CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 20
The Soviet Delegation suggested that the Commission consider the Italian proposals one by one, the Chairman in each case inquiring if any Delegation supported a given Italian proposal; if so, the proposal would be put to a vote, otherwise it would be considered as rejected.
The Delegate of Yugoslavia said that the Commission should consider the entire Italian memorandum rejected since no one had spoken on behalf of it. The New Zealand and South African Delegations saw no reason to take a decision on the Italian memorandum and agreed with the Chairman that the Commission should proceed to an examination of the Preamble paragraph by paragraph, considering in the process the Italian proposals. M. Couve de Murville (France) thought that the discussion on the Italian proposals should be considered closed [Page 262] and that they would not be given further consideration unless they were embodied in amendments proposed by one or more Delegations. M. Vyshinsky disagreed with the French suggestion, saying that the Commission should express itself on the Italian proposals and make a final disposition of them either by acceptance or rejection. The Chairman declared the discussion on the Italian memorandum closed and said that at the next meeting the Commission would begin detailed study of the amendments submitted by the Delegations. He appealed to the Soviet Delegation to permit the French proposal to stand as the unanimous decision of the Commission. M. Vyshinsky did not agree but said he would not insist that there be an immediate vote on the Italian memorandum. The Yugoslav Delegation said that the Commission should record the fact that the Italian proposals had received no support and must be considered as rejected. The Polish Delegation proposed the following as a record of the Commission’s conclusions:
“The Commission discussed the memorandum of Italy on suggested changes in the Preamble of the Treaty with Italy. Several Delegates objected and no one supported this memorandum. The Commission considered, therefore, that the question was taken care of and passed to the next order of business.”
The Chairman proposed that the Commission consider the discussion closed and agree to proceed in its next meeting to examine the Preamble paragraph by paragraph together with all amendments submitted. The Polish Delegation would not withdraw its motion. The French Delegation suggested the following compromise:
“The Chairman has noted that the suggestions contained in the Italian memorandum were not taken up in the form in which they were presented as amendments by any Delegation.”
The Soviet Delegate did not consider this formula acceptable. He thought the Commission should agree to begin its next meeting by considering the Polish proposal. The Chairman then proposed a new formula which was unanimously accepted, reading as follows:
“The Chairman noted that the suggestions contained in the Italian memorandum were not taken up in the form in which they were presented as amendments by any Delegation and therefore were not endorsed as such.”
During the course of the discussion M. Vyshinsky, in connection with the Italian proposal for mention in the Preamble of the Italian partisans, and with the Netherlands amendment (CP IT/P Doc. 8)33 said that the Soviet Delegation would support the Netherlands amendment.