Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Council of Foreign Ministers, Volume II

C.F.M. Files: Lot M–88: Box 2063: US Delegation Minutes

United States Delegation Record, Council of Foreign Ministers, Second Session, Twenty-Eighth Meeting, Palais du Luxembourg, Paris, June 27, 1946, 4 p.m.⁴¹

Paris, June 27, 1946, 4 p.m.

secret

Report of the Deputies

M. Molotov opened the meeting and called on M. Couve de Murville, Chairman of the Deputies, to present the Deputies’ report.

M. Couve de Murville said that the Deputies had examined the question of the agenda for the present meeting and had agreed to propose that the Ministers consider the following points:⁴²

Treaty of Peace with Rumania

1. The Danube (Article 35)⁴³

2. Restoration of United Nations Property (Article 24)

3. Rumanian Assets in United Nations Territory (Article 26)

4. General Economic Relations: Civil Aviation (Article 33, paragraph (c))

5. Transport, Shipping and Civil Aviation (Article 34)

Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria

6. The Bulgarian Navy (CFM (46) 155⁴⁴

M. Couve de Murville also stated that the Deputies found no points in the Hungarian and Finnish treaties which they believed should be referred to the Ministers. He referred to the instructions given by the Council to the Deputies to review the draft treaty with Finland. The Deputies had gone over the British and Soviet drafts (CFM(D) (46) 174 and CFM(46) 138 respectively).⁴⁵ Agreement had been reached on all the political and military questions as well as on reparation, restitution, German assets in Finland, and renunciation of claims. It had been agreed that the other economic clauses would in general be similar to the clauses agreed or to be agreed for inclusion in the treaties with Italy or the Balkan countries. It was decided that the following subjects required further consideration: General Economic Relations, Financial Assets in the United Nations, Interpretation of the Treaty, Debts, and the question of a body to supervise the enforcement of the treaty.

M. Molotov suggested that the Council approve the agenda suggested by the Deputies and add to it the question of the Franco-Italian frontier, on which a report had just been received from the Special Committee of Hydro-electric Experts. (All delegations agreed.) M. Molotov then proposed that the Council request the Deputies to complete their work on the Finnish peace treaty on which there remained very little to be done.

Mr. Byrnes had no objection to that proposal. He wished also to suggest that since the Deputies had recommended that Council take up only five questions on the Rumanian Treaty at the present meeting, it might be possible to discuss other questions on the Italian or Balkan treaties should time permit.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation had no objection to taking up other questions should time permit. He thought that they should first go through the questions on their present agenda and then consider what other questions, if any, they wished to discuss.

The Danube

M. Molotov asked whether any of his colleagues had any remarks to make on the subject of the Danube. The Soviet Delegation wished to suggest certain amendments to the British proposal (CFM(46) 148).⁴⁶ As amended, the first sentence would read as follows: “The Governments of the U.S.A., the U.K., U.S.S.R. and France consider it essential that, in the interests of world peace and world commerce, navigation on the Danube, its navigable tributaries and the canals connected therewith, shall be maintained by the riparian states in such a way as to be free and open to the nationals, vessels of commerce and goods of all states.” M. Molotov asked whether there was any objection to these amendments.

Mr. Byrnes said he did not know what M. Molotov’s purpose was in leaving out the words “on terms of complete equality”. Would he object to saying “without discrimination”?

M. Molotov said that the question of the inclusion of the phrase “on terms of complete equality” was a question of vital importance to the riparian states. He thought it would be rash to consider that question without their participation. He therefore suggested an amended draft which would refer neither to privileges nor to guarantees of equality. Here a question of substance was involved which could be settled only with the participation of the riparian states which were not present at this conference. It would not be just to lay down, in the absence of those states, the rule that their rights in their own national territories would not differ in any way from those enjoyed by other countries. On the other hand, the proposal as amended by the Soviet Delegation would provide for the maintenance of the principle of free and open navigation to the nationals, goods and vessels of all states. This principle was safeguarded by the amended proposal.

