Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/27

FM–27

Secretary’s Notes of a Meeting of the Foreign Ministers Held in M. Pichon’s Room at the Quai d’Orsay, Paris, on Wednesday, June 25, 1919, at 3 p.m.

Present Also Present
America, United States of America, United States of
Hon. R. Lansing Dr. R. H. Lord
Secretary Mr. G. L. Beer
Mr. L. Harrison Dr. M. O. Hudson
British Empire British Empire
The Rt. Hon. A. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P. (for part of meeting) Capt. C. T. M. Fuller, C. M. G., D. S. O.
Sir Eyre Crowe, K. C. M. G., K. C. B. Sir E. Howard, K. C. M. G., K. C. B.
France Lt. Col. F. H. Kisch, D. S. O.
M. Pichon Sir H. J. Read, K. C. M. G.
Secretaries Mr. Bourdillon
M. de Bearn France
Capt. de St. Quentin M. J. Cambon
Lieut. de Percin General Le Bond
Italy M. Degrand
Marquis Imperiali M. Hermitte
Secretary Italy
M. Bertele Marquis P. della Torretta
Japan Count Marazzi
H. E. Viscount Chinda Japan
Secretary M. Otchiai
M. Kawai M. S. Tachi
Colonel Sato

Joint Secretariat

America, United States of Col. U. S. Grant.
British Empire Major A. M. Caccia. C. B.
France { Capt. A. Portier
M. Fould
Italy Lieut. Zanchi
Interpreter:—M. Cammerlynck.
[Page 848]

1. M. Pichon said that he had received a note from Mr. Balfour, stating that he would be delayed owing to other engagements and that Sir Eyre Crowe would replace him.

Political Status of Eastern Galicia The first question the Agenda Paper related to the political status of Eastern Galicia. He would call on M. Cambon, the President of the Commission on Polish Affairs to whom the question had been referred on the 18th June last (I. C. 197),1 to make a verbal statement.

M. Cambon said that a copy of the supplementary report on Eastern Galicia had been circulated to all the members of the Conference. (Appendix A). That report discussed two possible solutions for the status of Eastern Galicia, namely:—

(a)
A provisional administration under a High Commissioner, acting on behalf of the League of Nations, with a temporary Polish Military occupation, and an ultimate consultation of the wishes of the inhabitants.
(b)
A provisional administration under the Polish Government, with full local autonomy and military occupation as for (a), and an ultimate consultation of the wishes of the inhabitants.

It would be seen that both proposals contemplated a temporary Polish military occupation, and provided for an ultimate plebiscite in order to ascertain the wishes and national aspirations of the people. The two propositions merely differed in regard to the character of the Chief of the State. In the first case, the provisional administration would be under a High Commissioner, acting on behalf of the League of Nations. In the second case, the provisional administration would be under a representative of the Polish Government. Before proceeding further, he thought the Council of Foreign Ministers might wish to give a decision on that point.

M. Pichon agreed. The question for the Council to decide was whether the provisional administration should be placed under a High Commissioner acting on behalf of the League of Nations or under the Polish Government.

Mr. Lansing enquired what was meant by a “provisional administration”?

M. Cambon explained that the administration would necessarily be “provisional”, since it was agreed that sooner or later a plebiscite would be held, in order to decide the ultimate form of government desired by the inhabitants.

Marquis Imperiali thought that, before a decision in regard to the character of the administration were given, it would be advisable to decide whether there should or should not be a plebiscite. The Report, submitted by the Commission on Polish Affairs, laid considerable [Page 849] stress on the present disturbed condition of Eastern Galicia and the neighbouring countries, and on the fact that a plebiscite might fail to represent the real and fundamental desires of the inhabitants. The Commission had thought it its duty to make the following observation:—

“A decision to proceed in Eastern Galicia to a plebiscite after a long delay would involve a danger of very serious political consequences; it might cause neighbouring States to compete with each other with the object of attracting Eastern Galicia within their orbit”.

In these circumstances, he thought it would be impossible to separate the two questions, namely, the form of government to be established in Eastern Galicia and the expediency, or otherwise, of holding a plebiscite.

