CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 65
Mr. Kardelj (Yugoslavia) said that the Yugoslav claims to Trieste and the Julian March were not the accidental results of victory but were the culmination of a long struggle of the Yugoslav people. He supported this statement with an impressively long and detailed history of this struggle. The efforts of the Yugoslav people to achieve unity had been opposed by organized groups at successive stages in history. Formerly, opposition had been based upon the desire to defend the integrity of Austria. Now the same forces which had opposed Yugoslav union in the past opposed it again; this time, to safeguard the integrity of Italy. However, nothing could withstand the powerful will for liberty and of anti-imperialism. Neither this Conference nor any other would succeed in keeping Yugoslavs under foreign rule. No decision to this effect could hope to be lasting. The principle of the ethnic line which the Council of Foreign Ministers had accepted last winter was now thrown aside for the principle of ethnic equilibrium and the “French” line. Yugoslavia should have the whole of the Julian March and the Italian linguistic islands offshore. Mr. Kardelj said that this decision had been voted by overseas countries against the will of the peoples concerned. Yugoslavia would refuse to sign the treaty with Italy if a decision was made on the basis of the “French” line.
The decision of the Commission on the Statute of Trieste went against the ethnic principle. Since a “free” Trieste, that is, a Trieste not given to Yugoslavia, had been accepted, it was logical that the rule be given to the people and not to the governor who would be a dictator. The Statute should take into consideration the vital economic [Page 698] interests of Yugoslavia. Only in that way could the Conference expect Yugoslavia to accept the Statute. The present statute is not democratic. It would be governed by a police chief and would prohibit cooperation with Yugoslavia. It provided for the setting up of a colonial base. Only a voting machine had made this decision.
With regard to reparations, the victims of Italian aggression had not been considered. The settlements were quite unjust and discriminated against Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia could not accept Article 13 which, following the Australian and US proposal, imposed an insult upon Yugoslavia.
The just claims of Albania were not recognized in the reparations settlement.
In conclusion, Mr. Kardelj said that the work of the Conference had not been constructive. It began by attacking the sound position of the Council of Foreign Ministers’ decisions and had followed a negative policy. Upon three counts the Conference had followed a mistaken line. The Conference had adopted a voting procedure which had allowed one group to impose its will upon another. Insincerity had been evident in the opposition to objective arguments. It had been characteristic of the Conference that it had not tried to reach agreement especially on the demands of Yugoslavia, but had placed confidence in the voting machine. Consideration of the Italo-Yugoslav frontier and the Trieste frontier had often been purely formal and consideration of the Statute of Trieste and of reparations had been hasty. The attitude of one group in constant majority had divided the Conference in two. The 14 to 6 vote on almost all important decisions did not show objectivity or justice. Such methods did not contribute to peace and cooperation among the nations. The Council of Foreign Ministers has an arduous task before it to reach agreements which would correct the errors made by the Conference and to reaffirm faith in a lasting peace. Mr. Kardelj concluded by thanking all the Delegates who had shown consideration for the claims of Yugoslavia and hoped that at the eleventh hour there would be a change in the attitude shown by the Conference.
Senhor Neves da Fontoura spoke on behalf of the Brazilian Delegation. He said that Brazil’s action in the Italian Commissions had been based on (1) traditional policy of the New World of respect for the sovereignty of other states and the sanctity of treaties, (2) realization that war resulted from the neglect of elementary principles of the international community. He continued that the treaty for Italy should be drafted in the light of Italy’s sacrifices and cobelligerency; that it was in this spirit of equity that the Brazilian Delegation had submitted [Page 699] various amendments to the draft treaty. He felt that the solution envisaged for Trieste was unsatisfactory to all states directly concerned but, in a democratic spirit, the Brazilian Delegation though still making reservations regarding the ultimate success of the Free Territory, bowed before the decision of the majority of the Italian Political Commission.
Mr. Thorp spoke in behalf of the U.S. Delegation with respect to the economic clauses of the Italian treaty. He said that the justifiable claims against Italy were tremendous and that she must undertake payment to the limit permitted by the capacity of her economy. However any additional burden beyond those recommended by the Economic Commission might destroy the practicable fulfillment of the treaty provisions. He pointed out that while the total damages of war costs which might be assessed against Italy reached staggering totals, no reparation settlement could in reality be more than a token payment and that the reparation provisions, while they did not correspond to the original United States proposal, would receive the support of the U.S. Delegation. He opposed Albanian claims for reparations, beyond the Italian assets already within her jurisdiction, and expressed the opinion that Greece and Yugoslavia should have approximately equal treatment as the treaty now provides. Finally, the U.S. Delegation believes that the amount of 325 million dollars is within the limit of Italian capacity to pay and will therefore support the proposed reparation provision. With reference to Article 65, he said that the United States had consistently opposed special replacement provisions. He referred to the relatively minor effects on Italian economy of the compensation provisions of Article 68, as compared to the removal from Italy of commodities on reparation account. Regarding Italian assets in the United States, he said that their use would be limited to the satisfaction of certain private claims, the total of which would be small, and that consequently there appeared no reason why, subject to these and certain other provisions and the necessary legislation, the entire 60 million dollars of Italian assets in the United States should not be returned to Italian ownership. He concluded that the U.S. Delegation would give its general support to the economic clauses of the Italian peace treaty as endorsed by the majority of the Economic Commission as representing the maximum requirements which should be imposed on Italy. (For full text of Mr. Thorp’s remarks see USD(PC)(PR)–35.)