Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/2

FM–2

Notes of a Meeting Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Foreign Office, Paris, on Friday, March 28th, 1919, at 11 a.m.

Present Also Present
America, United States of America, United States of
Mr. Lansing. Mr. Harrison.
British Empire Prof. Haskins.
Mr. Balfour. Mr. Beer.
Lord R. Cecil. Mr. Baruch.
Secretary Mr. McCormick.
Sir M. P. A. Hankey. Mr. Davis.
France Mr. Robinson.
M. Pichon. British Empire
M. Seydoux. Admiral Hope.
Secretary France
M. Berthelot. M. Tardieu.
Italy M. de Peretti.
Baron Sonnino. M. Laroche.
Secretary Italy
M. Bertele. M. Attolico.
Japan
Baron Makino.

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of Lieut. Burden.
British Empire Capt. E. Abraham
France Capt. A. Portier
Italy Lieut. Zanchi
Japan M. Ashida
Interpreter:—M. de Cammerlynck.

(1) M. Pichon opened the Meeting and asked Lord Robert Cecil to make a statement regarding the raising of the Blockade of German-Austria.

Raising of Blockade of German-Austria Lord Robert Cecil said that on March 12th the Supreme Economic Council had resolved that all blockade and trade restrictions with German-Austria and Hungary should be abolished, and that commerce should be free with all parts thereof, as soon as the necessary machinery of control against re-exportation to Germany had been set up. He was not prepared to ask the Council to affirm the part of this resolution which concerned Hungary. In view [Page 523] of the events that had lately taken place in Hungary he would suggest that this portion of the resolution should be referred back to the Supreme Economic Council. The portion of the resolution relating to German-Austria, however, he would ask the Council to adopt. A certain number of articles susceptible of use for military purposes were to be excepted. These articles were enumerated in the paper forwarded by the Supreme Economic Council (see Annexure “A”). There were also in this paper certain provisions for the establishment of the necessary control, with the object of preventing re-export to Germany. In a word, the general principle recommended was that the blockade should be raised except in respect to articles of military use, as soon as an international control had been established, and was in a position to guarantee that no re-export should be made to Germany.

Baron Sonnino said that he had no objection to raise to the resumption of traffic with German-Austria, provided Hungary were not included. He wished, however, to draw attention to a decision taken by the Ban of Croatia-Slavonia, forbidding all import, export and transit of goods between Italy and Yugo-Slav territory. Such a policy, if persisted in, would not harmonise with that recommended by the Supreme Economic Council. Unless these decisions on the part of the Yugo-Slavs were revoked, Italy would be forced to take some counter-action. Up to the present no retort had been made, and he had for the time being stopped any move on the part of Italy.

(For reported action taken by Ban of Croatia, see Annexure “B”)

Mr. Balfour said that the matter alluded to by Baron Sonnino was a delicate question, though it had no very direct bearing on the proposal under discussion. The affair, however, was new to him.

Lord Robert Cecil said that at the earnest request of the Supreme Economic Council Italy had consented to the complete cessation of blockade in the Adriatic. It was, consequently, a very serious matter that the Yugo-Slavs should answer this with a blockade of Italy.

Mr. Lansing enquired whether there had been any restriction on the passage of foodstuffs to Yugo-Slavia.

Baron Sonnino said that as far as he knew, food had been allowed to pass, even before the removal of the blockade. With regard to the alleged order by the Ban of Croatia, he was not able to vouch for the correctness of the information he had put before the Meeting, as he had no official intimation of it and only knew what he had related to the Meeting from newspaper reports. He thought, however, that it was right to draw the attention of the Meeting to the matter.

Mr. Lansing observed that in view of the presumed action on the part of the Yugo-Slavs, the action proposed by the Economic Council appeared all the more necessary.

Mr. Balfour agreed, and expressed the opinion that though there was no immediate practical connection with the proposal under discussion, [Page 524] Baron Sonnino had been right in drawing the attention of the Meeting to this matter. It might perhaps be advisable to ask the Yugo-Slav authorities whether they had issued such a decree, and, if so, in what manner they justified it.

M. Pichon agreed that it would be reasonable to adopt this proposal. The Yugo-Slav authorities should be asked to give an explanation and their answer might be placed before the Council.

