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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

September 19, 1946, 10 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 46

The Commission continued consideration of the Yugoslav-Free Territory frontier. M. Vyshinsky (USSR) replied to the South African and Netherlands Delegates’ arguments in the twenty-fourth meeting. He referred to the reliance placed by Mr. Jordaan (South Africa) in the censuses of 1910 and 1921 and declared that no one had tried or, indeed, could prove that these censuses were more correct than the census of 1945. M. Vyshinsky attempted to argue that since Italy’s sovereignty over Venezia Giulia for the past twenty-five years was based on the Treaty of Rapallo, which was generally regarded as unjust, Italy’s title therefore was in effect not valid. M. Vyshinsky asked the indulgence of the Chair to discuss current Greek-Bulgarian differences. He denied that there had been Bulgarian aggression against the Allies and declared that Tsaldaris’ Government was now claiming a quarter of Bulgarian territory. He recalled the Treaty of Sevres which had given Western Thrace to Greece and unjustly deprived Bulgaria of Slav lands belonging to her. He condemned it as one of the many valueless treaties of the Versailles period drawn up by a group of political adventurers. He concluded that the Yugoslav position should be considered and carefully studied in order to arrive at a proper solution.

Mr. Claxton (Canada) spoke in favor of the South African amendment (CP (IT/P) Doc. 21).³⁸ He referred to the International Joint Commission established in 1909 to work out conflicts of interest along the Canadian-U.S. frontier and recommended a similar judicial procedure ultimately for the settlement of Italo-Yugoslav border disputes. Mr. Mason (New Zealand) likewise supported the South African amendment. Mr. Jordaan (South Africa) made a brief rebuttal of several points advanced by the Indian Delegate yesterday and the Soviet Delegate this morning in opposition to the South African amendment.

In reply to earlier suggestions from the Yugoslav Delegation that the Morgan line implied recognition of Yugoslav rights to the east thereof, Mr. Dunn (U.S.) read out Article 7 of the Belgrade Agreement of June 9, 1945 explicitly providing that the line of demarcation dividing the Allied and Yugoslav zones of occupation of Venezia Giulia was without prejudice to the final disposition of the territory.³⁹ Regarding the accuracy of the 1945 census conducted in Zone B by the Yugoslav authorities, Mr. Dunn quoted the unfavorable comments of the American experts thereon (CP (IT/P) Doc. 32).⁴⁰ In conclusion Mr. Dunn made the following statement for the Record with regard to the Venezia Giulia frontiers and the Statute for Trieste.

“When the Council of Foreign Ministers decided, on July 3, 1946,⁴¹ that Italy should cede all territory East of the French line to Yugoslavia, there was contained in the same agreement a provision for the establishment of a Free Territory of Trieste, constituted within that line, under the provisions of a permanent Statute to be approved by the Security Council of the United Nations. This was one decision and one agreement.

“The U.S. Delegation has accepted the French line as the Eastern frontier of Italy and of the Free Territory as part of the comprehensive agreement which included the setting up of a Free Territory of Trieste. The U.S. Delegation wishes to make it clear to all that its agreement to one part of this decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers was contingent upon agreement upon all parts of it, including a satisfactory Statute for the Free Territory which must provide real guarantees for its integrity, its independence and protection for the rights of its citizens.”

Mr. Jebb (U.K.) associated his Delegation with Mr. Dunn’s remarks on Article 7 of the Belgrade Agreement, the 1945 census, and the consideration of the frontier—Free Territory settlement as a whole.

M. Simic (Yugoslavia) made a final speech on behalf of the Yugoslav position with regard to the Yugoslav-Free Territory frontiers. He appealed for a compromise solution which would receive unanimous support, warning that Yugoslavia would not sign a treaty requiring withdrawal again of its forces “from parts of its Fatherland”. (For text of remarks see CP (IT/P) Doc 55).⁴²

The Chairman declared discussion on the frontier between Yugoslavia and the Free Territory closed. The Commission voted on the first part of the Brazilian amendment (CP (IT/P) Doc 23),⁴² the second part having been withdrawn. The modified amendment was lost by a vote of 17 to 1, with two abstentions. The hour (2:10 p.m.) prevented vote on the other amendments today.

38. For substance, see the first item in Chapter IV of C.P.(Plen)Doc. 24, report of the Commission, vol. iv, p. 323.
39. For text of a draft similar to the final agreement, see telegram 106 to Belgrade, May 26, 1945, Foreign Relations, 1945, vol. iv, p. 1176. For final text of the Agreement and appended map, see Department of State Executive Agreement Series No. 501, or 59 Stat. (pt. 2) 1855.
40. C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 32, Report of the Commission of Experts for the Investigation of the Italo-Yugoslav Boundary, was presented to the Council of Foreign Ministers on April 27 as C.F.M. (46) 5; for partial text, see vol. ii, p. 140.
41. For the United States Delegation Record and Record of Decisions of the 33rd Meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, July 3, see vol. ii, pp. 730 and 751, respectively.
42. Not printed.
42. Not printed.