CFM Files
United States Delegation Minutes
Present
| United States | —Secretary Byrnes |
| Senators Connally and Vandenberg | |
| Mr. Bohlen | |
| France | —M. Bidault |
| M. Couve de Murville | |
| M. Latour du Pain | |
| Interpreter | |
| Great Britain | —Mr. Bevin |
| Mr. McNeil | |
| Mr. Jebb | |
| Interpreter | |
| U.S.S.R. | —Mr. Molotov |
| Mr. Vyshinsky | |
| Mr. Gousev | |
| Mr. Pavlov |
After the photographers had left Mr. Bidault, who was presiding, said he would ask Mr. Bevin, on whose initiative this meeting was being held, to outline what he had in mind.
M. Bevin said that in looking over the agenda and the amendments that have been submitted he had felt there was merit in the suggestion first made by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, that the Council of Foreign Ministers might meet in an endeavor to [Page 314] facilitate the work of the Conference.86 He said he realized the delicacy of the situation and he wished first of all to avoid creating any impression among the other delegations that the four powers were in any sense attempting to usurp the rights of the Conference or to depart from the procedures adopted. At the same time, the Council had agreed to support in the Conference the agreed articles and to give full and adequate consideration to the suggestions put forward by the Conference. He thought there were some amendments which all four of them might regard as good and which, therefore, they could support at the Conference, but unless they knew each other’s minds they were all committed to vote against them. He, therefore, thought that it might be well to examine these amendments and if they could agree that they were desirable they could be supported at the Conference by the members of the Council. If no agreement was reached then the members of the Council were bound to stand by the original agreed drafts. He repeated that he wished to scrupulously respect all the rights of the Conference and the duty of the Council to give consideration to any of its recommendations, but he thought that the procedure he was about to suggest might facilitate the work and move the Conference from what he might term the polemic stage on to the real work of the treaties. He said he had been struck by Mr. Molotov’s statement in the Conference that if the Conference was to be a success they must think and speak in the same language and that in order to do this it was necessary to know each other’s approach to the amendments. He then circulated a paper containing three paragraphs.87
M. Molotov inquired with regard to paragraph two whether that meant previously agreed articles or new agreements on amendments.
M. Bevin replied that paragraph two referred to originally agreed to articles.
M. Byrnes said he washed to ask a question in regard to paragraph three as it was not quite clear to him. He said that if an amendment was supported by the members of the Council, but was not passed by the Conference, there would be no recommendation from the Conference when the Council assembled to draft the final text. Therefore, he did not understand why in paragraph three the statement was made that the Council would not be relieved of its duty to give full consideration to any recommendations. He said he thought what Mr. Bevin had in mind was that the opinion of the Conference in rejecting an amendment supported by the Council of Foreign Ministers should be taken into consideration.
[Page 315]M. Bevin explained that he had in mind that in such an event the news of the Conference should be taken into consideration.
M. Byrnes repeated that there would be no recommendation if the Council [Conference] voted down an amendment even though it had the support of the Council of Foreign Ministers. He said in the contrary case if an amendment was passed by the Conference with the support of the members of the Council, there would obviously be no difficulty. He said he thought that they had the same objective, but that the present draft did not make it clear and suggested that it might be changed to read “any action of the Conference regarding a proposed amendment whether or not such amendment was supported at the Conference by the members of the Council must be taken into full consideration by the Council in drafting the final text of the treaties”.
M. Molotov said that as everyone knew the Soviet Delegation attached special importance to the procedure of the Conference. He, therefore, felt that the first two paragraphs of the British suggestion which dealt with the work of the Council should be accepted, but he saw no need for paragraph three, which related to the consideration by the Council of recommendation[s]. That question had already been settled by the Moscow decision and the subsequent correspondence between the United States and French Governments, and he proposed, therefore, to eliminate paragraph three.
M. Bidault proposed that the draft might be made clearer if there were added the words that recommendations would be considered by the Council in accordance with existing agreements.
M. Byrnes suggested possibly in addition adding the words “and in conformity with the rules of procedure adopted by the Conference.”
M. Molotov said the Soviet Delegation could not agree since it was not in favor of some of the Conference decisions concerning procedure. He thought it would be well to stick to the Moscow decision and not to bring forth new proposals on which they could not agree.
M. Bevin then withdrew the third paragraph and the first two paragraphs were adopted with a few drafting changes (see attached annex).88
M. Byrnes then said he had another question that he wished to raise at this meeting.
M. Molotov said he likewise had a question.
[Page 316]It was agreed that since there was no formal agenda, any question proposed by a member could be discussed.
M. Byrnes said his question related to the facilitation of the work of the Conference. He had noticed that some amendments applied to all treaties and, therefore, appeared in three or four commissions where the same arguments and counter-arguments were advanced in regard to the same question. He said he thought this needless repetition in various committees was not helpful and if some plan could be found to avoid unnecessary argumentation in various commissions on the same question, it would be helpful.
M. Molotov said he did not think it would be wise or right to attempt to limit discussion at the Conference or to try to ensure that only pleasant speeches would be made.
