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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 4, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 61

The Commission continued discussion of the U.S., U.K., French and Soviet recommendations for reparation under Part B of Article 64 (CP(IT/R) Doc 34) [C.P.(IT/EC) R. Doc 34].³ Paragraph 3, which provided that bilateral agreements for deliveries from current production should avoid interference with the economic reconstruction of Italy and should not impose additional liabilities on other Allied and Associated Powers was criticized by M. Politis (Greece) as leading in practice to no reparation deliveries. He suggested the word “serious” might be inserted so the paragraph would read “avoid serious interference.” This suggestion was put to the vote and was lost 15 voting against, Australia, Ethiopia, Greece, India and Yugoslavia voting for. The first part of paragraph 3 (CP(IT/R)Doc 34) was approved, 18 voting for, Ethiopia and Greece voting against.

The question of supervision of reparation deliveries under Part B was taken up. There were two proposals, one that the Four Ambassadors should supervise the agreements concluded under paragraph 3 and the Australian proposal that a Reparation Commission be established made up of those countries receiving reparation under Part B (that is Albania, Ethiopia, Greece and Yugoslavia) plus France, the U.K. and U.S.⁴

M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) said the Australian proposal had already been defeated on August 28.⁵ The new proposal, he granted, was different in that the reparation commission would not have supervisory powers over reparation to the Soviet Union. He argued, however, that the purpose of the Reparation Commission was presumably to coordinate reparation deliveries, and if there were two different organizations with extensive functions regarding reparation this coordination was not likely to be achieved. He implied that the Australian proposal was an attempt to exclude the Soviet Union from a very important part of its executive responsibilities under Article 75 of the Treaty. Furthermore, he did not consider a commission made up of the claimants would be a good organization to settle differences between these claimants but would create further difficulties in the carrying out of reparation deliveries.

Mr. Wilgress said there were great difficulties in having two different bodies supervise reparation deliveries and this was why he had opposed a final vote on Part A of Article 64. However, in view of the fact this had been already done, he felt there was no alternative but to accept the proposal for establishment of a reparation commission to supervise reparation deliveries to countries other than the Soviet Union. Such a commission was preferable to review by the Four Ambassadors, in view of their heavy responsibilities and the technical character of the problems likely to arise.

Mr. Walker (Australia) said he would be perfectly willing to have the U.S.S.R. represented on the Separation Commission and the only reason it had been omitted had been because of the defense [difference?] with respect to reparation deliveries between Parts A and B. Paragraph 1 of the Australian proposal was put to a vote and carried 12 to 8, Byelorussia, China, France, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia voting against it. Paragraph 2A which established the composition of the Commission with the amendment to include the U.S.S.R. was approved 12 to 7 with one abstention, Byelorussian, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia voting against and France abstaining. Paragraph 2B which suggested that the United States should be president of the Commission was severely criticized by M. Aroutiunian who asserted that the Australian proposal was an attempt to have Italian reparation policy dominated by the United States. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) stated that he had intended to request that this paragraph be removed from the Australian amendment as the United States Delegation had no interest in being president of the Reparation Commission. However, in view of the totally unwarranted attack on the motives of the United States Delegation by the Soviet Delegate, the United States would abstain from any participation in this particular decision and would be content with the Commission’s decision.

The South African Representative proposed deletion of paragraphs 2B and 2D and the amendment of paragraph 2C to read “the Commission shall determine its own procedure and organization”. This amendment was carried, Belgium, Ethiopia, Great Britain, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the Union of South Africa voting for, Australia, Brazil, Canada voting against, the U.S., China, France, Greece and Poland abstaining, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia not taking part in the voting at all. Old paragraph C as amended was approved 12 voting for, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia voting against, China, France and Poland abstaining, and U.S.S.R. not participating in the voting. The remainder of the Australian proposal was voted on paragraph by paragraph and with the exception of paragraph 3C the votes were the same as Recorded above on paragraph 2C, that is, 12 voting for, 4 against, 3 abstentions and the U.S.S.R. not participating in the vote. Paragraph 3C which proposed certain penalties on Italy in the event of its failure to adhere to the reparation schedule was criticized by Mr. Thorp. He pointed out that there were no provisions anywhere else in the treaty for penalties and that the Commission should rely on the good faith of Italy to carry out its commitments under the treaty. Therefore, he proposed deletion of all of paragraph 3C except for the first sentence which provided that each government should report to the Reparation Commission on deliveries made in accordance with the approved agreements. This amendment was carried, the U.S., Belgium, Brazil, China, India and the Union of South Africa voting for it, France, U.K., Netherlands, Greece, Poland, and Czechoslovakia abstaining, Australia, Canada, Ethiopia and New Zealand voting against, Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia not participating in the vote. Paragraph 3C was put before the Commission as amended to be voted on. M. Aroutiunian objected on the grounds that the amendment had been carried by 6 votes. The Chairman said it would be for the Conference to decide as to whether 6 votes could carry the amendment in this case. Paragraph 3C as amended was then approved 11 voting for, China, France, Greece and Poland abstaining, Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. and Yugoslavia not participating in the vote.

3. For text, see vol. iv, p. 792.
4. For text of the Australian amendment, C.P. (IT/EC) Doc. 94, see vol. iv, p. 794.
5. The Commission had rejected Australian amendments C.P.(Gen)Docs.1.B.9 and 10 at its 5th Meeting, August 28; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see p. 305.