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

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

October 10, 1946, 9:30 p.m.

C.P.(Plen)39

President: M. Molotov

The President (Interpretation): The meeting is open.

Peace Treaty With Roumania—Voting of the Articles⁴⁰

The President (Interpretation): The Conference now proceeds to the vote on the Articles of the Draft Treaty with Roumania. (At the request of the President, M. Baranovsky, Chairman of the Political and Territorial Commission for Roumania, and M. Lisicky, Rapporteur of this Commission, come to the rostrum).

Preamble—The President (Interpretation): We shall proceed to discuss the Preamble.

An alteration to the Preamble was adopted unanimously by the Commission.

Does any one wish to speak?

The amended Preamble is adopted.

Article 1—The President (Interpretation): We shall proceed to vote on Article 1.

Does any one wish to speak?

Article 1 is adopted.

Article 2—The President (Interpretation)—This Article was adopted by the Commission by 10 votes, with two abstentions.

Mr. Beasley (Australia)—The Australian Delegation again abstains from the voting on this Article.

Mr. Theron (Union of South Africa)—The South African Delegation acts likewise.

The President (Interpretation)—The declarations of the delegates of Australia and South Africa will be inserted in the minutes.

No one else wishes to speak?

Article 2 is adopted.

Article 3—The President (Interpretation)—We shall proceed to vote on Article 3.

M. Tchijov (Byelorussia) (Interpretation)—The Byelorussian Delegation considers that Article 3, in its present form, constitutes an infringement of Roumanian sovereignty. That Delegation seconded the proposal moved by the Roumanian Delegation in the Commission, and submitted to the Conference as document Plen. No. 3.⁴¹

It makes the following proposal:

Delete the existing text of Article 3, and to replace it by:

“Roumania, in the exercise of her full sovereign rights and in accordance with the principles embodied in her Constitution and in virtue of the legislation subsequently enacted on 23rd August, 1944 and 6th March 1945, undertakes to ensure the effective enforcement of the principles which are expressed in Chapter II (Articles 5 to 32—Rights of Roumanians) in the said Constitution.”

The President (Interpretation)—The amendment submitted by the Byelorussian Delegation is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is:

Voted for: Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Norway, Netherlands, United Kingdom, USSR, Union of South Africa, U.S.A.

Voted against: Byelorussia, Ukraine.

Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia.

The Byelorussian amendment is therefore adopted by 13 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions.⁴²

Are there any objections to Article 3 as submitted by the Commission?

M. Tchijov (Byelorussia) (Interpretation).—The Byelorussian Delegation will vote against.

The President (Interpretation).—Does the Delegation insist upon a vote by roll call?

M. Tchijov (Byelorussia) (Interpretation).—Yes, Mr. President.

M. [Baranowsky?] (Ukraine) (Interpretation).—My Delegation will also vote against.

The President (Interpretation).—I put Article 3 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call)

The result of the vote is:

Voted for: Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Norway, Netherlands, Poland, United Kingdom, Union of South Africa, USSR, U.S.A., Yugoslavia.

Voted against: Byelorussia, Ukraine.

Article 3 is therefore adopted by 17 votes to 2.

Article 3A—The President (Interpretation)—I put Article 3 A to the vote. This is a new text proposed by the Commission.

M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—We are opposed to this text, and ask for a vote by roll call.

M. [Lange?] (Norway) (Interpretation)—I request that record of the declaration of the Norwegian Delegation concerning Article 3 be inserted. This declaration has been transmitted to the Secretariat.

Gen. Catroux (France) (Interpretation)—When the question was considered in the Commission, the French Delegation voted against this Article because it was of the opinion at that moment that, submitted in this form, the Article was unfriendly and discriminatory towards the Roumanian Government; but the French Delegation in fact shared the feeling which prompted the representative of the United Kingdom to make the proposal in order to provide the necessary guarantees for the Jewish population of Roumania; and declared itself willing, as is indicated in the Record of Decisions, to vote for this Article, if a similar provision is embodied in the other Treaties submitted to the Conference. Having since learnt that the same provision has been embodied in the Treaty with Hungary, the French Delegation will vote for Article 3 A.

The President (Interpretation)—The request of the Norwegian Delegate will be dealt with by the Secretary General of the Conference.

M. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation has made a proposal at this point, but without explaining it, as it did not foresee that other delegations would move a similar one. The French Delegation has given its reasons for voting Article 3 A. The Soviet Delegation therefore feels it must also make a Statement explaining its vote.

The Soviet Delegation will agree to all clauses the aim of which is to prevent the Treaty from including any provisions of a discriminatory character, which might be adopted by various States. This problem, however, is already solved by other Articles of the Treaty; and is covered by Article 3. Article 4 provides that the Roumanian Government shall undertake to respect the rights of its nationals, irrespective of race or religion. Discriminatory legislation is therefore impossible.

The Soviet Delegation thinks it is unnecessary to repeat the same thing three times, since discriminatory provisions have already been prohibited by Articles 3 and 4. The Soviet Delegation therefore considers that the adoption of a new Article is unnecessary, and will vote against its insertion in the Treaty.

The President (Interpretation)—These two declarations are contrary to the Rules of Procedure adopted by this Conference. I therefore request the delegates to abstain from explaining their votes.

Article 3 is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is:

Voted for: Australia, Belgium, Brasil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Voted against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, Yugoslavia.

Article 3 A is adopted by 14 votes to 7.