M. Byrnes replied that there was no intention on his part to restrict any discussion; that he was one who had always been in favor of the most liberal attitude toward the discussion, but he did feel that the constant reiteration of the same points of view in three or four different commissions was unnecessary, and that it might be possible, for example, to have the General Commission discuss certain amendments which were common to all treaties and then have the amendments voted on without a repetition of the same discussion in the various committees. If there was objection to the General Commission for this purpose, it might be wise to have the discussion in say the Italian Commission, on which virtually all of the members of the Conference were represented.
M. Molotov said he was willing to discuss Mr. Byrnes’ question, but would like also to discuss the question of the General Assembly.
M. Byrnes said they could discuss the question of the General Assembly immediately after the question he had raised had been disposed of.
M. Bidault said that, as he understood Secretary Byrnes, he felt that time and energy would be saved if rather than discussing the same question in various commissions some plan might be worked out to avoid such repetition. He suggested that the Deputies be asked in going over the amendments to draw up a list of those which were common to all treaties.
M. Molotov said that Mr. Byrnes was right in his desire to accelerate the work of the Conference but that he thought the way to avoid unnecessary speeches and argument would be to have less amendments or more agreed amendments, and that it might be well to advise those who were engaged in putting in endless amendments to that effect. He had in mind particularly amendments which were not necessary and which stood no chance of being accepted. He said, in regard to [Page 317] the economic questions, there were only two commissions, and that, for example, it would be difficult to discuss in the Italian Commission economic questions relating to Finland, Hungary, et cetera, since the situation in each country was different. He thought each commission should decide the questions assigned to it. He was afraid that Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion might be interpreted as a desire to limit discussion and to avoid criticism of proposed amendments.
M. Byrnes pointed out that yesterday the Australian amendment[s] on reparations had been voted down fifteen to two after long debate in the Italian Economic Commission89 and the same question, the same arguments and counter-arguments had come up in the Balkan Economic Commission. He felt that this was unnecessary since it was obvious that the views of the governments represented on the Balkan Commission would be identical with the views that had been held on the Italian Commission.
M. Molotov said it was true that reparations affected all five treaties but that the conditions were different and that this was not a trivial question but a major issue. He repeated that if it were possible to avoid needless amendments time could be saved. He said that reparations were of great importance to the U.S.S.R. and to others and if amendments and arguments attacking the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers were to be presented they must be answered, and there could not be any restriction on this right to reply. He said that the Soviet Delegation had wondered why certain other delegations were showing so much activity in regard to the question of reparations and making long speeches and attempting to undermine the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. At times the Soviet representative singlehanded had to defend these decisions since the other members remained silent.
M. Byrnes repeated that there was no intention to limit discussion, but merely to avoid the repetition of the same speeches four or five times. He said, however, that if there was no agreement on the subject, he could stand hearing the same speeches over and over again; that he had ordered his winter clothes and that he was quite prepared to spend Christmas as a guest of Mr. Bidault.
M. Bidault thought that they should take these matters one step at a time. He understood that the question raised by Mr. Byrnes was being discussed by the Secretariat between the chairmen of the various commissions, and that he thought with Mr. Byrnes that possibly the Deputies in going over the amendments could pick out those common to all treaties and the Ministers could then look at them.
[Page 318]M. Molotov stated that the Conference was like a parliamentary body and he never heard of a parliamentary body that would try to treat as one item the differing problems of reparations in regard to Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Finland and Hungary. He said he might take that view if he were an American, to whom reparations from these countries was an insignificant matter which could be settled in one general discussion, but that he felt that it would be inconvenient to attempt to discuss this question in one heap. Since no agreement was reached, the question was dropped.
After approving the clean draft of the agreement on procedure for considering amendments (Annex 2)90 Mr. Molotov raised the question of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
M. Bidault said that he had seen Mr. Sobolev that day and that the Secretary General was naturally very anxious to know as soon as possible what the views of the various delegations here were in regard to the holding of the General Assembly. He said he had told Sobolev that he would give him the opinion of the French Government after he had consulted with his colleagues.
M. Molotov said that he had also talked with Mr. Sobolev, as well as with Mr. Spaak, the President of the Assembly, and that as he understood him Mr. Spaak had seen no obstacle to a postponement of the General Assembly until the end of December or the early part of January. He said the Council of Foreign Ministers had already asked for a postponement of the General Assembly for two or three weeks in order to permit the Peace Conference to complete its work.91 It was now apparent, however, that the work of the Conference was dragging and that although the Soviet Delegation was willing to do anything to accelerate its work, it was apparent that the Conference would not be through by the twenty-third of September. He said the Soviet Delegation did not favor a recess of the Peace Conference nor did it believe that it would be possible to hold both at the same time. The Soviet Delegation would not be able to send outstanding figures to the General Assembly and it would be even more difficult for the smaller countries. He, therefore, proposed that it be suggested that the General Assembly be postponed until November or December.
