CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 47
After approving the Records of its 11th, 12th and 13th meetings, the Commission took up the only item on the day’s agenda, i.e., consideration of the text of the prepared additional Article 2a (Protection of Jews) submitted by the British Delegation (CP(Bul/P)Doc 8)61 in the light of the observations of the Bulgarian Delegation (CP(Bul/P)Doc 10).62
Mr. Jebb (U.K.) spoke in support, of the proposed new article, answering Soviet and Bulgarian criticisms of the British proposal by saying that, regardless of the rights accorded to Jews in Bulgaria at [Page 498] present, conditions might change and it was in any case desirable to leave no loophole or obscurity in the treaty which might deprive the Jewish population of protection. Replying to Soviet and Bulgarian questioning of British motives, he said that Great Britian wanted simply to help the unfortunate Jewish people.
M. Novikov (USSR), Mr. Bondar (Byelo-Russia) and Mr. Ristic (Yugoslavia) argued that the Jews needed no protection beyond that already accorded them in Bulgaria and that the new amendment was superfluous in view of the guarantees already provided in Article 3.
M. Roux (France) endorsed the British motives in principle, but did not believe the proposed article was necessary in the case of Bulgaria.
The British proposal (Article 2a) was adopted by 7 votes to 5 (USSR, Ukraine, Byelo-Russia, Yugoslavia, France), with one abstention (Czechoslovakia).
General Park (New Zealand) proposed that the Rapporteur be requested to prepare the Commission’s report for submission to the Plenary within a reasonable time and asked if the report and various articles treated in the Commission should be referred to the Legal and Drafting Committee to determine if they were in order. After some discussion, in which Mr. Caffery (US) supported the Ukrainian and Soviet view that it was for the Commission to decide which articles should be referred to the Legal and Drafting Committee, it was decided to hold the matter in abeyance pending the outcome of discussions which the Secretary General, M. Fouques Duparc, is having with the various Presidents of Commissions regarding the procedure to be followed in this regard.
- For text, mutatis mutandis, see footnote 71, p. 418.↩
The four-page Bulgarian statement dated September 18 concluded as follows:
↩“The Bulgarian Delegation is convinced that the British proposal, in the form in which it is submitted, could not serve any useful purpose. Its adoption would rather tend to inflict grave injury on the sovereign rights and dignity of Bulgaria, which aspires to live as a free and independent country, and might give rise to foreign interference in its internal affairs. The Bulgarian Delegation feels that the Bulgarian people has not deserved to be treated in this way. It declares that it accepts the political clauses contained in the Part II of the Draft Peace Treaty, clauses which Bulgaria is carrying out in conformity with the spirit which animates the policy of its Government. These clauses in its opinion are quite adequate to attain the purpose arrived at, and it consequently requests the Conference not to make any additions to them.”