CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 31
On the suggestion of the representative of Yugoslavia an Italian Delegation was invited to the Conference table to present its views on Articles 3 and 4 (The Italian-Yugoslav frontier and the frontier between Italy and the Free Territory of Trieste). The Yugoslav expressed the desire to be heard after the Italian had presented his point of view.
Sig. Ivanoe Bonomi (former Premier of Italy) referred to the Italian contribution in World War I in liberating Italians in Venezia Giulia from the Austrian yoke and also making it possible for the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes to form a new united state. In memory of that sacrifice, he said, Italy could not resign herself to the separation of Trieste from the mother country. Furthermore he felt that the ordered and durable existence of a Free Territory of Trieste was doubtful. The so-called French line,7 he said, was originally designed to provide that all territory on the west would be Italian and all territory on the east Yugoslav, but that subsequently a Free Territory of Trieste had been carved out of the part which should have remained to Italy thus establishing two frontiers, one between Italy and Yugoslavia and another between Italy and the Free Territory. Regarding [Page 332] the first frontier he asked the Commission to consider the following points: (1) the population of the upper valley of the Isonzo by its geography and highways is naturally linked with the Venetian Plain; (2) annexation by Yugoslavia of this Valley would place Italian industrial and hydro-electric plants, serving important Italian urban centers, under a foreign power who would have little interest in maintaining them; (3) if the Free Territory of Trieste is to have any guarantee of viability it must have a rail link to Central Europe which does not pass through Yugoslavia; (4) the French line in the environs of Gorizia must be corrected to avoid separating the city from its suburbs and aqueducts.
Assuming that the so-called French line were a proper ethnic line, which Sig. Bonomi could not accept, the ethnic balance was upset by the creation of the Free Territory on the Italian side of the line. This ethnic equilibrium could only be reestablished by enlarging the area of the Free Territory to the south and incorporating therein the western and southern parts of Istria, including Pola, with the British line as the eastern boundary of that area. He referred to Italian claims advanced in London in September 1945 to this area8 and the Italian character of the western and southern parts of the Istrian peninsula. The least requirement, he said, must be to include within any Free Territory established all that part of Istria which is indisputably Italian.
The suggestion of the Chair that further discussion on Articles 3, 4 and 16 be deferred until the next meeting was accepted.
The Commission then considered Article 6 of the Draft Treaty which was adopted without observation or objection.
M. Couve de Murville (France), in reply to a question from the representative of the Netherlands, explained the French position with respect to Article 7 of the Draft Treaty and answered Italian observations on the historic archives of the regions of Savoy and Nice (CP (IT/P) Doc. 12, Annex 1B).9 At the conclusion of his remarks Article 7 was adopted by the Commission.
In consideration of Article 8 the French representative referred to an Italian memorandum on this Article (CP(IT/P) Doc. 12, Annex 1E)10 suggesting that transit formalities through Italian territory between the French towns of Briancon and Modane should be determined by subsequent agreement between the two countries and that similar privileges be granted to an Italian railway passing through [Page 333] French territory connecting the Italian towns of Coni and Ventimiglia. He said that the French Government was prepared to accept these suggestions. Article 8 was, thereafter, adopted by the Commission without further observation.
The first paragraph of Article 9 (Mont Cenis) and the relative portions of Annex 2 were next considered simultaneously. Concerning Italian anxiety in the transfer of the water reservoir of Mont Cenis to the jurisdiction of a foreign power, M. Couve de Murville said that the French Government was prepared to extend the functions of the Supervisory Technical Commission, provided for in Section IV of Annex 2, to include inspection and make recommendations to ensure the safety of the Italian valley below. After obtaining the agreement of the other three sponsoring powers the French Delegate suggested that an appropriate paragraph in this sense could be added to Section IV of Annex 2 by the Legal and Drafting Committee which the Chairman accepted. Mr. Beasley (Australia) said that paragraph d, Section I of Annex 2 and paragraph g of Section II of the same Annex implied that Italy would be paying twice for the same service. The French representative explained that they were indeed two different services, one for the water supply to the hydro-electric plants in Italy and the other for electric energy emanating from French territory. M. Vyshinsky (USSR) complained that this was a useless question which wasted the Commission’s time and was evidence that the Australian Delegation had not carefully studied the text of the Draft Treaty. Both paragraphs of Article 9 and the entire Annex 2 (Mont Cenis Plateau and the Tenda-Briga area) were adopted by the Commission without further comment.
The Commission adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
- For information concerning the French line, see footnote 7, p. 46.↩
- See C.F.M.(45) 27, September 18, 1945, “Italian Peace Treaty: Yugoslav Frontier and Trieste, Statement of Views of Italian Government,” Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. ii, p. 232.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Virtually identical with Doc. 19(E), a component part of “Observations on the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy by the Italian Government,” vol. iv, p. 117.↩