(It was then resolved that M. Pichon, on behalf of the Council, should undertake to see the Serbian representatives in Paris about the alleged prohibition of trade between Croatia-Slavonia and Italy and to report to the Council.)

Baron Sonnino made reservations regarding the above decision, pending the result of M. Pichon’s enquiries. He said that Italy must have the right of taking counter-measures if the result was not satisfactory.

(It was further resolved that all blockade and trade restrictions with German-Austria should be abolished and that commerce should be free with all parts thereof, as soon as the necessary machinery of control against re-exportation to Germany had been set up, with the exceptions and other provisions set out in detail in Annexure “A”.)2

(2) Lord Robert Cecil read a resolution of the Supreme Economic Council, for the text of which see Annexure “C”.

Reopening of Trade With Esthonia He explained that the object was to facilitate commercial intercourse with Esthonia, after taking precautions to prevent the re-export of goods to Germany and Bolshevik Russia.

Mr. Lansing inquired why the same proposal was not extended to Latvia and Lithuania.

Lord Robert Cecil said that there were political objections to doing so, as the Governments of Latvia and Lithuania were still sketchy, and the delegates had thought it unsuitable to enter into immediate commercial relations with them.

Mr. McCormick said that the delegates had been led to believe that there were military reasons against this. He himself, however, thought that some such arrangement might be made.

Mr. Balfour observed that all the main ports of entry into Latvia and Lithuania were in the hands either of the Germans or the Bolsheviks. This rendered it difficult to resume commercial relations with these countries. He would propose, therefore, that the resolution of the Supreme Economic Council be adopted, with a note that [Page 525] as soon as the military situation was favourable, the same principle be extended to the other Baltic States.

Mr. McCormick expressed the view that Libau and Riga were no more under German control than Dantzig. As long as a local Committee of Control could fulfil its functions in any of these ports it would be safe to resume traffic.

Mr. Balfour thought that the position of Riga and Libau was somewhat different from that of Dantzig. At the last there was at least law and order, but the others were in an area in which military operations were either going on, or had taken place, and were about to start again. In fact, they were within the zone of active hostilities.

M. Pichon observed that he feared that order at Dantzig might soon cease. He had received reports of turmoil in that place which might threaten the security of the Inter-Allied Commission.

Mr. Balfour observed that Riga was in the hands of the Bolsheviks, and at Libau there were 20,000 Germans. He asked M. Pichon what news he had received concerning Dantzig.

M. Pichon said that he had no official information, but he had press news of a German insurrection at Dantzig against the Poles. He agreed with Mr. Balfour regarding Lithuania. He added that even if the principle of extending the resumption of commercial relations to Latvia and Lithuania be accepted, any decision to do so must be subordinated to the opinion of the military authorities. Failing this, great inconvenience, and even danger would ensue.

Mr. Lansing suggested that the proposal relating to Esthonia should be adopted, and that the Supreme Economic Council be requested to report on the advisability of extending the same provision to Latvia and Lithuania.

M. Pichon said that he would agree, provided their decision be subordinated to the political and military considerations previously mentioned.

Mr. Balfour said that the Supreme Economic Council would obtain the evidence of military witnesses.

(With the above recommendation to extend the same principle to Latvia and Lithuania when the political and military situation became favourable, the resolution of the Supreme Economic Council regarding the resumption of trade with Esthonia, as set forth in Annexure “C”, was adopted.)

(3) Lord Robert Cecil said that the same question arose regarding Poland. The Supreme Economic Council had passed a Resolution freeing Poland from blockade and trade restrictions as from April 1st next, subject to the establishment of a proper control at Dantzig. Removal of Restrictions on Trade With Poland

He asked whether the meeting would endorse this proposal.

[Page 526]

Mr. Lansing expressed the view that the disorder at Dantzig alluded to by M. Pichon was in the nature of a riot against the Poles, instigated by German officers. Events of this kind were bound to occur wherever people were transferred, or feared they were to be transferred, against their wishes, to an alien allegiance.

Mr. McCormick pointed out that the despatch of food through Dantzig to Poland had been carried out without obstruction. The supplementary proposal now before the meeting related to raw materials.

