Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, 1945, General: Political and Economic Matters, Volume II

740.00119 Council/9–1145

United States Delegation Minutes of the Thirty-First Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, London, October 1, 1945, 11 p.m.⁵⁰

London, October 1, 1945, 11 p.m.

Mr. Bevin in the Chair

Bevin: The meeting is in order, and the business before the meeting, as I understand it, is the form and method of signing the protocols.

Molotov: My proposal is to charge the deputies with drawing up of the general protocol tomorrow. My second proposal is to accept the first proposal and close our meeting. Also, that the general protocol is ready and it should be discussed tomorrow.

Byrnes: May I ask if the protocol has been completed, and if so whether it could be given to the various delegations and they can take it to their offices here and read it, and if they approve it, they can sign it.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation has got such a draft of the protocol and they have no objection to our adjourning for a half hour in order to enable them to agree upon the draft. That will be all right.

Bevin: Agree to adjourn for half an hour?

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I suggest we go on. I have had a good rest today. I would be glad to work awhile here. I have the document number 72,⁵¹ and if the——

Bevin: (interposing) I beg your pardon. 72 has not been checked.

Molotov: I have not seen it.

Byrnes: I don’t know. Suppose we ask the chairman of the protocol committee to give us what has been checked, and let us see what has been agreed to by the committee.

Bidault: Mr. Chairman. I must apologize. I am a beginner at this meeting. I have no special qualifications for procedure. I must frankly confess that I understand nothing. Therefore, I have no objection whatever to an adjournment.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, may I suggest then that we take a recess for half an hour and in that half hour ask whoever is chairman of the protocol committee if he can get the draft that Mr. Molotov says he has, check it with what the protocol committee has, and see if they can give us anything that they have agreed on—in thirty minutes.

Bevin: The position before the meeting is this—which we went through the other night, and we can finally complete it—in the form of presentation. The suggestion is now that, as I understand it, that the protocol committee should meet and project it in a form which we can understand. We will meet, then, in a half hour.

Byrnes: Right.

Molotov: The suggestion that I have made is different. My suggestion was that the deputies should be charged with agreeing upon the general protocol. I do not suggest that other protocols should be interrupted to them but my suggestion relates only to the general picture and it should be for them, and they should——

Byrnes: (Interposing) I again ask——

Molotov: The general picture, I mean. The protocol embodying the general—affecting all, and the general protocol does not deal with treaties.

Byrnes: I renew my request to take a recess for thirty minutes.

(adjournment for thirty minutes here)

Bevin: I will ask Mr. (Norman) Brook to report.

Brook: The protocol committee have not appointed a chairman so they have asked me as secretary to make their report. The committee members tonight have agreed on the draft of the general protocol on the basis of the Russian text submitted by the Soviet delegation.⁵² The English version to that draft has now been handed to members of the Council. The committee have now met again and compared this with the revised Russian text handed in by the Soviet delegation this evening. There are a few differences of substance between the Russian text and the English text which has been handed to us and these differences are marked in the copies of the English text which has been handed to the Ministers. I have been asked to draw the attention of the Council to the following differences.

First, the Russian text has a heading and preamble in the following terms, (reading here)⁵³

The first change of substance in the text which I have to draw attention to is on page one of the English text—paragraph E is omitted.⁵⁴

The second difference of substance is on the top of page two of the English text, where the first three items are deleted—(reading here).⁵⁵ Those three are deleted and there are consequential changes in the numbers.

The reason given is that they are all concerned with matters which are appropriate to the other protocols.

I should have explained that the same reason is given for the omission of paragraph E on page one, namely, that that paragraph is concerned with procedure for the discussion of peace settlements and is therefore more appropriate for the other protocols.

The only other change to which I was asked to draw attention to is at the last paragraph of all, page 11, which is changed to read as follows—(reading here).⁵⁶

Finally, I should add, within the short time available tonight, it has not been possible to check every word in these texts, but if it is adopted by the Council it will be necessary to check textually the French, English and Russian versions.

Bidault: It appears to the French delegation that we are in a great confusion, and the French delegation, which has not participated—as I have had occasion to point out, to the meetings which seemed to have filled up the day, doesn’t know at all where we are. We are now beginning the determination of the general protocol. Wouldn’t it be advisable to know the procedure that has been adopted for the whole of the protocols, because this would condition our position as regards the general protocol. It would be. difficult for the French delegation to express an opinion on the preliminary protocols without knowing what would happen to the other protocols. That’s all.

