Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV

Doc. No. 11 (P).

Memorandum on the Territorial Clauses Relative to the Frontier Between Italy and France (Art. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)

undated

Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9

The deep-seated desire of Italy for a resumption of peaceful and friendly relations with France met with real encouragement in the speech made by M. Bidault on 15th August at the plenary meeting of the Peace Conference. The painful memories of a disastrous past are progressively disappearing before the reality of a new Italy, who, having given proofs in the struggle by the side of the Allies, of the genuine will of its people, appeals to others and more especially to the French nation not to stifle the rebirth of the Italian nation in the framework of democratic and peaceful republican institutions.

It is in this spirit of collaboration that Italy envisages now as before, the problem of her frontiers with the great neighbouring republic and reaffirms her desire to meet most of the French demands for frontier rectifications in spite of the sacrifices involved.

The Italian Government firmly believes that these sacrifices and the goodwill underlying them will find a suitable response, and that France will give favourable consideration to the two reservations Italy is compelled formally to insist upon. For the Italian Government considers that it is only thus that the two countries can arrive at a general agreement, an essential condition for the justification and maintenance of the cessions which Italy is prepared to accept.

According to the actual terms of the memorandum submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers on the 17th July, 1946, the Italian Government signified its agreement to those modifications which aim at ensuring that the frontier shall follow the Alpine watershed more closely, a principle justified by geographical reasons and by a long historical tradition. The Italian Government accordingly declares itself prepared:

1. To renounce in favour of France its sovereign rights over the territorial districts of the upper valleys of the Vésubie and Tinée, usually referred to as the “Hunting Grounds”, within the limits explicitly laid down by the Convention of 16th March, 1861 governing the application of the Franco-Sardinian Treaty of 24th March, 1860.

2. To push back the existing frontier in the districts of the Little St. Bernard Pass to the watershed, renouncing Italian sovereign rights over this strip of territory in favour of France.

Furthermore, in its desire to reach an agreement with France, the Italian Government has agreed to make an exception to the fundamental principle that the frontier shall follow the watershed, and declared itself ready to meet French wishes as regards the narrow valley of Bardonecchia, and Mont Chaberton.

As regards the narrow Valley of Bardonecchia, the Italian Government, while realising that the French claim entails heavy sacrifices on the part of Italy, recognises that the populations of Dauphiné and Savoy might derive some advantage from the establishment of direct communications running exclusively through French territory. As regards Mont Chaberton, while realising that such a rectification would constitute, as in the previous case, a serious departure, at Italy’s expense, from the principle that the frontier shall follow the watershed, and that it would involve a very heavy sacrifice, as this mountain dominates a considerable area of Italian territory, the Italian Government, acceding to the wishes expressed by the French Government on strategic grounds, has declared its willingness to accept, in principle, the suggested rectification of the frontier.

Finally, the Italian Government, in the Memorandum of 17th June, expressed its willingness to accede to French wishes on four points, namely:

1. Little St. Bernard Pass.

2. Narrow Valley of Bardonecchia.

3. Mont Chaberton.

4. The Upper Tinée and Vésubie Valleys.

Only three claims thus remain to be examined. They all concern territories which, as in the cases mentioned above, are on the Italian side of the watershed. From South to North, these rectifications concern:

1. The commune of Olivetta San Michele, situated in the Lower Roya Valley.

2. The Upper Roya Valley, where the communes of Tenda and Briga are situated.

3. The Mont Cenis plateau.

The commune of Olivetta San Michele never formed part of the County of Nice, and never came under discussion when the Treaty of 1860 was being drafted. Italian in feeling and language, the 1.100 inhabitants of Olivetta San Michele are economically and historically linked with Italy. Moreover, the catchment area and the canal for diverting the water supplying the power station of Airola, as well is the catchment area of the aqueduct supplying the population of Ventimiglia with drinking water, and with water for agricultural irrigation and for the market gardens of this Italian town, are situated in this territory.

If the French Government wishes to include in French territory the district through which the tunnel of the Nice-Breuil railway runs, this could be effected by a slight rectification of the frontier which, by cutting off the salient of the “dei Termini” Pass would leave nearly the whole of the commune of Olivetta San Michele in Italian territory.

