740.0011 EW (Peace)/2–1147: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
Paris, February 11,
1947.
624. Copies of Greek, Yugoslav, Italian, Rumanian, and Hungarian observations on peace treaties, as furnished us by Foreign Office to whom they were addressed, being forwarded airmail.
- 1.
- Greek observations include protest over failure of Bulgarian peace treaty to provide satisfaction for Greek claims to adjustment of their frontier with Bulgaria and expression of concern over future security of Greco-Bulgarian frontier owing to lack of effective military control to ensure fulfillment military clauses. With reference to Italian recognition of the sovereignty and independence of Albania, Greeks point out that Article 27 of Italian treaty does not prejudge question of Greco-Albanian frontier, and state that Greek request concerning northern Epirus will remain pending before Council of Foreign Ministers even after signature of treaty.
- 2.
- Yugoslav Government observes that the claims and proposals of that country were not given satisfaction in drawing up text of Italian treaty. In this connection it refers to political, military and economic clauses and particularly territorial decisions. They say they are only signing the treaty in order to avoid the responsibility of not according their support to the establishment of peace. They declare however that in signing treaty the Yugoslav people do not in any way renounce their claims to the territories which ethnically are theirs and that the Yugoslav people will not cease to maintain their right over these territories whatever ethnical modifications may be made in them as a result of foreign domination.
- 3.
- Italians merely state that “the Italian Government signs the treaty with the reservation that it is subject to ratification which depends on the sovereign decision of the Constituent Assembly to which, under Italian law, the approval of international treaties is subject”.
- 4.
- Rumanians assert that some obligations imposed are excessive and others unjust and will result in aggravating the country’s economic [Page 524] situation. They express gratification over Transylvanian settlement and indicate that they will enter into direct negotiations with interested states with view to “adapting the clauses of the treaty to present possibilities of the country and to clarifying the provisions which seem ambiguous and contradictory”.
- 5.
- Hungarian communication deplores absence of guarantees of human rights for Hungarians living beyond Hungarian frontiers and refers specifically to deportations from and harsh treatment of Hungarian nationals in Czechoslovakia. Statement expresses satisfaction over return of full Hungarian sovereignty, prospective return of Hungarian war prisoners, and prospect of joining UN. Government addresses fervent appeal to all signatory powers, particularly Czechoslovakia, for observance of human rights and states its determination to seek the means of closer and friendly collaboration with Hungary’s neighbors.
Repeated Rome 37; Belgrade 4; London 118; Moscow 61; USPolAd Berlin 55; Praha 21; Athens 10; Bucharest 15.
Caffery