Mr. Bevin said that he saw M. Molotov’s point but that there were other factors in the situation. There had been a treaty before the war dealing with the question of the Danube. It was the purpose of the U.K. Delegation to restore that pre-war position. It was not just a question of ships being able to navigate on the Danube. Under the pre-war conditions there could be no discrimination by means of charging different tolls, etc. In the pre-war treaty the words “on a footing of complete equality on the whole navigable part of the river” were used. If the U.K. Delegation should withdraw the words “on terms of complete equality”, when they came together to discuss the matter with the riparian states after the conclusion of the peace treaties, would it not be assumed that any new arrangement could be a discriminatory arrangement? Would that not be possible under the terms which M. Molotov was now suggesting? The river might be free and open, but the charges placed on vessels might be such that the right would be valueless. He was willing to accept the first two amendments proposed by M. Molotov, the use of the words “consider it essential” and the addition of the words “by the riparian states”, but he felt that the declaration should say something as to what the intentions of the Four Powers were. He realized that the riparian states would have to be consulted, but the main question was what was the intention of the four Foreign Ministers? Did they intend that the river should be open on a basis of complete equality among the Four Powers? The four Foreign Ministers would make a declaration stating what they regarded as essential. Those Powers and the other states concerned would have to meet later with the riparian states and make a final settlement of the question. Since the U.K. Delegation had agreed that the article on the Danube need not go into the peace treaties, the question would have to be settled by separate negotiations later. Would the Four Powers be on terms of complete equality in those negotiations and in the final settlement?

Mr. Byrnes said that he did not believe that this question of the Danube should cause much difficulty among them. Before the war, navigation on the Danube had been free and open without discrimination. There was no reason to assume that any one of the riparian states would take a backward step and resort to discrimination. The four governments represented on the Council of Foreign Ministers did not believe that there should be discrimination. Since this declaration was a statement of their views, they should have no hesitation in expressing those views since they were in accord with the action of the riparian states before the war under the pre-war treaties. If M. Molotov wished to strike out the words “on terms of complete equality”, would he agree to the following words: “On the basis of the principle of equality prevailing prior to the war”? Certainly no one of the riparian states would object to the Four Powers expressing a view which they themselves had held and practiced before the war. The Four Powers would be suggesting nothing new. As Mr. Bevin had said, if they did not do that and struck out the words “on terms of complete equality”, it would justify the riparian states in believing that the Four Powers wished to go backward rather than forward in relation to the situation of equality which was observed by all those states before the war.

M. Molotov said that they were discussing a question which had no direct relevance to the peace treaties. The question of the Danube concerned not only the countries with which peace treaties were being concluded, but also Allied countries such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia which were not present. Therefore, in the view of the Soviet Delegation, it would be incorrect to try to come to concrete conclusions on the merits of the question. For example, would it be proper to require Czechoslovakia, a riparian state, to grant to Iran the same rights along the Danube which Czechoslovakia itself enjoyed? He did not think that would be proper. Perhaps some of his colleagues held an opposite view, but in any case it would be a mistake to discuss or decide the question on its merits without the participation of the Danubian states themselves. He was willing to propose that the Four Powers declare that they consider it essential that free and open navigation on the Danube be issued to the vessels and goods of all states. This wording seemed to him to meet the main point, and the other points should not be discussed in the absence of the riparian states. However he had no objection to the Deputies discussing in greater detail the wording of the proposed declaration.

Mr. Byrnes said that he had been hoping that they could reach an agreement and get rid of this question. He wanted to ask his friend whether he had any reason to believe that either Yugoslavia or Czechoslovakia had changed the views which it had held before the war and would now wish to discriminate.

M. Molotov had no information on that subject.

Mr. Byrnes said he had heard nothing to indicate that those states had changed their views. He did not wish to refer the question to the Deputies since they could not come to any decision on it. Why could it not be brought before the Peace Conference where Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would be represented? If they had objections to the proposal and wished to employ discriminatory practices, they would say so then. If not, then they and the other states concerned could join in an agreement to write the principle of non-discrimination into the peace treaties.

