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

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 5, 1946, 4 p.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 62

The Commission accepted an amendment to the Record of the previous meeting proposed by Mr. Bonbright (US) regarding a US reservation to the wording of Article 4. In this connection the Chairman read a letter from the President of the Legal and Drafting Commission, in which it was stated that it had been decided to delete the words “to Soviet Union or”. The article should now read “Hungary … had dissolved … organizations conducting propaganda hostile to any one of the United Nations”.³³ This recommendation of the Legal and Drafting Commission was approved by the Commission.

The Commission’s report to the Plenary Conference was then considered. The Rapporteur (Ukraine) stated that because of the time limitation, it had not been possible to check the various translations from the original draft, which had been in Russian. A number of technical changes in the report were suggested by various delegations. The Delegate of UK was particularly concerned regarding the statement in the report that his Delegation’s new paragraph to Article 2 (the so-called Jewish amendment)³⁴ had been described as failing to receive a two-thirds majority. The Chairman said he did not understand what the U.K. Delegate meant by “new paragraph”. He understood it to be an amendment. So did the Czechoslovak Delegation. Mr. Bonbright (US) stated that his Delegation had never regarded it as an amendment but as a new proposal. The UK Delegate insisted that the report should show that the majority of the Commission had voted for this proposal and should therefore submit a majority report as well as a minority report if so desired. M. Gusev (USSR) objected and supported the draft as presented by the Rapporteur. After considerable discussion, in which the Yugoslav Delegate surprisingly agreed with the UK position, the USSR dropped its opposition and agreed with Yugoslavia and the UK that the report should state that the UK proposal had been a new paragraph to Article 2 and that the Plenary Conference could itself decide whether the new paragraph had been carried by a two-thirds majority or by a mere simple majority. It could then make a recommendation to the C.F.M.

Mr. Stirling (Australia) made four requests for additions and amendments to the report. He was particularly concerned that the fate of his Delegation’s various amendments be noted. In this he was finally supported unanimously by the Commission. Mr. Bonbright (US) stated that after the reference in the report to the joint hearings held by the Rumanian and Hungarian Commissions on Transylvania and the fact that the Hungarian Delegation had been heard, it would be appropriate to add a sentence to indicate that the Hungarian Delegation had also been heard on other questions. He suggested a change in the wording of the paragraph noting that there had been suggestions made by the Hungarian delegation on many other articles of the draft treaty. The present wording did not clearly indicate that the Hungarians had had sufficient opportunity to be heard or that the Commission had duly taken into account their comments. These suggestions were adopted. He also made a reservation regarding the map, which he said was not on a scale appropriate for incorporation in a peace treaty. He reserved the US position in this matter. The UK Delegate supported this reservation.

The Commission then unanimously adopted the report,³⁵ subject to the various additions, amendments and suggestions made during the course of the meeting. The Chairman congratulated the Rapporteur on his fine report and expressed appreciation to the members of the Commission for the spirit of cooperation in which they had considered the draft treaty. After the Australian Delegate, the Vice Chairman, had congratulated Mr. Stankovic for his efficient and patient handling of the Chairmanship, the Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m.

33. See the United States Delegation Journal account of the 19th Meeting, October 3, and footnote 87, p. 644, and C.P. (Plen) Doc. 35, the relevant report of the Legal and Drafting Commission, Paris Peace Conference, 1946, p. 1189.
34. The British proposal was contained in C.P.(H/P) Doc. 10; for text, mutatis mutandis, see footnote 71, p. 418.
35. For the Report of the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary, C.P.(Plen) Doc. 27, October 7, see vol. iv, p. 526.