CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 28
The Australian Delegation proposed that the Commission hear the views of Hungary on Article 2 of the draft treaty. Mr. Officer said that the 17 invited states had the right to have full information concerning the decisions taken by the Council of Foreign Ministers on territorial and other issues. Hungary was a directly interested state and had, in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission, expressed a desire to be heard on this point. M. Bogomolov (USSR) saw no need to consult the Hungarian Government since the text of Article 2 was based on the Armistice agreement with Rumania and had been agreed by the Four Foreign Ministers. Since no member of the Commission supported the Hungarian claim to a part of Transylvania, the Soviet Delegation saw no need to hear the views of Hungary. Furthermore, M. Bogomolov continued, the Commission had already accepted Article 2 and had withheld final approval only in order to see whether any action would be taken by the Political Commission for Hungary on this question. No such action had been taken. The Czechoslovak Delegation supported the view that the Commission had already accepted Article 2 as it appeared in the draft treaty. The Canadian Delegation supported the Australian proposal on the ground that any delegation had the right to request that the views of an ex-enemy state be heard by the Commission. Mr. Claxton believed that this procedure would be in accordance with the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Plenary Conference and by the Commission itself. Mr. Harriman (US) stated that he would support the agreed text of Article 2. He considered, nevertheless, that the Australian Delegate had a perfect [Page 312] right to ask that the Hungarian Delegation be heard on this question. Mr. Warner (UK) stated the view of his delegation in similar terms. General Catroux (France) said that his Government would support the text proposed by the Council of Foreign Ministers because of its commitment and also because it believed that to be the best solution; however, the French Delegation felt that if a member of the Commission desired to hear the views of an ex-enemy state, the Commission should invite that state to express its views.
During the ensuing discussion on the Australian proposal the Soviet Delegation maintained that the Commission at its previous meeting had decided that the observations of ex-enemy states, unless supported by a member of the Commission, could not be considered. The Chairman, after having the relevant portion of the minutes of the previous meeting read out by the Secretary, said that such a decision had been taken. Mr. Harriman stated that he had followed the discussion closely at the previous meeting and that it was not his understanding that the Commission had taken a decision on that point. He maintained also that this point was not relevant to the Australian proposal. The U.K. Delegation agreed that, whatever the decision on the point raised by the Soviet Delegation, the Australian proposal should be voted upon by the Commission.
The Commission agreed that it could not invite a Hungarian representative to express his Government’s views merely on the basis of the Hungarian request. A Czechoslovak motion for adjournment was then defeated by 8 votes to 4. The following delegations voted against it: USA, Australia, Canada, France, Great Britain, Greece, New Zealand, Union of South Africa. The following delegations supported it: Byelo-Russia, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, USSR. The Chairman then put to a vote the Australian proposal that the Hungarian Delegation be invited to express its views on Article 2. This motion was carried by a vote of 8 to 4, the delegations voting in the same way as on the Czechoslovak proposal. The Ukrainian Delegation then proposed that Rumania also be heard. Mr. Officer stated that it had been his intention, in making his original proposal, that Rumania also be heard. The Commission unanimously accepted the Ukrainian proposal that the Hungarian and Rumanian delegations be invited to appear before the Commission at the same time to express their respective views on Article 2, the Hungarian Delegation speaking first.84