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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 24, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 51

The report of the Subcommission (CP(IT/P) Doc. 62)²¹ on that part of the Yugoslav amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 U 5, paragraph 1b) defining the maritime frontiers of newly acquired Yugoslav territory in Istria was adopted.

The Commission resumed consideration of Article 17 (Italian colonies). The Representative of Greece submitted and spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment to Article 17, which replaced the original Greek amendment to this Article (CP Gen Doc. 1 J 4). The revised amendment reads as follows:

“To add to the second paragraph of Article 17 the following words:—

‘This Administration shall assure to the nationals of the Allied and Associated Powers the free exercise of fishery rights (including sponge-fishing) in the territorial waters of the Italian possessions in North Africa.’”

Mr. Claxton (Canada) said that his Delegation would support the present draft Article 17 as amplified by the Four-Power declaration on the Italian colonies (CP (IT/P) Doc. 65).²² He likewise supported the Ethiopian claims to Eritrea by expressing the hope that the Council of Foreign Ministers would decide to transfer this colony to Ethiopia. For the full text of the Canadian Delegate’s speech, see CP(IT/P)Doc. 74.²³ Dr. Quo (China) introduced and spoke in favor of the Chinese amendment to Article 17 (CP Gen Doc. 1 G 1) which recommends to the CFM immediate independence for Libya, or, alternatively, that limited trusteeship under the United Nations be created for Libya, with promise of independence. Dr. Quo likewise supported Ethiopia’s claim to Eritrea. Mr. Dunn expressed the sympathy of the United States Delegation with the Chinese objectives, recalling that the United States had taken the position in London that UNO trusteeship, looking toward ultimate independence, for the Italian colonies was the appropriate solution. Having in mind, however, the protracted discussions leading up to the CFM decision on the Italian colonies and now expressed in the present draft Article 17, the United States Delegation he said would be unable to associate itself with any recommendations to the CFM for a final solution at this time and expressed the hope that the Chinese Delegation would not press its amendment now. He concluded that as far as the United States Delegation was concerned, it wished to see these areas given their independence as soon as they were capable to receive it.²⁴ Sir Samuel Runganadhan (India) said that the first consideration of his Delegation with respect to the Italian colonies was the real wishes of the inhabitants of the territories. He argued against the position adopted by Sig. Bonomi (Italy), the Brazilian amendment (CP(IT/P)Doc. 73)²⁵ and the Australian amendment (CP Gen Doc, 1 B 7). He supported the Ethiopian claim to Eritrea as well as the Chinese recommendations with respect to Libya. He likewise approved of the New Zealand amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 M 1) referring decision on the final disposition of the colonies to the Assembly of the United Nations. He concluded that the Indian Delegation would support the CFM draft Article 17. Mr. Jordaan (South Africa) withdrew his Delegation’s amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 S 1) in the light of the Four-Power declaration on Italian colonies, which provided for reference of the colonial issue to UNO in the event the Big Four failed to reach agreement. He asked for an interpretation, however, of the declaration with respect to the phrase in paragraph 2 thereof “taking into consideration the views of other interested Governments”. He said the Government of South Africa considered that it was one of those interested governments. Mr. Jebb (U.K.) said that he hoped to have an answer to Mr. Jordaan’s question tomorrow after the meeting this afternoon of the Council of Foreign Ministers and suggested that a final vote on Article 17 and related amendments be postponed until tomorrow on that account. Colonel Hodgson (Australia) spoke in favor of his Delegation’s amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1 B 7). He concluded, however, that he would not press this amendment, since the expression of other Delegations in favor of draft Article 17 would indicate that the Australian amendment had little or no chance of success. He asked, however, that his views be recorded. For text of his statement, see CP (IT/P) Doc. 75.²⁶ The Yugoslav Delegate supported the Ethiopian claims to Eritrea. Baron de Gruben (Belgium) said that his Delegation would vote for draft Article 17 and against all amendments thereto. He raised a question on drafting of the present Article as it stood. Dr. Quo, in replying to Mr. Dunn, said that his Delegation would not insist on a decision with regard to the Chinese recommendations immediately, but in view of the fact that they were not inconsistent with the present draft Article 17, he urged that the CFM consider the suggestions contained therein in any final disposition of the colonies. M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) supported the draft Article 17 and attempted to rebutt the arguments advanced by the Australian Delegate. In conclusion, he asked the Commission to reject all amendments to this Article.

21. Not printed; for the text recommended by the Subcommission and adopted by the Commission, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 24, the Commission’s report, vol. iv, pp. 299, 309.
22. For text of the Four-Power Declaration, see C.F.M.(46) 221 (Revised), July 11, 1946, vol. ii, p. 899.
23. Not printed.
24. The text of Dunn’s statement was released to the press, September 24.

25. C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 73 contained the following proposed text for Article 17:

    “The final disposal of Italy’s territorial possessions in Africa, namely Libya, Eritrea and Italian Soinaliland, shall be determined jointly by the Government of the U.S.S.R., U.S.A., U.K. and France, according to the principles laid down in the San Francisco Charter and taking into account Italian interests in said territories, within one year of the coming into force of the present Treaty.

    Pending their final disposal, the said possessions shall continue under their present provisional administration.

    However, a fair share of this administration shall be entrusted to Italian officials, under control of the military occupation authorities, according to international law.

    Said provisional administration shall continue to apply the laws in force in these territories at the moment of their occupation.”

26. Not printed.