter, according to which no territorial changes should be made “that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned”, the Italian majority in this area would undoubtedly affirm its will to remain united to Italy.

6. The inclusion of Pola and the island of Brioni within the Free Territory of Trieste would, of course, entail the complete demilitarisation and neutralisation of this naval base. This would be a substantial contribution to the security both of Italy and Yugoslavia.

7. The frontier proposed by the American Experts left to Italy the coal mines of Arsa and the bauxite deposits of Istria in view of the fact that there are abundant supplies of these minerals already available to Yugoslavia in her own territory. In order to strengthen the economic vitality of the Free Territory of Trieste, its administration—or whatever other authority may be designated for this purpose—should be granted a 99-year lease of the coal and bauxite mines left in the area ceded to Yugoslavia.

8. Finally, if ethnic principles are to be adhered to, there is no doubt that the island of Lussino, whose population is almost entirely Italian, should likewise be included in the Free Territory. The line proposed by President Wilson (1919) allotted Lussino to Italy.

1. The Yugoslav delegate, Mr. Bebler, stated on 18th July at the meeting of the Committee for the Statute of Trieste that “Yugoslavia can never be forced to make the sacrifices required in order to ensure the prosperity of a city and a port of whose ownership she was deprived”. (Official text supplied by the Yugoslav representatives.) [Footnote in the source text.]
1. Map and photographs not printed.