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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 16, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 43

The Secretary General of the Conference¹⁵ appeared to give the Commission his views on the procedural questions which had arisen at the preceding meeting. He stated that amendments submitted later than August 20 had been considered by other commissions which had given a liberal interpretation to the decision taken by the Conference on August 15. He said that the Greek resolution, proposing reference of the Greek amendment to the Military Commission, appeared to be a suggestion concerning procedure and that there should be no objection to the Commission adopting such procedure if it wished. The Chairman then said that it was clear that the Commission was entitled to decide for itself whether to consider the Greek amendment filed on September 7.¹⁶ The Commission decided by vote of 8 to 5 to consider that amendment. The following Delegations voted in the affirmative: U.S., Australia, France, U.K., Greece, India, New Zealand, South Africa. The following voted in the negative: Byelo-Russia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, USSR and Yugoslavia.

Brigadier Park (New Zealand) proposed the addition at the end of the Greek draft resolution of the words “or by any other means”. This would enable the Military Commission to recommend some other means of giving added security to Greece than by a transfer of territory. M. Diamantopoulos (Greece) accepted this amendment. A long discussion ensued on whether the Commission should vote first on the draft resolution or on the Greek amendment proposing a change in the frontier. The Yugoslav and Byelo-Russian Delegations believed that the Commission should vote first on the substance of the question of changing the frontier. They spoke in favor of maintaining the pre-war frontier as proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Soviet Delegation said that the Greek amendment was without any foundation, was calculated to endanger peace in the Balkans, and was not worthy of any consideration by the Commission. He proposed the adoption of Article 1 as it appeared in the draft treaty minus the annexed note. Mr. Hodgson (Australia) believed that the Greek resolution should be voted on first. He criticized the text of the resolution but said that his Delegation would support it since the views of the Military Commission would be helpful to the Commission in reaching its final decision. M. Roux (France) said that his Delegation still believed that a revision of the frontier in favor of Greece would be unwise but that he would vote for the resolution in order to have expert military opinion before the Commission when it made its decision. M. Pijade (Yugoslavia) attempted by various means to secure a vote on the substance of the frontier question rather than on the Greek resolution as drafted, but the Chairman ruled that the resolution should be voted first. The Soviet Delegation supported this ruling. When the Greek resolution was put to a vote, it was adopted by 8 votes to 5.¹⁷ The Delegations voted in the same way as they had on the motion to consider the Greek amendment and resolution as properly before the Commission.

During the course of the discussion the Vice Chairman, Mr. Jordan of New Zealand, took the occasion to reprove the Chairman for his method of conducting the meeting, saying that he was responsible for the slow progress of the Commission and that they would die of old age before Article 1 was disposed of. In reply the Chairman defended his conduct of the meeting and said that the long time spent on Article 1 was the consequence of the seriousness of the question under consideration and the fact that all Delegations had the right to speak freely on it. M. Novikov (USSR) suggested to the Chairman and Vice Chairman that in the future they discuss procedural matters somewhere else and not take up the time of the Commission. Mr. Caffery (US) proposed more frequent meetings to speed up the work. The Chairman announced that the next meeting would be held on the next day.

15. M. Fouques Duparc.
16. For text of the amendment, C.P.(Bul/P) Doc. 9, see footnote 63, p. 409.
17. For substance of the resolution, see C.P. (Plen) Doc. 22, the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Bulgaria, vol. iv, p. 478. The Military Commission considered the request at its 29th Meeting, September 28; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see p. 586.