Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

August 29, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 28

The agenda was adopted without objection but acceptance of the record of the previous meeting (5th) was put off to the end of the meeting when corrections in all three languages had been made in the text. Since the translations of the Italian memorandum had not been circulated and a further delay of 3 days for the French and 10 days for the Russian translations was expected the Chairman asked whether the Commission should go ahead with examination of the military clauses of the draft Italian Treaty. It was agreed to request the Secretariat to set a time limit for the Italians to submit their memorandum.

The discussion of the draft treaty was begun with consideration of Article 39. The New Zealand delegate drew attention to the New Zealand statement bearing on this article and subsequent ones.⁸² Since the statement had not been available for study for 24 hours before the meeting, General Pika (Czechoslovakia) moved that the Commission pass on to Article 40. Due to the indecisive character of the Chairman’s ruling in agreement with the Czechoslovakian motion, some discussion of the New Zealand statement occurred. General Catroux (France) remarked that the New Zealand proposal would modify the draft peace treaty considerably and that it prejudged the future status of the Security Council and might even necessitate changes in the Charter of the United Nations. M. Voina (Ukraine) agreed with General Catroux’s remarks. Eventually, the Commission decided to move on to Article 40.

Discussion of Article 40 took the form of a prolonged and trivial debate on the Brazilian amendment (CP Gen Doc. 1, E, 6) to paragraph 1,A. This amendment had been incorrectly stated in the published document. When the nations (France and Yugoslavia) most affected by the clause in question agreed that the draft treaty satisfied them⁸³ and when the Brazilian delegate agreed that the principle of the right of every nation to defend herself, invoked by him, was also satisfied by the draft treaty the amendment was withdrawn. Article 40 was adopted subject to final approval after all the articles had been examined.

The Delegate of Czechoslovakia moved that since Article 41 was subject to a similar amendment that that amendment be considered withdrawn and that Article 41 be considered adopted also. The Chairman overruled this motion and added that there was a Yugoslavian amendment to Article 41 which had not yet been formally withdrawn. At this point the meeting was adjourned.

The next meeting will be held at 10 a.m. Saturday, August 31.

82. The New Zealand statement, C.P. (Mil.) Doc. 1, concerned article 39 of the Treaty for Italy, article 19 of the Treaty for Rumania, article 17 of the Treaty for Bulgaria, article 18 of the Treaty for Hungary and article 21 of the Treaty for Finland. The essential part of the argument was as follows:

    “We would ask delegates to consider whether there might not be a provision in the treaty which limited the armed forces or military, naval or air installations or equipments permitted to the ex-enemy states to such as might be deemed by the Security Council to be necessary for the maintenance of internal order, or for local defence of frontiers, or for allocation to the Security Council, for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”

    The two page statement concluded as follows:

    “We believe our suggestion, that the Security Council should determine the armaments of the ex-enemy states, is a basis of approach which is in the general interests of peace. It would give a dynamic control to the Security Council, and it would impose on the Security Council a positive duty to secure the maintenance of peaceful conditions in the territories of the defeated European countries. Finally, it would be a positive beginning to the task of disarmament for which the Security Council has a special responsibility.” (CFM Files)

83. France and Yugoslavia indicated that according to their interpretation of the article the draft treaty satisfied the purpose of the Brazilian delegation (CFM Files: United States Delegation Minutes).