CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 52
The Commission continued discussion of the question of full as opposed to partial compensation (Article 68 paragraph 4). The representative of Poland declared he was in agreement with the principle of partial compensation and with the principle of the Yugoslav amendment which proposed that compensation should be proportionately the same as adopted in the case of reparation [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.U.21], He argued that from the economic point of view there was no difference between reparation and compensation, and in fact he felt damage to United Nations property in Italy should receive less compensation than damage to United Nations property in the territory of United Nations.
Mr. Thorp (US) said he still believed there was a fundamental difference between reparation and compensation. In the former case, a clear loss was involved, in the latter a net gain for the reconstruction of the Italian economy. On the question of the amount of damage suffered by United Nations property in Italy, Mr. Thorp pointed out that the Soviet estimate of $250 million for U.S. property in Italy might be correct but that only $110 million of this was susceptible to damage. He suggested that twenty-five percent was a reasonable estimate of damage to United Nations property and that on the basis of the Soviet estimate of 100 billion lire worth of United Nations property in Italy, total damage would amount to a little over $100 million. This, while a burden for Italy, could not overwhelm Italy. In explanation as to why the U.S. Delegation had not proposed any special percentage of compensation, he said that the U.S. stood in rather a special position financially with respect to Italy, and had in mind a figure of 25 percent compensation as the percent it would ask if the issue merely involved the U.S. and Italy. However, the U.S. had not mentioned any percentage as it did not wish to influence in any way the decisions of the other delegations.
After some discussion the representative of Belgium moved a closure of the debate which was amended to allow the U.K. and USSR to speak and France to explain its vote.
M. Aroutiunian (USSR) suggested that Mr. Thorp’s remarks had been very peculiar in that he argued the case for full compensation but declared himself to be in favor of partial compensation. He implied Mr. Thorp had taken his position realizing that the vote would uphold the principle of full compensation.
[Page 559]M. Alphand (France) explained that the French asked for full compensation in cases where property had been subjected to special measures as enemy property and therefore would abstain.
The issue of full versus partial compensation was put to a vote and resulted in a tie, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, Great Britain, Greece, New Zealand, the Netherlands and the Union of South Africa voting in favor of full compensation, the U.S., Byelo-russia, Brazil, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, the USSR and Yugoslavia voting against full compensation, and France and India abstaining.
The principle of the Yugoslav amendment relating the amount of compensation to be paid to amount of reparation to be paid was lost 14 to 4, Yugoslavia, Byelo-russia, Poland and the Ukraine voting for, the USSR and Czechoslovakia abstaining.
M. Aroutiunian said he wished to adopt the U.S. suggestion for 25 percent compensation, and at Mr. Thorp’s suggestion the following proposal was put to a vote: “All those who approve some formula relying on 25% vote yes and those who can find no such formula no.” This was lost 12 to 5. The U.S., Byelo-russia, China, the Ukraine, the USSR voting for, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia abstaining and the other members opposed.
The principle of compensation amounting to 75 percent was then carried 13 to 5, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and the Union of South Africa voting for, Byelo-russia, China, the Ukraine, the USSR and Yugoslavia voting against, and the U.S. and Poland abstaining.