CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 52
The Chairman read a new draft of the Yugoslav amendment (1 U 32b),49 which required Hungary to return certain cultural objects and documents. The U.S. Delegate suggested that the Commission adjourn discussion in order that the members might have time to study the new draft.
The Commission unanimously adopted Article 20 regarding withdrawal of occupation forces. The Australian and Czechoslovak Delegations withdrew their amendments to Article 34 [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. [Page 560] 1.B.57 and C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.Q.15], which was then unanimously adopted by the Commission.
The Australian Delegate withdrew his amendment to Article 35 [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.B.58]. General Smith (US) explained that the U.K.–U.S. draft of Article 35 differed from the Soviet draft only in that the former provided for settlement in case of dispute. The Soviet Delegate contended, however, that these disputes should be settled on the spot; that international courts did not work fast enough; and that there was unnecessary danger to Hungarian sovereignty. The U.K. Delegate said a similar article had already been discussed in other Commissions. He hoped the three local diplomatic representatives would always be able to reach agreement. Nevertheless there was no guarantee in the Soviet proposal that disputes would not continue indefinitely. Reference to the International Court of Justice assured impartiality. The Czechoslovak Delegation supported the U.S.S.R. draft. The U.K.–U.S. draft was then put to a vote, with 8 members voting in favor and 5 against (Byelo-russia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia). The Soviet draft was defeated by the same majority. Article 35 was then adopted. The Ukraine Delegation reminded the Commission that the U.S.S.R. draft could go to the Plenary as a minority report.
The Australian Delegate stated that the Commission need not consider the Australian new article to come after Article 35 (CP Gen Doc. 1 B 59), which provided for a conference for reviewing the treaty. He wished his remarks placed in the Record and reserved the right to raise it in Plenary Conference should the Italian Commission approve a similar proposal (1 B 17). Then followed a discussion as to whether the proposed new article was in fact being withdrawn and if the Australian Delegate could reserve the right to raise it in Plenary Conference. The U.S. Delegate proposed adjournment in order that both procedure and substance might be considered more thoroughly.