The following Articles (4 to 13) were adopted unanimously without alteration. Are there any objections to all these Articles being voted on together? If a Delegation asks for a vote article by article, these Articles will be put to the vote separately. Otherwise, all these Articles will be submitted together to the approval of the Conference. No objections? I consider that all these Articles are adopted by the Conference.

I have a proposal to make, namely that we now finish voting on the political articles of the Peace Treaty with Roumania, that is we shall take up Article 21 and immediately after Article 35, and then Articles 36,37, and 38. If there are no objections, we shall proceed in this order.

Are there any objections to Article 21?

No objections, the Article is adopted.

Article 35 is put to the vote, are there, any objections?

No objections, the Article is adopted.

Article 36 is put to the vote, are there any objections?

M. Vyshinsky (USSR) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation moves that the Soviet proposal, contained on page 20 of the Draft Treaty with Roumania, should also be put to the vote.

The President (Interpretation)—The Soviet proposal to Article 36 is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

The result of the vote is:

Voted for: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, Yugoslavia.

Voted against: Australia, Belgium, [Brazil?], Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

The Soviet proposal is rejected by 15 votes to 6.

Article 36, as adopted by the Commission, is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

The result of the vote is:

Voted for: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Norway, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Voted against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, USSR, Yugoslavia.

Article 36 as drafted by the Commission, is adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Article 37 is put to the vote. Are there any objections?

This Article is adopted.

Article 38 is put to the vote. Are there any objections?

This Article is adopted.

We now come to Annex 1 of Article 1 (Map of the frontiers of Roumania). Are there any objections to this Annex? Annex 1 is adopted.

I now request the Chairman and the Rapporteur of the Military Commission to take their seats on the rostrum.

We had already begun to adopt the military clauses when we adopted Articles 11, 12 and 13. We now come to Article 14.

Are there any objections to this Article?

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—I wish to draw your attention to the draft table of new articles and amendments submitted by the Commission. After Article 14, there is a resolution, which the report states was adopted unanimously. I submit it to the Conference, and ask for its consideration in the order in which it appears.

Col. Naszkowski (Poland) (Interpretation)—As concerns the declaration in question, I note that in the Military Commission the representatives for Byelorussia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, USSR, and Yugoslavia declared that, in their opinion, the Commission had not reached an unanimous decision on this point.

I request that the declaration of these six States, which already figures in the report, should be inserted in the minutes of the Plenary Meeting.

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—In order that the matter may be made clear, I call attention to page 1 of what is called the “Table of New Articles and Amendments submitted by the Commission”, where it is stated: “Resolutions hereafter adopted unanimously: . . . . 4. The Commission agrees that the article on prohibition in the Balkan and Finnish Treaties, Article 12 of the Bulgarian Treaty, Article 14 of the Roumanian Treaty, Article 13 of the Hungarian Treaty, and Article 16 of the Finnish Treaty, should be in identical language”, that is as they were adopted for Article 12 of the Bulgarian Treaty.

Now the Delegate from Poland says that after it was adopted unanimously there was included a statement which he read, in which he dissents from this statement as to it being adopted unanimously as this is true, in justice to the Delegate from Poland, and to the majority of the Commission, if his statement that a majority did vote for it is correct, I submit that the resolution be voted on in the Plenary Session, so that it can be determined whether or not the Conference wishes this rule to govern its course.

The President (Interpretation)—I will ask the Chairman and the Rapporteur of the Military Commission to give us certain information on this matter.

The Chairman of the Military Commission (General Mossor) (Poland) (Interpretation)—When the Military Commission proceeded to consider Article 14 of the Peace Treaty with Roumania, the U.S. Delegation requested that the adopton of this Article be postponed until the consideration of the corresponding Article of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

As soon as an amendment has been adopted concerning the corresponding article of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria (amendment concerning the demilitarisation of the frontier), the U.S. Delegation proposed the declaration you have read in the report.

This declaration was adopted unanimously. Subsequently, by a simple majority, a new amendment concerning motor torpedo boats was adopted. The minority considered that this resolution did not affect the second amendment.

This is the origin of the discrepancy between the opinions of the majority and the minority of the Commission.

The minority then submitted a declaration, which figures in the report, concerning the military clauses of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

The President (Interpretation)—The minority declaration was made by six Delegations. I request that the minority declaration be read.

M. Fouques Duparc (France) (Interpretation)—Here is the text of the minority declaration, as it appears in the Report. It is taken from the Record of Decisions:

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—I do not think it important, but the representative of the United States on the Military Commission calls my attention to the fact that the first page of the record of the decisions of the Military Commission at the 28th Meeting shows that the vote on the torpedo boats in the Bulgarian Treaty was taken before the Resolution was adopted unanimously by the Commission considering the Roumanian Treaty; but as I have investigated the matter, it is evident to me that, while the Roumanian Commission did unanimously adopt the resolution which appeared on page 1 of the Report handed us by the Commission, it is clear from the statement by five or six States inserted in the Record that there was genuine misunderstanding about it; and I therefore think that it should be solved by having the Conference vote on the question; I also think it might be helpful to the Chair if I should move that this Resolution which was voted on in the Military Commission, should now be put to the vote, and allow the Conference to decide it and determine what course it wishes to follow.

The President (Interpretation)—When examining the final texts in the Plenary Conference we decided to follow a certain procedure. It was decided that during the Plenary Meeting a vote should only be taken on amendments adopted by the Commissions, or sub-amendments moved in the Commissions by a minority and on which that minority insisted on a vote being taken in the Plenary Conference.

We have no other rule regarding voting, except what has been decided in accordance with the rules of Procedure, namely that no new amendments should be voted on.

