CFM Files
Verbatim Record
C.P.(Plen) 36
President: M. Molotov
The President (Interpretation): The meeting is open.
Peace Treaty With Italy—(Continuation of voting)26
The President (Interpretation): The Plenary Conference will continue to vote on the Articles of the Peace Treaty with Italy.
Article 38.—The President (Interpretation): We now come to Part III of the Treaty concerning War Criminals.—Article 38.
(The President (Interpretation) invites the Chairman and Rapporteur of the Military Commission to come to the platform).
The President (Interpretation): Article 38 has been amended by the Commission.
[Page 728]I call on the Yugoslav Delegate.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): The Yugoslav Delegation has no objections to this Article, but proposes that another vote should be taken on the paragraph which it suggested adding to the end of the Article. This amendment will be found on page 47 of the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, and is as follows:
“Albania shall also benefit by the provisions of this Article”.
We request that this amendment be put to the vote.
The President (Interpretation): I will put it to the Conference.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the voting was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R.
The amendment was rejected by 13 votes to 8).
I will now put Article 38 to the vote.
(Article 38 was adopted).
Article 39.—The President (Interpretation): We now take Part IV: Naval Military and Air Clauses.
Article 39 was adopted by the Commission without amendment. Any remarks?
(Article 39 was adopted).
Article 40.—The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 40?
(Article 40 was adopted).
Article 41.—The President (Interpretation): An amendment to Article 41 was unanimously adopted by the Commission. Any remarks?
(The amended Article 41 was adopted).
Article 42.—The President (Interpretation): I call on the U.S.S.R. Representative to speak on Article 42.
M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The original text of Article 42 stated that the Pelagian Islands (Lampedusa, etc.) shall be and shall remain completely demilitarised.
But a small correction was made, and only the word “demilitarised” was left, so that the word “completely” does not appear in the text. The Military Commission discussed this point, and considered that the word “demilitarised” was sufficient.
I therefore consider that this slight amendment should be made to Article 42.
[Page 729]The President (Interpretation): If there are no objections, the Article will be put to the vote as amended.
(Article 42 was unanimously adopted).
Article 43.—The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 43?
(The Article was adopted).
Article 44 and 45.—The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Articles 44 and 45?
(The Articles were adopted).
Article 46 a). The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 46 a)?
(The Article 46 a) was adopted).
Article 46 b). The President. (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 46 b)?
(The Article 46 b), was adopted).
Article 47.—The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 47?
(The Article 47 was adopted).
Article 48.—The President (Interpretation): Any remarks on Article 48?
Mr. Hodgson (Australia)—Mr. President, the Australian Delegation wishes to record its abstention on Article 48.
Mr. Theron (Union of South Africa): The South African Delegation wishes to associate itself with that.
The President (Interpretation): Are there any other remarks?
(Article 48 was adopted with these reservations).
Article 49.—The President (Interpretation): The amendments to this Article by the Commission have been unanimously adopted.
Any remarks on this Article?
(Article 49 was adopted).
Article 50.—The President (Interpretation): The Commission adopted two paragraphs of Article 50, and also made an amendment to paragraph 6. The Commission was unanimous.
Are there any remarks?
(Article 50 as amended was adopted).
Article 51.—The President (Interpretation): The Commission has unanimously adopted an alteration to paragraph 2 of Article 51. Are there any remarks on this Article?
(Article 51 was adopted).
Article 52.—The President (Interpretation): The Commission has not made any alteration to this Article. Any remarks?
(Article 52 was adopted).
Articles 53 to 62.—The President (Interpretation): Articles 53 to [Page 730] 62 have been adopted unanimously without alteration by the Commission.
Is a separate vote on each Article requested?
Mr. Hodgson (Australia): We do not ask for a vote to be taken Article by Article, but we should like it to be recorded that the Australian Delegation will abstain on Article 58.
The President (Interpretation): The Australian Delegation’s request has been noted. Any other remarks?
(Articles 53 to 62 were adopted).
Article 62 A) The President (Interpretation): Article 62 A is a new Article adopted unanimously by the Commission. I put it to the vote. Any objections?
(Article 62 A was adopted).
Article 63.—The President (Interpretation): Article 63 has been adopted unanimously by the Commission, without alteration. Any objections to this Article?
(Article 63 was adopted).
Economic Clauses. The President (Interpretation): We have now completed the consideration of the Articles concerning the military clauses. We shall now proceed to consider the Articles dealing with economic clauses.
(At the request of the President, the Chairman and Rapporteur of the Economic Commission for Italy came to the platform).
Article 64.—The President (Interpretation): No alteration was made in paragraph 1 of section A.
Are there any remarks? (Paragraph 1 was adopted).
In Paragraph 2, points a) and b) have not been amended. Any remarks?
(Points a) and b) were adopted).
The Commission made an addition to point c) which was adopted unanimously. I put to the vote the text with this addition (Point c) as amplified by the Commission was adopted.
The Commission made no comment on Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Any remarks?
(Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 were adopted).
A sixth Paragraph was added by the Commission. I put it to the vote.
(Paragraph 6 was adopted).
We now pass to Section B.
Paragraph 1 and 2 were adopted unanimously by the Commission.
Viscount Hood (United Kingdom): Paragraph 1 of Section B) of this Article does not contain any reference to the exact figure of the reparations for the four countries mentioned in this paragraph.
[Page 731]The United Kingdom Delegation suggests that, after voting on Paragraph 1 of Part B, the Conference should vote on the British proposal adopted by the Economic Commission, to fix the aggregate figure for the reparation due to the four countries in question, at 225 million dollars. The United Kingdom Delegation also suggests that the Conference should confirm the vote unanimously adopted in the Economic Commission that the reparation payments to Ethiopia should be fixed at 25 million dollars. The Delegation suggests in conclusion that a third vote be then taken to decide that the balance of 200 million dollars should be equally divided between Greece and Yugoslavia.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I believe that the suggestion of the United Kingdom Delegation would involve us in a method which is not of the simplest. We first vote on the total amount, then on the share to be allocated to one of the countries, and lastly, on the division of the balance between the two others. This seems to me very complicated.
