CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 29
The Commission spent the first hour discussing the Record of Decisions of the previous meeting. The Australian and Canadian delegations pointed out that the decisions relating to the Australian amendments to the Preamble [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.B.46] were not correctly stated in the Record. After considerable discussion the Chairman suggested postponing the approval of the Record until the Secretariat could correlate the stenographic transcript of the proceedings with the objections raised by the various members.
The Canadian Delegate stated that in the previous meeting the Chairman had suggested the holding of a joint session with the Rumanian Commission regarding Article 1, paragraph 2 (Transylvania) providing any delegation washed to hear the case of either Rumania or Hungary and if these countries had expressed a desire to be heard on the subject of the Rumanian-Hungarian frontier. He pointed out that the Chairman had read a letter in which the assumption had been drawn that Hungary did not wish to be heard. Yesterday, the Rumanian Commission had voted to hear both Hungary and Rumania on the question of the frontier. It was now appropriate to adopt the Chairman’s proposal that a joint session he held. He therefore proposed that the Chairman arrange the meeting, concluding that if any member desired, it could, after hearing the delegations of the two countries concerned, reopen Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Hungarian treaty. The Chairman pointed out that this section of the treaty had been adopted unanimously and he felt it his duty to defend decisions previously taken. He admitted, however, that the Commission could decide as it chose.
The Chairman then read to the Commission three letters from the Hungarian Delegation asking to be heard on (a) the Rumanian frontier, (b) the Czechoslovak amendments to Articles 1 and 4, and (c) all questions affecting territorial or political matters on which there were amendments.
[Page 324]General Smith (USA) agreed with the Chairman that it was difficult to reopen articles previously agreed upon. However, he would like to explain what was the understanding of the U.S. Delegation regarding the proceedings in the previous meeting and read from the Journal.97 He stated that there was a misapprehension concerning the desire of Hungary to be heard and that Canada had apparently withdrawn its motion on the assumption that Hungary did not wish to be heard on paragraph 2 of Article 1. He therefore reaffirmed his previous support of the Canadian Delegation who had now proposed that Hungary be given a hearing in a joint session. The French, Yugoslav and U.S.S.R. delegations all agreed that Hungary as well as Rumania should be heard in a joint session of the two Commissions, and the Chairman declared this proposal unanimously adopted. He pointed out, however, that this decision did not necessarily imply that paragraph 2 of Article 1 would be reopened.
The Commission then proceeded to examine Article 2 of the draft treaty and heard the Yugoslav Delegation’s argument for its amendment which was to the effect that the language of the Article was not explicit enough to assure rights in Hungary for citizens of Yugoslav origin [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.30]. It proposed that the following words be added to Article 2: “As well as the right to be taught in their mother tongue.” The Byelo-Russian Delegation supported the Yugoslav amendment but Viscount Hood (Great Britain) stated that the Yugoslav amendment had raised a much more important question than he had first thought and requested deferment of discussion on Article 2 in order that the amendment could be studied more carefully. The Commission then agreed that discussion on Article 2 would be deferred, the Czechoslovak Delegation dissenting.
The Commission then examined Article 3. M. Rasović (Yugoslavia) again proposed an amendment [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.U.31], this time to add a phrase to protect those Yugoslavs in Hungary who allegedly had been maltreated under the Horthy regime for their political views. Viscount Hood (Great Britain) stated the amendment as proposed was not clear and if written into the treaty might lead to misunderstanding. He wondered if Article 2 and Article 3 did not actually afford sufficient protection to cover the case and thought the amendment unnecessary. M. Couve de Murville (France) held similar views and stated that the French Delegation would be embarrassed to vote on the amendment as now phrased. M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) then suggested adjournment. The Chairman stated that the Commission would meet jointly with the Rumanian Commission the following day at four o’clock to hear the Hungarian and [Page 325] Rumanian case on the frontier question between the two countries, leaving until the next regular meeting of the Commission the examination of the frontier between Czechoslovakia and Hungary.