On the other hand it has now been decided that resolutions of the Commissions would be voted on in the Plenary Conference.

I therefore consider there is no reason to raise the question whether a vote can be taken on the resolution of a Commission.

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—I agree that if a Commission should adopt a resolution having no reference to the article under discussion, it would not be in order to ask for a vote on that resolution. But when the Commission adopts a resolution, which says that Article 14 shall read exactly the same as the corresponding article in the Bulgarian Treaty, then that is dictating to the Conference the language the Commission wishes to have in Article 14. If they were adopting a resolution of thanks to the Chairman, or to many other people to whom they owe debts of gratitude, that would be different. But this resolution is tied to and made a part of Article 14, because it says that Article 14 shall read in accordance with what we say in this Resolution, namely, that it shall be in accord with the paragraph in the Bulgarian Treaty. Therefore, I submit that this is not an isolated resolution, but is really part of Article 14.

The President (Interpretation)—I shall call upon the Chairman of the Military Commission to make a declaration on this point.

General Mossor (Poland) (Interpretation)—In reply to the question about the amendments submitted to the Commission, I shall say that two amendments were submitted concerning the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 12: one amendment concerning the demilitarisation of the frontier, and another concerning the prohibition imposed upon Bulgaria to have motor torpedo boats. But no formal and regular amendment was submitted on the same questions concerning the Peace Treaty with Roumania. There is a difference of opinion on this point, for as I have already stated the United States Delegation submitted this amendment before the second amendment had been accepted.

The President (Interpretation)—In my opinion, the proposal made by Mr. Byrnes is equivalent to a new amendment, and according to our Rules of Procedure, new amendments cannot be put to the vote in Plenary meetings. On the other hand, if we vote on this Resolution, as requested by Mr. Byrnes, we should infringe the rules adopted by the Conference. But, if Mr. Byrnes insists, I shall put the matter to the Plenary Conference and ask, whether it wishes to vote or not, on the Resolution. If Mr. Byrnes does not insist upon his resolution, we shall proceed to Article 13.

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—I do insist on the proposal. I understood you were going to submit to the Conference whether or not we had to vote on it. This will be entirely satisfactory. Let the Conference do as it pleases.

The President (Interpretation)—I propose the following procedure: the Rules of the Conference do not provide for taking a vote on the United States resolution, but if the Conference so desires, it can alter them. I ask the Conference if it wishes to modify these rules and to vote on the Resolution?

Mr. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation considers that all the delegations which are represented here are bound by the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Conference, and that these Rules are binding on them. If, in particular cases and for special reasons, we alter the general Rules of Procedure adopted by the Conference, we shall soon be in a difficult position. It is probable that Mr. Byrnes’ proposal will obtain 13 votes, without that of the United States; it will therefore obtain 14 votes, which will create a precedent for any new alteration in the Rules it is proposed to make, in cases where certain delegations may consider such an alteration justified. This would tend to jeopardize the work of the Conference.

The Soviet Delegation considers that the explanation given by the President, based upon our Rules, and more particularly on Part 6, is quite satisfactory, and that no Delegations should insist for the adoption of new proposals which would cause the alteration of this [these?] rules. Consequently, the Soviet Delegation considers that it is inopportune to insist on a vote on such a proposal, and that it is contrary to the Rules.

M. Van Starkenberg (Netherlands)—The Netherlands Delegation agree with M. Vyshinski, and is against altering the Rules of this Conference; but feels, on the other hand, that in order to decide the matter, it is not necessary to alter anything. All that is necessary is for the Meeting to decide whether or not this Resolution is in fact an amendment or not, and I believe the Resolution on this matter is simply intended to give the Committee’s special wording of Article 14.

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—I only want to say that I would not want to let go unchallenged the statement that we could not consider a matter presented in the form of a resolution. The Trieste Statute proposal submitted by the representative of France was presented in the form of a resolution, and was voted on last night.

Here, however, the position is different, there is an amendment. In the Commission, the majority of the members admitted that, once this text had been adopted for Bulgaria, it would automatically be embodied in Article 14 of the Draft Treaty with Roumania.

The President (Interpretation)—Three quarters of an hour have already been wasted in discussing this question, and I wish to point out that there are certain Delegations who may ask the Conference for an explanation on this point.

I draw your attention to the fact that the Chairman of the Military Commission, the Secretary General, and the President of the Conference have just explained that the American proposal is to be regarded merely as a new amendment. Now, we have unanimously decided that new amendments shall not be voted on in a Plenary Meeting. Therefore, I can take no decision in respect of the American proposal without changing our rules of procedure, and for the purpose of a vote on such amendments, I shall ask the United States Delegation to explain the text which it has submitted.

Mr. Jebb (United Kingdom)—I merely wish to say, with all deference to the President and to the Secretary General, that my Delegation does not consider that this is an infringement of our rules of procedure. As a matter of fact, the rules adopted do not provide for an explanation of the vote nor that any new amendment shall not be submitted. In this case we do not see that there is a new amendment, it is a proposal which has been formulated by the Military Commission, unanimously adopted and submitted some time back. There is therefore nothing new in this. Accordingly, there is nothing to conflict with our rules of procedure and I think that we should immediately vote on this question in order to gain time and to speed up the work of this Conference.

The President (Interpretation)—There are three ways of overcoming this difficulty; the first, to withdraw the proposal; the second, to reconsider the procedure and, on the basis of new rules, to vote on the American proposal. The third method would be to state that this text does not constitute a new amendment. In this case, the point of view of the Conference would differ from that of the Chairman of the Military Commission, the Secretary General, and of the President of this meeting.