There is a much simpler way, namely, to take the countries specified one by one, and to vote on certain figures proposed for those four countries. One advantage of this method is that it is clear and simple; moreover it does not—like the British proposal—exclude one of the four countries. Otherwise we should not be voting on the reparation to be given to Albania, which would not be loyal.
The Plenary Conference must be allowed to vote on the question of Albanian reparation. Let me remind you that the voting in the Commission on this question was divided 10 votes to 10. We must therefore take a vote in the Plenary Conference on this point.
M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation thinks that the method of allocating reparation to Yugoslavia and Greece, as proposed by the United Kingdom Delegation is unfair. We are considering the question of reparation payments to be made to Greece, Yugoslavia and Ethiopia.
Without mentioning absolute figures, I wish to point out that a figure must first be fixed for Albania in the same way as for Ethiopia, further, the proportion of reparation payments to be made to Yugoslavia and Greece should be, not as the United Kingdom Delegate has suggested in the proportion of one to one, but of two to one. I shall have another occasion to refer to the absolute figures.
The President (Interpretation): The Chairman of the Economic Commission tells me that, the Commission considered the problem in the order as set out in the Article, namely, beginning with Albania, and then taking the other countries. He considered that the Plenary should adopt the same order. We will take the vote in this order; beginning with Albania.
[Page 732]M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): The Yugoslav Delegation associates itself with the proposal made in the Economic Commission to fix the amount of Italian reparation payments to be allocated to Albania at 25 million dollars. We ask that this proposal be put to the vote.
M. Couve de Murville (France) (Interpretation): The French Delegation renews its proposal made in the Commission, to allocate a sum of 5 million dollars to Albania. If the Yugoslav proposal is put to the vote first and not adopted by the Conference. I ask that the proposal of the French Delegation be put to the vote.
Viscount Hood (United Kingdom): The U.K. proposal is that Albania should receive no dollars. If the Yugoslav and French proposals are rejected, I ask that the United Kingdom proposal be then put to the vote.
The President (Interpretation): I put the Yugoslav proposal to allocate 25 million dollars to Albania, to the Conference.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstentions: China, Ethiopia, Norway.
(The Yugoslav proposal was therefore rejected by 12 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on the French proposal for 5 million dollars.
M. Fisa (Czechoslovakia) (Interpretation): The Czechoslovak Delegation proposes 10 million dollars.
Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.) I should like to ask whether, or not either of these Amendment[s] was proposed in the Commission?
The President (Interpretation): This Amendment for granting 10 million dollars as reparation to Albania was not submitted to the Commission, and consequently cannot be voted on.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I think that when figures are being considered, we cannot treat such Amendments in the same way as amendments which have a different meaning. The amendments do not contradict one other [another?]: 10 millions are a part of 25 millions (laughter). Consequently, we can consider this Amendment.
The President (Interpretation): I believe that such a proposal would be supported by several Delegations; unfortunately, we have [Page 733] adopted certain rules for voting; I cannot, therefore, put this proposal to the vote, because it would conflict with the Rules of Proceedure. We shall now vote on the French proposal for allocating 5 millions to Albania.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, India, Poland.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, United States, Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Norway.
The Proposal was rejected by 12 votes to 7, with 1 abstention).
The President (Interpretation): We shall now vote on the U.K. proposal.
Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.) I do not quite understand what we are voting on. I should like to have the text of the proposal in head [hand?].
The President (Interpretation): The U.K. proposal is in favour of not fixing any amount of reparation for Albania. Have I understood it rightly?
Lord Hood (U.K.): The United Kingdom proposal is that Albania should receive no reparation payments under Article 64.
The President (Interpretation): I put the proposal to the Assembly.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, India, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Abstention: Norway.
The President (Interpretation): Consequently, the proposal is not adopted: as there are 10 votes for, and 10 against, with 1 abstention.
The Council of Foreign Ministers will therefore be free to decide the matter as the Conference has not taken any decision. We will now take the question of reparation for Ethiopia. Are there any proposals?
The Commission decided to allocate 25 million dollars to Ethiopia. Are there any objections?
The Delegate of India: I move that a sum of 35 million dollars be allocated to Ethiopia for reparation.
The President (Interpretation): This proposal was submitted to the Commission; the Plenary can therefore vote on it. We shall first vote on the proposal of 35 million dollars, the most favourable to Ethiopia.
[Page 734](A vote was taken by roll-call). (The result of the vote was as follows:
Against: Belgium, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R.
For: Australia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, India, Poland, Yugoslavia.
Abstention: Norway, Ukraine.)
The President (Interpretation): The proposal is not adopted; there are 12 votes against, 7 in favour, with 2 abstentions.
We shall now vote on the proposal to allocate 25 million dollars to Ethiopia as reparation.
Are there any objections?
M. Terje Wold (Norway): The Norwegian Delegation wishes to explain that it will abstain from voting on the amounts to be allocated to Ethiopia and the other three countries mentioned in Article 64 B.
The President (Interpretation): We note the Norwegian Delegation’s explanation, and if there are no other objections, we shall consider that the amount of 25 million dollars for reparation to Ethiopia is adopted.
We now come to reparation for Greece. Are there any proposals?
Mr. Alexander (U.K.): I move that the sum of one hundred million dollars be allocated to Greece.
The President (Interpretation): Are there any objections to the proposal for 100 million dollars?
Mr. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation has already made a proposal regarding the ratio of reparations to be paid to Greece and Yugoslavia. It seems to me that we might do this before giving definite figures. It would be useful to determine the relative proportion of reparations to be paid to Greece and Yugoslavia, and then to deal with the question of the actual amount.
