CFM Files
United States Delegation Minutes
USDel(CP)(Bul/P)11
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Jordan of New Zealand) then rose and upbraided the Chairman for the manner in which he was conducting the meeting. He lamented that the Commission was still on Article 1, and said that the Australian Delegation reserved the right to go back to the Preamble. It looked as if it were all part of the Chairman’s five-year plan. The people in London were looking at this Commission, and they thought that the members were all squatters who were there in the Commission room because they didn’t have anywhere else to go. He, Mr. Jordan, had never seen anything like this before. He did not know how affairs were conducted in the parliaments of M. Kisselev’s country and countries like it, but it was clear that according to the rules he should put to the vote the sub-amendment to the Greek amendment, then the Greek amendment itself, then the original proposition, which was Article 1. The way the Chairman was running the meeting, he would die of old age before they got anywhere. After all, they had thirty-six amendments to consider and here they were still on the first article. Mr. Jordan had to admit that he was [Page 466] not very happy about the Chairman. He was there to help the Chairman and wished to help him. His present advice was that the Chairman should deal with the Greek amendment immediately. The Chairman answered that there was nothing strange about discussing at great length an important territorial question. The question of the Greek-Bulgarian frontier was a vital question which Mr. Jordan apparently did not understand. It involved a Greek claim to one-tenth of the Bulgarian territory which had always been Bulgarian. As for the reference to parliamentary procedure, there was full freedom of speech in M. Kisselev’s own parliament, and after questions were discussed, they were voted on and decided by a majority vote. Perhaps things were different in New Zealand where it might be that discussion was stifled. M. Novikov remarked that today was not the first day that the Vice-Chairman had spoken in such a way to the Chairman. He felt that if the Chairman and Vice-Chairman wished to discuss procedural matters, they should do so somewhere else than before the Commission in order not to waste time.