CFM Files
United States Delegation Minutes
CFM (D) (46) 115th Meeting
Present
| U.S.S.R. | ||
| M. Vyshinsky (Chairman) | ||
| M. Gusev | ||
| M. Stetsenko | ||
| U.K. | U.S.A. | |
| Mr. Jebb | Mr. Reber | |
| Lord Hood | Mr. Reinstein | |
| Mr. Marjoribanks | Mr. Page | |
| France | ||
| M. Couve de Murville | ||
| M. Courcel | ||
| M. Beaumarchais |
Draft Treaty with Italy
Mr. Reber referred to Doc. CFM (D) (46) 191 on the French line and inquired whether there were any new observations.52
M. Couve de Murville stated that the French Delegation desired to circulate a description of the line. It could state in this connection that the U.S., U.K. and Soviet Delegations agreed on this line with the exception of the Merna area.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the French description should state that it was not in accordance with the map and that for this reason the Soviet Delegation opposed it. The map had been agreed upon whereas the CFM had never come to agreement on detailed description of the line. If there had been a mistake in the map this mistake should be changed.
M. Couve de Murville suggested that the description be circulated with the Soviet remarks.
The Deputies agreed that the experts should meet in order to endeavor to reach agreement on a draft description and acceptable statement.
[Page 489]Mr. Reber referred to Article 5 of the Italian treaty (boundary commissions) and stated that the U.S. Delegation still felt that the U.S. proposal was a new proposal. However in view of the remarks made by the Soviet Delegation the U.S. Delegation was not prepared to press for its adoption. It would not withdraw the proposal but it would not move it.
M. Vyshinsky inquired what would happen if some other delegation moved the U.S. proposal as presently worded.
Mr. Reber stated that he would be very surprised if another delegation moved it.
M. Vyshinsky maintained that the American proposal was an amendment to Article 5 and that no agreement had been reached on it. The U.S. Delegation should follow the principle adopted by the CFM and withdraw the proposal since it never had been agreed upon. It had never been discussed by the CFM.
Mr. Reber stated that the proposal had been placed before the Conference. However the U.S. Delegation would not press for it or move that it be voted upon. If some other Delegation pressed for a vote this would be the responsibility of that delegation.
M. Vyshinsky inquired whether the U.S. Delegation would vote for or against the proposal if presented by another delegation.
Mr. Reber stated that he would reply to M. Vyshinsky if such a move were made. He could not make any statement now.
Mr. Reber referred to the Yugoslav amendment to Article 5 (U.4) [C.P. (Gen.) Doc.1.U.4] and stated that it was similar to paragraph 4 of the U.S. proposal to that Article.
M. Vyshinsky stated that the U.S. proposal was a new proposal which might need some brushing up. He did not agree to it as it stood although it corresponded in parts to the Yugoslav proposal. He agreed that the Commissioners should be allowed to depart ½ kilometer from the line laid down in the present treaty but could not agree to the words in the U.S. proposal which followed the words “and provided that”. He did agree in principle to the first part of the U.S. proposal.
Mr. Reber explained that the U.S. proposal would permit the Commissioners to move the border ½ kilometer one way or the other but would not permit the Commissioners to move a town from one side to the other.
M. Vyshinsky stated that in view of Mr. Reber’s explanation he now agreed to the U.S. proposal. He suggested that the U.S. and Yugoslav proposals be referred to the Drafting Committee for comparison.
The Deputies agreed to this suggestion.
M. Vyshinsky referred to the British amendment concerning human [Page 490] rights. He recalled that the British had circulated an original proposal at a meeting of the Deputies but that this proposal had never been discussed.53 It was a pure amendment to an agreed upon article. Although agreement had not been reached on it at a meeting of the Deputies it had been moved and voted upon in several commissions. The Soviet Delegation considered this an outright infringement on the agreement of the CFM not to support amendments to agreed upon articles. The fact that Mr. Jebb had originally raised the question of the British amendment proved that he considered it an amendment. The action of the U.K. Delegation had started a bad precedent which would undermine the work of the CFM. In substance the text of the amendment added nothing new. In addition M. Vyshinsky could not understand why it was being proposed for the Balkan treaties and not also for the Italian treaty. The Soviet Delegation considered the amendment unnecessary and believed it to be a blow to the dignity of the signatory states. The U.K. Delegation by tabling the amendment and the U.S. and French Delegations by supporting it had proved their disloyalty to the Soviet Delegation.
Mr. Jebb stated that the U.K. Delegation considered the new articles on human rights to be a new proposal and not an amendment. As to its substance it did not consider it offensive to the signatory states. It might be a bit redundant but it did cover Jewish property. The U.K. Delegation had not suggested that it be included in the Italian treaty since the Jews, for reasons unknown to themselves, had not requested that it be included in this treaty. Either there were less Jews in Italy or else they did not feel apprehensive in that country. However if M. Vyshinsky desired the inclusion of the proposal in the Italian treaty, Mr. Jebb did not believe that the U.K. Delegation would object. Mr. Jebb continued that he was sorry to hear the charges of disloyalty. There would always be differences of opinion as to what constituted a new proposal or an amendment or as to when the members of the Big Four could act independently. But Mr. Jebb did not think that the situation would be improved if the Big Four indulged in polemics in the public press. He hoped that the Deputies could find some other means to assuage their differences.
M. Vyshinsky stated that Mr. Bevin had made certain remarks to the British press with which the Soviet Delegation could not agree. The Soviet press fought for the truth and would continue to do so. There could be no doubt that the British proposal was an amendment and M. Vyshinsky would be prepared to go before a court to prove his point. It was definitely connected with Article 3. The methods [Page 491] which were being used by the British were most unfortunate and if they wished to work on a friendly basis they should avoid such methods. The British might be able to use them on their colonies but not on the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was not a British colony.
M. Couve de Murville inquired whether M. Vyshinsky desired the proposal to be included in the Italian treaty.
M. Vyshinsky stated that he did not wish to see it in any treaty. It was an amendment and it was the moral obligation of the Deputies to oppose it.
Mr. Reber stated that the U.S. Delegation considered the article a new proposal and consequently felt free to vote for it.
M. Vyshinsky stated that as he understood the situation in the future each delegation could act in the same way. If the Soviet Delegation wished to see a proposal entered into a treaty it could call it a new proposal, and not an amendment, and act accordingly.