The President (Interpretation): Mr. Vyshinsky has proposed that, before voting on the total amounts to be allocated to Greece and Yugoslavia, we should determine the ratio of these two amounts. I am told that the Economic Commission has examined the question under this aspect. The Chairman of the Economic Commission considers that the Plenary Conference should also deal with the question in this order, that is, first, to determine the proportions of the amounts allocated to Yugoslavia and Greece, before taking a decision as to the total amount.
Mr. Alexander (U.K.): I am quite agreeable and I move that the proportion be equal for both countries.
[Page 735]The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on the proposals in their order. The first proposal is to determine the proportion of reparations to be paid to Greece and Yugoslavia, this proportion being 2 to 1.27 We will first vote on this motion. (The vote was taken by roll-call)
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Abstained: Norway.
The proposal is therefore rejected by 14 votes to 6, with 1 abstention).
I will now put to the vote the U.K. proposal to give an equal share of reparations to Yugoslavia and Greece.
(The vote was taken by roll-call)
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, N. Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.)
The proposal is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 2, with 5 abstentions. What are the proposals concerning the reparation to be allocated to Yugoslavia?
Mr. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): The Yugoslav Delegation requests that we vote on the proposal which they already made in Commission for fixing the amount of reparations at 400,000,000 dollars.
The President (Interpretation): In the Commission, a vote was taken on the amount of 400,000,000 dollars, regardless of the proportions to be given to Yugoslavia and Greece. Are there any objections to our proceeding in this manner?
Mr. J. F. Byrnes (U.S.A.): I should like to know what has become of the third proposal, fixing the amount of reparations for Greece. Before we proceed to fix the amount for Yugoslavia, I think we should discuss the amount of reparations to be fixed for Greece. It is third on the list.
The President (Interpretation): Mr. Byrnes is quite right, we must, of course, first vote on the amount to be allocated to Greece, in accordance with the order in which the proposals were submitted. I [Page 736] have only one proposal, that of the U.K., fixing the amount of reparations to Greece at 100,000,000 dollars. If there are no other proposals, we shall vote on the U.K. proposal.
(The vote was taken by roll-call)
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R.)
The U.K. proposal is, therefore, adopted by 15 votes and 6 abstentions. Following the order chosen by the Economic Commission, we will now vote on the allocation to Yugoslavia of 400,000,000 dollars).
Mr. Alexander (U.K.): We have just been asked to take the vote in exactly the opposite order. We first decided upon the ration, that question was decided by the Conference vote for parity. We then fixed the amount of the reparations for Greece; it follows that the amount of reparations for Yugoslavia is necessarily the same. It was so decided by the Conference.
Mr. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): These are not “decisions” as Mr. Alexander says, but recommendations. The President has ruled that, according to the principle adopted by the Commission, the vote on the amount is independent of the vote on the ratio. There was no opposition when the President made this remark. Another reason is that the minority which voted against the parity proposal is not bound to abide by this proportion. We desire a vote on the amount regardless of the recommendation adopted by the majority. I think this is plain logic. I ask that the vote be taken on the amount of reparations to Yugoslavia which was proposed in Commission.
The President (Interpretation): When I suggested a vote on the proposal already made in the Economic Commission to allocate 400,000,000 dollars to Yugoslavia for reparations, I was referring to a precedent. The Economic Commission considered the ratio of reparations to Yugoslavia and Greece, apart from the question of the total amount. That is why I asked the Plenary Conference if there was any objection to proceeding in the same order.
Is there any objection to our voting on the amount of 400,000,000 dollars as reparation payment to Yugoslavia? If there are any, we cannot take a vote.
Mr. Alexander (United Kingdom): In the Commission the vote on the sum of 400,000,000 dollars for Yugoslavia was taken before the vote on the question of the ratio. Tonight, at the request of the Delegates [Page 737] and of the Chair, this Conference has taken a decision upon the ratio; and after having decided on parity between Greece and Yugoslavia, has also carried the sum of 100,000,000 dollars for Greece. Since both questions have been settled, it is illogical and impossible to vote again.
The President (Interpretation): If there is any opposition, I shall not put to the vote the proposal concerning the payment of 400,000,000 to Yugoslavia. I hope, M. Bebler, that the point is now quite clear.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I quite understand, but I do not think the proposal of the U.K. Delegate is quite logical, if he considers that after having adopted the motion for parity, any vote on the amount must automatically apply both to Greece and Yugoslavia. If this was the case, we should have begun by voting on the highest figure, as we did for the other reparation payments. We first voted on 25,000,000 then on 10,000,000, and so on. We should therefore have started by 400,000,000 and worked downwards. We ask that a vote should be taken on this motion on which the Commission voted. A vote has been taken on the ratio, the majority adopted a ratio; but we ask that a vote be taken on the amount because we, as a minority, do not feel bound by your vote. This seems quite logical to me. Your logic consists in making the vote of the majority binding on the whole Conference.
Mr. Alexander (U.K.): We have voted according to a ruling of the President. I do not know what my friend thinks of logic, but I think his idea of parity is that one rabbit equals one horse.
The President (Interpretation): I must say that I have heard the views of the Chairman and the Rapporteur of the Economic Commission on this question, and they both consider it would be advisable to vote on the amount of 400,000,000 dollars and also feel that we should begin with a higher figure, whereas we have only voted on the amount of 100,000,000 dollars. There is a proposal for 400,000,000; we should therefore vote on the higher figure, and then work downwards. I repeat that the Chairman and the Rapporteur are in favor of this procedure.
Mr. Vyshinski (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): May I add one or two words? According to our rules of procedure, and apart from the decision of the majority, the minority is entitled to insist upon the Conference voting on a proposal, if such a proposal has been submitted to a Commission and voted upon. This is not a question of equality between horses and rabbits, but between human beings.
