CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 52
The Commission resumed discussion of Article 29 (Renunciation of Claims). It approved a change in paragraph 3 concerning United Nations whose diplomatic relations with Rumania were broken off during the war and then unanimously approved Article 29 as a whole.45
The Commission then took up the U.K. and U.S. proposals for the insertion after Article 24 of a new article requiring Rumania to restore property and rights of persons who had been subjected to racial or religious discrimination.46 Mr. Gregory (U.K.) referred to the considerable history of discriminatory legislation and action taken by the Rumanian Government on racial and religious grounds. He thought that the written observations of the Rumanian Government as to the steps which had been taken to eradicate the discriminatory legislation were not satisfactory. He believed the U.K. proposal was necessary as a means of insuring the restoration of property to the victims of discrimination and of reminding future Rumanian Governments of this obligation. He said it was a counterpart to some of the political articles. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) set forth the differences between the U.K. and U.S. proposals. While both proposals required the return of property and rights, they differed as to what should be done when return was impossible. The U.K. proposal required full compensation. The U.S. proposal viewed the individuals concerned basically as Rumanian nationals and therefore required compensation in local currency on a basis no less favorable than that accorded to Rumanian nationals. The U.S. proposal also introduced a new concept in its third paragraph. This concerned the disposition of property and rights for which there were no claims, i.e., “heirless property”. To a large extent the loss of such property was the result of action by the state and it did not seem right that the state should be enriched [Page 556] by such action. The U.S. proposal therefore required that such property be turned over to IRO or any other organization designated by ECOSOC for relief and rehabilitation purposes in Rumania. This principle had already been adopted in neutral countries. Mr. Thorp asked that when a vote was taken it be divided between the first two paragraphs, which he regarded as an alternative to the U.K. proposal, and the third paragraph, which concerned heirless property. M. de Carbonnel (France) said that he supported the principle in both proposals and added that he preferred the U.K. proposal as far as the first part was concerned. M. Gusev (USSR) spoke in opposition to both proposals on the grounds that Articles 3 and 4 adequately covered the situation in connection with human rights and the repeal of discriminatory legislation. Moreover, Rumania had already taken sufficient steps to remove such legislation. M. Simic (Yugoslavia) agreed with Mr. Gusev’s remarks and noted that Rumania’s high population of 450,000 Jews indicated that persecution had not been as great in Rumania as in Germany and the other European countries.
The chairman then asked for further remarks and since there were none, declared the discussion closed and proceeded to put the U.K. proposal to a vote. At this point M. Gusev (USSR) intervened to ask what the relationship of the new articles to Articles 3 and 4 would be. Mr. Gregory (UK) and Mr. Reinstein (U.S.) replied that the proposals complemented Articles 3 and 4. M. Gusev (USSR) replied. M. Tchijov (Byelo-russia) then asked for the floor. Mr. Walker (Australia), on a point of order, observed that although the debate had been closed, a discussion on the substance of the proposal was taking place. M. Bartosh (Yugoslavia) made a lengthy speech defending M. Gusev’s speech as being in reality on a point of order. He proposed that the vote be adjourned until the relationship of the proposals to Articles 3 and 4 had been discussed with the Political Commission for Rumania, Mr. Reinstein (US), on a point of order, asked that the Commission vote on Article 29, as it had already started to do. The chairman ruled that Mr. Bartosh’s motion to adjourn discussion took priority. There were then further remarks by Mr. Walker (Australia), who opposed adjournment, and Messrs. Bartosh (Yugoslavia) and Gusev (USSR) who said the proposals would nullify Articles 3 and 4. The Commission then defeated the Yugoslav motion by a hand vote of 8 to 5 with 1 abstention. The chairman recognized Mr. Tchijov (Byelo-russia) and asked him to keep his remarks “in close connection with the vote”. Mr. Walker (Australia), on a point of order, requested the chairman’s explanation of this phrase which seemed to permit substantive speeches after debate had been closed by agreement. The chairman said that “speaking to the vote” had been [Page 557] previously practiced in the Commission and meant expressing an opinion in the shortest possible way as to whether or not a vote was going to be supported or opposed. He said that in the future it would be made very clear when discussion was to be closed. Mr. Tchijov (Byelorussia) supported the USSR and Yugoslav Delegations in opposing the U.K. and U.S. proposals. The Commission then approved the U.K. proposal, (B&F/EC) Doc. 26, by a hand vote of 7 to 6 with 1 abstention. The first two paragraphs of the U.S. proposal (B&F/EC) Doc. 37, which had the same general purpose as the U.K. proposal just approved, were rejected by a vote of 7 to 1, with 6 abstentions. The third paragraph of the U.S. proposal, regarding heirless property, was then approved by a hand vote of 7 to 5 with 2 abstentions.
- For text of the revised paragraph 3, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 29, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, pp. 434, 444.↩
- For texts of the proposals, see C.P.(Plen)Doc. 29, ibid., pp. 434, 441.↩