Ext 6116/46(S) 'Secret Weekly Political Intelligence Summaries, nos 356-416, August 1946-November 1947' [‎454v] (926/978)

24
proposals it liked. After Mr. Walker (Australia) had withdrawn his amend
ment in the Balkan Commission explaining that it was part of Australia s
objection to having insufficient information about the background of the Council s
decisions, M. Molotov made a long and curious speech. Russia, he said, had
wanted war less than any other country. Her industry had been devastated by
war, whereas American industry, “ both peaceful and warlike had expanded,
“ useful perhaps for some future emergency.” Russia must recover and expancL.
her production. For this she would depend mostly upon her own efforts, but sh£*r
would also use for this purpose the small amount of reparations which she
claimed. He ended by saying that Russia was defending the agreements she
had made with her three allies. The Italian Economic Commission decided to
set up a sub-Committee to consider reparations claims for States other than
Russia. The Canadian delegate suggested that the amount of Russian repara
tions could not be determined until the other claims on Italy were known.
Sir David Waley (United Kingdom) argued that the Commission would have
firm ground for considering other claims, if once the Soviet claims were fixed.
M. Vyshinsky’s reply was a bitter attack. Later, the Balkan Economic Com
mission discussed a proposal, put up by the S. African delegation at the
request of the U.K., designed to secure the payment of fair prices to United
Nations producers of reparations goods in Roumania. The producers in this
case are the British oil companies.
On Tuesday the 3rd, M. Bebler gave the Yugoslav views on Trieste and the
frontier. In the Italian Economic Commission, Brazil proposed that Italy
should be allowed to obtain the raw materials for her reparations to Russia not
as in the draft treaty, exclusively from Russia, but also if necessary, in the open
market. The amendment was lost, by 15 votes to 4, Canada, S. Africa and
Australia being in the minority. Australia’s proposal to set up an international
court of Human Rights was debated in the Finnish Commission. Russia
opposed on the usual ground that it infringed the sovereignty of the States
concerned. Seeing that the proposal was of general import, Lord Hood (United
Kingdom) moved that it be referred to the Legal and Drafting Commission.
His motion was carried by 6 votes to 5. Mr. Vyshinsky at once challenged
France’s right to vote (she was one of the six); but the Australian chairman
over-ruled the objection. It will be recalled that Russia raised this voting issue
on the 16th August; but that on the 26th France voted in the Bulgarian Com
mission without Russia making any protest.
Erratum.
In Summary 357 p. 26, five lines from the end, support of a Polish claim
to reparations from Roumania was wrongly attributed to Australia. The
reference should have been to the support by Canada for a supervisory body.