Mr. Bevin said that he felt that in this case M. Molotov ought really to try to meet the views of the British Delegation. He had accepted M. Molotov’s position in regard to excluding the matter from the peace treaties because it was a matter which concerned also the riparian states. He had accepted two of the amendments proposed by the Soviet Delegation. But now M. Molotov, in proposing to suppress the words “on terms of complete equality”, wished to wipe out the principle, which had been observed and of which Great Britain had enjoyed the advantages for many years. It was unjust that Great Britain, after being forced into war with a country, should come out at the end of it in a worse position than before the war with respect to the position of that former enemy country on this great international waterway. What the U.K. Delegation was really striving for, if there was objection to having a provision on the Danube in the peace treaty, was to have the Council of Foreign Ministers declare it essential that the principles of free navigation and non-discrimination would be honored. He did not want to accept a solution which would reward a country like Rumania for going to war against the United Nations. He wished also to remind the Council that Czechoslovakia was a party to the pre-war treaty and had never denounced it. So far as he knew Czechoslovakia was a party to it now. He had never had any indication that Czechoslovakia desired to denounce it. He did not object to having the Deputies try to find suitable wording if the principle in question were accepted. He would want that wording to show clearly that in making this declaration the Four Powers on the Council had agreed to work together to put the principle into effect.

M. Molotov said that he believed that the example he had given, Czechoslovakia and Iran, showed that this was not a simple question which the Council could decided without the participation of the Danubian countries, including Rumania and also several Allied countries. Therefore, the Council should not take a decision which would prejudice any later settlement to be made with their participation. The question might be left aside, since it was not connected with the peace treaties, until some time after the conclusion of those treaties. It would be desirable if some agreement could be reached at the present meeting without referring the matter to the Deputies, but he did not mind the idea of referring to the Deputies the job of working on the first sentence of the draft declaration. The Soviet Delegation was willing to accept unchanged the second sentence of the U.K. draft proposal. It had the following words to suggest as a redraft of the third sentence: “The Four Governments, for their part, recommend that the governments of the riparian states take steps in accordance with the above.”

Mr. Byrnes said that he disagreed with the view that a provision on the Danube had no place in the peace treaty with Rumania. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had proved by their action in past years and in accordance with treaties to which they were parties, that they believed in the principle of free and open navigation on the Danube on terms of complete equality. Rumania was an enemy state. When drafting the Rumanian peace treaty, the Council should require Rumania to cooperate with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in continuing to observe the principle of free and open navigation on terms of equality. Other states beside Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had an interest in this question. The President of the United States had stated at Potsdam that, because we believed that a settlement on the basis of the principle stated above would contribute to the peace of the world, the United States was deeply interested in this question; this was not a particular interest, but a result of our general interest in world peace. Rumania was a party to the treaty which had established free and open navigation on the Danube. Rumania had gone to war against the Allies. Now, after the war, should Rumania be placed in a position where it could discriminate against other nations, in a position which it did not have and did not ask for before the war? There was no reason why Rumania or any other state should object to this principle unless it was determined to practice discrimination. If it was determined to do so, there was all the more reason why there should be included in the treaty a provision which would clearly require Rumania to observe the principle of free and open navigation and to avoid any discrimination.

Mr. Byrnes wished the U.S. position to be clear. When Mr. Bevin had made his proposal, he (Mr. Byrnes) had said that if it was agreed to, he would be willing to waive his insistence on the inclusion of a clause in the peace treaty. But he had said that if the proposal was not acceptable, he would revert to the former position. Mr. Bevin’s proposal had not been accepted; therefore he wished to state that the American position was that the principle should be written into the peace treaty. If there was any disagreement about it, then they could take the question to the Peace Conference and have it discussed there by all the interested states, which would make known their views for or against it.

Mr. Bevin said that the difficulty about M. Molotov’s proposed redraft of the third sentence of the British proposal was that under it the Four Powers would not even agree, for their part, to act in conformity with the principle stated above. The U.K. Delegation thought that the sentence should read as follows: “The Four Governments, for their part, will act in conformity with this principle and will also take the necessary steps to secure the adherence of all the riparian states of the Danube to this declaration.” Put that way it would really be a test of the good faith of the four powers represented here.

M. Molotov said that he would think over that language.

Mr. Bevin said that if it were found acceptable, then the only outstanding unagreed point in the declaration would be the phrase “on terms of complete equality”. He asked M. Molotov to think that over too. If it could be settled, the Council would have succeeded in disposing of a very awkward point.

M. Molotov said that as he understood it, the Soviet Delegation proposed that a first step be taken, on the grounds that it would not be possible to take any further steps to elaborate the matter without the participation of the Danubian countries. The U.S. and U.K. Delegations, on the other hand, took the view that the Council should not confine itself to this one step but should take several steps. They had not reached agreement, and there was nothing left to do but pass on to the next item.

