CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
Discussion was resumed on the subject of inviting Albania and other states to present their views to the Conference. There were before the Conference the original Yugoslav draft resolution (CP/Plen/8 A), the draft resolution of the Czechoslovak Delegation (CP/Plen/10 A), the U.S. amendment to the latter (CF/Plen/10 B), and finally an amendment proposed by the U.K. Delegation (CP/Plen/10 C).78 The resolution with the proposed U.S. and U.K. amendments read as follows: “The Conference decides to invite Albania, Mexico, Cuba and Egypt in order to enable them to state their views at plenary meetings at the Conference and in the relevant commissions with regard to the drafting of the Peace Treaty with Italy. The Conference further decides that the precise rules governing the hearings of the states referred to above shall be established by the General Commission.” M. Pijade (Yugoslavia) proposed replacing the term “General Commission” with the word “Secretariat”. The U.K. Delegation then proposed that the second sentence of the resolution read as follows: “The Conference further decides that the precise rules governing the hearing of the states referred to above shall be established by the General Secretariat on the understanding that, if no agreement is reached in that body, the matter shall be referred to the General Commission.” The U.K. Delegation also proposed that Austria be included among the states referred to. This proposal was withdrawn after the Soviet and Ukrainian Delegations spoke in opposition to it. M. Vyshinsky (U.S.S.R.) then proposed that the different parts of the draft resolution be voted upon separately. The first part of the U.K. amendment (up to the words “General Secretariat”) was adopted unanimously. The second part reading “on the understanding that if no agreement is reached in that body the question shall be referred to the General Commission”, was passed by 15 to 6. The following delegations voted in favor: United States, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Greece, India, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, [Page 187] South Africa. The following delegations voted in the negative: Byelorussia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Ukraine, U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia. The U.K. amendment as a whole was then declared adopted. The Czechoslovak resolution as amended by the U.S. Delegation was then adopted unanimously. The final vote was taken on the Czechoslovak resolution as amended by the U.S. and U.K. Delegations. It was adopted by a vote of 15 to 3 with 3 abstentions. The 15 affirmative votes were those of the delegations which had voted for the second part of the U.K. amendment. The three negative votes represented Byelorussia, Poland and the Soviet Union. The Czechoslovak, Ukrainian and Yugoslav delegations abstained. M. Fouques Duparc was elected Secretary General of the Conference. Representatives of Australia, Brazil, China and Yugoslavia were elected to the Secretariat to serve with representatives of the members of the Council of Foreign Ministers.
M. Kosanović (Yugoslavia) made the following proposal: “The agenda of the Plenary Meetings of the Conference shall be prepared by the Secretariat, approved by the Acting President and by the four other Presidents and submitted for final approval to the Plenary Meeting of the Conference.” Dr. Evatt (Australia) proposed deletion of the words “and by the four other Presidents”. M. Kosanović was willing to add to his text the sentence: “In the event of disagreement between the Secretariat and the Acting President, the provisional agenda shall be submitted to the four other Presidents.” With that addition he could then agree to the deletion of the words mentioned by Dr. Evatt. Mr. Cohen (U.S.) proposed the addition of the word “agreed” before the word “agenda”.79 The Yugoslav Delegation accepted this change. Dr. Evatt proposed the deletion of the word “Acting”. The Yugoslav Delegation accepted that change also. The draft resolution was then unanimously adopted in the following form: “The agreed agenda of Plenary Sessions of the Conference shall be prepared by the Secretariat, approved by the President and submitted for final approval to the Plenary Conference.”
When the Chairman (Mr. Byrnes) called upon the Yugoslav Delegation to speak on the statement made by Signor de Gasperi on August 10, he said that he did not propose to allow other members to speak on the subject unless the Conference took a decision to that effect. M. Vyshinsky objected to this ruling and demanded the right to speak on the Italian statement. He said that no decision had been taken to [Page 188] limit the discussion to the observations of the Yugoslav Delegation. M. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) then said that he did not understand that a decision had been taken along lines of the Chairman’s view and had expected a general discussion on the Italian statement. The Chairman said that he was adhering strictly to the agenda prepared by the Secretariat. M. Kardelj then delivered his speech concerning Signor de Gasperi’s statement. He drew attention to two trends in Italian history: (1) The democratic trend represented by Mazzini and Garibaldi which always stood for fraternal relations with and respect for the Yugoslav nation; and (2) the trend of Italian imperialism which found expression in Italy’s policy in the First World War and in Fascism. He believed that Signor de Gasperi’s speech showed that the Italy of the present had not abandoned imperialism and wished to dominate territory which belonged to the Yugoslav people. He disagreed with the statistical data on the ethnic composition of the population of the Julian March which Signor de Gasperi had put forward. He said they were imaginary figures, that the arguments based on them represented the same attitude that had been shown by Mussolini and his predecessors. M. Kardelj stated his opposition to the attempts of Italy to obtain a postponement of the solution of the question of Trieste and the Julian March.
M. Vyshinsky again referred to the meeting of August 10 and said that it had been decided that a general discussion would be held on the Italian statement in which any delegation might speak. Dr. Evatt then said that he had looked at the record of Saturday’s debate and that it seemed clear that there was no agreement to restrict discussion to the observations of one delegation. The Chairman then consulted the verbatim record of the meeting of August 10 which bore out M. Vyshinsky’s view.80 He then stated that the agenda as prepared by the Secretariat was not in keeping with the verbatim record and that there was no need to vote on the advisability of holding a general discussion. The meeting was then adjourned on the understanding that discussion on the Italian statement would be continued at the next meeting.
- For text of C.P.(Plen)8 A, see the Verbatim Record of the 8th Plenary Meeting, August 9, p. 148, and footnote 59, p. 160; for text of C.P.(Plen)10 A and the substance of C.P.(Plen)10 B and C.P.(Plen) 10 C, see the United States Delegation Journal account of the 10th Plenary Meeting, August 10, p. 171.↩
- The Verbatim Record of the 13th Plenary Meeting indicates that Cohen was the first speaker at that meeting. He expressed the hope that the addition proposed by the United States would satisfy the Yugoslav desire for Great Power agreement on the agenda for each meeting before it actually met. Since every delegation was represented on the Secretariat, an “agreed agenda” would indicate Great Power accord. (CFM Files)↩
- The Verbatim Record under reference, that of the 11th Plenary Meeting, August 10, is printed on p. 175.↩