If Mr. Byrnes maintains his proposal, I am ready to adopt one of the three methods indicated. I leave it to him to state which of the three methods should be selected by the Conference.

Mr. Byrnes (United States)—Mr. President, I venture, with all deference due to you, to propose that, in my opinion, the best way would be to allow the Conference to decide whether this is a new amendment or not. This would amount to the third solution which you have exposed [proposed]. I again say that the best way would be to leave it to the Conference.

The President (Interpretation)—I ask the honourable representative of the United States to which Article of the Peace Treaty with Roumania this amendment applies.

Mr. Byrnes (United States)—Mr. President, as is shown in the report, this proposal was adopted subsequently to the unanimous adoption of Article 14. It concerns an amendment to Article 14, not a new amendment since it is included in the report.

The President (Interpretation)—The Commission has not submitted an amendment to this Article. Therefore, I cannot put to the vote this proposal as an amendment to this Article.

On the other hand, if this proposal amounts to a resolution, there is nothing in our rules of procedure providing for a vote on resolutions. Therefore, if this proposal is to be put to the vote, I would ask that a reference to a clause in our rules of procedure, to serve as a basis for this vote, should be made in an Article.

General Catroux (France)—Mr. President, I think we could overcome the difficulties of procedure if this proposal were to be considered as a recommendation; when the Commission, in the text in which it drafted this resolution, states “The Commission is of the opinion that”, this means that it recommends to the Conference a text as a recommendation which, moreover, applies not only to the Roumanian Treaty, but to all the Balkan treaties. It seems to me that we could thereby overcome the difficulties of procedure and that the Conference would be able to take a decision.

Mr. Jebb (United Kingdom)—Mr. President, with all the deference due to you, I do not quite understand your difficulties. You ask under what provision of our rules of procedure the Conference can take a decision on this resolution, but, according to point 5 of these rules, the Conference can just as well take a decision on the proposal submitted, and the word “proposal” figures in this text. If this resolution is not a proposal, I do not quite see what it is. It is, in my opinion, a proposal drafted by the Military Commission and submitted to us for a decision. Therefore, it is quite in accordance with the rules of procedure that we should vote on this proposal. And as I have already stated, it seems to me that we should gain time by voting at once.

The President (Interpretation)—There has just been a reference to point 5 of our rules of procedure. It is stated that after the close of the general debate, the Plenary Conference shall examine the proposals and amendments submitted by the Commissions. But this statement was not made by the Military Commission; point 5 of our rules of procedure cannot therefore apply in this case. This proposal does not emanate from the Military Commission, whose Chairman is present here, and he himself regards this proposal as a new amendment.

The proposal submitted to the meeting by the United States Delegate cannot be identified with that of the Military Commission.

M. Vyshinski (U.S.S.R.)—(Interpretation)—General Catroux and Mr. Jebb have stated that the resolution which we have been discussing so long is in reality a recommendation. That is that the Commission has adopted a proposal which it recommends for examination by the Plenary Conference. But what are the reasons for regarding this resolution as such? And on what are these reasons based? In the text of the resolution, it is stated that the Military Commission has agreed that the clauses concerning certain prohibitions of a military character, which have been adopted in respect of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, shall be extended to the Peace Treaties with the other Balkan countries, and with Finland. But there is no question of recommendations. It is merely a question of internal agreement in the Commission as to the method to be adopted for the settlement of this question.

Why should the method adopted in the Military Commission be considered as a recommendation to be examined by the Plenary Conference? This is not a recommendation, it is merely an agreement among the members of the Military Commission for the settlement of this question.

The agreement in question provides that Article 14 of the Treaty of Peace with Roumania should be drafted in the same way as Article 12 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria. If it were a recommendation, it would be necessary to submit a definite text on which we could have taken a decision. In reality, agreement was reached on one thing, and another thing was done. The Commission adopted Article 14, with a Belgian amendment, but without the clauses which might have been added, and the question raised here which is, in reality, under the pretext of inserting an identical text in the various Peace Treaties, of introducing into the Treaty with Roumania this sentence on torpedo-launching apparatus which appears in the other Article, has not actually been dealt with. It, therefore, considers that this is neither a resolution nor a recommendation. It is merely an internal agreement reached by the Military Commission on a certain method for the settlement of the question, and I think that it should be settled by the President in the Plenary Meeting of the Conference.

Mr. Byrnes (United States)—Mr. President, if the Chair is kind enough to indulge me for a few moments, I will not again speak on this subject. I would not want the Chair to take the position that this is a new proposal, not submitted by the Military Commission, but a new proposal submitted by the United States Delegation. How does it come to us? It comes to us in a report from the Military Commission. Every Member of this Conference has read the Report, and the Report, in addition to recommending Article 14, says “The Commission expresses the opinion”. The Commission, and not the United States Delegation.

Further, this opinion is unanimous when expressed in respect of Article 14, “The Commission is of the opinion that all Articles on prohibitions in the Balkan and Finnish Treaties, Article 12 of the Bulgarian Treaty, Article 14 of the Roumanian Treaty, etc. should be in identical language. Therefore, The Commission recommends to the Conference Article 14 provided it should not differ from the Article contained in the Bulgarian Treaty, and if this Article is different, the Commission, through its Chairman, reports that the Article in the Roumanian Treaty should be made identical with that in the Bulgarian Treaty.

Therefore no one can say that this is a new amendment. It comes here only from the Military Commission, and comes with, the recommendation that Article 14 must be made identical with the corresponding Article in the Bulgarian Treaty.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I do not think we can fail to submit to this Conference the question whether we will adopt all recommendation of the Military Commission or only part of it.