M. Pichon enquired whether the Commission on Polish Affairs had made any definite proposal on that question?

M. Cambon replied that the Commission had always been guided by the spirit which had animated the Council of Foreign Ministers when referring questions to it. The Commission had always been told to study the questions referred to it without taking a definite decision. Nevertheless, the arguments for or against the holding of a plebiscite after a short delay or after a long delay have been clearly summed up in the Report submitted by the Commission in the following terms:—

“In regard to a plebiscite to be held after a short delay, that the value of such a solution would be seriously impaired by the present disturbed condition of Eastern Galicia and the neighbouring countries, and might fail to represent the real and fundamental desires of the inhabitants. In regard to a plebiscite to be held after a long delay, that such a solution succeeding a prolonged provisional regime would obviate the disadvantages alluded to above.”

On the other hand:—

“A decision to proceed in Eastern Galicia to a plebiscite after a long delay would involve a danger of very serious political consequences; it might cause neighbouring States to compete with each other with the object of attracting Eastern Galicia within their orbit.”

In the circumstances, he, personally, recommended that the people of Eastern Galicia should be told that a plebiscite would be taken either by the League of Nations or by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at a date to be selected later without, however, fixing any definite date.

M. Pichon thought that the Council should be asked to decide the two following questions:—

1.
Should a plebiscite be held?
2.
If so, at what date should a plebiscite be taken?

[Page 850]

Mr. Lansing said he had read the report of the Commission on Polish Affairs with considerable interest, since it entirely conformed with his views. The Commission had unanimously agreed that there should be a temporary Polish military occupation, at all events up to the River Zbrucz. Bearing these proposals in mind, he had thought it wise to prepare the following resolution to form the basis of discussion:—

“It was agreed:

1.
That the Polish Government be authorized to occupy with its military forces Eastern Galicia up to the River Zbrucz.
2.
That the Polish Government be authorised to utilize any of its military forces including General Haller’s army in such occupation.
3.
That the Polish Government be authorised to establish a civil Government in Eastern Galicia under a mandate from the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, which shall be conditioned to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the territory and the political, religious and personal liberties of the inhabitants.
4.
That the mandate shall be predicated upon the ultimate self-determination of the inhabitants of Eastern Galicia as to their Political allegiance, the time for the exercise of such choice to be hereafter fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or by a body to whom they may delegate that power.
5.
That the drafting of the mandate be referred to the Polish Commission subject to revision by the Drafting Committee.
6.
That the Polish Government be forthwith advised of the foregoing decisions and of the propriety of acting immediately upon Articles 1 and 2.
7.
That the military representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in Poland be advised of these Articles of agreement.”

Marquis Imperiali said that he was prepared in principle to accept Mr. Lansing’s proposal, which possessed the great advantage that a definite Government would be set up in the territory in question. On the other hand, the great advantage thereby gained would be somewhat nullified by the proposals contained in Article 4, namely, that the continuance of the Government so constituted should depend upon “the ultimate self-determination of the inhabitants of Eastern Galicia as to their political allegiance.” That condition would necessarily have the effect of giving the administration a provisional character, and so leave an open field for every sort of intrigue, and give rise to the serious political consequences referred to by M. Cambon.

M. Pichon enquired whether the Marquis Imperiali dissented from Mr. Lansing’s proposal.

Marquis Imperiali replied in the negative. In his opinion, Mr. Lansing’s proposals were excellent. He merely thought that the proposals would be improved by omitting the Articles which prescribed the holding of a plebiscite.

Sir Eyre Crowe suggested that Mr. Lansing’s draft resolution should be considered Article by Article.

[Page 851]

(This was agreed to.)

Article 1. (Article 1 was accepted without amendment.)

Article 2. Sir Eyre Crowe enquired whether any military objection existed to the proposal that the Polish Government should be authorized to utilize General Haller’s army for the occupation of Eastern Galicia.

