750G.00/12–2751
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs ( Perkins )1
Subject: Trieste
| Participants: | The Italian Ambassador |
| Mr. Perkins | |
| Mr. Byington |
The Italian Ambassador2 referred to his conversation with the Secretary of State and with me on December 213 in which he had given the impression that the Italo-Yugo conversations on Trieste were progressing favorably.4 He said that his remarks on that occasion had been based on Ambassador Guidotti’s reports up to that time. He had now received a further report which indicated that a following meeting between Guidotti and Bebler had proved most discouraging. He wished to inform me about this development in order that we should no longer remain under any impression that things were going satisfactorily. He said that previously Bebler had listened without objection to Guidotti’s statement of the Italian views on an ethnic solution. Now, however, Bebler had come forward with a Yugoslav proposal that an ethnic solution would have to be based on the Austrian census of 1910 for Zone A and that for Zone B the determination should be based on a Yugoslav statistical report for 1945–1946. On this basis, Yugoslavia would concede no territory to Italy from Zone B, while on the other hand it would leave Italy in Zone A only the city of Trieste plus a rail and road communication. The Yugoslav proposal would even take away from Italy the town of Muggia and its commune, as well as the suburbs of Trieste to the east and all the hinterland in Zone A to the west of Trieste.
In reply to my question whether there was not another meeting that was to have taken place after this one, Ambassador Tarchiani replied in the affirmative and said that Bebler had asked Guidotti to propose an Italian line. Guidotti was to have given him such a line at a forthcoming meeting on December 19th which would have been the last one before Christmas. The Italian proposal was that which the Prime Minister had indicated to us during his visit in Washington, namely, Yugoslavia would have a portion of the hinterland in Zone B, not including Buie, together with the Slav area in Zone A, consisting of the towns of Sgonico and Monrupino. He said that the Italian proposal which could be taken as a basis for negotiation represented a willingness to make concession whereas the Yugoslavs were unwilling to make any concession at all. The Italian Government could not help but conclude therefore that the [Page 267] Yugoslav Government had no real desire to reach a compromise settlement based on the ethnic principle.
The Ambassador then expressed the opinion that it seemed unlikely anything could be accomplished unless the United States were willing to use its influence in persuading the Yugoslavs of the need for adopting a reasonable attitude. I replied that it seemed best at the present time to await the report of the subsequent meeting on December 19. The Ambassador said he would let me know the results of that meeting as soon as he had received the report. He pointed out that if the Austrian census of 1910 were adopted as a test for the entire free territory, the Italian Government would be making a major concession since subsequent Italian Censuses were certainly more favorable to Italy. He indicated that he thought the Italian Government might be willing to adopt such a basis, but it could never agree to the ridiculous suggestion of an ethnic solution based on a Yugoslav statistical finding for Zone B which even the Yugoslavs do not describe as a census.
- Drafted by Byington.↩
- Alberto Tarchiani.↩
- A memorandum of this conversation is in file 750G.00/12–2151.↩
- During the Sixth Session of the U.N. General Assembly which convened at Paris November 6. Yugoslav Deputy Foreign Minister Aleš Bebler and Italian Ambassador to the United Nations Gastone Guidotti held several meetings in December to discuss a settlement of the Trieste question. According to Yugoslav Ambassador Popovć’s analysis, which he gave to Perkins during a meeting on December 21, the Bebler-Guidotti talks were not making progress because of the intransigent attitude of the Italians. (Memorandum of conversation, 750G.00/12–2151)↩