The President (Interpretation)—I do not wish to repeat myself; Article 14 has been adopted. We now come to Article 15. Are there any objections?

Mr. Beasley (Australia)—Mr. President, I am not prepared to take the course that you suggest, and after all, the Conference is master of its own business, and the Chair is not competent to exercise any form of dictatorship on this question when it comes down to an interpretation. You have shifted your ground several times in connection with this question. First of all, you stated that the Conference could not accept a resolution because it happened to be a resolution. It was then proved that the Conference had already accepted a resolution in the case of the proposal of the French Delegate on the Trieste Statute. At that moment, that argument was brushed aside and you declared that the Conference could not contemplate a new question of this kind. But, it was then proved that the question at issue is not a new question, a new proposal, but that this resolution formed part of the Commission’s report, and is therefore a proposal of the Military Commission, submitted to the Conference by that Commission.

The third line that you took later was to suggest three alternatives, and you asked the United States Delegate to state which alternative he would choose so that the Chair might be directed how to deal with the matter. The United States Delegate chose the third alternative, namely, to let the Conference decide the matter. Now it appears that you have again shifted your ground.

I therefore wish to confirm my disagreement with the decision of the Chair. It seems to me that this is not a new matter, but a question of interpretation. It is not a question of procedure nor of determining procedure. It is a question of determining what the procedure really means. I think that all the Delegates here are absolutely entitled to express their views on the real meaning of the procedure. My Delegation, therefore, intends to dissent from your ruling, so that the Conference can decide the question itself.

M. Wierblowski (Poland) (Interpretation)—Mr. President, I think there are certain Delegations who wish to handicap the work of this Conference. The proposal in question is described as a resolution in the report of the Commission, not as an amendment, a recommendation, or a proposal.

The President has proposed a compromise to enable the Conference to speed up its work; but certain Delegations have objected to this proposal and held up the work; our time is precious, as we wish to terminate the Roumanian Treaty.

As for the question to which Article this resolution refers (or this resolution, amendment, proposal, or recommendation), according to the reply made by the President, it would seem that it refers to Article 14. But Article 14 has already been voted, and I cannot see what clause in Rules of Procedure would enable us to re-open the discussion on an Article already adopted by the Conference.

It has been stated, on the other hand, that a resolution had already been adopted on the question of Trieste. I should point out that, in reality, this was not a resolution, but a recommendation indicating the general lines to be followed in drafting the Article. It seems to me that enough time has been lost in discussing this question of procedure.

The President should be competent to settle the question, all the more as he is acting in agreement with the Secretariat General and the Chairman of the Commission, despite the fact that several delegations are seeking to restrict this right of the Chair and to make us waste time.

The President (Interpretation)—Some of the Delegations have been guilty of inaccuracy in commenting on my explanations. But I do not wish to reopen this question, to save time and to avoid misunderstanding, I shall ask the Delegations if they wish for a vote on Mr. Byrnes’ proposal, and I put this question to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Norway, Netherlands, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

The proposal to vote on Mr. Byrnes’ suggestion is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 7.

In view of the fact that the majority of the Delegations are in agreement with Mr. Byrnes’ proposal, I ask the American Delegation if it desires that this proposal should be voted on as a resolution or as an amendment.

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—Mr. President, I have said that I considered this resolution as an amendment, and I wish it to be put to the vote as a text contained in the report of the Military Commission.

The President (Interpretation)—Have I rightly understood that Mr. Byrnes wishes his proposal to be voted on as an amendment to Article 14?

Mr. Byrnes (U.S.A.)—Mr. President, in the report of the Military Commission, it is stated: “The above resolution was unanimously adopted”; the text follows. I should like to know whether or not the Conference is in agreement on the Commission’s report. I do not wish to discuss whether it is a resolution or an amendment. I merely ask that a vote should be taken on the measures adopted by the Commission, that is to say, that the report of the Commission be adopted or rejected.

I propose to substitute for the word “Commission” the word “Conference”, so that the text should read “The Conference expresses the opinion, etc.”.

The President (Interpretation)—I hope that the Delegations have understood the proposal of the U.S. representative. This proposal is put to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Mr. Byrnes’s proposal is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Article 15. The President (Interpretation)—We now come to Article 15. Any objections?

Article 15 is adopted.

Articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23. The President (Interpretation)—We now come to Articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23. There are no changes or amendments in respect of these Articles, which were all adopted unanimously.

Are any alterations proposed?

Mr. Beasley (Australia)—Mr. President, the Australian Delegation will abstain from voting on Article 16.

The President (Interpretation)—The Australian Delegation’s observations will be taken into consideration.

No objections being raised, Articles 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 are considered as adopted.

Article 21. The President (Interpretation)—Article 21 has already been adopted.

Annexes 2 and 3 to the Military Clauses. The President (Interpretation)—The Secretary General proposes that we should now adopt Annexes 2 and 3 to the Military Clauses. These Annexes have been adopted by the Commission without any change.

Any objections?

Annexes 2 and 3 are adopted.

Economic Clauses. The President (Interpretation)—We now come to the economic clauses. I call upon Dr. Korbel, Chairman of the Commission, and M. Gerashchenko, rapporteur, to come to the rostrum.

Article 24. The President (Interpretation)—We will now take Article 24. Any objections?

M. Vyshinski (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation has a proposal to make with regard to Article 24, paragraph 4. If this paragraph is now to be put to the vote, I wash to make a statement on substance.

Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. The President (Interpretation)—I shall first take a vote on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 were adopted unanimously by the Commission with certain amendments, paragraph 3 without alteration.

Any objections?

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Article 24 are accordingly adopted.

Paragraph 4. The President (Interpretation)—We now come to paragraph 4 of Article 24.

M. Vyshinski (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—Mr. President, The United States proposal for paragraph 4, point 4, paragraph a), omits definition of the percentage required for the reparation of damage to property.

The Commission did not adopt the 25% proposed by the United States Delegation. The Soviet Delegation, however, regards this figure as fair and requests a vote on the question.

M. Alphand (France)—The French Delegation agrees to a vote on the amount of reparations and suggests a percentage of 75%.

The President (Interpretation)—I put to the vote the Soviet proposal concerning paragraph 4 of Article 24, sub-paragraph a). This proposal suggests a compensation percentage of 25.

The French proposal will be put to the vote after.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, China, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.

Abstention: Poland.

The Soviet proposal is therefore rejected by 13 votes to 7, with 1 abstention.

I now put to the vote the French proposal for 75% compensation.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.

Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstentions: Brazil, China, Norway, Poland, United States.

The French proposal is therefore adopted by 12 votes to 4, with 5 abstentions.

Sub-paragraph a) of Paragraph 4. The President (Interpretation)—I put to the vote sub-paragraph a) of paragraph 4.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstentions: Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Norway.

Sub-paragraph a) of paragraph 4 is therefore adopted by 13 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions.

Sub-paragraph b) of Paragraph 4. The President (Interpretation)—I put to the vote sub-paragraph b) of paragraph 4.

Any objections?

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation objects to the adoption of this sub-paragraph.

The President (Interpretation)—Do you ask for a vote?

M. Goussev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—Yes.

The President (Interpretation)—The Secretary General asks that sub-paragraphs b) c) d) be voted on at the same time.

Any objections?

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstentions: Ethiopia, Norway.

Sub-paragraphs b), c) and d) are accordingly adopted by 13 votes to 6, with 2 abstentions.

Sub-paragraph e) of Paragraph 4. The President (Interpretation)—Any objections to sub-paragraph e)?

M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation)—The Soviet Delegation objects to this sub-paragraph and asks for a vote.

The President (Interpretation)—I put sub-paragraph e) to the vote.

(Vote by roll-call).

The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Norway, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., U.S.A., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

Sub-paragraph e) is accordingly adopted by 13 votes to 7, with one abstention.

Paragraph 4 bis. The President (Interpretation)—I put subparagraph 4 bis to the vote.

Any objections?

Paragraph 4 bis is adopted.

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7. The President (Interpretation)—I put paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 to the vote.

Any objections? If none, the vote is to take place.

Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 are adopted.

Paragraph 8. The President (Interpretation)—I put paragraph 8 to the vote.

Mr. Bartos (Yugoslavia)—I ask for a vote on each separate subparagraph.

Sub-paragraph a of Paragraph 8. The President (Interpretation)—I put sub-paragraph a) of paragraph 8 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—Sub-paragraph a) of paragraph 8 is adopted unanimously.

Sub-paragraph b of Paragraph 8. The President (Interpretation)—I put sub-paragraph b of paragraph 8 to the vote. Any objections? Sub-paragraph b of paragraph 8 is adopted.

First Part of Sub-paragraph c. The President (Interpretation)—I put to the vote the first part of this paragraph, which was adopted as it stood by the Commission. The proposal is adopted.

Second Part of Sub-paragraph c. I put to the vote the first proposal in regard to the second part of sub-paragraph c of paragraph 8—a proposal submitted by the Sub-Commission.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation)—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Norway, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Abstained: France, Netherlands.

The proposal is therefore rejected by 13 votes to 6 with two abstentions.

The President (Interpretation)—I put to the vote the second proposal, submitted by the U.S.A. Delegation, in regard to the second part of sub-paragraph c of paragraph 8.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: France.

The proposal is accordingly adopted by 14 votes to 6 with one abstention.

The President: I will put to the vote Article 24 bis. We will vote on each proposal separately, and begin with the U.K. proposal.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President—The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

(The U.K. proposal was adopted by 14 votes to 7).

The President of the Commission wishes me to ask the U.S. Delegation if they insist on a vote being taken on their proposal.

Mr. Thorp (U.S.A.) We are quite agreeable to the first two paragraphs of the U.S. proposal being withdrawn.

The President—I will put to the vote paragraph 3 of the U.S. proposal.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President—The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia, France.

The U.S. proposal was adopted by 12 votes to 6 with 3 abstentions.

Article 25. The President: I will put Article 25 to the vote.

Any remarks?

Article 25 was adopted.

Article 26. M. Baranowsky (Ukraine). When Article 26 was discussed by the Commission the Ukrainian Delegation made a proposal which the Commission did not adopt.

The Ukrainian proposal was to replace the text of Article 26 as it now stands by another draft which is contained in Document 29, page 12 in the Russian text.

The Ukrainian delegation asks that this proposal be put to the vote.

The President: I will put the Ukrainian proposal to the vote. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President: The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Poland, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Norway, S. Africa, Netherlands, U.K., U.S.S.R., U.S.A.

Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia.

(The Ukrainian proposal was rejected by 15 votes–4 with 2 abstentions).

The Secretary-General and the President of the Commission would like to know if Mr. Thorp has any objection to a vote being taken on Article 26 as a whole? If there are no objections, I will put to the vote Article 26 as a whole.