M. Seydoux observed that the import of these raw materials could be carried out by the same agency as the import of food.

Lord Robert Cecil then proposed the following resolution:—

“That all blockade and trade restrictions with Poland be abolished and all commerce be free with all parts thereof, as soon as satisfactory machinery is set up for the proper control at Dantzig.”

Mr. Lansing suggested the substitution of the word “provided” for the words “as soon as”.

(The Resolution as adopted was as follows:—

“That all blockade and trade restrictions with Poland shall be abolished, and all commerce shall be free with all parts thereof from April 1st, 1919, provided satisfactory machinery is set up before that date for the proper control at Dantzig.”)

(b) Question of Polish Participation in Control at Dantzig M. Seydoux observed with reference to this decision that he had been asked by the Supreme Economic Council to invite the Polish National Committee in Paris to depute some Poles to take a share in this control. He enquired whether the new situation at Dantzig did not make it inadvisable to make this request.

Lord Robert Cecil said that the intention of the Supreme Economic Council had not been so much to ask the Poles to take a share in the control at Dantzig, as to entrust the distribution of food within Poland to them, rather than to allied officers. Distribution by the latter was burdensome to the Allied Powers and demoralising to the people.

Mr. Hoover expressed the opinion that the reports had greatly exaggerated the disturbances at Dantzig. Even during the trouble there had been no difficulty in handling the food destined for Poland. 4,500 tons of food had been shipped to Warsaw on the day of the riot. The trouble was that some of the Poles on the Food Commission had thought fit to engage in propaganda among the Polish inhabitants of Dantzig. In consequence of this they had been sent home. He was therefore not in favour of any Polish Commissioners in Dantzig as it was difficult for the Poles to refrain from canvassing their fellow countrymen.

[Page 527]

(It was decided that the Polish National Committee should not be invited to arrange for Commissioners to proceed to Dantzig, but that the distribution of food within Poland should, as far as possible, be performed by the Poles themselves.)

(4) Mr. McCormick said that in connection with the request of the Swiss Government presented through the French General Staff for the re-opening of traffic on the Rhine, and for permission to send a Swiss engineer on a patrol boat to examine the Channel between Bâle and Strassburg, the Supreme Economic Council had passed a resolution favouring the Swiss proposal. This resolution was to have been submitted to the Supreme War Council. Re-opening of Rhine Traffic

M. Seydoux observed that an Inter-Allied Military Commission regulated the movements of boats on the Rhine, and it would therefore have to be consulted.

Lord Robert Cecil said that all the resolutions of the Supreme Economic Council were sent to Marshal Foch as a matter of course. Marshal Foch, however, was represented on the Council by General Pyot. He had no reason to suppose that Marshal Foch had any objection to the scheme.

M. Pichon said that before accepting the resolution he would ask for time to consult Marshal Foch.

Mr. Lansing observed that the resolution under discussion was analogous to that adopted on the previous day, regarding the revictualling of Bavaria. It did not appear to him that this question was of a more military character than the other.

(It was then resolved that there was no objection from a blockade point of view to the re-opening of the Rhine to traffic for the purpose of permitting the resumption of Swiss trade with Holland, Scandinavia and the Entente countries, subject to the existing blockade agreements, and that the recommendation of the Supreme Economic Council to this end was approved, subject to their obtaining the consent of the Military Authorities.)

(5) M. Pichon read the following draft Resolution to which he understood Mr. Balfour had given his assent:—

Appointment of Commission on Moroccan Question “The Supreme Council of the Allies, after hearing the statement made by the French Government of its claims against Germany regarding Morocco, considers that in the Peace Treaty all servitudes of an international character, to which that country was subjected as a result of German intervention, should be cancelled; that certain sanctions should be adopted against Germany for her attitude in the past, as well as certain guarantees for the future.

“Consequently the Supreme Council, taking note of the declarations of the French Government regarding the maintenance of the “open” [Page 528] door” in Morocco, that is to say economic, commercial, and industrial equality for all the Allied nations, in consideration of their surrender of all servitudes of an international character, entrusts a commission on which Belgium, France, United States, Great Britain, Italy and Portugal, allied powers signatories of the Algeciras Convention3 shall be represented with the task of examining the provisions, it will be necessary to introduce to that end in the Treaty of Peace in accordance with the proposal of the French Government.”