General Le Rond explained that it would be the duty of the Polish Command to decide how the troops placed under its orders could best be employed. The Article in question merely gave the Polish authorities the power to utilise their military forces in Galicia. In that connection he would invite attention to the fact that up to the present the Council of Four had objected to the employment of Haller’s troops in Galicia. It was now proposed to withdraw that veto.

Mr. Lansing said that he had consulted his military advisers, who were entirely in favour of the proposals contained in the Article under discussion. Furthermore, the American Minister to Warsaw, who had just arrived in Paris, had informed him that all the local Military Authorities were in favour of using Haller’s army in Galicia, since it constituted the only really trained force available.

(Article 2 was accepted without amendment.)

Article 3. Sir Eyre Crowe called attention to the situation which had arisen at the Meeting of the Council held on the 18th June, 1919.2 Mr. Balfour had then suggested the appointment of a High Commissioner for Eastern Galicia under the League of Nations, basing his proposal on the fact that a most embittered feeling existed between the Poles and the Ruthenians, and that it would, in consequence, be manifestly impossible at the moment to determine the character of public opinion by a plebiscite or other similar methods. Mr. Balfour had, moreover, expressed his conviction that the Ruthenians did not wish to be ruled by the Polish Minority and that it would be an abuse of the mandatory principle to give Poland the mandate. Nevertheless, Mr. Lansing had now proposed, in accordance with the terms of the clause under consideration, to give the mandate to the Polish Government under the authority of the Allied and Associated Powers, even though the Commission on Polish Affairs had, in its supplementary report, clearly borne out Mr. Balfour’s contention that the feelings of animosity against Poland indisputably existed among an important part of the Ruthenian population. Consequently, speaking for Mr. Balfour, he felt compelled to urge the Council to give due weight to Mr. Balfour’s original proposition, recommending the constitution of a provisional [Page 852] Administration for Eastern Galicia, under a High Commissioner, acting on behalf of the League of Nations.

Mr. Lansing drew attention to the fact that while the Commission had, as stated by Sir Eyre Crowe, expressed the opinion that “feelings of animosity against the Poles indisputably existed among an important part of the Ruthenian population”, it had qualified that statement by adding the following remarks, namely:

“Without entering into a discussion as to the origin of this state of feeling, the Commission considers it necessary that its existence should be taken into account in devising any system by which the province would be even provisionally placed under Polish authority. It believes, however, that such a system carefully organised so as to respect the special and local rights of the Ruthenian population might prove acceptable to the latter as a provisional arrangement.”

Furthermore, he wished to complete the statement made by Sir Eyre Crowe in regard to what had occurred at the last meeting. Mr. Balfour had proposed the appointment of a High Commissioner under the mandate of the League of Nations; M. Sonnino had proposed the unconditional surrender of Eastern Galicia to Poland; whilst his own proposal had been a compromise between the two.

M. Cambon said that, speaking in his own name, he wished to urge the necessity of placing the provisional administration under a Polish High Commissioner. The Council had decided that the country should be occupied by Polish Military forces. The Commander-in-Chief of the Polish forces would obviously be a great personage, and it would facilitate his relations with the High Commissioner, should the latter also be a Pole. Consequently, in the interests of ensuring a good understanding between the High Commissioner and the Polish Commander-in-Chief, it would in his opinion, be expedient that both should be Poles. In the second place, it followed as a consequence of Mr. Lansing’s proposals that the administration of Eastern Galicia under a Polish High Commissioner would be controlled and supervised by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers. Would it be wise for the Allied and Associated Powers to abandon this control and to mix themselves up in local politics by themselves taking over the administration of the country? In his opinion, the Allied and Associated Governments would exercise their control more easily and more authoritatively on a Polish official than on a Commissioner appointed by themselves.

(Mr. Balfour here entered, and received a short summary of the above discussion.)

Mr. Balfour said that his own views could be easily expressed. Should the feelings of the native Eastern Galician population allow [Page 853] them to be joined to Poland without local disturbances, that would undoubtedly be the best plan to follow. But he feared that the feeling of the local population was averse to any such proposal, and in that case it might be difficult to join them to Poland. In his opinion, the appointment of a Polish High Commissioner was tantamount to the assertion that Eastern Galicia would permanently be joined to Poland. He personally wished that to happen, but he hesitated to give more trouble to Poland by adding to it a country consisting largely of Little Russians, who did not wish to join her. In his opinion, the whole question turned on a correct estimate of Ruthenian public opinion, regarding which he, personally, could give no positive indication.

