Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 13, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 41

The Commission began consideration of the statute of the Free Territory of Trieste. M. Molotov opened the discussion by putting two questions to the American Delegation on its draft statute (CFM (46) 253).⁹⁶ (1) Regarding the phrase in the covering memorandum to the special and direct relationship between the Free Territory and the Security Council and the means necessary to guarantee the Territory’s integrity and independence. (2) Regarding alleged differences in Article 3 paragraph B of the U.S. and U.K. draft statutes.

Mr. Dunn replied: (1) by referring to paragraphs 2 and 6 (1) of Article 16 of the draft treaty and the relationship between these two paragraphs. The Governor, he said, becomes the instrument to implement the authority of the Security Council and he consequently must be in a position to give effect to the will of the Council. (2) by stating that he could find no difference between the British and United States proposals for Article 3 of the draft statutes.

The Representative of Czechoslovakia emphasized two considerations in connection with the statute (1) that the administration and form of government of Trieste must be determined by the people of the city and (2) that the relations between Trieste and its hinterland (Yugoslavia) must be cordial and close.

M. Couve de Murville (France) said that the French draft statute was based on the following three considerations: (1) necessity of real independence for the Free Territory of Trieste (2) Trieste does not serve only local interests and must be placed in position to fulfill its mission as central European port (3) locally, passions have been aroused and it will be difficult to form a government according to normal procedures. It will, therefore, be necessary, he said, to combine universal principles of free elections and control by the Security Council. Mr. Hodgson (Australia) argued that the Security Council did not have authority nor was it capable of assuming the responsibility envisaged by the C.F.M. and advocated the course outlined in the Australian amendment to Article 16 (CP (Gen) Doc. 1B6).

Mr. Bennett (U.K.) reviewed the areas of agreement between the four drafts and then discussed the fundamental problems on which there was disagreement, usually between the U.S., U.K. and French drafts on the one hand and the U.S.S.R. and Yugoslav drafts on the other. On the fundamental divergencies, such as the power of the Governor and the independence of the territory, he explained and defended the British draft and pointed out the inconsistencies and dangers in the Soviet and Yugoslav drafts.

The Chairman’s efforts to hold two meetings tomorrow hi order to clear up general discussion on the statute before next week were defeated by M. Vyshinsky who refused to be hurried through this portion of the treaty.

96. C.F.M. (46) 253, August 9, was also designated C.P. (IT/P) Doc. 40, September 13. This document, the Report to the Paris Peace Conference by the Special Commission on Trieste of the Council of Foreign Ministers, included U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and French drafts for the permanent statute for the Free Territory. For text, see vol. iv, p. 592. Regarding the establishment and functioning of the Special Commission, see the following documents: the Record of Decisions of the 33rd Meeting of the CFM, July 3, 1946, vol. ii, p. 751; telegram 3554 (Delsec 727), July 19, from Paris, ante, p. 3; and telegram 3653 (Delsec 740), July 26, from Paris, ante, p. 19.