The second point is this: with regard to the substance of the question, Mr. Alexander seems to think that if the principle of parity has been adopted, and the reparations allocated to Greece also fixed [Page 738] at 100,000,000, it follows that the amount allocated to Yugoslavia is settled automatically. If the Yugoslav proposal is adopted, I do not believe in miracles,—but they sometimes happen,—and the amount was thus fixed at 400,000,000, this would imply that Greece would also receive 400,000,000.
The two countries would thus be given parity on the basis of 400,000,000, instead of 100,000,000. This argues in favour of voting on the Yugoslav proposal which the Soviet Delegation supports; we therefore propose a vote be taken on the amount of 400,000,000.
The President (Interpretation): All these considerations seem to prove that we had better vote on the amount proposed by the Yugoslav Delegation, that is, on the highest figure of reparations to be allocated to Yugoslavia. We will therefore vote on the amount of 400,000,000 dollars each to Yugoslavia and Greece.
(The vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium Brazil, Canada, China, France, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa, U.S.A., United Kingdom.
Abstained: Ethiopia, India.
The Yugoslav proposal was therefore rejected by 12 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): We will now deal with the next question: is there any opposition to the second paragraph?
(The paragraph was adopted.)
We will now deal with paragraph 3. This paragraph was adopted by the Commission by 18 votes to 2. Does anyone wish to speak?
(Paragraph 3 was adopted.)
The President (Interpretation): An Australian amendment to paragraph 2 [a portion of C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.B.10] was adopted in the Commission by 12 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions. Does anyone wish to speak on this amendment?
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): We oppose this amendment, and ask that a vote be taken.
Mr. Beasly (Australia): Is the connection quite clear to the Delegate of Yugoslavia when he raises the objection, for it appears in the report circulated that the distinction between the adoption of Section A and B is not quite clear, and that this is why he is raising the objection. Perhaps the Secretary-General could throw some light on this point.
The President (Interpretation): Does the Delegate of Australia [Page 739] insist on the text referred to being read out or does he consider that the explanations given are sufficient.
Mr. Beasly (Australia): It is a long reference. I do not want to waste the time of the Conference; if the Secretary-General would briefly explain the difference between parts A and B, this would be sufficient.
The President (Interpretation): I ask the Conference to vote on the Australian amendment to Paragraph 3.
Mr. Bartos (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): We do not see clearly the object of voting.
The President (Interpretation): There is an Australian amendment to Paragraph 3, of Section B. This amendment was adopted by the Economic Commission by 12 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions. It proposes the creation of an Italian Reparations Commission. I will put it to the vote.
(The vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
The Australian amendment was therefore adopted by 12 votes to 9).
The President (Interpretation): Does anyone wish to speak oh para. 4 of Section B? I will put it to the vote.
(Paragraph 4 was adopted).
(Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 were sucessively put to the vote and adopted).
Section C. The President (Interpretation): Section C is an additional one, which was adopted in Commission by 14 votes to 6. I will put it to the vote.
(The vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, South Africa, United Kingdom.
Section C was therefore adopted by 14 votes to 7).
Section D. The President (Interpretation): We now come to Section D. Paras. 1 and 2 are additional ones, unanimously adopted by the Commission.
M. Terje Wold (Norway): The Norwegian Delegation asks that it be inserted in the Minutes that it is voting for Article 64D subject to [Page 740] the explanation given in a written declaration to the Secretary General.
The President (Interpretation): This has been duly noted. Does anyone else wish to speak on Section D?
(Section D was adopted).
I will now put Art. 64 to the vote.
(Art. 64 was adopted)
Article 65. The President (Interpretation): Does anyone wish to speak on Article 65?
(Article 65 as a whole was adopted).
Article 66. The President (Interpretation): Does anyone wish to speak on Article 66?
(Article 66 as a whole was adopted).
Article 67. The President (Interpretation): The first two subparagraphs of Article 67 were adopted by the Commission without alteration. Sub-paragraph 3 is an additional one, adopted by 15 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): We oppose sub-paragraph 3, as adopted by the Commission, and ask for a vote. We also ask for a vote on the Yugoslav amendment proposing to alter the last sub-paragraph of Art. 67 which deals with German assets in Italy.28
The President (Interpretation): In accordance with the Yugoslav proposal, we will now vote on the amendment concerning the last part of Art. 67, as adopted by the Commission. I gather that M. Bebler would like us to vote on the amendment, as adopted by the Commission, and then vote on his own amendment.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): Yes, Mr. President.
The President (Interpretation): We will therefore vote on the amendment as adopted by the Commission, concerning the latter part of Art. 67.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the voting was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa and U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Poland.)
The President (Interpretation): The amendment which had been adopted by the Commission is therefore adopted by the Conference by 14 votes to 4, with 3 abstentions. We will now vote on the Yugoslav amendment to Art. 67. The text of this amendment appears in No. 64.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
[Page 741](The result of the voting was as follows:
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Norway, New Zealand, Netherlands, Union of South Africa, U.K., and U.S.A.
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Ethiopia, France, Greece).
The President (Interpretation): The amendment is rejected by 12 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions.
We now come to Art. 68. All the paragraphs have been adopted by the Commission, except paragraph 4, which was adopted by 13 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions.
Are there any objections to the first paragraphs, which were adopted by the Commission without alteration?
(These paragraphs were adopted).
We will now come to para. 4. The Commission adopted a new draft concerning compensation up to 75%.
Mr. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation considers that compensation should be restricted to one-third of the damage, that is, from 25 to 30%.
Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.): I ask for a separate vote on paras. A, B, C, and D.
The President (Interpretation): On the proposal of the U.S. Delegate, we shall vote on these paragraphs separately.
The Commission was in favour of 75%. M. Vyshinsky has proposed 25%. Are there any other proposals?
If there are none we will vote on the lowest figure,—M. Vyshinsky’s.
Mr. Mason (New Zealand): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I confess I cannot follow the question at all. The question we are voting on is, I assume, in this report, but I cannot find it. May I have the number of the page in the report so that I may refer to it clearly? I should like to know exactly what we are voting on.
