CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 44
The Commission began consideration of the boundary between the Free Territory of Trieste and Yugoslavia and related amendments. M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) spoke for an hour on this (the Southern) portion of the French line. His arguments included the economic necessity of close relations between Trieste and its hinterland (Yugoslavia); the alleged Slovene majority in northwest Istria and an attack against the British draft statute for the Free Territory. He deplored the shabby treatment that Yugoslavia would receive from her Allies by imposition of the French line as Yugoslavia’s western frontier. He reiterated a previous Yugoslav’s declaration that the French line was unacceptable and if adopted Yugoslavia could not sign the peace treaty. In this connection, he emphasized that the Yugoslav people would never understand its Government’s agreement to a frontier which required the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces from northwest Istria, “a part of Yugoslavia”, which had been liberated by the Yugoslav army, administered and occupied by it for over a year.
Mr. Jordaan (South Africa) spoke in support of the South African [Page 469] amendment to Article 3 (CP (IT/P) Doc. 21)19 (For full text of his remarks see CP (IT/P) Doc. 48).20 M. Busmann (Netherlands) also spoke in favor of the South African amendment. Mile. Gertrude Sekaninova (Czechoslovakia) supported the Yugoslav position and opposed the South African amendment.
- For substance, see the first item in Chapter IV of C.P.(Plen) Doc. 24, the report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 323.↩
- Not printed.↩