M. Pichon said that the information received by the French Foreign Office from Galicia positively indicated that no feelings of hostility existed between the Ruthenians and the Poles. On the contrary, a good understanding appeared to exist between them. Further, the views expressed by the American Ambassador, Mr. Gibson, appeared to bear out those reports.

The Marquis Imperiali said that his information fully confirmed that received by M. Pichon. The largest part of the population was indifferent and all signs of disturbance were undoubtedly due to external causes. On the other hand, religious sentiment turned towards Poland rather than towards the Ukraine, the latter territory being fully Orthodox.

Mr. Balfour said that, in the circumstances, he would withdraw his objections.

(Mr. Balfour then withdrew.)

Sir Eyre Crowe enquired whether it would not be well to avoid the use of the word “mandate”, which had been given a particular meaning in connection with the League of Nations. He suggested that in the Treaty with Poland certain stipulations should be embodied, dealing with the question of Eastern Galicia.

Mr. Lansing suggested that the word “agreement” should be substituted for the word “mandate” throughout the resolution.

(This was agreed to.)

(Article 3, as amended, was accepted.)

Article 4. The Marquis Imperiali said he would like, in connection with this clause, once more to raise the question of the necessity for holding a plebiscite. As previously stated by him, he felt that the establishment of a provisional Government would merely lead to continual intrigues and disturbances.

Mr. Lansing explained that the question of holding a plebiscite had been fully discussed at the last Meeting. The proposals he had now submitted were intended as a compromise between the radically [Page 854] different views then expressed. He felt certain Mr. Balfour would refuse to accept any plan which did not leave the door open for an expression of the wishes of the people.

The Marquis Imperiali said that, under the circumstances, he would not press the matter further.

(Article 4 was accepted.)

Article 5.
Article 6.
Article 7.
(Articles 5, 6, and 7 were accepted without amendment.)

Mr. Lansing proposed that a copy of the resolution should be transmitted to the Ukrainian representatives in Paris with a request that they should inform their Government in order that measures might be taken for the withdrawal of the Ukrainian troops from Eastern Galicia.

Sir E. Crowe pointed out that the Ukrainian representatives in Paris had no means of communicating with their Government. He thought a copy of the resolution should be forwarded to the Allied Military Commission in Poland, who would arrange to transmit the same to the Ukrainian authorities. A copy of the resolution might also be sent to the French Military Representative at Lemberg for transmission to the Ukrainian Government.

Mr. Lansing proposed that M. Pichon should be authorised to notify the parties concerned using all possible means to achieve that object.

(This was agreed to).

Sir E. Crowe said that the Commission on Polish Affairs had attached to their report on Eastern Galicia, a proposed status of Eastern Galicia on the hypothesis of its receiving the largest measure of local autonomy within the Polish State. The Commission had taken as the basis of its studies the draft treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the one hand, and the Czecho-Slovak state on the other. He suggested that in drafting the final articles, the Commission should be instructed to lay stress on the provisional character of the administration to be given to Eastern Galicia, in order that nothing should be included which might in any way interfere with the possibility of holding a plebiscite.

M. Cambon pointed out that the Council had decided “that the drafting of the agreement be referred to the Polish Commission, subject to revision by the Drafting Committee”.

Mr. Lansing proposed that the Polish Commission should have full power to confer with Polish, Ukrainian and Ruthenian representatives, if so desired.