Baron Sonnino expressed his agreement with this proposal.

Mr. Lansing enquired what was the meaning of the expression “certain sanctions”? He enquired whether penalties were contemplated.

Mr. Balfour said that he was inclined to think that the first paragraph of the Resolution ought to be modified. This paragraph had originally been the first of a series which had formed the text of a long Resolution. The Resolution had eventually been cut down to one operative paragraph, which was the second in the draft before the meeting. The first and prefatory paragraph, however, had been left unaltered, and it would probably be advisable to modify it a little.

Mr. Lansing enquired whether it would not be best to omit it entirely.

M. Pichon observed that the portion to which Mr. Lansing took exception was really the last two clauses. He would suggest that these be omitted and that the remainder of paragraph 1 be maintained.

Mr. Lansing expressed his assent to this.

Baron Makino enquired whether the principle of the open door thus laid down applied with equal force to Allied States who were not signatories of the Algeciras Act.

M. Pichon said that it did, but that special Conventions with each country not signatory of the Algeciras Convention would be required.

Mr. Lansing asked what would be the situation with regard to Spain.

M. Pichon said that France had special agreements with Spain which would have to be revised after the report of the Commission.

The following Resolution was then adopted:

“The Supreme Council of the Allies, after hearing the statement made by the French Government of its claims against Germany regarding Morocco, considers that in the Peace Treaty all servitudes of an international character, to which that country was subjected as a result of German intervention, should be cancelled.

“Consequently the Supreme Council, taking note of the declarations of the French Government regarding the maintenance of the ‘open door’ in Morocco, that is to say economic, commercial and industrial equality for all the Allied nations, in consideration of their surrender of all servitudes of an international character, entrusts a commission, [Page 529] on which Belgium, France, United States, Great Britain, Italy and Portugal, allied powers signatories of the Algeciras Convention shall be represented, with the task of examining the provisions, it will be necessary to introduce to that end in the Treaty of Peace, in accordance with the proposal of the French Government.”

The following nominations were made to the Commission:—

For Great Britain Mr. Akers-Douglas
“ United States of America Mr. Beer
“ France M. de Peretti
“ Italy (reserved)

It was further decided that the other Powers to be represented on the Commission should be asked by the Secretary General to designate their members.

(6) M. Tardieu said that he represented both the Committee on Danish Affairs and the Central Co-ordinating Committee for Territorial Adjustments. He would therefore be able to answer questions that might arise regarding the Report of the Committee which had been accepted with two small alterations by the Co-ordinating Committee. Report of Committee on Danish Affairs

Mr. Balfour said that he had two questions to ask which related to the procedure adopted by the Committee. If he understood the procedure aright, the plan adopted was to divide the contested country into three zones. In the first zone there was to be a plebiscite the result of which was known beforehand. He had no criticism to make regarding that. It might even be possible to proceed without a plebiscite. In regard to the other two zones, the first question that arose in his mind was why two, seeing that both were to be treated roughly in the same manner. Voting was not to be conducted over the whole area, but commune by commune. Each of these small units was to be treated as an entity, and asked to declare under which sovereign state it wished to live. The probable result would be that the map when drawn according to the decisions of the local communities would present a piebald appearance. One commune might like to be German, and its neighbour Danish. The Committee apparently was quite reconciled to this, and was prepared to proceed with the plebiscite, even should a continuous belt of communes adopt German nationality and thereby interpose an uninterrupted German area between two Danish areas. He alluded to the third paragraph on page 6 of the report. In addition to this, one of the communes to be consulted was Flensburg. The history of Flensburg was, as he understood it, that when Denmark in 1863 had lost these territories to Germany, the latter had made a great effort to convert Flensburg into a big port with a large shipbuilding industry. For this purpose German workmen had been imported and the population at the present time was more German than Danish. As regards [Page 530] Flensburg, therefore, the result of a referendum might be safely anticipated, that Flensburg would doubtless declare for Germany. No doubt this was a difficult case, presenting difficulties that were bound to arise elsewhere. It would in many parts of the world be necessary to modify the ethnological principle by geographical and economic considerations. It had seemed to him that confusion would be increased and difficulties doubled by first offering votes to the population, and after recording the result of their votes, disregarding it. Would it not be better to say beforehand that there were certain considerations which must outweigh national sentiments, rather than by consulting the latter to make it almost impossible to allege the former. He felt sure the Committee had considered these points, and he would be glad to hear in what manner M. Tardieu would deal with these comments.

