CFM Files
United States Delegation Minutes
CFM(D) (46) 112th Meeting
Present
| U.K. | ||
| Lord Hood (Chairman) | ||
| Mr. Sterndale Bennett | ||
| U.S.A. | France | |
| Mr. Dunn | M. Couve de Murville | |
| Mr. Reber | M. Seydoux | |
| Mr. Page | M. Laloy | |
| U.S.S.R. | ||
| M. Vyshinsky | ||
| M. Novikov | ||
| M. Stetsenko |
Report of the Special Commission for the Statute of Trieste (CFM(46) (D)186)67
Lord Hood stated that he understood that the Experts had agreed to a description of the French line.68 The Deputies must now decide how this report would be communicated to the Italian Commission and how the Deputies would pursue an examination of the U.S. proposals regarding this line.69 He hoped that the Experts might be instructed to examine these proposals. He suggested that the French Delegation explain Articles 3, 4, and 16.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he noticed that a previous mistake concerning the town of San Piedro had been rectified but the Report contained a mistake concerning the town of Merna. The French line passed betwen Merna and the highway leaving San Piedro to Yugoslavia and the cemetery of Gorizia to the Italians. The present line did not leave the highway in Italian territory and consequently was not in accord with the agreement. He proposed that the question of Merna be referred back to the Experts. This sector must be checked since the French line cut across road number 55 which should be left to Italy.
Lord Hood suggested that the Experts be instructed to look into the two proposals tabled by the U.S. Delegation.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he did not understand the proposal of the Chairman. Articles 3, 4, and 16 had been agreed upon. The U.S. Delegation was now proposing amendments to these Articles. M. Vyshinsky suggested that the Experts limit their work to rectifying certain areas. It would be inadvisable for them to discuss the U.S. amendments to an agreed-upon line.
Mr. Dunn stated that the Council of Foreign Ministers had agreed that the U.S. proposals would be placed before the Conference for consideration. He was not asking the Experts to look into them.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the U.S. proposals were amendments. One of them proposed that San Piedro be left to Italy.
Mr. Dunn stated that the U.S. proposals set forth the U.S. view on the French line. There was no question of amendments or changes. They adhered to the French line except for a few kilometers around Gorizia.
M. Vyshinsky maintained that the U.S. Delegation was endeavoring to change the French line. He wished the Merna section to be confirmed. But with respect to San Piedro the French line placed this town in Yugoslavia and now the U.S. Delegation was proposing that it be left to Italy. This was not right.
[Page 415]Lord Hood stated that it would be desirable for the Four Delegations to examine the proposals and to present one definite line to the Conference.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he desired that the Experts look into the Merna section. There could be no question of San Piedro as agreement had been reached on this matter. M. Vyshinsky wished to fulfill the decision of the Ministers. If any amendments were proposed to the French line they would have to be referred to the Ministers.
M. Couve de Murville suggested that the Experts meet tomorrow and study the modification of the French line as suggested by the U.S. Delegation. If changes were possible the four Experts could agree in advance. If no agreement were reached the matter should be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the Soviet Delegation opposed any changes or any amendments to the French line. If there were mistakes in this line they should be corrected. The Experts should not be authorized to study the American proposals.
Mr. Dunn agreed but recalled that the proposals had been placed before the Conference for study and decision. There was no need to refer them to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the Council of Foreign Ministers had not discussed the proposals. They should not be referred to the Conference before being discussed by the Council of Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Dunn stated that he had no intention of referring the proposals to the Ministers. They should be considered by the Conference.
M. Vyshinsky inquired whether the U.S. Delegation would support the proposals. He maintained that they were amendments and could only be supported if general agreement were reached on them by the Council of Foreign Ministers. No amendments could be supported by one of the Deputies unless they constituted new proposals. The American proposals did not. They had never been discussed by the Ministers. They could be discussed now but they could not be supported unless common agreement were reached on them.
Mr. Dunn stated that he was not asking that all the Deputies support the proposals.
M. Vyshinsky maintained that Mr. Dunn could not support them since they were amendments to agreed-upon Articles. If Mr. Dunn were loyal he would withdraw the proposals unless agreement were reached upon them. M. Vyshinsky opposed the Experts discussing any agreed-upon Articles or amendments thereto. They should only look into the Merna sector.
Mr. Dunn stated that he could not understand M. Vyshinsky’s argumentation. The Council of Foreign Ministers had agreed that [Page 416] the proposals would be put before the Conference for consideration. Did M. Vyshinsky now maintain that the U.S. Delegation could not support its own proposals? No objection had been raised to these proposals by the Council of Foreign Ministers and it had been agreed that they should go before the Conference.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he had never seen the proposals. There had only been a general discussion on them. He suggested that they be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. He stated that he must oppose the view that one Delegation had the right to support the proposal if common agreement had not been reached on them.
Lord Hood suggested that the meeting be adjourned.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he was very disappointed in the work of the Deputies. Mr. Dunn continually argued that certain matters were new proposals when they were in fact amendments. How could the Deputies continue on this basis? M. Vyshinsky wondered whether it was worth while for the Deputies to work under such conditions. They could not even agree on the simplest points.
The Deputies agreed to meet on Wednesday night.
The meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
- Not printed.↩
- See footnote 7, p. 46.↩
- The United States proposals are printed in the Draft Treaty for Italy, vol. iv, p. 1.↩