As regards the Upper Roya Valley i.e. Tenda and Briga, the Italian Government has already had occasion to state its views, in connection with the report of the Commission of Enquiry appointed by the Council of Foreign Ministers. In the Italian Government’s view the separation of this district from Italy is not justified either by the sentiments of the inhabitants, historical precedents, on grounds of language, or on geographical and economic grounds.

The French claim to the Mont Cenis plateau remains to be considered. Situated entirely on the Italian side of the range 40 kms. in a direct line from Turin (from which it is not separated by any serious geographic obstacle), the Mont Cenis plateau literally commands the whole lower valley of Susa which opens into the plain of the Po some kilometres lower down. This is emphasised, almost dramatically, by the fact that the contents of the reservoir situated on the plateau, (with a capacity of approximately 32.000.000 cubic metres), would in the event of the dam bursting, overflow into the plain, causing a catastrophe of seismic proportions which would transform a very busy and fertile district into a valley of death.

It is inconceivable that such an enormous body of water should be massed in non-Italian territory, leaving a large and important Italian region exposed to such a serious threat. It would be equally inadmissible that the cession so proposed should for the first time in history establish such a precedent to the detriment of Italy.

To these considerations, others of a military character and of fundamental importance must be added. The transfer of the district of Tenda, and of the plateau of Mont Cenis, would add little or nothing to the security of France, but would irreparably prejudice the security of Italy, since the defensive value of the barrier of the Alps would thus be completely abolished.

However convinced it might be that the good neighbourly policy which will inspire its relations with its neighbour is reciprocated on the other side of the frontier, no nation could maintain relations of reciprocal trust and fruitful collaboration if, in implementing the principle of collective security, a reasonable measure of security for both parties had first to be sacrificed.

For the various reasons set forth in this Memorandum, the Italian Government deems it its duty to stress the fact that the rectifications proposed by France in the Mont Cenis district and in the Roya Valley are not consonant with the necessity for establishing ties of real collaboration and mutual trust between the two peoples.

The Italian Government, therefore, whilst reserving to the Constituent Assembly the right to approve the decisions taken, considers that Art. 2 of the Draft Peace Treaty with Italy might be drafted as follows:

Art. 2, par. 1.	Little St. Bernard:	No change.
— 2.	Plateau of Mont Cenis:	To be deleted.
— 3.	(1) Mont Thabor:	Amend as follows:

“The line shall leave the present frontier at Mont Gran Somma (3111) and follow the crest of the escarpment of the Ponite Melchiore as far as the Pointe Quattro Sorelle, subsequently descending into the “Narrow Valley” along the contours 2409–1915. Where it crosses the valley, this line would leave to Italy the dam and catchment area of the hydro-electric plant of Bardonecchia, afterwards rejoining the former frontier at the “Cime de la Suer” along the western escarpment of the “Comba della Gorgia” Valley.

The suggested alteration is intended to ensure that the dam and the catchment area by which the hydro-electric plant of Bardonecchia is supplied remain in Italy, since the Article, as at present drafted is not sufficiently clear on this point.

2. Mont Chaberton: Amended as follows:

“In the Chaberton area, the frontier shall leave the existing frontier some 3 kms. to the north of Mont Chaberton, passing round it to the East as far as the escarpment of the Pointe della Portiola. The frontier will follow the escarpment as far as Portiola, subsequently rejoining the existing frontier at the Col de I’Alpet, passing to the north of Granges les Baisses.”

While it gives France the strategic advantages demanded this modification would leave the commune of Clavières its pastures and forests and allow it to operate the tourist attractions which have made it internationally famous.

Par. 4. Upper Tinée, Vésubie and Roy a Valleys: Amend as follows:

“The frontier shall leave the present frontier at Colla Lunga and follow the water-shed by Mont Clapier, Mont Gran Capelet and Mont Meraviglie merging again into the existing line of frontier at the Cima del Diavolo”.

To Art. 2 a fifth paragraph might be added as follows:

“The frontier shall leave the present frontier some 3 kms. to the south of Breuil and, running southwards, rejoin the former frontier at boundary mark 26 east of Colla Longa”.

Art. 5.—See Memorandum No. 12(G) and 12 bis (G).

Art. 6.—Must be considered with reference to the alterations suggested to Art. 2.

Art. 7.—See Memorandum No 2(P).

Art. 8.—See Memorandum No 19(E).

Art. 9.—Must be considered with reference to the alterations suggested to Art. 2.