The President (Interpretation): You will find it on page 25 of the report. We will first of all vote on the proposal contained in page 23 of the English text and then on the proposal which appears on page 25. We will now vote on the proposal for 25% compensation.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, China, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand South Africa, U.K.
Abstained: Poland, Czechoslovakia.
[Page 742]The proposal was therefore rejected by 12 votes to 7 with 2 abstentions).
I will now ask the Conference to vote on the proposal for 75% compensation.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K.
Against: Byelorussia, China, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Poland, U.S.A.
The proposal was therefore adopted by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): We have thus adopted subparagraph (a) of paragraph 4. We will now vote on sub-paragraph (b).
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Brazil, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: China, Czechoslovakia, Poland.
Sub-paragraph (b) of para. 4 was therefore adopted by 12 votes to 6 with three abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): Are there any objections to sub-para. (c)?
M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): We oppose this amendment and ask for a vote.
The President (Interpretation): I will put sub-para, (c) to the vote.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: China, Czechoslovakia.
Sub-para (c) was therefore adopted by 14 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions).
We will now vote on sub-para. (d).
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, [Page 743] Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K.
Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Poland.
Sub-para, (d) was therefore adopted by 14 votes to 5 with 2 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on paras. 5, 6, 7 and 8 which have not been amended by the Commission.
(Paras. 5, 6, 7 and 8 were adopted).
I will now put Article 68 to the vote. Are there any remarks?
(Article 68 was adopted).
Article 69. The President (Interpretation): In the case of Article 69, the Commission has made no change in paras. 1, 2 and 3.
M. Baranowski (Ukraine) (Interpretation): The Ukrainian Delegation had already proposed to the Economic Commission an amendment for the addition of two new paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) to paragraph 1, and the addition of a paragraph 6 to Article 69 taken as a whole.
The Ukrainian Delegation request that the text of their proposal contained in Annex 16 of Document Plen. 26 [the report of the Economic Commission for Italy] be read out and that this proposal be put to the vote.
The President (Interpretation): The Ukrainian Delegation has proposed two amendments to paragraph 1 of Article 69. They request that the text of these amendments be read to the Conference.
M. Fouques
Duparc, Secretary-General (Interpretation):
Here is the complete text of the proposal: “The following points
should be added to article 69:
The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on the Ukrainian amendment, paragraph 1 (a).
[Page 744](A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R.
The amendment was therefore rejected by 16 votes to 5).
The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on the Ukrainian amendment, para. 1 (b).
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
The amendment was therefore rejected by 15 votes to 6.)
The President (Interpretation): As none of the amendments to paragraph 1 have been adopted, I will put this paragraph to the vote.
(Paragraph 1 was adopted).
I put paragraph 2 to the vote.
(Paragraph 2 was adopted).
Does anyone wish to speak on paragraph 3? I will put it to the vote.
(Paragraph 3 was adopted).
Paras. 4 and 4 (a) are amendments unanimously approved by the Commission. I will put para. 4 to the vote.
(Paragraph 4 was adopted).
I will put paragraph 4 (a) to the vote.
(Paragraph 4 (a) was adopted).
I will now ask the Conference to vote on each sub-paragraph of paragraph 5 separately.
There have been no amendments adopted by the Commission to sub-paras, a, b, c, and d. I will put these sub-paragraphs to the vote:
(Sub-paras, a, b, c, and d were successively voted upon and adopted).
The President (Interpretation): The Commission did not take any decision with regard to sub-paragraphs e and f, their consideration having been adjourned in connection with Annex 3: “Economic and financial provisions relating to ceded territories.” This question was referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.): The U.S. Delegation will abstain on paragraph e of Article 69 and desires that this be recorded in the minutes.
The President (Interpretation): The U.S. Delegation’s request is noted.
[Page 745]I ask the Conference to vote that sub-paragraphs e. and f., together with the Annex “Economic and financial provisions relating to ceded territories” be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
(This proposal was adopted).
I will put to the vote the new paragraph 6 proposed by the Ukrainian Delegation.29
(The vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Paragraph 6, proposed by the Ukrainian Delegation, was therefore rejected by 14 votes to 7.)
The President (Interpretation): We will now vote on Article 69 as a whole.
(Article 69 as a whole was adopted).
Article 70. The President (Interpretation): Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 70 have not been altered by the Commission. But the latter adopted an amendment which constitutes paragraph 3. Does anyone wish to speak on this Article? I will then put it to the vote.
(Article 70 was adopted).
Article 71. The President (Interpretation): Article 71—an amendment to Para. 1 has been accepted by the Commission. Are there any objections?
Mr. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation considers that the time-limit laid down by the Council of Foreign Ministers should be maintained, namely, 18 months and not 3 years. It requests a vote on this amendment.
The President (Interpretation): We will take a vote on the amendment adopted by the Commission to Para. 1 of Art. 71, as drafted by the Council of Foreign Ministers.
(A vote was taken by roll-call.)
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
The amendment was thus adopted by 12 votes to 9).
The President (Interpretation): We pass on to sub-paras, a and b which were not modified by the Commission.
[Page 746](These paragraphs were adopted).
To sub-para. c, we have two amendments one submitted by the Delegations of the United Kingdom, the United States and France, and adopted by 12 votes to 10 [6] with 2 abstentions, and a second submitted by the Soviet Delegation which obtained 6 votes for, to 12 against with 2 abstentions.30
We will vote on the first, the Anglo-Franco-American amendment.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: China, Ethiopia, Norway, Poland.
The amendment was adopted by 12 votes to 5, with 4 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): I put to the vote the Soviet amendment concerning para. c.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: China, Ethiopia, Norway.
The amendment was rejected by 12 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions.)
The President (Interpretation): I put to the vote the proposal of the United States Delegation on civil aviation.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, India, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Poland.