Mr. Thorp (U.S.). The U.S. Delegation has no objection to our voting on this article as a whole, however, we would like it recorded in the minutes that the U.S. Delegation abstains on the new sub-paragraph e of paragraph 5. We are not asking for a vote by roll-call on this sub-paragraph but we want our abstention recorded.

The President: I will put the whole of Article 26 to the vote. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President: The result of the vote was as follows:—

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, S. Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Czechoslovakia, Poland.

(Article 26 was adopted by 16 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions).

Article 27. The President: We now come to Article 27.

Are there any objections?

M. Gousev. (U.S.S.R.). The U.S.S.R. Delegation proposes that a vote be taken on the Soviet proposal contained in Article 27.

The President: I will put the Soviet proposal concerning Article 27 to the vote.

(A vote taken by roll-call).

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, S. Africa, U.K., U.S.A. Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

(The Soviet proposal was rejected by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions), I will now put the vote Article 27 with the text which the Commission adopted by a majority vote.

(A vote was take by roll-call).

The President: The result of the vote was as follows.

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, S. Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

(The proposal was adopted by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions).

Article 28. The President. I will put Article 28 to the vote.

Are there any objections?

(Article 28 was adopted)

Article 29. The President: I will put Article 29 to the vote. Are there any objections?

(Article 29 was adopted)

Article 30—paragraph 1. The President: I will put to the vote Article 30, para. 1, sub-paragraphs a and b.

Are there any objections to Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a and b?

(There being no objections to the first sentences and sub-paragraphs a and b of Paragraph 1 of Article 30 these were adopted).

Sub-paragraph c. The President: Are there any objections to sub-para. c?

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) The Soviet Delegation asks for a vote on sub-paragraph c with the supplement proposed by the Soviet Delegation.

The President: I will put the Soviet proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

The President. The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R. Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.S.A., U.K.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Netherlands, Norway.

(The Soviet proposal was rejected by 12 votes to 6, with 3 abstentions).

I will now put to the vote the proposal concerning this sub-paragraph c which the Commission adopted by a majority.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Norway.

The proposal is adopted by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions. I will now first put to the vote the U.S. proposal on this paragraph.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation).—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Poland.

The U.S. proposal is adopted by 14 votes to 6 with 1 abstention. I will now put the French proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation).—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China.

The French proposal is adopted by 14 votes to 6 with 1 abstention. We come to Point 2.

Are there any objections to this paragraph?

The U.S.S.R. Delegate (Interpretation).—The Soviet Delegation proposes that a vote be taken on the Soviet proposal contained in paragraph 2.

The President (Interpretation).—I will put the Soviet proposal concerning point 2 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation).—The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Netherlands.

(The proposal was rejected by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions).

Article 30 Point 2. The President (Interpretation): I put to the vote point 2 of Article 30, in the form adopted by the majority of the Commission.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The results of the vote are 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, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Article 30. Point 2 is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Article 30 bis. The President (Interpretation): We now pass to Article 30 bis, a new Article.

The Norwegian Delegate: The Norwegian Delegation will abstain.

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation is opposed to the inclusion of this Article in the text of the Treaty and proposes that a vote should be taken on this article.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.S.A., U.K., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Norway.

Article 30 bis is therefore adopted by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.

Article 31. The President (Interpretation): I put Article 31 to the vote.

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation moves that a vote be taken on the Soviet proposal included in Article 31.

The President (Interpretation): I put the Soviet proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., U.S.A., Union of South Africa.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The Soviet proposal relating to Article 31 is therefore rejected by 14 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.

I now put to the vote the text of Article 31 adopted by the majority of the Commission.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is 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, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Article 31 is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Article 32. The President (Interpretation): We now pass to the vote on Article 32.

Does any Delegate wish to speak?

Article 32 is adopted.

Article 33. The President (Interpretation): We shall now take a vote on Article 33. Does any Delegate wish to speak?

Article 33 is adopted.

Article 34. The President (Interpretation): We now come to the vote on Article 34.

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): The Soviet Delegation is opposed to the insertion of Article 34 in the text of the Peace Treaty and asks that the proposal be put to the vote.

The President (Interpretation): I do not think that such a vote is necessary. We will simply vote on the Article, as proposed by the majority of the Commission.

The Norwegian Delegate (Interpretation): In that case, I request that Points 1 and 2 of the proposal be dealt with separately and also that the statement now in the hands of the Secretary-General be included in the report of the meeting.

M. Dragoumis (Greece) (Interpretation): We will vote on the French proposal, but we ask that our statement be included in the record of the meeting.

The President (Interpretation): I have noted the Norwegian and Greek statements. A separate vote will be taken; I put the first paragraph of Article 34 to the vote.

Paragraph 1. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is 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, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Article 34 Paragraph 1 is therefore adopted by 15 votes to 6.

Paragraph 2. We now come to the vote on Paragraph 2.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Australia, [Belgium?], Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, U.K., U.S.A., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Article 34 Paragraph 2 is therefore adopted by 14 votes to 7.

Annex 4, Section A. The President (Interpretation): A vote has been taken on each of the Articles of the Treaty; we now come to the Annexes. Annexes 1, 2 and 3 have already been adopted. We shall vote on Annex 4, Section A.

Does anyone wish to speak?

Annex 4, Section A is adopted.

Annex 4, Section B. The President (Interpretation): I put Section B to the vote.

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): Mr. President, in the opinion of the Soviet Delegation the inclusion in the Peace Treaty of special clauses relating to insurance serves no useful purpose. We therefore propose that a vote be taken on this matter.