Bevin: The position, as I understand it, subject to correction, is that in regard to the question of members of the Council, instead of placing it in the general protocol it is intended to place it at the heads of the treaties according to the nations that it affected. I should explain to Mr. Bidault that there has been no meeting except that I had consultation with Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Molotov separately and I met them for a few minutes before this meeting opened,⁵⁷ which delayed the meeting, in order to see exactly what the position was. That was in accordance, as I understood, with what was decided last night in order to try and get a solution of these problems. Therefore, the only knowledge I have is what I have given, that any reference to peace settlements should be in connection with the protocols relating to peace settlements, and nothing in the general protocol.

Bidault: I have already indicated the position of the French delegation as regards the common decision of September 11. I am not in a position to discuss the general protocol, nor any other particular protocol without having at least cognizance of the whole of the text, and time to read it.

Molotov: Maybe somebody will clear up my misunderstanding. The question I want to ask is whether the French delegation have voted on paragraph E of the decision of September 11 or not?

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to reply for everybody, but I can reply for myself. I have voted, of course, as everybody does.

Molotov: But from the text of this decision it follows that the French delegation have no vote as regards treaties of peace. How could the French delegation have voted then?

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we voted on the peace treaties; we voted on the procedure. We have together decided that we accepted not to be parties to such a decision. And I said that it was not particularly pleasant for a country which has had the history of France should have now to go out on history—it will continue to play a part in history. We have accepted—but in other words, France has voted that it had no right to vote.

Molotov: I feel that the explanation given by Monsieur Bidault runs counter to the sense of the decision as I cannot agree with it.

Wang: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words. I think we all see what a difficult position China is placed. China has been invited to be a member of this Council. China does not count as a signatory of any of the treaties we have been discussing. If the omission of this paragraph concerning the competence of the Council, means it is to be excluded from the protocol, China could not accept unless we should have an agreed plan as to what we are going to do. I understand that there is no agreed plan as to what we are going to do after adjournment of this session of the Council. Therefore, I think all my colleagues around the table can see the difficulty China is placed in agreeing to the conditions. As to what we are going to do, I will not suggest any new plan of my own. After careful study of Mr. Byrnes’ proposal to call a peace conference in order to obtain wider consultation, the Chinese delegation finds that the plan is just and reasonable. I would therefore recommend that plan to my government—recommend that the proposal be given consideration, and I hope that my colleagues here will also see their way to do likewise.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation will be able to take part in the discussion of the question raised by Mr. Byrnes at a meeting of representatives of the states which signed the terms of armistice. And the Soviet delegation will refrain from the participation in the discussion of this question at a meeting composed differently.

Bevin: Now, as I understand the position now, the Soviet delegation objects to the decision taken on September 11 to be included in the official protocol.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation will have no objection to the inclusion of this in the protocol. If the additional proposal made by the Soviet delegation on September 29 to the effect that this paragraph should be amended is accepted—circulated on September 30th, so dated—number 4583,⁵⁸ the Soviet delegation thinks that the only logical course would be to put this paragraph in the three other protocols which are to be signed by the countries which signed the terms of armistice, plus France on the question of Italy, which country invited the other delegations who are mentioned in this paragraph. And in the shape as this paragraph stands now, it is illogical because it refers to the presence of five members of whom three members have the right to vote and two have no right to vote on this question.

Bevin: My difficulty is at the moment that I have got to deal with this general protocol. I understand Mr. Molotov suggests this matter be dealt with when we deal with the other protocols. Therefore he objects that the recorded decision of September 11 is to go into the official protocol. I don’t think we can do it. The decision is on our record. All we are asked to do now is to record one of our official decisions in the protocol.

Molotov: There are no official records in the protocol.

Bevin: We don’t put all the unofficial record in the official record.

Molotov: I cannot agree with the interpretation placed upon my words, but neither shall I go into argument, in order to save time.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I understand the representatives of the Soviet Republic to say that they had no objection, that the only thing to do would be to put this paragraph in the three other protocols but he objected to its going in this particular one. Is that your understanding?

Molotov: That’s right. But in these other protocols I shall suggest—I shall make my amendments.

