CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 51
The Commission first discussed the questions to be asked Rumania regarding assets in Allied territory. The U.S. Delegation had requested data on Rumanian assets in territory transferred to other countries as a result of the war, as well as on debts owed Rumania by persons in such territory (e.g. Bessarabia). M. Gusev (U.S.S.R.) asked under what article of the treaty the U.S. was basing such a request. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) replied that the request was of course in reference to Article 26 (Property in Allied Territory) and was intended to remind Rumania of property which might otherwise be overlooked in supplying the requested information. However he [Page 533] said he had not had much sympathy with the proposed inquiry for facts in this connection in the first place, but had voted for it because another Delegation (Ukraine) had wanted it. If any other Delegation found the U.S. question embarrassing, Mr. Thorp said he would be glad to withdraw it, M. Gusev said Bessarabia had been returned to the Soviet Union in 1940, before the war, and was not an object of the present treaty. Mr. Thorp said he was content to withdraw his question, particularly since there seemed to be no doubt but that Bessarabia was in fact Allied territory and accordingly would be covered by the questions of the Ukraine Delegation as to Rumanian assets in Allied territory.
The Commission then discussed Article 27 (Claims against Germany) a non-agreed article. The Australian Representative raised again the question of restitution of Rumanian literary, artistic and historical property found in Germany. Mr. Thorp referred, as in the Italian Economic Commission, to the restitution proposal tabled by the U.S. in ACC27 Germany, and assured the Australian Representative that the same assurances the U.S. had given in the Italian Commission applied in connection with the Rumanian treaty. The U.K. and French Representatives gave similar assurances. Discussing the substance of Article 27, Mr. Thorp said the U.S. found it difficult to contemplate a situation where a few ex-enemies would be able to maintain their claims against Germany, while the Allies (under the Paris Reparation Agreement)28 and other enemies (e.g. Italy under the agreed article in the Italian treaty) had renounced all their claims. He therefore thought it necessary to have the renunciation provision as proposed by the U.S., U.K. and French Delegations. M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) then spoke in support of the Soviet proposal, urging that Rumania not be required to waive claims for debts owed to Germany (which arose largely out of the operation of the German clearing system and which he said constituted in effect looting). He amended the first part of the Soviet proposal to provide that Rumanian property rights would be restored “in so far as no other joint decisions are taken by the Powers signatory to the Armistice …” The Netherlands Representative pointed out that the occupied countries had also suffered from the German clearing system and that it would be very unjust if Rumania should be given more favorable treatment than those countries, with respect to debts. The Czech Representative said the Allies had renounced their claims against Germany in the Paris Agreement only after having received reparation shares. But Rumania’s claim for reparation had not even been [Page 534] considered. The injustice was therefore in forcing Rumania to renounce all its claims, including reparation. Mr. Gregory (U.K.) urged the desirability of having the same provision in the Rumanian treaty as in the Italian treaty. M. Gerashchenko replied that at the U.K.’s request the Finnish treaty contained the same provision as the Soviet proposal for Rumania.
The Soviet proposal for Article 27 was then defeated and the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal was approved, by votes of 9 to 5.
Article 28 (Debts) was approved unanimously.
Article 29 (Renunciation of Claims) was then taken up. The Australian Representative said he would not press his amendment on restitution of Rumanian property taken by Allied forces. The Polish Representative then proposed a drafting change in paragraph 3, to conform with a change already agreed in connection with paragraph 7 of Annex 4 A.29 Although no objection in principle was expressed, it was agreed to defer further discussion pending circulation of the text of the Polish proposal.