(It was agreed:—

(1)
to accept the following resolution:—
1.
That the Polish Government be authorised to occupy with its military forces Eastern Galicia up to the River Zbrucz.
2.
That the Polish Government be authorised to utilise any of its military forces including General Haller’s army in such occupation.
3.
That the Polish Government be authorised to establish a civil government in Eastern Galicia under an agreement with the Principal Allied and Associated Powers which shall be conditioned to preserve as far as possible the autonomy of the territory and the political, religious and personal liberties of the inhabitants.
4.
That the agreement shall be predicated upon the ultimate self-determination of the inhabitants of Eastern Galicia as to their political allegiance, the time for the exercise of such choice to be hereafter fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers or by a body to whom they may delegate that power.
5.
That the drafting of the agreement be referred to the Polish Commission subject to revision by the Drafting Committee.
6.
That the Polish Government be forthwith advised of the foregoing decisions and of the propriety of acting immediately upon Articles 1 and 2.
7.
That the military representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in Poland be advised of these articles of agreement.
(2)
to authorise M. Pichon to forward a copy of the above resolution to all parties concerned, including the Ukrainian Government, by whatever means might seem best to him.
(3)
to authorise the Commission on Polish Affairs to confer with Polish, Ukrainian and Ruthenian representatives, if so desired.)

2. Extension of Power of Commission on Polish Affairs M. Pichon said that the second question on the Agenda paper related to the extension of the powers of the Commission on Polish affairs in accordance with a proposal submitted by the British Delegation. (See Annex B.)

M. Cambon invited attention to the terms of the letter submitted by the British Delegation (Annex [B].) The third paragraph of the letter in question read as follows:—“I would venture to suggest that the Polish Commission should be authorised by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers, to deal with all questions that may arise concerning Poland”. He wished to enquire what interpretation should be given to the words “all questions that may arise concerning Poland”. In what sense should that sentence be interpreted? He thought a mandate of that nature rendered the Commission liable to be accused either of being indifferent or of committing indiscretions by interfering in questions which did not concern it.

Mr. Lansing said that he well understood M. Cambon’s feelings. In his opinion, should the size of the Commission be increased in the nature proposed, it would become so large as materially to interfere with the possibility of doing business promptly. He proposed that the constitution and size of the Commission be left as at present, but [Page 856] that it be authorised to appoint technical advisers or additional delegates for duty on sub-committees when needed.

M. Pichon fully agreed with the proposal made by Mr. Lansing. He thought that the fewer the number of members on a Commission, the better the work. The wishes of the British Delegation could be met by authorising the Commission to appoint experts when required.

Sir E. Crowe explained that an extension of the scope of the powers of the Commission on Polish affairs had become necessary for the following reasons. The British Delegation constantly received communications, either from the Polish Delegation in Paris, or from the British Delegates in Poland, in regard to which no definite action could under present conditions be taken. As examples of the kind of questions which might have to be dealt with by the Polish Commission, should the proposals now before the Council be accepted, he would mention the following:—

(1) Question of release of hostages and protection of Germans and Poles; (2) Complaints by Poles and Germans respecting measures of Armistice Agreement of Spa of 16th. February, 1919;3 (3) Complaints of Lithuanians; Eastern Galicians and Jews reaction of Polish troops and alleged pogroms; (4) Advisability of bringing about an Entente between Poles and Lithuanians so that there should be a combined front against Russian Bolsheviks.

Questions of the kind continuously cropped up, but at present no machinery existed for dealing with them.

(It was agreed that the existing Commission on Polish Affairs should be authorised to deal with all questions that may be referred to it concerning Poland. The Commission would be authorised to appoint Experts to assist or to act on Sub-Committees when so required.)

3. Arms Traffic M. Pichon said that the next question on the Agenda paper related to the formation of a Committee to examine the draft Conventions intended to take the place of the General Acts of Berlin4 and Brussels.5 The following minute would explain how matters stood:—

“Delegates of the British and French Governments had arrived at an agreement in regard to the alterations to be made to the General Acts of Berlin and Brussels, dated respectively, 26th February 1885 and 2nd July, 1890. Two Draft Conventions, intended to replace the two General Acts had been prepared by the British and French Delegates, and forwarded to the American, Italian, Belgian, Japanese and Portuguese Governments, with a request that they should appoint Delegates to examine these Drafts in conjunction with the British and French Delegates.

