CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 35
The record of the previous meeting was approved as well as a proposal by the General Secretariat to dispense with translations of lengthy argumentations when written texts in three languages were available.
The Commission resumed discussion of the first Czechoslovak amendment to paragraph 4, Article 1 [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1, Q.2], which had been postponed in the last meeting. Viscount Hood (U.K.) believed the implications of the amendment too sweeping, pointing out that the present wording could for that matter be interpreted to affect even marriages contracted since 1938. Though receptive to further explanations or a different phraseology, he felt the amendment unnecessary. The USSR Delegation requested that discussion on the amendment be deferred.
M. Slavik (Czechoslovakia) then supported the second Czech amendment [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.Q.3], a small territorial claim opposite Bratislava, which he described as a mere adjustment of the frontier. He stressed the economic justification for the territory, contending it was necessary for the proper development of the city and port of Bratislava, which when accomplished would contribute greatly to the economic life of the Danube basin. He disposed briefly of the [Page 382] anticipated objections by Hungary that the main highway to Vienna would be cut and that more Hungarians would by necessity have to be transferred to Czechoslovakia.
The Yugoslav and Ukrainian Delegations supported the Czech claim. After some discussion as to whether Hungary should be given an opportunity to state its case orally, it was agreed to invite the Hungarian Delegation into the Commission.
M. Sebestyen of the Hungarian Delegation then presented his Government’s views and requested the Commission to reject the Czech claim on the grounds that 1) Bratislava’s development had never been in the direction of the south bank and during the past twenty years the existing small bridgehead available to Czechoslovakia had not been utilized for this purpose; 2) the territorial claim was contrary to the Atlantic Charter and accepted ethnic principles and, moreover, the people living in the territory had no desire to be attached to Czechoslovakia; and 3) it would be a serious economic hardship to Hungary, particularly the problem of constructing a detour for the main highway to Vienna, which in any case would lengthen the mileage between Budapest and Vienna by 25 kilometers.
The New Zealand Delegation referred to a previous proposal by Australia that a subcommission be appointed to study the documentation. He thought a small commission of three to make a survey of the disputed territory on the spot would be more desirable.
General Smith (U.S.) moved adjournment.