The President (Interpretation): I put the Soviet Delegation’s proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The President (Interpretation): The result of the vote is as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., U.S.A., Union of South Africa.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

The Soviet Delegation’s proposal is therefore rejected by 14 votes to 6, with 1 abstention.

The President: I will now put to the vote Section B with the text which the Commission adopted by a majority vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, U.K., U.S.A., Union of South Africa.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Ethiopia.

(Section B of Annex 4 was adopted by 14 votes to 6 with one abstention).

The President: We now come to Section C of Annex 4. Are there any objections?

The Delegate of Yugoslavia. Mr. President, Section C is not included in the Commission’s proposal. It is already embodied in Article 24 para. 8 c.

The President: I should explain that the first paragraph of this Section has been adopted, but the others have not yet been voted upon.

Mr. Gregory (U.K.). I ask that a vote be taken. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Belgium, Brazil, China, Ethiopia.

The proposal was rejected by 10 votes to 7 with 4 abstentions).

The President: We now come to Section D. Are there any objections?

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): Mr. President, the Soviet Delegation proposes that no special provisions concerning oil be included in the Peace Treaty. We ask that this proposal be put to the vote.

The President: The Soviet Delegation’s proposal is put to the vote. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, S. Africa, U.K.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia, France.

The Soviet proposal was therefore rejected by 10 votes to 8 with 3 abstentions).

The President: I will now put to the vote para. 1 of Section D in the text adopted by a majority vote of the Commission. I will put paragraphs 1 and 2 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia, France.

10 votes were cast for and 8 against paras. 1 and 2 and there were 3 abstentions. No majority was therefore secured.)

The President: I will now put paragraph 3 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, N. Zealand, S. Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

Paragraph 3 was therefore adopted by 11 votes to 8 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: I will now put paragraph 4 to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, France, Norway, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China and Ethiopia.

Result: 10 votes for, 9 against, 2 abstentions.)

The President: The proposal has not obtained a majority vote and cannot therefore be considered as adopted.

Mr. Wilgress (Canada): Mr. President, I request that the Canadian Delegation’s statement concerning Annex 5 be included in the Minutes of this Plenary meeting.

The President: This will be done. We will now vote on Annex 5. Are there any objections to the adoption of Section I of Annex 5?

M. Gousev (U.S.S.R.) (Interpretation): Mr. President. We have objections and ask for a vote.

The President: I will put to the vote the Soviet Delegation’s proposal concerning Section 1 of Annex 5. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, China, India, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Canada, France, U.K., Greece, Norway, New Zealand, S. Africa.

Abstained: Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia, Netherlands, U.S.A.

The proposal was therefore rejected by 8 votes to 8 with 5 abstentions.)

The President: I will now put to the vote the U.K. proposal. (A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, S. Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, China, India, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Belgium, Brazil, Ethiopia.

As there were 9 votes for, 9 against, with 3 abstentions, the proposal was not adopted).

The President: I will now put the U.S. proposal to the vote:—

(A vote was taken by roll-call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, New Zealand, Norway, S. Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Belgium, China, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Netherlands, Poland.

The U.S. proposal was therefore adopted by 11 votes to 4 with 6 abstentions).

The President: We now come to Section 2 “Periods of Prescription”.

Are there any remarks?

There are 2 proposals in this connection and I will put each one to the vote.

I put to the vote the Soviet Delegation’s proposal.

(A 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, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Union of South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

The Soviet proposal was therefore rejected by 11 votes to 8 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: I will now put to the vote the U.K. proposal.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, China, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia, France.

The U.K. proposal was therefore not adopted as there were 9 votes for and 9 against with 2 [3] abstentions.)

The President: Are there any remarks on Section 3? I put the U.K. proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The results of the vote were as follows:

For: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: China, Ethiopia.

The U.K. proposal was therefore adopted by 13 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: I will now put to the vote the U.K. proposal concerning Section IV.

(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, South Africa, U.K.

Against: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, China, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Abstained: Brazil, Ethiopia, Norway.

Result: 10 votes for, 8 against with 3 abstentions.)

The President: The proposal has not obtained a majority, and cannot therefore be taken as adopted.

Section V. The President: As Section V has already been voted on, we need not revert to it.

Annex 6, Section A. The President: We now come to Annex 6, Section A. Any remarks?

(Annex 6, Section A was adopted.)

Section B. The President: We will take Section B. I will first put the U.S. proposal to the vote.

(A vote was taken by roll call).

(The result of the vote was as follows:

For: Byelorussia, Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, India, Norway, Ukraine, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.

Against: Australia, Belgium, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K.

Abstained: Ethiopia, Poland.

The proposal was therefore adopted by 11 votes to 8 with 2 abstentions.)

The President: As the first proposal drawn up by the United States has been adopted, the Chairman of the Commission suggests that no vote be taken on the other proposals.

There being no objections we may say that we have, more or less happily, finished with the consideration of the Articles of the draft Treaty.

I remind the Conference that tomorrow’s meeting will be held at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Byrnes will take the chair.

The meeting is adjourned.

(The meeting rose at 1.40)⁴³

40. Regarding voting procedure and citations to relevant documentation, see editorial note, p. 702.
41. For text of C.P.(Gen) Doc. 3, Observations on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania by the Rumanian Government, see vol. iv, p. 217.
42. The Verbatim Record is evidently in error. The Record of Recommendations by the Conference on the Draft Peace Treaty with Rumania, vol. iv, p. 918, indicates that article 3 was adopted without modification; the Byelorussian amendment was therefore not adopted.
43. 1:40 a.m., October 11.