Restoration of United Nations Property in Rumania

M. Molotov thought that it would be wise to defer consideration of the subject of United Nations property in Rumania until a decision had been taken on the similar article in the peace treaty with Italy. (All delegations agreed.)

Rumanian Assets in the Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers

M. Molotov said that the next point concerned Rumanian Assets in United Nations Territory, Article 26 of the draft treaty with Rumania. The Soviet Delegation would like to suggest the following text, following generally the American text, which was not proposed as a final wording but as a basis for agreement in principle: “Each of the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to seize, retain, liquidate or take any other action with respect to all property, rights and interests within its territory which on the date of the coming into force of this treaty belonged to Rumania or to Rumanian nationals, and to use such property or the proceeds thereof to such purposes as that Power may desire within the limits of its claims against Rumania or Rumanian nationals, primarily to pay Rumanian debts, other than claims fully met under other articles of the present treaty. All Rumanian property or the proceeds thereof in excess of the amount of such claims shall be returned.”⁴⁷

Mr. Byrnes said that the proposal was acceptable to him.

Mr. Bevin said that it had been difficult to follow, but that he thought it was all right.

M. Molotov said that it was the same text which they had already discussed in connection with the Italian treaty.⁴⁸

Mr. Bevin said that subject to checking it, he thought it was acceptable.

M. Molotov suggested that they pass on to the next item, and if Mr. Bevin had any amendments to make to the Soviet proposal, they could come back to the question.

General Economic Relations: Civil Aviation

M. Molotov said that the next item was Paragraph (c) of Article 33⁴⁹ on General Economic Relations. The Soviet Delegation suggested that the language suggested by the Soviet Delegation be adopted. In view of the fact that this question affected the essential interests of Rumania, the Soviet Delegation considered it incorrect to place on the same footing civil aviation, commerce, industry, shipping, and other business activity. The inclusion of civil aviation could not be accepted. The Soviet Delegation proposed that its own suggested text be accepted since it contained no mention of civil aviation. To include reference to civil aviation was unacceptable in principle since that was a question which affected the sovereignty and national interest of a state.

Mr. Bevin said that this raised a ticklish point. It was Chicago and Bermuda all rolled into one.⁵⁰

M. Molotov said that those agreements were binding only on their signatories.

Mr. Bevin asked whether there was an intention behind all this, that while the Allied States gave freedom to others, those other states might discriminate against the Allies or might favor one against all the rest. Was that the intention? It certainly looked like it. He could not help having certain suspicions as to what lay behind the Soviet attitude. He wished to ask what objection there was to the language of the U.S. proposal: “It is further understood that this paragraph shall not apply to civil aviation, but Rumania will grant no exclusive or discriminatory right to any country with regard to the operation of civil aircraft in international traffic and will afford all the United Nations equality of opportunity in obtaining international commercial aviation rights in Rumanian territory.”

M. Molotov said that the American proposal restricted the sovereignty of Rumania in the most vital question of national interest. This was, of course, unacceptable.

Mr. Byrnes said that he thought there must be a misunderstanding. How did M. Molotov reach the conclusion that civil aviation would affect the national defense of any country?

M. Molotov said that it was not possible to impose on a small country by force one’s own aviation, even though it might be called civil aviation. The country in question should be left free to decide for itself. To impose such conditions on it would be extremely dangerous.

Mr. Byrnes said that under the language of the American proposal no one could force anything on Rumania. M. Molotov must have misunderstood it. Rumania could refuse any proposal regarding aviation rights. All the American text said was that Rumania would not grant exclusive rights to any one country, thus discriminating against other countries, but would treat all of them alike.

M. Molotov said that it was possible to imagine a situation where Rumania was willing to grant civil aviation rights to the United States but might not be willing to grant them, for example, to Turkey. Was it possible to require a small state to accept the civil aviation of all countries or none? That would be an act of violence. The choice should be left to the country in question.

Mr. Byrnes said that the position of the United States was that it would not ask for exclusive rights, but if it had certain rights under a reciprocal agreement, and then Turkey came along and asked for the same rights, there was no reason why Turkey should be discriminated against.

M. Molotov asked if there were any more remarks, and then said that no agreement had been reached on this question and they should go on to the next point on the agenda.

Transport, Shipping and Civil Aviation

M. Molotov said that the next item on the agenda was Article 34 on Transport, Shipping and Civil Aviation.⁵¹ The Soviet and American Delegations had suggested the deletion of this article. Was the British Delegation pressing for its retention?