M. Tardieu said that the problem had not been raised by the Allied and Associated Powers. It had been raised by Denmark. The Danish Government itself was responsible for the system of consultation by zones. The Committee had realised that the results foreseen by Mr. Balfour were likely to come about. It was clear that, as Germans and Danes were much mixed up in South Schleswig, some Germans would have to be incorporated in Denmark. This trouble was in the very nature of things, and could not be cured by any Committee.

Mr. Balfour’s question was whether the Committee had not made the trouble worse by suggesting that votes should be taken commune by commune. It had been thought that by this method Denmark would gain more areas of Danish nationality than by an indiscriminate referendum to the country as a whole. Denmark had shown great timidity in making its claims. Central Schleswig was so saturated with Germans that a vote taken over the whole area might attribute the country to Germany, whereas a proportion of the communes might, if consulted in isolation, find the courage to assert their Danish sympathies. Once the Communes had voted, the International Commission which would be sent to the spot to work out the frontier in detail, would at least have a basis to work on. As to Flensburg, the majority of the inhabitants were admittedly German. There was, nevertheless, an important Danish element, and it was possible that the economic argument would touch even the German residents in Flensburg. Should the hinterland be assigned to Denmark, it might appear to them more profitable to throw in their lot with the Danes than to maintain their national connection with Germany. In any case, perfection could not be expected in this or in any other instance of mixed populations which the Conference had to disentangle. The idea of dividing the country into two zones had emanated from the Danes, and the Committee had not thought it right to refuse them satisfaction, as this method seemed likely to win for Denmark a greater number [Page 531] of adherents than any other. As to the third zone, this had been suggested by the Committee. It was thought that fear of Germany had so long and so deeply affected the population in Southern Schleswig that it would be desirable to encourage the people to express their mind freely by presenting them with the results of a referendum in the areas to the North; thus the plebiscite in the first zone would precede that in the second, and the third would not be consulted until the other two had expressed their will. This might produce sufficient confidence for national feelings to assert themselves in the third zone.

Mr. Lansing said that he had a question to put: If in the Southern portion of the second zone a row of communes opted for Germany, was it proposed to proceed with the consultation of the population in the third zone? The situation that might result would be a continuous line of German communes, separating two contingents of Danish Communes from each other.

M. Tardieu said it must not be assumed and, in fact, it was not likely, that a continuous row of communes in the area referred to by Mr. Lansing would all adopt German nationality. It was possible that a few at one or other extremity of the line would do so: in consequence the frontier instead of running more or less straight from east to west would follow a more sinuous line diagonally. At any rate the local International Commission would have to deal with the situation and it was not necessary to prejudge its decisions.

Mr. Lansing said that he was satisfied with this reply and was prepared to accept the Report.

M. Laroche drew attention to Article 2 of the Report which empowered the International Commission to take into account geographical and economic conditions. What had led the Committee to establish the third zone was the information received that many people in that area had Danish sympathies but dared not express them out of fear of Germany.

Baron Sonnino observed that the arrangement by which voting in the second zone was to precede voting in the third zone by a fortnight was obviously artificial. As the voting was being conducted by communes would it not be as well that the voting in both areas should synchronize?

M. Tardieu said that this arrangement was justified by the moral condition of the country. The people had been long oppressed and were still unprepared to express their real preferences, unless encouraged. It was hoped that the second zone in its voting would give an example to the third.

Mr. Balfour said that he could resume his objections in two sentences. It was universally agreed that frontiers could not be made exclusively on ethnological grounds, but if a vote had been taken which was intended to reveal ethnological realities, it was difficult [Page 532] to upset it on any other consideration. Secondly, a system was being adopted in this area which was not being adopted elsewhere, for instance, in fixing the limits of Poland and Bohemia. An awkward question could certainly be asked in regard to this discrepancy. The only answer available was apparently that the Danish Government had asked the Conference to adopt this method in this instance.

