Office of the Historian

CFM Files

United States Delegation Journal

October 2, 1946, 10:30 a.m.

USDel (PC) (Journal) 59

The Chairman outlined the agenda, agreed by the Commission yesterday, to hear and discuss the report of the Subcommission for the Statute of Trieste, to consider the Yugoslav amendment to Article 16, and to vote on the various amendments to Article 16 including the U.S. proposal discussed yesterday.61 The Representative of the Soviet Union proposed a different procedure, namely, that the Commission adopt first the principles of the CFM laid down in Article 16 particularly paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 of that Article. There ensued a 45-minute discussion on procedure in which Mr. Dunn opposed the Soviet proposal to change the agreed agenda for the day and M. Vyshinsky further vigorously supported it. M. Couve de Murville (France) said that the French Delegation had during the night prepared a proposal for the consideration of the Commission containing fundamental principles of the Statute for Trieste which the Commission might adopt as recommendations to the CFM. The French proposal, he said, was about to be circulated and might be helpful to the Commission in determining its procedure.62 The Commission finally rejected the Soviet proposal to change the agenda by a vote of 11 to 8 with one abstention.

M. Busmann (Netherlands) submitted the report of the Subcommission on a Statute for Trieste (CP(IT/P) (S/T) Doc. 8 and Annex)63 admitting that the hard work of the Subcommission had not achieved agreement.

M. Pijade (Yugoslavia) attacked the U.S. proposal for Article 16 (presented yesterday) and the intransigence shown by the U.S., U.K., and French Representatives in the Subcommission. At the same time he made some favorable remarks about the Yugoslav proposal to Article 16 which had not yet come before the Commission. M. Winiewicz (Poland) endorsed the remarks of his Yugoslav colleague and argued against the views of the U.S., U.K. and France as reflected in the report of the Subcommission. He declared that in view of the divergence of opinions the Polish Delegation did not expect to reach a compromise solution on the Statute in the Conference. In fact, he argued that any undue haste leading to an improvised solution would [Page 630] be premature and therefore moved a resolution along the following lines:

On the basis of the report of the Subcommission for a Statute for the Free City of Trieste the Commission recommends to the Plenary Session of the Conference: (a) The existing differences in the five draft statutes (U.S., U.K., French, Soviet Union and Yugoslav) have not been bridged and it has not been possible to agree on one draft statute. (b) Similar differences appeared with respect to the provisional government and the Free Port of Trieste on which agreement likewise could not be reached, (c) The efforts of the Subcommission constitute only a limited basis for further discussion.

Therefore, the Commission recommends that the CFM reconsider the provisions for a statute, the organization of a provisional government and an international Free Port in the light of the work of the Commission and the Subcommission thereon and that the CFM give opportunity to Yugoslavia to present its views before a final decision is reached.

M. Winiewicz concluded that certain basic principles should, however, be adopted by the Conference and for that reason had favored the Soviet proposal this morning to vote now on the pertinent paragraphs of the CFM decisions in Article 16.

M. Couve de Murville introduced his Government’s new proposal for the Commission’s consideration (CP(IT/P)Doc. 105). He explained that in view of the lack of progress in the Subcommission the French Delegation had considered it helpful to present a more complete proposal, but in general terms, for the Commission to use as recommendations to the CFM. He reviewed and explained the French proposal point by point. He said that it covered all questions not agreed in the Subcommission and suggested that in view of the general nature of the French proposal it be taken as a basis for discussion by the Commission in its meeting this evening.

  1. For texts of the Yugoslav amendment, C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 103, and the United States proposal, C.P.(IT/P) Doc. 16, see vol. iv, pp. 788 and 780, respectively.↩
  2. For text of the French proposal, C.P. (IT/P) Doc. 105, see ibid., p. 790.↩
  3. For text, see ibid., p. 623.↩