Mr. Bevin said that it included a very important point on multilateral agreements. Rumania had been a party to these agreements, such as the Load Line Convention and the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea. What was to happen now? Was Rumania to be considered a party to those agreements again, or to be free of its obligations under them? If he could be sure that those Conventions would be revived automatically by the coming into force of the peace treaty, he would be quite happy and would not insist on the British proposal, but he believed that from the legal point of view it was doubtful whether Rumania’s obligations would be revived. He was particularly anxious to have revived those Conventions which dealt with the safety of men. All the other powers were parties to those Conventions. He was, however, willing to let the matter be held over for later consideration, perhaps at the Peace Conference, until he could get a definite legal view on the subject. He felt sure that no one wished to have Rumania left free to violate such Conventions. It had taken a long time to get these rules established. Therefore, he would like to reserve his position in view of the legal doubt. Paragraph (4) concerning civil aviation was another safety measure. He, could not understand why his colleagues wished to have it dropped out of the treaty. It would require Rumania, if it participated in international aviation, to observe the rules. That was important for safety on international flights both for Rumania and for other countries.

M. Molotov remarked that a similar article proposed for the Italian treaty had been found unnecessary by the delegations of the U.S., the. Soviet Union and France. Only the British Delegation was pressing for it. Such a proposal went contrary to the decision to exclude the article dealing with multilateral treaties. In the light of these circumstances he could not understand the insistence of the British Delegation.

Mr. Bevin said that he could now understand M. Molotov’s feelings. He (Mr. Bevin) was now standing out alone with three delegations against him. It made him feel that minorities were some times right.

Mr. Molotov agreed, but remarked that there were exceptions to that rule.

Mr. Bevin repeated that he was still in doubt on the legal point of the revival of these treaties for Rumania. As an old trade unionist he could not bring himself to give up conventions dealing with the safety of men. Unless he could be sure that Rumania’s obligations would be revived, he did not wish to give up his proposal, but for the moment he would not press it. If he should later be satisfied on the legal point, he would not raise it again.

It was agreed to defer discussion of Article 34.

Rumanian Assets in the Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers

M. Molotov asked whether Mr. Bevin could now agree to the Soviet proposal on Rumanian Assets in the Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers.

Mr. Bevin said that the wording seemed to be slightly different from that which had been agreed for the Italian treaty. He would be quite happy if the Economic Committee would undertake the task of harmonizing the two versions. He understood that there was no difference in principle. He therefore agreed in principle, subject to checking the language.

M. Molotov remarked that Mr. Bevin had been very helpful in accepting this point, even though he had attached conditions to it.

Mr. Bevin said that as a matter of fact he had been trying to set an example to M. Molotov in the hope that the latter would come up to it some day.

M. Molotov said that he was always trying but that there were too few examples.

Limitation of the Bulgarian Navy

M. Molotov said that the next subject was the Limitation of the Bulgarian Navy, on which a report had been presented (CFM (46) 155).

The Council agreed to accept the limitations proposed by the Naval Committee.

Franco-Italian Frontier

M. Molotov suggested that the Council now take up the question of the Franco-Italian frontier. The Soviet Delegation had previously asked that this question be deferred. The Committee of Experts on Hydro-electric Power had now finished its report on guarantees which France might give to Italy in connection with the cession of the Mont Cenis area.⁵² The Committee had arrived at a unanimous decision. It had accepted the proposals of the Soviet member concerning the establishment of a special French-Italian committee of supervision. The Soviet Delegation had studied once again all the documents on the subject of the Tenda-Briga area and had completed its study. It now proposed that the following decision be taken:

1. That the Council accept the proposal of the French Delegation for a rectification of the Franco-Italian frontier in the Mont Cenis area (Rectification No. 2) and in the Tenda-Briga area (Rectification No. 4) as indicated in the French memorandum of February 4, 1946 (CFM (D) (46)15);⁵³

2. That the Council approve the recommendations and guarantees set forth in the reports by the special committees which studied the above mentioned sectors of the French-Italian frontier and include those recommendations and guarantees in the corresponding articles and annexes of the peace treaty with Italy.

Mr. Byrnes said that when he had proposed that the Committee be directed to prepare the text of guarantees, it had been his idea that these guarantees would be included in the treaty. He thought that they should be included in the body of the treaty in connection with the decision on the territorial question.