Byrnes: Well, that, Mr. Chairman, of course is—I was mistaken. My understanding was that Mr. Molotov had said that the only logical thing to do would be to put this paragraph in the three other protocols. If that is so, there would be no reason for wasting time discussing the putting it in this particular one, if it is in some other one. It would be all the same. But if it is to be amended, that is a different thing.

Molotov: I have in mind that these other protocols will contain the same decision concerning the repeal of this decision as was suggested for this protocol, but I have also in mind that the three other protocols will be drawn up by those who are going to sign them.

Bevin: Did I understand Mr. Molotov to say that if this decision doesn’t go in this general protocol there would be a reference to this decision in the other protocols?

Molotov: It is—that’s right. It is half in that one—the matter; and the second half of this proposal is that the Soviet delegation will insist on these other protocols being mentioned—that this decision is revoked. Or else paragraph E can be kept in this general protocol with the understanding that it will also contain the provision that the amendment suggested by the Soviet delegation is accepted.

Bevin: What is the amendment? I can’t remember.

Molotov: Number 4583.

Bidault: Mr. Chairman, we are, I think, still more or less at the same point and I shall present my impressions. When shall we see the whole of the text? I am not prepared to take a decision lightly on a matter which is of the utmost concern both to myself and to the French government. I think that—I suggest that I might ask the protocol committee to conclude their work. We have already wasted much time in matters of procedure, but I think that before they concluded we might ask the people to conclude their work and make a report to us.

Bevin: Even in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Molotov, wouldn’t it be a good thing to have the whole of the protocol circulated to those members who he thinks ought to sign, in order to see the case of France and Italy. I appreciate the French position. They don’t know where they will be in that discussion on the other position. Speaking for myself, as a full member of the Council on all these subjects, I confess that it would help me to make up my mind, and probably not have any differences with Mr. Molotov, if I could see the whole picture.

Molotov: It is not a question of any one of us holding a certain view. You must remember the question is that there is a decision adopted by the three Governments, and I remain on the basis of this decision; and, therefore, I suggest that we should not discuss the question of which we have not been referred to us. I feel that we should not discuss here the reading of B, if they have not been referred to us, but they have been referred to certain other States.

Bevin: Mr. Molotov suggests that there is to be a reference in the two treaties. It makes me want to see the whole thing. If this document contains it, then there would be no reason to refer to this particular thing in any other document, except an amendment to take its place as affecting the peace treaty.

Any other observations? The suggestion before the meeting is twofold: one, an amendment to take the place of E as proposed by Mr. Molotov on the 11th of September. What is the Council’s opinion?

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I understand the suggestion was made that it be eliminated, and two members of the Council have objected to its elimination. One of the members of the Council stated that he wished to see the protocol of the treaty with Italy, and I am advised by the U.S. representative on the protocol committee that in a very short time they could report that protocol to the Council and that would give the representative of France the information he desires. If the committee had thirty minutes and they had the protocol, they could then send it to our rooms in the building and nobody would be affected. Of course, I do think that five nations that are to be permanent members of the Security Council to preserve peace in the world might be able to consider it without doing any great harm.

If that can be done, that is the only way that I see that we can go forward. Have the committee meet and say that to each member of the protocol, and let them determine whether they want to discuss it or not. I am told it is quite short.

Bevin: Can we adjourn while we let the members see what the substance is? I take it that is the members affected. (General agreement here)

Byrnes: That’s right.

Bevin: Could we agree to that course?

Molotov: I can only repeat one thing, and namely, that the Soviet delegation cannot agree to violate the Berlin agreement, and the Soviet delegation does not advise anyone who will sign this agreement to do likewise.

Bevin: What my suggestion was is that those who are strictly affected by the Berlin agreement—take the Italian treaty—should, before they were asked to take a decision on this, see what is going into the Italian treaty.

Molotov: I think that under the Berlin agreement, everything that relates to the treaty of peace should be decided only by those States who are signatories to the armistice terms, and I therefore think that we should not discuss any questions relating to the treaties here. Of course, peace treaties as well as protocols relating to them may be discussed, but the Soviet delegation will be unable, in this case, to participate in the discussion of this question. I would suggest that the parties concerned should get together separately to discuss the questions relating to, for instance, the peace treaty with Italy, and then the same should apply to peace treaties with other countries; and I have in mind only those who are signatories to the armistice terms. If we wish to expedite the matter, then we should act in accordance with the Berlin agreement, and the Soviet delegation cannot be a party to the breach of this agreement.

