CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 31
The Commission continued its consideration of the Australian amendment to Article 64A, para. 3, of the Italian Treaty [C.P. (Gen) Docs.1.B.9 and 10]. M. Vyshinsky (USSR) spoke in opposition to the amendment, concluding with the statement that it might be necessary to provide for some form of coordination of reparation deliveries. Mr. Wilgress (Canada) supported the amendment on the grounds that it would ensure equality of treatment for recipients, provide a means of formulating a program which would avoid interference with Italian economic reconstruction and avoid the imposition of additional liabilities on the Allied and Associated Powers, and make possible the reconciliation of the payment of reparation by Italy with Point 4 of the Atlantic Charter. The Byelorussian representative spoke against the amendment, and was followed by M. Vyshinsky, who asserted that para. 3 was in accordance with the Atlantic Charter. M. Alphand (France) asked M. Vyshinsky to elaborate on his remark that it might be necessary to coordinate reparation deliveries, asking in particular what organism he had in mind and referring to the Yugoslav amendment which provided that the recipient states would constitute a Reparation Commission for this purpose [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.U.17], a proposal which he thought might be considered in connection with Article 64B. M. Vyshinsky replied that this question might have to be considered, but that even if no special agency were created, any difficulties could be solved under Articles 75 and 64, providing for reference of problems to the Four Ambassadors. The Belgian representative supported the creation of a Reparation Commission with supervisory and coordinating functions, but thought that such a Commission should not negotiate agreements with governments fixing the deliveries to be made. The Yugoslav representative then said that in view of the earlier action of the Commission disapproving the Australian amendments and in view of the fact that the Yugoslav Delegation had never wanted anything but a supervisory body, it now withdrew those sections of its amendment which related to the creation of a Reparation Commission. Mr. Walker (Australia) spoke in reply and again urged the advisability of creating a Reparation Commission which would have at least coordinating functions. On a roll-call vote, the Australian amendment was defeated 13 to 7. Voting for the amendment were: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Greece, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa.
[Page 341]The Commission then agreed to hear, after concluding its consideration of Part A, oral statements by any states submitting claims under Part B, such statements to be limited to a half hour, and thereafter to hear a statement on Article 64 by an Italian representative. There will be no discussion of these statements. The Chairman announced that the Reparation Subcommission would hold its first meeting at 3:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).