M. Molotov said that that was exactly what, the Soviet Delegation had suggested.

M. Bidault wished to thank his colleagues, the Soviet Delegation, for now agreeing with the French view, the U.S. Delegation for having supported that view, and the U.K. Delegation for having given its agreement. He remarked that this was the virtue of silence, and then added that it was also by virtue of the fact that the French proposals were well founded. On the point of the inclusion of the guarantees in the treaty, there would certainly be no difficulties on the part of the French Delegation.

Miscellaneous Points in the Economic Clauses of the Treaty With Rumania

M. Molotov noted that the Council had exhausted its present agenda and recalled that it had been said at the beginning of the meeting that they might at this point proceed with other questions if time permitted. If there was no objection, he wished to call the attention of his colleagues to Article 31 in the Rumanian Treaty which dealt with the Renunciation of Claims. On this point there was a British-American proposal. The Soviet Delegation had suggested that the Article be deleted, but since a similar article had already been accepted for the Italian Treaty, the Soviet Delegation had no objection to including it in the Rumanian Treaty. (This was agreed.)⁵⁴

Mr. Byrnes asked whether the Deputies could be instructed to include such a provision also in the Hungarian and Bulgarian treaties. (This was agreed.)

M. Molotov suggested that they look at Article 23 of the Rumanian Treaty dealing with Restitution.⁵⁵ He wondered if agreement could be reached on Paragraph 2 of Part II. There was a Soviet proposal which read as follows: “The Rumanian Government and the Government of the country which is entitled to restitution may conclude agreements in lieu of the provisions of the present Article.” There was in this Article also a point dealing with the Burden of Proof with respect to identifiable property. The Soviet Delegation was willing to accept the American proposal on this point as formulated in document CFM (D) (46)139, Part III, Paragraph 1. Finally, there was another point in Paragraph 3 of Part III of CFM (D) (46) 137⁵⁶ which said “that all reasonable expenses incurred in Rumania in establishing claims, including the assessment of loss or damage, shall be borne by the Rumanian Government.”⁵⁷ The Soviet Delegation was willing to accept the American proposal.

M. Molotov suggested that the Council consider and take decisions on those three points. To sum up, they were the following:

1. The Soviet proposal concerning bilateral agreements on restitution between the Rumanian Government and individual United Nations Governments.

2. The American proposal on the Burden of Proof.

3. The American proposal dealing with reasonable expense for the assessment of loss or damage.

He wished to mention that the proposal on the Burden of Proof came originally from the French Delegation, but that its wording came from the American Delegation.

Mr. Byrnes said that that indicated the existence of a Franco-American bloc.

M. Molotov remarked that the bloc was being joined by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Byrnes said that on the question of restitution, the U.K. Delegation had asked on the previous day for an opportunity to consider the Soviet proposal. He wondered whether Mr. Bevin now agreed.

Mr. Bevin asked whether it applied only to the Rumanian Treaty and not to others.

M. Molotov said that that was the case.

Mr. Bevin said that, when he had read through all the papers on this point, he had rather favored the suggestion of the U.S. Delegation that the clause be dropped entirely from the treaty. However, if it was limited only to Rumania, he did not feel strongly about it and would be willing to agree in principle, subject to drafting.

M. Molotov asked whether Mr. Bevin had accepted with a reservation.

Mr. Bevin replied that he had agreed in principle, but would like to see the final text so that he could be sure it was all right.

M. Molotov then asked whether all three points which he had put forward had been accepted. (All delegations agreed.)

Dodecanese

Mr. Byrnes said that they should make it a good afternoon and settle the question of the Dodecanese.

M. Molotov said that the Soviet Delegation had no objection to that proposal.

Mr. Bevin asked whether M. Molotov had said that he agreed that the islands should go to Greece.

M. Molotov said that he had.

Mr. Byrnes asked for a minute or two to recover.

M. Molotov suggested that they make some other good agreements.

Mr. Byrnes said that they might settle the question of the colonies.

M. Molotov asked whether it could be settled on the basis of the American proposal of May 15 (CFM (46) 86),⁵⁸

Mr. Byrnes said that he believed that the Special Committee on the colonies was not yet ready to report and that it had better hold its regular meeting tomorrow. He understood from the American member, Mr. Cohen, that the other members had been considering the American proposal, and that therefore that question might have to wait until the next day for settlement.