The proposal was adopted by 15 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.
The President (Interpretation): I put to the vote the Netherlands amendment to this same paragraph.31
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
[Page 747](The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Poland.
The Netherlands amendment was adopted by 15 votes to 5, with 1 abstention).
The President (Interpretation): Are there any objections to paragraph 2 of Article 71?
No objections: Adopted.
Article 72. The President (Interpretation): We pass to Article 72. The Commission accepted a United States amendment by 14 votes to 6.32 Are there any objections to the decision of the Commission?
Mr. Vishinsky (U.S.S.R) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation maintains its previous position which is stated in the Draft Treaty prepared by the Council of Foreign Ministers, and requests that a vote be taken on this text.
The President: (Interpretation): I ask the Conference to vote on the United States amendment which was accepted by the Commission.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
The U.S. amendment was therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.)
The Ukrainian Deilegate (Interpretation): Although the Ukrainian Delegation has voted against the United States amendment, it desires to repeat what it said in the Commission concerning Article 71; namely, it requests that it should be stated that the Arbitration Tribunal shall decide not only questions relating to the application of Articles 65 and 68, but also those relating to Article 69. Therefore, it would be necessary to make the corresponding charges in the text.
The President (Interpretation): I will ask the Conference to vote on the Ukrainian proposal.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
[Page 748](The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, China, India, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.
Abstained: Czechoslovakia.
As a result, the Ukrainian proposal was rejected by 13 votes to 7, with 1 abstention).
The President (Interpretation): The Commission unanimously accepted an amendment to Article 73. Are there any objections?
Mr. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): No vote has been taken on the Soviet Delegation’s proposal regarding Article 72. A vote has been taken only on the United States proposal and on the Ukrainian proposal.
The President (Interpretation): You are quite right; we revert to Article 72, and I ask the Conference to vote on the U.S.S.R. proposal.
(A vote took place by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.
The U.S.S.R. proposal was therefore rejected by 15 votes to 6).
Article 73. The President (Interpretation): We pass now to Article 73 which contains an addition unanimously adopted by the Economic Commission. Are there any remarks?
(Article 73 was adopted).
The Secretariat asks me to make a correction regarding the result of the vote on the Ukrainian proposal.
(This proposal was rejected by 6 votes to 14, with 1 abstention).
Article 74. The President (Interpretation): If no one wishes to speak on the subject of Article 74, I put it to the vote.
(Article 74 was adopted).
Article 74A. The President (Interpretation): Article 74A is an addition which obtained 13 votes in favour and 7 votes against, in the Commission. I ask the Conference to vote on it.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
[Page 749]Abstained: Canada, China, Ethiopia.
Article 74A was adopted by 12 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions).
Article 75.33 The President (Interpretation): Article 75 was adopted without change in the Commission. I put it to the vote.
(Article 75 was adopted).
Article 76. The President (Interpretation): The U.K., U.S. and French proposal in connection with Article 76 was adopted in the Commission by 14 votes to 6.
I put Article 76 to the vote.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
The Proposal was adopted by 9 [15] votes to 6).
M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): I ask that a vote be taken on the Soviet proposal.
The President (Interpretation): Agreed.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Abstained: Ethiopia.
The Soviet proposal is rejected by 14 votes to 6 with one abstention.)
Mr. Beasley (Australia): Mr. President, I draw your attention to the proposed amendment that we had on the principle of revision, and I understand it should preceed Article 76. Or should it follow it? Just as you say.
The President (Interpretation): To which amendment exactly does the Australian Delegation refer?
Mr. Beasley. (Australia): If the President wishes, I can read out the amendment. I should draw his attention to my remarks in the opening Session of this Conference, where I particularly mentioned this matter to the Conference and where a vote was taken upon this particular matter in the Italian Treaty Commission. The amendment is in the office of the Secretary-General and perhaps, Mr. President, [Page 750] you should ask him to read it, for we think it is proper at this stage that it be put to the vote.
The President (Interpretation): That is Document 88.34 I call for a vote on the Australian proposal.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, Netherlands.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, India, Norway, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: China, Greece, New Zealand.
The Australian proposal is rejected by 12 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions).
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): We ask for a vote on the Albanian amendment appearing in Document C.P. 7,35 whereby the application of Article 77 would be extended to Albania, although she is not yet a member of the United Nations.
The President (Interpretation): Did the Commission come to any decision in this connection?
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): Yes, you will find it on page 47 of the report.
The President (Interpretation): I call for a vote on the Yugoslav proposal to which M. Bebler has just referred.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Abstained: Ethiopia, France.
The Yugoslav amendment is rejected by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions).
Article 77. The President (Interpretation): If nobody wishes to speak on Article 77, we shall now proceed to vote.
(Article 77 was adopted).
Article 77A. The President (Interpretation): I would ask you to vote on Article 77A, adopted in the Commission by 11 votes to 8 with 1 abstention.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
[Page 751](The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Article 77A is adopted by 13 votes to 8).
Article 78. The President (Interpretation): Article 78 has not been modified by the Commission. Does anybody wish to speak on this Article?
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): The Yugoslav amendment is referred to on page 48 of the report. We press for a vote on this amendment.
The President (Interpretation): The Yugoslav Delegation proposed to include a new provision in this Article, whereby the present Treaty would come into force only after it had been ratified by the Great Powers and—these last words constituted the Yugoslav amendment—Allied and Associated Powers having a common frontier with Italy and having suffered the Italian occupation. I put this amendment to the vote.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R.
The Yugoslav amendment is rejected by 16 [15] votes to 5).
Article 78. The President (Interpretation): I call for a vote on Article 78.
(Article 78 was adopted.)
That concludes the voting on the Articles. We now come to the Annexes. The Secretary-General will read out Annex I.
Annex I. M. Fouques Duparc, Secretary-General (Interpretation): Annex I consists of maps.