[Page 857]

The British and American Delegates, having expressed the view that the Council of Foreign Ministers should formally approve the creation of a Special Commission, consisting of Delegates appointed by each of the interested Powers to examine these Drafts, it is suggested that M. Pichon should place the matter before the Council of Foreign Ministers, who have already individually expressed their approval, at their next meeting.

It is suggested that the Commission should also be charged with the duty of examining a third project, which had been prepared in the same manner, dealing with other questions included in the General Acts of Berlin and Brussels.”

(The proposals above contained were approved.)

M. Pichon said that a list of the names of the representatives appointed to serve on the Commission had been prepared by the Secretariat-General, and had been circulated.

(It was agreed that the Commission to examine the draft conventions intended to take the place of the General Acts of Berlin and Brussels should meet on 26th June, 1919, at 15 o’clock at the Ministry of the Colonies. The following members have been appointed to represent the seven governments concerned:—

United States of America Mr. G. L. Beer
British Empire Sir Herbert Read
Mr. C. Strachey
France M. Duchene
M. Merlin
M. de Peretti de la Rocca
Italy Count Girolamo Marazzi
M. di Nobili Massuero (Secretary)
Japan M. T. Yamakawa
Colonel Y. Sato
M. R. Sawada (Secretary)
Belgium Commander Maury
Mr. O. Louwers
Mr. Galopin
Portugal Colonel Norton de Mattos
M. Tomaz Fernandes

It was understood that the United States of America and Italy would nominate an additional member.)

4. Revision of Treaties of 1839: Reply of Belgium and Holland M. Pichon said that at the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers held on Wednesday, June 4th, 1919, the following resolution had been passed:—6

“Having recognised the necessity of revising the treaties of 1839, the Powers entrust to a Commission comprising a representative each of the United States [Page 858] of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium and Holland the task of studying the measures which must result from this revision and of submitting to them proposals implying neither transfer of territorial sovereignty nor the creation of international servitudes.

The Commission will ask Belgium and Holland to present agreed suggestions regarding navigable streams in the spirit of the general principles adopted by the Peace Conference.”

The following reply dated 19 June 1919 had now been received from M. Karnebeek, the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs:—

“I have the honour to say that the Netherlands Government is ready to accept the proposals contained in the above-quoted resolution. The Netherlands Government notes that the resolution embodies without reservations, the views expressed by the Government of the Queen, to the effect that the revision of the Treaties of 1839 implies neither transfer of territorial sovereignty, nor the creation of international servitudes. It is understood that the resolution cannot be interpreted to mean that decisions may be taken on questions in regard to which Belgium and the Netherlands have not reached an agreement”.

M. Pichon continuing said that he did not think the Council could accept the statement contained in the last sentence of M. Karnebeck’s letter, should the interpretation be that the Commission could not discuss any questions upon which an agreement had not already been reached by the Belgian and Netherlands representatives. He thought that when replying to Holland, asking her to send Delegates, that question should be cleared up.

(This was agreed to.)

M. Pichon enquired what date should be fixed for convening the Commission.

Mr. Lansing thought that the Dutch and Belgian Governments should, in the first place, be consulted on the matter on the understanding that the Commission should meet as soon as possible.

(This was agreed to.)

M. Pichon stated that the various countries concerned should be asked to nominate their representatives. He thought that each country should be entitled to appoint two representatives; the Commission would thus consist of 14 members.

Marquis Imperiali pointed out that a Commission on Belgian Affairs already existed. He suggested that the American, British, French, Italian and Japanese representatives on that Commission should form part of the Commission now under consideration, together with additional representatives for Belgium and Holland.

Sir E. Crowe said that owing to the nature of the questions referred to the Commission now to be created, it would be necessary in many cases to appoint different representatives who would possess the necessary special qualifications. He proposed that Brig-General [Page 859] Mance and the Hon. A. Akers-Douglas should be the British representatives.

