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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Minutes

September 6, 1946, 9:30 p.m.

[Extract]

secret
CFM(D) (46) 111th Meeting

Present

	France
	M. Couve De Murville (Chairman)
	M. de Courcel
	Prof. Gros
	M. Beaumarchais
U.S.A.		U.K.
Mr. Dunn		Mr. Jebb
General Smith		Lord Hood
Mr. Reber		Mr. Sterndale-Bennett
Mr. Bonbright
Mr. Campbell
	U.S.S.R.
	M. Vyshinsky
	M. Gusev
	M. Novikov
	M. Stetsenko
	M. Gerashchenko

Italian-Austrian Agreement on South Tyrol

Mr. Jebb: Count Carandini called on us today and left a letter from Signor de Gasperi enclosing a copy of the recent agreement between Italy and Austria on the subject of South Tyrol.⁵⁰ We received a similar letter from Herr Gruber. I understand that both letters were sent to all four delegations. The Austrian Government is anxious that the terms of this agreement be embodied in the peace treaty with Italy. This proposal has been put forward in a formal letter to the Secretary General of the Conference who will probably circulate the documents to all the delegations. We might discuss here the attitude which we may take concerning the Austrian suggestion to embody the agreement in some way or other in the peace treaty.

M. Couve de Murville: The French Government received the text of the agreement. Do the Soviet and American Delegations have it?

M. Vyshinsky: The Soviet Delegation has not received it, but I can say as a preliminary observation that the Soviet Delegation would consider it inappropriate to include in the peace treaty reference to such an agreement. We are signing a peace treaty with Italy not with Austria. Austria will not be a signatory to the Italian treaty. That agreement would have no relation to the Italian peace treaty. 1 can say that the Soviet Delegation objects in principle to the Austrian suggestion if the document is as Mr. Jebb has described. The Soviet Delegation objected to the issuance of an invitation to Austria to appear at the Paris Conference. Whatever agreements Austria may conclude has no connection with the Conference. I object in principle to considering such a document which is an agreement between two former enemy states.

Mr. Dunn: My Delegation received communications from Signor de Gasperi and Herr Gruber enclosing the text of this agreement. It refers to the inhabitants of Bolzano Province and the neighboring bilingual townships of Trento Province, There is included an agreement to make special arrangements concerning frontier traffic between North and South Tyrol. I see a direct relation between this document and Article 10 of the Italian treaty. We are most gratified to know that these two countries have come to an agreement on the treatment of the inhabitants of South Tyrol. We see every advantage in having it included in the treaty. We believe that the accomplishment of this agreement by mutual consent will be an inspiration to all countries in similar situations for the improvement of their mutual relations.

Mr. Jebb: I understand M. Vyshinsky to say that we should not put into the treaty anything regarding the relations between Italy and Austria. We have Article 10 which says that: “Italy shall enter into or confirm arrangements with Austria to guarantee free movement of passenger and freight traffic between the north and east Tyrol”. That is an agreed article. The present agreement between Italy and Austria incorporates that and other ideas. If it was in order to put Article 10 into the treaty, why should not an expanded version of it be in the treaty? Apart from the technical aspect, we feel that there is every reason to put this admirable arrangement into the treaty. That would give it additional sanction. If we wish to have good relations between these two countries, I think we should put the agreement into the treaty. If on the other hand we want to encourage ill will between them that is another matter.

M. Vyshinsky: Article 10 provides that Italy shall enter into or confirm certain arrangements for frontier traffic. There is no need for additional provisions on the same subject. If the Italian-Austrian agreement covers Article 10 and fulfills it, then it will be logical to delete Article 10 from the treaty. There would be no need to include a recommendation or obligation whereby Italy should do something if Italy has already done it. However, I do not make any specific proposals now since I have not seen the document in question. We must postpone consideration of the matter, but I thought it advisable to state the Soviet position in principle.

M. Couve de Murville: I suggest that we defer the question until later. (This was agreed.)

Settlement of Disputes

M. Couve de Murville: We have the following three questions before us: 1. The settlement of disputes, a subject which has come up in connection with Article 33 of the Finnish treaty; 2. The Hungarian-Czechoslovak frontier; and 3. The British proposal on human rights, connected with Article 3 of the Rumanian treaty. Let us begin with the first point.

M. Vyshinsky: There is a difference of views on that Article. I am ready to try to find a compromise. The difference between the U.K. and Soviet proposals concerns the reference to the International Court of Justice. Are there any proposals for solving that difficulty? Last June a suggestion was made that the Soviet proposal be accepted for the Balkan treaties and the U.K. proposal for the Italian treaty. Is there any possibility of agreement on that basis? If so, the Soviet Delegation would support the U.K. proposal in the Italian Commission and the other Delegations would support the Soviet proposal in the Balkan Commissions.

Mr. Jebb: That is an ingenious solution. Suppose that we agreed on it. How should we explain it in the Commissions?

M. Couve de Murville: In the Italian treaty, in which France is primarily interested, M. Vyshinsky proposed a formula acceptable to France. For the other treaties he puts forward a formula with which France does not agree. I think we might do well to re-examine the whole question at a later meeting.

M. Vyshinsky: The Soviet Delegation cannot agree to the reference to the International Court. You may remember that when the question of the Court was discussed in the United Nations, we spoke against compulsory jurisdiction and agreed only to voluntary jurisdiction. We do not object to the using of the Court for cases of this nature. However, we consider it inappropriate to have disputes referred to the Court by virtue of provisions in the peace treaties as it violates the principle of voluntary jurisdiction. Nevertheless, since we are less interested in the Italian treaty, we would have no objection to including in it this reference to the Court, provided that in the Balkan and Finnish treaties, where our interest is greater, our formula is accepted. This reason I have just given could be explained to the Commissions as the basis for the difference in the texts. Such a solution might put an end to our difficulties over this Article. But if my colleagues cannot agree we shall have to let the Article remain in disagreement.

Mr. Dunn: I recall that M. Vyshinsky’s proposal was made in the Council of Foreign Ministers and that the Ministers were unable to reach agreement. We should be glad to consider it again.

M. Couve de Murville: I wonder whether we should keep this question on our agenda or put it aside as unagreed. Also, should we try to have postponed the consideration of Article 33 in the Finnish Commission?

M. Vyshinsky: I think we should.

Mr. Jebb: I do not see any harm in having it come to a vote. That may be of use to us. We shall have to settle the question somehow some day.

Mr. Dunn: The U.S. will have no objection to a vote and would like to have the expression of the opinion of the Conference on the subject.

M. Couve de Murville: I think we can keep the question on our agenda and any Delegation can bring it up again. (This was agreed.)

50. For text of the agreement, see Treaties and Other International Acts Series No. 1648, p. 183, or 61 Stat. (pt. 2) 1245.