M. Byrnes said that he had talked to Mr. Lie several weeks ago who had laid considerable stress on the technical difficulties which a further postponement would involve. For example, the simple question of hotel rooms would be very difficult since the hotel proprietors had held [Page 319] these rooms in reserve for the General Assembly and had refused requests from other groups desiring to hold conventions in New York, and that if for the second time the Assembly was postponed, it would cause great difficulty for the Secretary General. The Secretary said he was in full agreement with Mr. Molotov on the undesirability of adjourning the Peace Conference, but he was afraid that, in addition to the technical difficulties of rooms which he had mentioned which were, however, secondary, a second postponement of the General Assembly would hamper its effectiveness and lower its prestige. He said he personally felt that both could go on at the same time. He recalled that in London where the first meeting of the General Assembly was held he had only been there ten days, Mr. Bidault less than a week and Mr. Molotov not at all while Mr. Bidault had only attended from time to time. He added that, furthermore, we must not forget that less than a majority of the 51 nations involved were represented at Paris and that there were 30 nations as against 21 which were not at the Peace Conference. He felt that to postpone the General Assembly because of the convenience of 21 would create a bad impression among the other 30.91a
M. Molotov inquired how much of the world’s surface was represented by the 21 nations.
M. Byrnes replied that although from the standpoint of size and population that might be true Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations states that the organization was based on the sovereign equality of all nations both large and small.
M. Molotov agreed that this was correct.
M. Byrnes added that there was another point which the Norwegian representative had mentioned to him and which Senator Vandenberg had again brought to his attention, namely, that the budget of the United Nations would have to be approved before January first, otherwise the organization would be without funds.
M. Molotov then said that perhaps it might be necessary to recess the Conference although he was against it since he felt it would be difficult to hold both at the same time. He said that the Soviet Union did not have sufficient personnel to have adequate representation at two international gatherings at the same time, and that this he felt was even more true in regard to the smaller nations.
M. Bevin said that he had discussed this point at length with his Government last weekend and they had come to the conclusion that it [Page 320] would be unwise to postpone the General Assembly. He felt, however, if it were not held in September, it would be necessary to postpone it until March if only for the fact that the Council of Foreign Ministers had the German and Austrian questions to take up after the Peace Conference. He felt also that postponement would be bad for the organization and that questions such as those dealing with the budget and others could not wait. He also felt that from the point of view of travel the winter would be a bad time.
M. Bidault said he had not consulted his Government on this point as he had thought there would be no difference of opinion. He said he saw the difficulties involved in either decision. He said there were difficulties with hotels in Paris as well and that once the Constitution is adopted some of the rooms now being used by the Conference would be needed for the second Chamber. He thought they should think it over and try to find a way out. For example, he thought possibly that the commissions could continue their work here without top people who could then be free to go to New York for the General Assembly.
M. Molotov said he thought that anything of that nature would in fact amount to a recess of the Conference.
It was agreed that the members would think over this problem. It was also decided that future meetings of the Council would be held in Mr. Bidault’s office and that it would be left to him to set the date of the next meeting.
Before leaving, Mr. Bidault said that he wished to raise one more question and that related to the Franco-Italian frontier. He said the French Delegation after further study had come to the conclusion that the village of Allivieto San Micheli with a population of four or five hundred need not be included in French territory. Since, however, he was bound by the agreed decision, which had been at the French request, he would like to have the permission of his colleagues to alter the line so as to leave this village to Italy. The other members of the Council agreed to leave that to the decision of France and to give their approval in advance.
- MacKenzie King made the proposal at the 5th Plenary Meeting, August 2, for the Verbatim Record, see, p. 86.↩
- Not found in Department files.↩
- In accordance with this decision, the Deputies convened on August 30 and met ten times between then and September 22. Extracts from the United States Delegation Minutes of certain of these meetings are printed post. In their consideration of amendments, the Deputies almost invariably agreed to oppose amendments to agreed articles. Certain significant deviations from that pattern and other important Deputies’ decisions are noted in annotations to United States Delegation Journal accounts of commission meetings that take the amendments in question under reference.↩
- The Economic Commission for Italy rejected C.P.(Gen) Doc.1.B.9 and 1.B.10, Australian amendments concerning reparations, at its 5th Meeting, August 28; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see p. 305.↩
- See footnote 92, p. 320.↩
- Regarding the initial decision by the Council of Foreign Ministers to request postponement of the meeting of the General Assembly, see the United States Delegation Record and Record of Decisions of the 38th Meeting of the Second Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers. July 9, 1946, vol. ii, pp. 836 and 850, respectively.↩
- Acting Secretary of State Acheson had reported in telegram 4423 (Secdel 761) August 27, to Paris, that delegates and alternates of the United States delegation at the United Nations were generally opposed to postponement (740.00119 Council/8–2746). The Secretary had replied in telegram 4296 (Delsec 866) August 28: “Please deliver the following message to Senator Austin: ‘I have already announced that I will oppose postponement of the Assembly.’” (740.00119 Council/8–2846)↩
- Although the minutes, p. 318, cite an “Annex 2,” the sources text contains a single unnumbered annex. It is presumably the clean draft of the agreement. Annex 2. The missing Annex 1 is probably either Bevin’s original three-paragraph proposal or the text of the agreement prior to drafting changes. In any case, the present annex contains the substance of the Council’s agreement.↩