(It was agreed:—

1.
To authorise M. Pichon to acknowledge the receipt of M. Karnebeck’s letter of 19th June above quoted, and to intimate with reference to the last paragraph that the Commission would be prepared to discuss questions upon which agreement had not already been reached by the Belgian and Netherlands representatives.
2.
To authorise M. Pichon to invite the Dutch and Belgian Government[s] to send representatives to Paris at an early date to be fixed in consultation with these two Governments.
3.
To request the American, French, Italian, and Japanese Delegations to communicate to the Secretary-General the names of their representatives with as little delay as possible. It was notified that the British Delegates would be Brig. General Mance and the Hon. A. Akers-Douglas).

(The Meeting then adjourned.)

Paris, 26th June, 1919.

[Appendix A to FM–27]

Report No. 4 of the Commission on Polish Affairs

Eastern Galicia

(Supplementary Report)

At the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers on the 18th June several possible solutions for the status of Eastern Galicia, including the following, were discussed:—

(a)
Provisional administration under a High Commissioner acting on behalf of the League of Nations, with a temporary Polish military occupation so long as this may be necessitated by the Bolshevik menace, and an ultimate consultation of the wishes of the inhabitants.
(b)
Provisional administration under the Polish Government with full local autonomy and military occupation as for (a), and an ultimate consultation of the wishes of the inhabitants.

From the discussion at the meeting of Foreign Ministers already referred to it appears to the Commission that the choice between these two solutions, or any others which may also be considered, will to some extent be dependent on a correct appreciation of the sentiments existing between the Polish and Ruthenian inhabitants of Eastern Galicia. The Commission has accordingly considered this question, and their conclusion is as follows:—

The Commission is of opinion that feelings of animosity against the Poles indisputably exist amongst an important part of the Ruthenian population.

[Page 860]

Without entering into a discussion as to the origin of this state of feeling, the Commission considers it necessary that its existence should be taken into account in devising any system by which the province would be even provisionally placed under Polish authority. It believes, however, that such a system carefully organised so as to respect the special and local rights of the Ruthenian population might prove acceptable to the latter as a provisional arrangement.

The Commission on Polish Affairs has also been charged by the Council of Foreign Ministers to suggest the general clauses which it would be advisable to adopt, on the hypothesis of Eastern Galicia receiving a large measure of autonomy within the Polish State, under conditions analogous to the connection with the Czecho-Slovak State of the Ruthenian territory to the South of the Carpathians. (See Annex.)

The question of holding a plebiscite to determine the aspirations of the population having been referred to the Commission on Polish Affairs, the Commission formulates the following conclusions:—

It is unanimously agreed that a consultation of the wishes of the inhabitants, before fixing the definitive status of the country, would be just and equitable.

On the question of practical convenience and political expediency, the Commission considers:—

(a)
In regard to a plebiscite to be held after a short delay, that the value of such a solution would be seriously impaired by the present disturbed condition of Eastern Galicia and the neighbouring countries, and might fail to represent the real and fundamental desires of the inhabitants;
(b)
In regard to a plebiscite to be held after a long delay, that such a solution, succeeding a prolonged provisional régime, would obviate the disadvantages alluded to above.

The Commission, nevertheless, thinks it its duty to make the following observation:—

The decision to proceed in Eastern Galicia to a plebiscite after a long delay would involve a danger of very serious political consequences: it might cause neighbouring States to compete with each other with the object of attracting Eastern Galicia within their orbit.

  • Jules Cambon.
  • R. H. Lord.
  • Eyre Crowe.
  • Della Torretta.
  • K. Otchiai.

[Page 861]

annex

Proposed Status of Eastern Galicia on the Hypothesis of Its Receiving the Largest Measure of Local Autonomy Within the Polish State

The Commission has taken as the basis of its studies the draft Treaty between the Principal Allied and Associated Powers on the one hand and the Czecho-Slovak State on the other, in regard to the territory of the Ruthenians. (Heading II.) This draft Treaty, drawn up by the Commission on New States, takes into account the memorandum on this question which was submitted to the Commission on Czecho-Slovak Affairs by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Czecho-Slovak State.