Bevin: Is it understood that we adjourn for half an hour and let the countries affected see what is in the treaty?

Molotov: No objection.

Bidault: I do not understand what is going on, I must confess. A few moments ago it was said that the five States would be asked to take part in the discussion of the peace treaties, and understood well the formula proposed by Mr. Molotov for inclusion into the protocol. We cannot accept that a member should be excluded, when there will be discussion of a given question. On the other hand, I have already stated, and I maintain, that I wish to see the whole of the text, and not only the general protocol, or the protocol on Italy. Will those texts be ready tomorrow? If such is the case, the French delegation will be prepared to examine them.

Byrnes: Well then, I understand there is no objection to a recess for a half hour?

Bidault: It is the only thing to which I have no objection so far. (Laughter)

(Recess for half an hour)⁵⁹

(Re-convened at 2:30 a.m.)

Bevin (Chairman): We have handed to us certain documents in regard to the Italian peace treaty. The original—(inaudible)—of September 11 is not, in my opinion, correctly stated.

Molotov: We are not going to discuss the general protocol——

Bevin (interposing): Please let me finish, if you don’t mind. I happen to be Chairman. On September 11, we extended an invitation to Dr. Wang to be present and take part in our meeting. And in paragraph two it says the protocol is hereby revoked. Therefore, the position of our guests at this table is affected by this question of revoking paragraph E of September 11. Therefore, what the Council must decide before the rest of the Ministers affected by these treaties continue with it, is whether they revoke in the main issue this paragraph E and withdraw the invitation extended to our colleagues.

Molotov: My suggestion is this. It is half-past two, and I suggest that in view of the late hour we close our meeting.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, can’t we get this through? We have waited for the paper to be presented. Now it is presented. Can’t my friend stay a little while and see if we can’t dispose of it one way or the other?

Molotov: It is my request that we close this meeting, in view of the late hour, and we may set an hour in the morning or in the afternoon. I suggest that we request our present Chairman to make arrangements with the other three as to the hour to be set for our next meeting tomorrow, or the Russian delegation will be prepared to accept any hour beginning from six o’clock in the morning. (Laughter)

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I only want to say this: that all of this day we were unable to meet. I am willing to stay as long as there is any hope of our accomplishing anything, but I really do not think—it has been days and days upon protocol. I think we ought to meet early so that we can dispose of this matter one way or the other tomorrow.

Mr. Bevin: What are the wishes of the Council? Have we any proposal to adjourn?

Molotov: My request—suggestion is that we request the Chairman to set an hour tomorrow for our meeting, to deal with both the general protocol and others.

Bidault: I shall only repeat, Mr. Chairman, what I have already said, that I should like to be in a position to see all the protocols together, so that I can take a position on that.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that we should have tomorrow this situation that we had, for the last two reasons [sessions?]. When I left the discussion, the protocol committee goes out for thirty or forty-five minutes and brings back part of the papers; the protocol committee ought to be given any suggestions which any delegation has, and let the protocol committee bring the protocol so that it can all be considered at one time. For the meeting to adjourn for thirty minutes, waiting for the committee to get the documents, is not going to help us to get through with our business.

Bevin: I suggest the protocol committee meet at 9:30. We meet at 11:00. The first item to decide will be, then, whether we would revoke the invitation to our colleagues. That will then settle—(inaudible). Shall we adjourn?

Molotov: I can’t associate myself with the proposal made by the Chairman because this proposal will result in a breach of the decision.

Bevin: But I only submit that that decision is still on the books. And can we revoke it? Which means we say to our friends: the invitation we extended to you, that you can’t vote, is still standing and until it is revoked we can’t—that must be decided first.

Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be just as well for us to discuss it now and settle it, because it would determine other questions. It is necessary that the protocol committee should have information as to the views of the Council, if it is to do its work. There isn’t any question that the Council has a right to extend an invitation under the Berlin decision. The language is: “The members will be invited to participate in matters directly concerning them, or under discussion”. We all agreed that four would invite the representatives of the Chinese Government to participate. The Italian treaty, I mean. The question now is whether we shall withdraw that invitation if one—that can be decided very quickly, and we should decide. Speaking for the U.S. delegation, I do not want to withdraw the invitation.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation cannot participate in the discussion of this question. It is now about three o’clock. We shall recess, then, until the hour of our meeting tomorrow?

