CFM Files
United States Delegation Journal
USDel (PC) (Journal) 40
The Chairman read a letter from the Chairman of the Political and Territorial Commission for Italy stating that the Commission had approved Articles 8 and 9 and Annex 2 but was referring these to the Economic Commission since they had economic aspects. The Economic Commission agreed to the approval of the articles and annex.
[Page 445]The Chairman asked the Commission to be ready the next day to discuss a reply to a letter from the Secretary General requesting measures which it might take to facilitate the Commission’s business so it might finish its work by October 5.
Following a request from the Military Commission (C.P. (IT/EC) Doc. 19),94 the Commission agreed that “property”, as used in Article 65 included war materials. It will so inform the Military Commission.
The Commission then considered Article 65, Restitution. It approved paragraph one as amended to include the words “in the shortest possible time” after the word “return” and before the word “property”, i.e., to provide that restitution would be made in the shortest possible time (this amendment having been accepted by the Yugoslav Delegation in place of its amendment, 1.U.18 [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.U.18] par. 1 proposing a time-limit of 6 months). The Yugoslav amendments to paragraphs 2 and 3 were also withdrawn. There was then considerable discussion of the Greek amendment to paragraph 2 (1.J.10) [C.P. (Gen.) Doc. 1.J.10], providing for restitution or replacement of works of art. Mr. Thorp (U.S.) spoke on behalf of the agreed text and gave reasons for being unable to support the Greek amendment, pointing out that the amendment did not conform to the general scheme of the treaties and involved serious administrative difficulties. The representative of Byelo-Russia then spoke in favor of the principle expressed in the Greek amendment, but proposed it be extended to cover not only works of art looted from Greece but from all countries whose territory was occupied by Italian forces. He thought the Greek proposal for replacement would be difficult, however. The Czechoslovak Representative expressed agreement with the Byelo-Russian views, as did the Yugoslav Representative. The latter proposed that the amendment be revised along the lines of the pertinent provision of the Paris Reparation Agreement.95 There being no further speakers on behalf of the agreed text, Mr. Thorp suggested that in view of the substantial support expressed for modification of, or addition to, Article 65 along the lines of the amendment, consideration of paragraph two should be adjourned to permit the Greek Delegation and others interested to prepare a draft taking into account the views expressed in the course of discussion. The Commission agreed to defer the question.
Paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Article 65 were then approved. The Yugoslav amendment to paragraph 4 (1.U.18, par. 5) to require Italy [Page 446] to pay the maintenance costs of Restitution Delegations of the Allied and Associated Powers in Italy was withdrawn after the Representatives of the U.S.A., U.K., France and the U.S.S.R. had agreed that the text of paragraph 4 as drafted already covered the Yugoslav amendment.
Paragraph 7 of Article 65 was deferred for consideration with paragraph 7 of the Yugoslav amendment (1.U.18). Paragraph 8 on restitution of gold was also deferred after the Ukraine Representative had raised the question of inviting Albania to appear before the Commission to present information regarding the application of this paragraph to Albanian gold transferred to Italy.