CFM Flies
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 58
The Commission considered Article 24 (Bulgarian property in Allied territory). M. Gerashchenko (U.S.S.R.) said that the only countries which had suffered injury through Bulgarian action were Yugoslavia and Greece, whose claims were provided for by other articles. There was, therefore, no reason to strip Bulgaria of its foreign assets. Bulgaria should, of course, pay its debts, but it was not necessary to seize its assets and apply them to its debts. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) stated that property problems were primarily covered by the articles on reparation, restitution, and compensation, and that Article 24 was intended to deal with any residual claims and debts. The article already provided that any assets in excess of such claims would be returned. It would not be contrary to the real interests of Bulgaria [Page 621] if these assets were used to pay off pre-war debts, for the payment of these debts will be necessary to the resumption of Bulgarian trade. Mr. Thorp pointed out that the article in question was an agreed article in two treaties and urged its adoption in the case of Bulgaria. After a further exchange of views, in which M. Gerashchenko again attacked the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal and Mr. Thorp and Mr. Smith (U.K.) defended their proposal, the Commission rejected the Soviet proposal by 7 votes to 5 with two abstentions. The Commission then voted, paragraph by paragraph, on the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal. The Australian amendment, regarding literary and artistics property (adopted for the Rumanian treaty) and involving the deletion of literary and artistic property from paragraph 4 and its addition to paragraph 5 as subparagraph (e), was adopted by 8 votes to 3 with 3 ab-abstentions. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal were adopted by 7 votes to 4 with 3 abstentions. Paragraph 4 was adopted, as amended, by 9 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions. Paragraph 5, subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), was adopted by 6 votes to 4 with 4 abstentions.
The Commission adopted the U.S.-U.K.-French proposal for Article 23 [25] (Renunciation of claims against Germany) by 9 votes to 5, having previously rejected the Soviet proposal by the same vote. The representatives of France, U.S., and U.K. repeated the assurances regarding restitution of Bulgarian property in Germany, which had been made in the same connection in the case of Rumania.47
The Commission considered Article 26 and the Greek amendment thereto. The amendment (1.J.30) [C.P.(Gen.) Doc. 1.J.30], regarding certain pre-World War I debts mentioned in the Treaty of Neuilly, was opposed as inappropriate for the present treaty by the representatives of U.K. and U.S. and rejected by the Commission by 12 votes to 1 with 1 abstention. Article 26 was then unanimously adopted. The Greek proposal (1.J.31) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc.1.J.31] for a new Article 26 bis, regarding full compensation for certain losses resulting from the Bulgarian administration of Greek property during the occupation, was withdrawn and replaced by an amendment to the same effect (CP (B&F/EC) Doc 56).48 The representatives of the U.K. and U.S.S.R. stated that such claims should be included in the Greek claim for reparation and dealt with in connection with reparation. The Greek representative then withdrew the amendment.
The Commission unanimously adopted Article 27 (Renunciation of claims against Allied and Associated Powers), the Greek Delegation having withdrawn its amendment (1.J.32) [C.P.(Gen.)Doc. 1.J.32] [Page 622] on the ground that, by the decision of the Italian Economic Commission on a similar amendment, Article 24 adequately protected Greek interests.
The Greek Delegation withdrew its amendment (1.J.33) [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.J.33] and introduced a new amendment (CP(B&F/EC) Doc 57)48 to Article 28 (General Economic Relations), which called for the addition of a new paragraph regarding the facilitation of rail traffic between Sofia and Salonika, the maintenance of adequate services, and the negotiation of an agreement between the two countries on rates. M. Gerashchenko opposed the amendment as not relevant to the treaty and as one-sided. Mr. Thorp stated that he was prepared to accept the new amendment, provided that disputes arising under the paragraph were settled in accordance with Article 29 (not by ECITO as proposed by the Greek Delegation). The Greek representative said that he was willing to accept this revision. The amendment was opposed by the representative of the U.K. as being too specific a clause for inclusion in the treaty. The French representative suggested that the question might be adjourned and that a new Article, for inclusion in the Rumanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian treaties, might be drafted to replace the Greek amendment and also the Czech amendment to the Hungarian treaty. The purpose of this Article would be to induce each of the ex-enemies to negotiate agreements with its neighbors regarding railway transit. M. Gerashchenko opposed this proposal as not relevant to the work of the Commission and also urged that the Greek amendment should be withdrawn. At the suggestion of the Chairman, the Greek representative withdrew his amendment and the Commission agreed to allow the French representative to submit his alternative proposal at the next meeting.
- Regarding the action of the Commission on article 25, see C.P.(Plen) Doc. 31, Report of the Commission on the Draft Peace Treaty with Bulgaria, vol. iv, p. 486.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