Bevin: Well, if one delegate says he is not in position to discuss it, I cannot force it.

Molotov: The Soviet delegation asks that this question be postponed.

Mr. Byrnes: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to postponing it, but I have it understood that we are going to take it up tomorrow morning as the first order of business and dispose of it one way or the other. I would suggest that we meet at eleven o’clock, and that the pending business shall then be continued. All right. Agreed.

Bevin: Well, then, the protocol committee will meet in the morning. The deputies’ committee still have some things outstanding, but the first order of business tomorrow is the settlement of this problem.

Molotov: I cannot accept this interpretation. I suggest that we discuss this question later also tomorow.

Bevin: What question?

Molotov: We shall discuss the question tomorrow of the protocol—of the protocol committee—and in what business we have to engage.

Bevin: But let me be clear. As I understand it, we adjourn the question of whether the invitation to our friends will be withdrawn, that we made September 11. Therefore, we take up the question on the same issue as we leave it tonight. 11:30—11:00 o’clock in the morning.

Byrnes: Is that agreed?

(Agreed, and recessed at 2:55 a.m. until tomorrow.)

50. There appears to have been no Record of Decisions of this meeting. According to the British record of this meeting, not printed, the following persons were participants: United Kingdom—Bevin, Campbell, Clark Kerr, and Duff Cooper; United States—Byrnes, Dunn, Dulles, and Bohlen; Soviet Union—Molotov, Gusev, Novikov, Golunski, and Pavlov; France—Bidault, Couve de Murville, Alphand, and Fouques Duparc; China—Wang Shih-Chieh, Wellington Koo, Victor Hoo, Hollington Tong, and Yang Yun Chu. The British record indicates the time of the meeting as 10 p.m.
51. C.F.M.(45) 72, undated, “Draft Protocol of the Proceedings of the First Plenary Conference of the Council of Foreign Ministers”, not printed. For a brief description of this draft protocol, see note by the Senior Secretary of the Joint Secretariat, C.F.M.(45) 71, September 30, p. 514.
52. The draft of a general protocol agreed upon by the Protocol Committee was not circulated in the Council of Foreign Ministers as a formal document and a copy has not been found in the Department’s files. An outline of the general protocol was circulated in the Report by the Protocol Committee, C.F.M.(45) 87, September 30, p. 508.
53. The text of the preamble in the Russian draft protocol was quoted in the British record of this meeting of the Council. The text is the same as that included as “Alternative A”, Annex 1 to the Report by the Protocol Committee, C.F.M.(45) 87, September 30, p. 509.
54. Reference here is to paragraph 1(e) of the Record of Decisions of the Council’s first meeting, September 11, 1945; for the text of this Record of Decisions, see Annex 1 to memorandum by the Joint Secretariat, C.F.M.(45) 66, September 29, p. 458.
55. Apparently reference is to sub-paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of paragraph 2 of the Record of Decisions of the Council’s first meeting, p. 112.
56. According to the British record of this meeting of the Council, the reference here was to paragraph 3 of the Agreed Record of Decisions of the 28th meeting of the Council, September 29, 3 p.m., p. 444, which the proposal of the Soviet delegation would revise to read as follows: “The Council instructed the Protocol Committee and the Press Communiqué Committee to prepare, for consideration at their next meeting, a draft Protocol of the decisions of the first session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France and China and a draft communiqué regarding the work of the Council’s first session.” (Council of Foreign Ministers Files: Lot M–88: CFM London Minutes)
57. Regarding the meeting of representatives of the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet delegations at 10:30 p.m., see the memorandum of conversation, supra.
58. Reference here is to C.F.M.(45) 83, September 30, Resolution Proposed by the Soviet Delegation, p. 474.
59. According to the British record of this meeting, not printed, the Council adjourned in order to enable the Secretaries of the delegations concerned to prepare an English text of the draft proposed by the Soviet delegation for the Protocol dealing with the Italian Peace Treaty. Neither the French nor the Chinese delegations participated in this examination of the Soviet delegation’s draft. The English text of the Soviet delegation’s draft was submitted to Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Bevin. No record of the Soviet draft has been found in Department files.