CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 54
The Chairman informed the Commission that it must plan to finish Articles 67, 68 and 69 by 8 p.m. He suggested that speakers wishing [Page 575] to be heard on a motion present their names to the Chair. He would then divide the time equally among those wishing to speak. He also suggested the translators make summaries of long speeches. M. Aroutiunian (U.S.S.R.) objected to the first proposal, pointing out that if during the debate a delegate who had not asked to have the floor felt it necessary to speak, would not be able to. He also opposed summarizing translations pointing out that while many members understood English and French few understood Russian and, therefore, those delegates speaking in Russian would be discriminated against. The Commission agreed to follow the rules adopted by the Secretariat which did not include these two suggestions.
The Commission took up the French draft for paragraph 4 of Article 68 (compensation) (CP(IT/EC) Doc. 65).74 In answer to the Soviet statement at the previous meeting, that subparagraph (d) dealing with equitable treatment with respect to materials and foreign exchange had been rejected during the CFM discussions, M. Alphand (France), Mr. Gregory (U.K.) and Mr. Thorp (U.S.) agreed with M. Aroutiunian’s remarks, regretted the inclusion of subparagraph (d), and asked that it be withdrawn.
The Commission voted on subparagraph (b) dealing with the protection of beneficial interests of United Nations nationals. It was carried 12 to 6 with 2 abstentions, U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Union of South Africa voting for, Byelorussia, Brazil, China, the Ukraine, U.S.S.R., and Yugoslavia voting against, and Poland and Czechoslovakia abstaining.
The vote on subparagraph (c) dealing with foreign exchange controls was carried 14 to 6 and new subparagraph (d) granting full compensation to United Nations property against which measures had been taken as enemy property, was carried 14 to 5 with 1 abstention. Paragraph 4 was voted on as a whole and carried 13 to 5 with 2 abstentions, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Ethiopia, France, Great Britain, Greece, India, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia; and the Union of South Africa voting for, Byelorussia, China, the Ukraine, USSR, and Yugoslavia against; and the U.S. and Poland abstaining. The Greek Delegation withdrew its amendment (1 J 14) [C.P.(Gen.) Doc.1.J.14] providing compensation for damage suffered during the period from September 1, 1939 and the date Greece entered the war.
The Commission took up the Yugoslav amendment (CP(IT/EC) Doc. 64)75 to Article 67 (claims against Germany) which provided [Page 576] for the transfer of German assets in Italy. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) said he believed the principle raised by the Yugoslav Delegate deserved careful attention but suggested the Yugoslav amendment went beyond merely obligating Italy to facilitate the transfer of German assets and attempted to determine the manner in which German reparation matters should be handled. This he did not consider appropriate to the Treaty. The U.S., he suggested, could agree to the following recommendation to cover the Yugoslav point: “Italy agrees to take all necessary action for facilitating such transfers of German assets in Italy as may be determined by those Powers occupying Germany which are empowered to dispose of German assets in Italy.” M. Aroutiunian said he wanted to see the amendment in writing before a vote was taken. The Commission agreed to defer this question.
The Commission took up Article 69 (Italian Assets on the Territory of the Allied and Associated Powers) and agreed to defer paragraph 1 until after the Ukrainian revised amendment (CP(IT/EC)Doc. 61)76 which provided certain restrictions to due right to seize Italian assets, had been circulated.
A Yugoslav amendment (CP(IT/EC) Doc. 62)77 concerning definition of Italian assets was lost 13 to 7. The Commission approved paragraphs 2 and 3 and agreed to defer paragraph 4 until Monday.
- See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 23rd Meeting, September 24, p. 536 and footnote 33, p. 537.↩
- C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 64, a new draft of C.P.(Gen)Doc.1.U.20, is not printed.↩
- Not printed; for the substance of C.P.(IT/EC) Doc. 70, a redraft of C.P. (IT/EC) Doc. 61, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, vol. iv, pp. 338, 359.↩
- See C.P. (Plen) Doc. 26, report of the Commission, ibid., p. 338.↩