CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 47
M. Gerashchenko (USSR) spoke in opposition to the British amendment to Annex 4 D (Petroleum) of the Rumanian Treaty and to the Annex itself.57 He said that the property of United Nations’ oil companies had already been returned, that Rumania was liable for damaged property, and that Article 24 made adequate provision for this. The UK proposal went beyond the provisions of Article 24, however, and would confer special privileges on United Nations’ oil companies. M. Gerashchenko said that paragraph 3, requiring repeal of the Rumanian Petroleum Law of 1942 primarily on the grounds of this law’s ethnic discrimination, was unnecessary as the only such discrimination had been revoked in 1945 by Rumanian Law No. 86; the other parts of the law were concerned with the natural right of the Rumanian Government to regulate the petroleum industry for the benefit of the Rumanian economy. The UK proposal also went beyond the provisions of Article 24 by requiring payment in foreign exchange for damaged property which had to be replaced from outside Rumania. It was the recognized principle in other parts of the treaty, however, that payment should be made in local currency and there was no reason to depart from this principle. Still another privilege sought by the UK proposal was through paragraph 8 in connection with the entry and activities of foreign technical personnel. [Page 494] Adoption of this paragraph might harmfully affect the employment of Rumanian personnel. In closing, M. Gerashchenko noted that the USSR position was supported by the US and called attention to the note at the end of the Annex to the effect that the US Delegation considered that the problems of the Annex would in general be covered by the agreed provision on UN property, if these provisions made adequate provision for compensation.
M. Van Troostenburg de Bruyn (Netherlands) said that the Dutch had petroleum interests in Rumania, that the Netherlands Delegation considered that special provisions should be made for the petroleum industry, and that his Delegation fully supported the UK proposal. He favored the provision concerning foreign exchange payments as being necessary and as doing nothing more than reestablishing the exchange conditions under which United Nations’ oil companies had operated in Rumania before the war. He asserted that the Petroleum Law of 1942 made it necessary to operate under quite different conditions than existed before the war and he therefore favored its repeal and the reenactment of the Mining Law of 1937. In connection with paragraph 8 on the exercise of professions, he said that The Netherlands did not intend to send large numbers of experts or other petroleum employees to Rumania any more than it had before the war.
The representatives of Byelo-Russia and the Ukraine both opposed inclusion of the Annex in the treaty on similar grounds to those presented by M. Gerashchenko. The representative of the Ukraine objected especially to paragraph 7, regarding compensation for charges incurred in delivery of oil to the enemy, by citing huge profit figures adduced from the Rumanian replies. In regard to the provision concerning payment in convertible currency, he said that this was an attempt by dollar and sterling countries to dominate Rumanian economy. The Commission agreed that general discussion on Annex 4 D should be terminated but that Mr. Gregory could make a final reply to criticisms of the proposal that had been advanced.