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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 9, 1946, 9:30 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 66

The Conference continued consideration of the Italian treaty. M. Molotov was in the Chair. The first delegate of New Zealand, Mr. Mason, said that undue emphasis had been placed on the differences in the Conference which had given an exaggerated impression of ill-will abroad. He recalled New Zealand sentiment that UNO should replace the CFM in responsibility for the treaties but said his Delegation would not press views already considered and rejected. He supported the joint Belgian-Dutch amendment to Article 10 (Italo-Austrian agreement on South Tyrol);¹⁷ the Australian amendment to the economic clauses providing for a reparations commission [C.P.(Gen.) Doc. 1.B.10]; sympathetic consideration of Greek demands and the internationalization of Trieste.

M. Fouques du Parc took over the Chair temporarily while M. Molotov spoke on behalf of the Soviet Delegation.¹⁸ He described as the principle task of the Conference the drafting of treaties which will establish a democratic peace. He described a democratic peace as one which would not permit those guilty of the war to escape punishment which would eradicate Fascism and all new varieties of it and which would strengthen democratic forces in the ex-enemy countries. There should be nothing in the Italian peace treaty, M. Molotov said, which would lead to Italy’s enslavement by more powerful states. He argued that the slight contribution which the Conference had made to the draft peace treaty was evidence of the importance of cooperation among the Big Four. One hundred million dollars reparations asked by the Soviet Union was a fraction of Russian war costs and thus proved magnanimity of USSR toward Italy in asking for a token payment only. He attacked the US, UK and French draft Statutes for Trieste and the French “compromise” proposal. He urged the Soviet 10 points for a Statute on the Conference,¹⁹ as well as the views of Yugoslavia. Finally he spoke in support of the Ukrainian-Polish amendment to impose obligations on Italy with reference to further defascistization programs and control of propaganda.²⁰ He rejected the theory of a division of Slav States versus western democracies, although he emphasized the independence and vigor of the “Young Slav republics” as compared with the “typical old democracies of the west”. He called on the Delegates to help conclude a democratic peace pointing out that this did not include imposing the will of some states upon others. He continued that, as had already been done on other questions, a compromise was necessary with respect to certain problems still outstanding. He concluded that if countries truly wished democratic peace they could find solutions which would meet the desires of all peace-loving nations.

The chief delegate of Norway, M. Lange, recalled that the Norwegian Delegation had not participated in the work of the Commissions on the Italian treaty. However, in order not to weaken the work of the Commissions the Norwegian Delegation felt it its duty to vote for amendments which had been adopted by the Commission since the Conference’s recommendations would have greater value for the CFM if they came with a greater majority. After careful consideration he said the Norwegian Delegation would vote in favor of the Commission’s recommendations on the Statute for Trieste. He referred with pleasure to the direct negotiations between the Italian and Austrian Governments with respect to the South Tyrol and said that his Delegation would vote for inclusion of a reference of this agreement in the Italian treaty. Norway, he continued, had favored a system of progressive disarmament for the defeated enemies and reliance upon the United Nations for their security but would not raise that question since the military clauses had been accepted by 20 delegations. M. Lange expressed approval of the policy of reparations to the limit of a country’s economy to bear, particularly for the relief of those countries which have been occupied by Italy. On the other hand, he supported the US-USSR proposal for 25 percent compensation for damage done to property of United Nations nationals in Italy (Article 68). With reference to Article 72 the Norwegian Delegation will vote for joint arbitral tribunals and with reference to Article 76 it will vote for the recommendation conferring upon the International Court of Justice the authority to review appeals of disputes arising from the treaty. M. Lange concluded that all the nations could contribute to the peace and stability of the world by accepting the final results in the treaty as drafted by the C.F.M.

Sir Samuel Runganadhan spoke in behalf of the Indian Delegation. With reference to the Italian colonies he said that the people of Africa must be assured their freedom and the possibility of choosing their own form of government. Thus the Indian Delegation had supported the Chinese amendment with respect to Libya [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.G.1]. He felt that the proposal of the C.F.M. with respect to the Yugoslav-Italian frontiers was the solution most likely to lead to peace and stability in that area. In considering the recommendations of the Commission with respect to a Statute for the Free Territory he suggested that the C.F.M. should consider limitation of the exercise of the reserve powers of the governor only after reference to the Security Council in each instance. He recalled that India had made no reparation demand on Italy but that the Indian Delegation would support an increase in the amount of reparations recommended for Ethiopia. He concluded with an expression of hope that the recommendations of the Conference would help the C.F.M. in drafting a treaty leading to enduring peace.

[Editorial Note—Plenary Conference Voting Procedure, October 9–October 14:

Rules of Procedure for the closing meetings of the Plenary Conference were adopted at the 28th Plenary Meeting, October 6; for the United States Delegation Journal account of that meeting, see page 686. For text of the adopted rules, C.P.(Plen) Doc. 25, see volume IV, page 811. These rules were explained by the Secretary General of the Conference at the 35th Plenary Meeting, October 9; for the Verbatim Record of that meeting, see infra.

The Conference considered the draft treaties in connection with the reports of the Commissions. Each article, in the form recommended by the competent Commission, was voted upon. The draft treaties and Commission reports are printed in volume IV; United States Delegation Journal accounts of the proceedings of the Commissions are printed in the present volume.]

17. For text of the Italo-Austrian agreement of September 5, see vol. iv, p. 810. The Belgian-Dutch amendment was proposed in C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 44 Revised; for text, see footnote 60, p. 501.
18. For text of Molotov’s remarks, see V. M. Molotov. Problems of Foreign Policy, Speeches and Statements, April 1945–November 1948 (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1949), p. 193.
19. For the comparative texts of the draft statutes, see C.P.(IT/P) (S/T)Doc. 8, Annex, vol. iv, p. 632. For substance of the Soviet 10-point proposal, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 22nd Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, September 14, p. 457.
20. For text, see the Verbatim Record of the 35th Plenary Meeting, October 9, p. 702.