CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 32
The Commission adopted the first three paragraphs of Article 24 (United Nations Property), including the Polish amendment extending the time limit of the Rumanian obligation to cover claims arising after September 1, 1939 [C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.0.8]. Consideration of the Rumanian request that it not be obligated to cover claims arising during the period during which Northern Transylvania was occupied by Hungary, was postponed.17 The Commission agreed to request the Rumanian Government to submit more detailed information on this problem. The Commission agreed to alter its original procedure for consideration of the economic Articles and to take up each Annex with the appropriate Article.
At Mr. Thorp’s suggestion the Commission agreed to have a general discussion of paragraph 4 (compensation). Mr. Thorp explained that the Commission had dealt in an appropriate and just manner with two different types of property problems, one concerning damage to property in the territory of United Nations and one concerning property which had been removed by force or duress from the United Nations’ territory. In the first case reparation by payments of commodities [Page 344] was provided and in the second the ex-enemy was obligated to return, in good order, property removed by force or duress. The third type of property problem with which the Commission had to deal was that having to do with United Nations property which suffered damage in the territory of an ex-enemy. He emphasized that this type of problem deserved careful consideration by the Commission because there probably was no country represented at the Conference which did not have property in some one of the ex-enemy countries, while those countries benefiting from reparation or restitution were more limited. He pointed out that the Council of Foreign Ministers had attained considerable agreement on this whole problem. They had agreed that the property should be returned, free of any special charges; that if it could not be returned or had suffered damage, the owner should be compensated; and this compensation should be in local currency. The use of local currency in this case was a thoroughly logical and proper device. Although the owners would not in every case be satisfied with this solution, taking everything into consideration, it was the best suited to the problem, just as payment in commodities was best suited to the reparation problem. He stressed the difference between a payment in local currency and payment in goods which went outside the country, for in the latter case something was taken away and in the former it was merely a matter of rearrangement of the financial obligation within the country. Comparison between payments going out of the country and payments staying in, would be impossible, he believed, because the effects on both the paying and receiving country were completely different. The main question to be settled was the extent to which payments of compensation would prove a burden on the Rumanian economy, without reference to arrangements made to meet other property problems. The United States Delegation, Mr. Thorp said, did not feel these payments in local currency would be a great burden and would even contribute to the general reconstruction of the Rumanian economy.
- The Rumanian request was contained in C.P. (B&F/EC) Doc. 6, not printed.↩