The text adopted in the Commission reads as follows:
(The Secretariat to insert—no references given).
The text was adopted without discussion in the Commission.
The President (Interpretation): If no objections are forthcoming, I take it that Annex I is adopted.
Annex II. The President (Interpretation): An amendment has been submitted and adopted. Failing any objections, we shall adopt Annex II as amended.
[Page 752]Annex III. The President (Interpretation): Any comments on Annex III? Otherwise the text is adopted.
Annexes IV and V. The President (Interpretation): We now come to Annex IV a) and b) and Annex V a), b), c) and d), which have been adopted without comment.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I understand that Annex IV a) was not adopted unanimously, and that the Yugoslav Delegation voted against it. I do not ask for a vote, but merely that my statement be recorded in the minutes.
The President (Interpretation): Agreed. Annexes IV and V are adopted.
Annex VIA. The President (Interpretation): Annex VIA, as amended, was unanimously agreed upon in the Commission.
(Annex VIA was adopted).
Annex VIB. The President (Interpretation): The British amendment was adopted by 14 votes to 6. I must therefore consult the Conference on Annex VIB.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
(Annex VIB was adopted by 15 votes to 6).
The President (Interpretation): I call for a vote on paragraph 1 (Contracts) of Annex 7. The British proposal which obtained 7 votes in favour, 8 against and 5 abstentions in the Commission.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, U.K.
Against: Byelorussia, China, India, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia.
Paragraph (1) (Contracts) was therefore rejected by 10 votes to 8 with 3 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): Paragraph 2 (Periods of Prescription) has given rise to the Soviet and British proposals.
I put the Soviet proposal to the vote.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
[Page 753]Against: Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., U.S.A., U.S.S.R.
Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia, Greece.
The Soviet proposal was therefore rejected by 10 votes to 8 with 3 abstentions).
I now call for a vote on the British proposal in connection with paragraph (2) (Periods of Prescription) which obtained 8 votes to 6 with 6 abstentions in the Commission.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K.
Against: Byelorussia, China, Norway, Poland, Ukrainian S.S.R., U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstained: Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France.
The British proposal was therefore adopted by 9 votes to 8 with 4 abstentions).
As regards paragraph 3 (Negotiable Instruments) the British proposal obtained 8 votes to 6 in the Commission with 6 abstentions.
I put it to the Conference.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., Union of South Africa, U.S.A.
Against: Byelorussia, China, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstentions: Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia.
The British amendment to Section III (Negotiable instruments) is therefore adopted by 12 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): I put to the vote the fifth part of the British amendment which was adopted by 9 votes to 8 with 4 abstentions.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., Union of South Africa.
Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstentions: Brazil, Norway, Ethiopia.
The fifth part was therefore adopted: 10 votes to 8, with 3 abstentions).
The President (Interpretation): I put Annex 8 A to the vote. Are there any objections? Annex 8 A is adopted without objection.
[Page 754]I put to the vote the American proposal regarding Annex 8 B, adopted by the Commission by 13 votes to 5, with 2 abstentions.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Byelorussia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, India, Norway, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Against: France, U.K., Union of South Africa.
Abstatined: Belgium, Ethiopia, Greece.
The American proposal was adopted by 15 votes to 3 with 3 abstentions).
The Commission has also voted on the French and British proposals.
The Delegate of France (Interpretation): We do not press it to a vote.
The Delegate of U.K.: We do not press it either.
Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.): Mr. President, may I call to the attention of the Chair that in the English text of the Economic Commission, on page 51, it is recorded that the United States Delegation proposed in Document 78 the insertion of a clause by virtue of which, having regard to the legislative system of the United States, the provisions of the various parts of Annex VII should not be applicable as between the United States and Italy. It was voted upon, there were 4 votes against it and 11 in favour. It would seem to have been passed over in some way and I desire to call it to the attention of the Chair and ask for a vote upon it.
The President (Interpretation): We will take a vote on the United States proposal relating to Annex 7.
(A vote was taken by roll-call).
(The result of the vote was as follows:
For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., U.S.A., Union of South Africa.
Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
Abstentions: Czechoslovakia, Poland.
The U.S. proposal relating to Annex 7 is adopted by 15 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.)
The President (Interpretation): There is a final amendment to Article 2 on the Franco-Italian frontier. No objection has been made and it has been accepted by the Legal and Drafting Commission. I put it to the vote.
(The amendment was put to the vote and adopted).
We have come to the end of the Articles and Annexes of the Peace Treaty with Italy.
[Page 755]We have thus finished at least half of the Italian question. Today, we shall have to deal with the question of Roumania.
Is it agreed that we should meet at 10?
Mr. Dunn (United States): Mr. Chairman, I understand that Annex No. IX is being referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers. I want to make sure on the record that Annex XIII36 is also referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers, as the Economic Commission did not have time to consider it.
Mr. Vishinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): May I inquire what is this Annex?
Mr. Dunn (United States): It is an Annex to the United States proposals for Article 16, and in the Political and Territorial Commission the last evening we met it was sent to the Economic Commission for Italy. The Economic Commission for Italy did not have time to consider it, and therefore it, together with Annex IX, should be referred to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
Mr. Vishinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation has no knowledge of this Annex.
We know of an American amendment to Article 16, but this amendment is included in the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy.
We know nothing of an Annex 13. Moreover, if there were such an Annex, I wonder what has become of Annexes 10, 11 and 12. We stop at Annex 9. Some light must be thrown on the question of where the various Annexes have gone to.
Mr. Dunn (United States): In the record of the 39th meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy,37 it states that at the suggestion of the United States Delegate the Chairman proposes and the Commission agree that Annex XIII, as it is a provision of an entirely economic character, shall be referred to the Economic Commission for a decision. It was so referred to it, but the Commission did not have time to consider it, and I understand it was agreed to send it on to the Council of Foreign Ministers. I merely want that noted in the record of the Plenary Conference.
M. Vishinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): Is there a copy of the record of Decisions?
The President (Interpretation): Are you referring to Document 16?
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I must admit that in the Economic Commission for Italy we have knowledge of only one sentence of the American proposal. This sentence was mentioned in [Page 756] M. Alphand’s report. The U.S. Delegation is now submitting a Document with several pages; it is a mystery.
The President (Interpretation): I suggest that Mr. Dunn repeat his proposal.
Mr. Dunn (United States): That it be noted in the Minutes of this Meeting, as is already noted in the report from the Economic Commission, that the Economic Commission is sending Annex XIII as well as Annex IX to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): I do not think that a non-existent document can be referred to the Council of Ministers or to any other Council or Commission. Perhaps the Rapporteur of the Economic Commission could tell us the purport of this Annex which in my opinion does not exist. It is a phantom-annex.
The President (Interpretation): We can ask the Chairman or the Rapporteur of the Economic Commission.
M. Alphand (France) (Interpretation): It is true that the Economic Commission was informed at the beginning of its last meeting that the Political and Territorial Commission was referring to it for decision the U.S. proposal Annex 13, included in the Document 16 mentioned by Mr. Dunn.
For myself, I have never seen this Annex and since it was received during the last meeting of the Commission when there was no time to examine it, we decided to refer it to the Council of Foreign Ministers, as was done in the case of all questions for which they had no time to examine in the Commission.
The President (Interpretation): I shall sum up the question briefly. The Document mentioned by the U.S. Delegate certainly exists. It should have been examined by the Political and Territorial Commission and by the Economic Commission. But it has not been examined by either.
Mr. Byrnes (United States): Mr. Chairman, if it has not been examined by either the Political and Territorial Commission or the Economic Commission, it is not the fault of the United States Delegation; and I therefore ask one of two things; either that the request of the Committee be complied with and the Annex be sent to the Council of Foreign Ministers, or that it be taken up now or to-morrow morning by this Conference; because no reason can be given for refusing consideration to a proposal which has been before the Commissions since August 22nd, and I do not understand why anyone would object to the action taken by the Economic Committee in suggesting it be sent to the Council of Foreign Ministers. If that is not to be done, then we ask that to-morrow at the Plenary Session we proceed to the consideration of the proposal.
[Page 757]The President (Interpretation): It seems obvious now that none of the organs of the Conference have examined this document. Perhaps the best course would be for the U.S. Delegation to submit it direct to the Council of Ministers for consideration.
Mr. Byrnes (United States): Mr. President, there is no reason that I can see why the Economic Committee’s action should not be followed. The report from the Economic Committee is that, because they did not have time to examine it, it was to be referred along with other proposals of the same character, to the Council of Foreign Ministers for it to give consideration to it; and I really do not see what objection there can be to carrying out the recommendation of the Commission. I am informed that Annex IIIa and Annex IX were in the same condition. They were referred to the Commissions, the Commissions did not have time to act upon them, and they have forwarded them to the Council of Foreign Ministers, and all the United States Delegates ask is that the same course be followed with this particular document. They go to the Council without any recommendations of the Conference; therefore, I do not see that any great harm can be done by permitting it to take this course.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): There is a misunderstanding. As I understand it the document now wrongly called Annex XIII—since there is neither Annex 10, 11 nor 12—is the same thing as document 16. If so, the Economic Commission has taken no decision to refer the document to the Council of Ministers. In the last paragraph of the report we have all received, it is stated that Annex III, the Greek and Yugoslav amendment, Annex IX and the first sentence of the Draft Article 16 B included in the U.S. proposal should be referred to the Council of Ministers.
Therefore, the Economic Commission has decided that only one sentence should be referred to the Council of Ministers, not the whole document.
The document as a whole was not, therefore, considered by the Economic Commission to have sufficient importance to warrant its being referred to the Council of Ministers.
I do not see what other decision we could now take in a Plenary Session.
M. Alphand (France) (Interpretation): There is a Corrigendum to the report and in the Corrigendum it is stated that we received Annex 13 but that the Economic Commission for Italy had not time to examine the document before the end of its work. It is true that there was no decision by the Commission itself to refer the document to the Council of Ministers but it is also true that the document was received and that we had not time to consider it.
[Page 758]The President (Interpretation): I propose to adopt the American proposal and to submit the document to the Council of Ministers.
I also propose that the discussion should be adjourned and that the meeting should rise.
M. Bebler (Yugoslavia) (Interpretation): The Yugoslav Delegation protests against the proposal to refer to the Council of Foreign Ministers a document which has not been circulated to any Delegation.
The President (Interpretation): The meeting is adjourned.
(The meeting rose at 3:20 on Thursday 10 October 1946).
- Regarding voting procedure and citations to relevant documentation, see the editorial note, p. 702.↩
- The ratio proposed by the Soviet Delegation was two for Yugoslavia to one for Greece; see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 38th Meeting of the Economic Commission for Italy, October 4, p. 674.↩
- The Yugoslav amendment, C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 64, not printed, was a new draft of the C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.20.↩
- Reference is to the third part of the Ukrainian amendment read earlier by Fouques Duparc: see p. 743.↩
- Reference is to proposals contained in the draft treaty; see vol. iv, pp. 1, 33.↩
- For substance, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 26, Report of the Economic Commission for Italy, ibid., p. 338.↩
- Reference is to the United States proposal contained in the draft treaty; see vol. iv, p. 34.↩
- Articles 75–78 had been considered by the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy.↩
- The Australian amendment under reference was proposed in C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 88; for test, see footnote 68, p. 572.↩
- For text, see memorandum dated August 30, vol. iv, p. 799.↩
- The United States proposal for an Annex XIII was contained in C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 16; for text, see vol. iv, pp. 780, 783.↩
- The United States Delegation Journal summary of the 39th Meeting of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy, October 1, is printed on p. 617.↩