M. Tardieu said that he would attempt to answer in as few words. To put the matter quite frankly, the Committee had feared that there might prove to be a majority for Germany between the red and blue lines on the map. They hoped that by consulting the people commune by commune this result might be averted. As to Mr. Balfour’s second objection, he had no answer and the difficulty had occurred to him before.

Mr. Balfour doubted whether the Meeting could adopt the Report of the Committee. He thought the best course would be to forward it to the Supreme Council with the arguments adduced for and against.

Mr. Lansing said that he assumed that any resolution of the Meeting must be ad referendum to the Supreme Council.

The Report of the Committee on Danish Affairs was approved in principle, ad referendum to the Supreme Council, with the reservations expressed by Mr. Balfour.

Baron Sonnino reserved approval as in his view the case could not be dealt with in isolation but must be considered in connection with all other territorial settlements.

(The Meeting then adjourned until the following Tuesday afternoon.)

Paris, 28th March, 1919.

Annexure “A”

Trade With German Austria

Resolution Forwarded by Supreme Economic Council to Supreme War Council

In accordance with the decision of the Superior Blockade Council at its Meeting of March 12th (see Minutes No. 26) the C.B.O.4 has examined and discussed the methods of control to establish in case of resumption of trade with German Austria. It was decided to submit to the Superior Blockade Council the following propositions:

*Article 1. The importation of the following products, of which the [Page 533] importation into Bulgaria is forbidden, shall also be forbidden into German-Austria. The exportation from Austria of the same products shall also be forbidden.

  • Aircraft of all kinds including aeroplanes, airships, balloons and their component parts, together with accessories and articles suitable for use in connection with aircraft.
  • Apparatus which can be used for the storage of [or] projection of compressed or liquefied gases, flame, acids or other destructive agents capable of use in warlike operations, and their component parts.
  • Armour plates.
  • Armoured motor cars.
  • Arms of all kinds, including arms for sporting purposes and their component parts.
  • Barbed wire and implements for fixing and cutting same.
  • Camp Equipment. Camp equipment articles of, and their component parts.
  • Clothing and equipment of a distinctively military character.
  • Electrical appliances, adapted for use in the war, and their component parts.
  • Explosives specially prepared for use in war.
  • Field glasses.
  • Gases tor war purposes.
  • Guns and machine guns.
  • Gunmountings.
  • Limbers, military wagons of all descriptions.
  • Harness or Horse equipments of a military character.
  • Implements and apparatus designed exclusively for the manufacture of munitions of war or for the manufacture or repair of arms or of war material for use on land or sea.
  • Mines, submarines and their component parts.
  • Projectiles, charges, cartridges and grenades of all kinds and their component parts.
  • Range finders and their component parts.
  • Searchlights and their component parts.
  • Submarine Sound Signalling apparatus.
  • Materials for wireless telegraphs.
  • Torpedoes.
  • Warships, including boats and their component parts of such a nature that they can only be used on a vessel of war.

Article 2. All other commodities can be freely imported into Austria.

Article 3. The re-exportation by Austria & Hungary to Germany of the following commodities shall be forbidden except under special authorization of the Interallied Commission at Innsbruck:

Article 4. Austria can import from Germany only those commodities which Germany has been authorised to export.

Article 5. The C. B. O. suggests that the Financial Section of the Supreme Economic Council shall examine the conditions under which exportation from Germany to Austria of other commodities can be made.

Article 6. The C. B. O. is of the opinion that it is necessary to establish a control on the Bavarian Frontier.

[Page 534]

Article 7. The control shall be exercised by an Interallied Commission which will sit at Innsbruck. The composition of this Commission shall be decided upon by agreement between the Associated Governments.

Article 8. To carry out this control the Innsbruck Commission will place at the railway station and at points of communication on the Bavarian Frontier agents who will have the necessary power to examine, and, in case of need, cause to be stopped the prohibited traffic. These agents will obtain control and communicate to the Innsbruck Commission any relevant documents and statistics of the Customs Railways and Steamships Authorities.

The Austrian Customs shall, at the request of these agents, take all preventive and penal measures necessary both as regards exportation and importation.