Agenda

M. Molotov proposed that the Deputies draw up an agenda for the next meeting of the Council bearing in mind that it would continue to discuss the Balkan and Finnish treaties.

Mr. Byrnes suggested that the Deputies be asked to list also me questions outstanding on the Italian treaty.

M. Molotov said that the Italian questions had already been listed. For Bulgaria and Hungary there were not yet any general drafts. The Deputies should look into and work on that question in the course of the next day.

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.

41. For a list of persons present at this meeting, see the Record of Decisions, infra.
42. The agenda that is set forth here was circulated to the Council as C.F.M.(46) 158, June 27, 1946.
43. In C.F.M.(46) 158, the question of the Danube was set forth as a separate item, and the matters concerned with the Rumanian Treaty began with the question of the restoration of United Nations property.

44. Dated June 26, this document (C.F.M. Files, Lot M–88, Box 2063, CFM Documents) set forth the 7th Report of the Naval Committee which read, in full, as follows:

    “With reference to the naval limitations to be imposed on Bulgaria, the Naval Committee have agreed to recommend as follows:

    Tonnage limitation	7250	tons
    Personnel limitation	3500.	”

45. Neither printed.
46. Ante, p. 629.
47. The Soviet proposal quoted here was circulated to the Council as document C.F.M.(46) 162, June 27, 1946.
48. Reference here is to the discussion of article 71 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy at the Council’s 20th and 26th Meetings, June 17 and June 25, respectively. For the United States Delegation Records of those meetings, see pp. 509 and 617.
49. Article 33 of C.F.M.(D) (46) 182 is not printed, but see footnote 34, p. 637.
50. The reference here is to the International Civil Aviation Conference held at Chicago, Illinois, November 1–December 7, 1944, and the Anglo-American Civil Aviation Conference held at Hamilton, Bermuda, January 15–February 11, 1946; for documentation on these Conferences, see Foreign Relations, 1944, vol. ii, pp. 355 ff., and ibid., 1946, volume i.

51. Article 34 of C.F.M.(D) (46) 182 read as follows (brackets indicating unagreed language appear in the source text):

    “Article 34

    Transport, Shipping and Civil Aviation

    U.K. proposal

    • [(1) Upon the coining into force of this Treaty Roumania shall forthwith apply for admission as a Member State of the Central Inland Transport Organisation.
    • (2) The Roumanian Government undertakes in relation to all the United Nations to observe and give effect to the provisions of those International Conventions regarding transport to which Roumania was a party before the war and to accede to any new International Conventions or arrangements of a similar nature which may be concluded within a period of __________ years from the coming into force of this Treaty.
    • (3) In pursuance of the foregoing paragraph, Roumania reaffirms her adherence to and undertakes to observe the following Conventions regarding transport and shipping:

      a) The Convention and Statute of 20th April, 1921 on Freedom of Transit;

      b) The Convention and Arrangements regarding the Transportation of goods by Rail signed in Berne in 1923.

      c) The International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea 1929 and

      d) The International Load Line Convention 1930.

    • Roumania further undertakes to accede to the Convention and Statute of 9th December, 1923 on the International Regime of Maritime Ports.
    • (4) The Roumanian Government undertakes not to participate or allow participation in civil aviation outside her own territory until she is admitted to membership of the provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation or of the International Civil Aviation Organisation that will take its place.]

    Soviet and U.S. Delegations propose deletion of this article.”

52. Reference here is to C.F.M.(46) 159, June 27, 1946, p. 664.
53. Ante, p. 10.
54. Article 31 referred to here was subsequently included as article 29 in the Draft Peace with Rumania submitted to the Paris Peace Conference; for text, see vol. iv, p. 75. The equivalent article in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy had been discussed by the Council of Foreign Ministers at its 20th Meeting, June 17: for the United States Delegation Record of that meeting, see p. 509.
55. In the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania under consideration here, (C.F.M.(D) (46)182, not printed), article 23 consisted of a reference to document C.F.M.(D) (46) 139, June 5, 1946, p. 474.
56. Not printed.
57. The text agreed to here was subsequently included as article 24, paragraph 5, of the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania submitted to the Paris Peace Conference; for text, see vol. iv, p. 72.
58. Not printed.