The Commission on Polish Affairs considers that the stipulations of this draft Treaty apply in a general manner to the case of Eastern Galicia under discussion, but that it is nevertheless desirable to complete and to define them so as to take into account the facts, firstly, that the population of Eastern Galicia is mixed instead of being homogeneous, and secondly, that it is immeasurably more competent than the Ruthenian territory to furnish the officials necessary for its own administration.

The Commission submits, as an indication of its views, the following draft articles. If the general line of this scheme should be approved, it would be necessary to define the details of its application after a more careful study of the previous status within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy of Galicia and the other provinces of that Monarchy, and after hearing the views of the Polish Delegation and of representatives of the Ruthenian population.

[Page 862]
Subject Text Proposed
Article 1 Article 1
Recognition of the autonomy of Eastern Galicia within the Polish State. Poland consents to recognise Eastern Galicia, as defined by the frontiers fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, in the form of an autonomous unit within the Polish State, enjoying all the liberties compatible with the unity of the Polish State.
Article 2
Functions of the Diet and of the Governor of Eastern Galicia.
The general provisions of Article 2 of Heading II of the draft Treaty with the Czecho-Slovak State are satisfactory, but must be more precisely defined if adopted in principle.
Article 3
Representation of Eastern Galicia in the Diet of the Polish State.
The general provisions of Article 4 of Heading II of the draft Treaty with the Czecho-Slovak State offer a satisfactory basis, but the details of their application should not be settled until the views of the Polish Delegation have been heard.
Article 4 Article 4
Representation of Eastern Galicia in the Council of Ministers of the Polish State. Eastern Galicia shall be represented in the Council of Ministers of the Polish State by a Minister without portfolio, nominated by the Head of the Polish State from among the representatives of Eastern Galicia either in the Diet of the Polish State or in the Diet of Eastern Galicia.
Article 5 Article 5
Selection of Officials. Poland consents to the officials of Eastern Galicia being selected in principle from among the inhabitants of that province.
The officials shall be nominated by the Governor, exception being made when necessary in the case of certain officials to be nominated by the Government of the Polish State.
Article 6 Article 6
Creation of a special section of affairs of Eastern Galicia in certain Ministries of the Polish State. In each Ministry of the Polish State which deals with the affairs of Eastern Galicia a special section of those affairs shall be organised.
It is further advisable that the Polish Government should be able at any moment to obtain information on Ruthenian affairs through a special Adviser, to be nominated by the Head of the State.

[Page 863]
[Annex B to FM–27]7

[The Secretary of the British Delegation ( Hankey ) to the Secretary General of the Peace Conference ( Dutasta )]

My Dear Colleague: Members of this Delegation who are interested in the affairs of Poland have pointed out that there is in existence no Inter-Allied body competent to deal with the numerous questions relating to the affairs of that State which are brought to the notice of the Peace Conference.

As Your Excellency is aware, the existing Commission on Polish Affairs was originally appointed to receive and consider the reports of the Inter-Allied Commission at Warsaw, which has now been dissolved, and was subsequently also entrusted with the consideration of questions connected with the frontiers of Poland. It has, however, never been authorized to consider current questions connected with that State.

I would accordingly venture to suggest, that in order that such questions may receive due consideration in the future, the Polish Commission should be authorized by the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers to deal with all questions that may arise concerning Poland. The number and importance of these questions is such that the Commission as at present constituted would scarcely be capable of dealing with them adequately and I would accordingly suggest the desirability of increasing its numbers by the addition of two further representatives of each of the Five Allied and Associated Powers, in order that it may be possible, if necessary, to facilitate its work by the appointment of Sub-Commissions.

I trust that Your Excellency will see your way to bring this proposal to the notice of the Supreme Council of the Allied and Associated Powers.

(Sd)
H. Norman

for
M. P. A. Hankey

British Secretary

His Excellency, M. P. Dutasta.

  1. FM–25, p. 828.
  2. See FM–25, p. 827.
  3. See vol. ii, p. 15.
  4. British and Foreign State Papers, vol. lxxvi, p. 4.
  5. Ibid., vol. lxxxii, p. 55.
  6. FM–22, p. 801.
  7. Filed separately under Paris Peace Conf. 181.2132/15.