Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 9, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 37

The Chairman said that the Commission was now ready to hear the final defense, in brief and pertinent terms, of the various amendments submitted on Article 3. Those amendments relating only to the Italo-Yugoslav frontier would be considered first. Baron de Gruben (Belgium) recommended the establishment of a small drafting committee for Articles 3 and 4 but the Chairman suggested that this be deferred. At the request of the Australian and Yugoslav representatives the Chairman agreed to ask the General Secretariat to distribute (1) the Report of the C.F.M. Commission of Experts on Venezia Giulia, and (2) Observations of the Yugoslav Government on the Report of the Commission of Experts.57 M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) formally proposed the establishment of a subcommission to consider all amendments relating to the first part of Article 3, but in the face of obvious defeat finally withdrew his motion. He thereupon proceeded to the final defense of the Yugoslav amendment (CP(Gen)Doc 1U3), dividing his statement, however, into four parts geographically, and limiting his remarks this morning to the northern-most sector of the line, that is, the Kanal Valley. He merely elaborated on Yugoslav claims already advanced. He was not prepared to speak on the other three (southern) sectors of the Yugoslav line in today’s meeting.

  1. The Report of the Commission of Experts, C.F.M.(46) 5, April 27, 1946, is printed in vol. ii, p. 140. For a summary of the Yugoslav observations, C.F.M.(46) 42, May 4, 1946, see telegram 2142 (Delsec 458) from Paris, May 4, 1946, ibid., p. 224.↩