Article 9. The Innsbruck Commission will receive its instructions from the C. B. O., which itself is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Economic Blockade Council.

The Innsbruck Commission will, however, be given all latitude to not [act] within the limits of the above authority. In case of doubt or divergence, it shall immediately refer the question to the C. B. O., which it will keep regularly informed of its operations and of the results of its activities.

Annexure “B”

Telegram No. 6211 from Rome

Newspapers publish the following text of the Proclamation of the Bano of Croatia, published by the official Newspaper of Zagabria, the Narodna Novi:

The Bano of Croatia and Slavonia in compliance with the Decree issued by the Council of Serbian Ministers at Belgrade directs:—

1.
That all trade with enemy countries, Germany, Austria, Turkey, Hungary, Bulgaria, shall be stopped.
2.
All importation of goods for Italy, and the exportation of goods from Italy, across territories occupied by us, is prohibited:
3.
A similar embargo is placed on the transit through our territory of goods from enemy countries directed to Italy, as likewise the transit of goods from Italy to enemy countries—all transit across (our) occupied territory is prohibited. This prohibition shall be applied without regard to the circumstances of origin of [or?] destination of the goods.
4.
The exportation of goods from the Kingdom to occupied territories is allowed when same are required for the needs of the local population, and are not intended for exportation to Italy, or for the requirements of the Italian troops. Meanwhile publicity is given to this Decree and the liquidation and severance is recommended of all business with the said countries, which are excluded from trade relations.
5.
All the Railway and Military and Civil Police Authorities, especially of the Stations of Buccari and Koprivnica, have received orders to prevent the importation of goods from Italy or exportation [Page 535] to Italy even in cases where proper transport permits have been issued. They have received similar orders to prevent the transit of goods from enemy countries directed to Italy, through our territory, and the transit of goods directed from Italy to enemy countries.

(Signed)
Dr. John Paleck
, Bano

Annexure “C”

esthonia

Resolution by the Supreme Economic Council

At the Meeting of the Supreme Economic Council held on Monday, 24th March, 1919, the following resolution presented by the Blockade Section was approved for submission to the Supreme War Council:—

Whereas it is desirable that reasonable quantities of commodities should be permitted to reach Esthonia,

Resolved that subject to guarantees being given that no imported commodities and no articles manufactured therefrom will be exported to Germany and Bolshevik Russia,

1.
Applications for permission to ship commodities to Esthonia shall be made to and decided by, the Allied Blockade Council in London, except in so far as such shipments are made from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland.
2.
The Inter-Allied Trading Committees in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Holland shall be authorised to endorse licences for the export of commodities from these countries respectively to Esthonia and shall notify the Allied Blockade Council of the exports affected under this arrangement in order that the rations of the exporting countries may be credited to the extent of the exports made.
3.
The Allied Blockade Council shall be requested to prepare at once an estimate of the quarterly requirement of Esthonia in the matter of foodstuffs and most important raw materials, based in the case of foodstuffs on the instructions of the Food Section and in the case of other commodities upon the best material available.
4.
The Inter-Allied Trading Committees in the Northern Neutral Countries shall be requested to authorise exports to their respective countries from Esthonia.
5.
The Allied Blockade Council shall be empowered if they consider it necessary to set up an Inter-Allied Trading Committee at Revel.
6.
The announcement of these arrangements to be made on the 1st April, 1919.

Note:—In the event of the above Resolution being approved it will be necessary for the Naval Authorities to issue appropriate instructions regarding the passage of trade to and from Revel.

  1. A correction to FM–2a (constituting a brief summary of the minutes given in full as FM–2), dated March 29, 1919, reads thus:

    “The resolution of the Supreme Economic Council was approved, insofar as it concerned German-Austria, with a reservation by Baron Sonnino, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory reply by the Jugo-Slavs to M. Pichon’s inquiry.

    The question as relating to Hungary was, however, referred back to the Supreme Economic Council.”

  2. Foreign Relations, 1906, pt. 2, p. 1495.
  3. Abbreviation for Comité du Blocus de l’Orient (Committee on Blockade of the East).
  4. Note: This list is drawn short on the assumption that the Allied Military Authorities will be in a position satisfactorily to supervise the factories capable of producing munitions of war. [Footnote in the original.]