Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

mass. The whole countryside and hinterland of this coast, with the sole exception of five Italian villages north of Pola, were Yugo-Slav. In most of the towns the Slav element was in the majority, save in some isolated towns such as Gorizia, Trieste, towns on the Western shore of Istria, Lussin, Fiume, and Zara, where the Italian element predominated. The Italian element, therefore, represented enclaves or oases in Slav surroundings, without any national continuity binding it to the Italian peninsula.

The Yugo-Slav majority had always been oppressed. This had been its fate during more than four centuries of Venetian domination. The Slav element, deprived of all national rights, was unable under that rule to obtain any school in its own language whether in the towns or in the villages. Nevertheless, Venetian domination had not succeeded in Italianising any area, and only left behind it along the Adriatic coast a few families and some vestiges of the Venetian dialect, as was the case also in the islands of the Ionian Sea and of the Aegean Sea, where the Venetian Republic had once ruled.

Austria in this province had continued to apply the system she found there. The Austrian regime was anti-democratic, based on the division of classes and nationalities in respect to civil and political rights. Hence, the Yugo-Slav element had always been oppressed and systematically neglected, while the Italian element in the towns received privileges. When, in 1907, universal suffrage was introduced throughout Austria, the first elections showed that the YugoSlav element was much stronger than appeared on the surface. The national revival of the Yugo-Slav masses began after the introduction of the constitution in 1861. It was then that the political struggle began between the Yugo-Slav and Italian elements. The Yugo-Slav population, being democratic, had struggled for the freedom of their language and political and social rights. In this struggle the Yugo-Slavs, day by day, obtained further successes and made progress in the acquisition of those rights.

Turning to the application of the principles of nationality and of the right of self-determination, he wished to refer to the regions now under consideration. For greater clearness, he would first mention the regions of the Adriatic Coast from Cape Promontore along the Eastern coast of Istria, past Fiume (Rjeka) and along the remainder of the Croatian coast-line, the Dalmatian coast as far as Spizza (the Southern frontier of Dalmatia), and all Quarnero and Dalmatian islands which, from every point of view, formed an integral part of this coast.

The coast-line just described was almost exclusively inhabited by Yugo-Slavs, both as regards hamlets and villages and most of the towns. There were sporadic groups of Italian-speaking inhabitants in certain towns, but their number was so small that this factor

would have no influence whatever on the national character of such coast-line and islands.

The Yugo-Slav population, which formed the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants, had a high regard for its national unity and was imbued with the unshakeable desire to remain within the bounds of their State as already constituted. Wherefore, in the name of the principle of nationality, they begged that this entire coastline, with its islands, should be joined to their State.

It had to be remembered that all these regions were poor and incapable of development apart from the State of which their Hinterland would form a part. All the national, economic and commercial life of the majority of the provinces of their State gravitated towards the coast-i. e. of Croatia-Slavonia, Backa, the Banat, Northern Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dalmatia and Montenegro, all of whose existing roads and railways led to the sea. The islands on their coast sold all their export produce to the coast towns.

Austria's economic policy did not allow railways to be built in this transverse direction, as would have been to the interests of these regions, but commercial routes were created longitudinally from North to South, with the idea of penetration into the Balkans. It would be the duty of their State to alter this entirely and to build transverse roads and railways which would contribute to the development of commercial relations beyond the sea and primarily with Italy.

The only commercial railway was that which, starting from Fiume, crossed Croatia-Slavonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Hungary. It was built by the Hungarian Government with money belonging to the common Hungaro-Croatian State, at the time when (by falsifying the laws of 1868) Fiume was torn from the Croatians. This port was, therefore, even now the only commercial access to the sea for all these regions, which could not develop normally without Fiume.

To-day, when the Peace Conference was concerned with guaranteeing commercial outlets to the sea even to nations having no direct access thereto, it would be incomprehensible if an attempt were made to take from their nation the ports situate in its territory and on its own coast-line. For these reasons they requested that the whole of the coast-line, including the islands already referred to, might be acknowledged to form part of their State.

The provinces of Gorizia, Gradisca, Trieste with its suburbs, and the Western portion of Istria were situated in the basin of the Upper Adriatic.

The province of Gorizia-Gradisca was composed of two parts, totally different both from the national and economic points of view The Western part, which extended as far as the line Cor

mons-Gradisca-Monfalcone, had its own life and constituted an economic unity. According to the language spoken in this region, it contained 72,000 Italians and 6,000 Slovenes, whilst from the geographical point of view it was simply a prolongation of the Venetian plain. As these territories, called the Frioul, belonged according to the principle of nationality to the Italian nation, they did not claim them in any way. The remainder of that province, to the East and North of the line Cormons-Gradisca-Monfalcone, which included the mountainous region, was inhabited by 148,500 Slovenes and 17,000 Italians, 14,000 of whom formed half the population of the town of Gorizia. This town was the economic and intellectual centre of that region.

The Slovenes were a highly cultured people and possessed a deeprooted consciousness of their national unity with the other YugoSlav peoples, and they therefore demanded that this country be united with their State.

Geographically, the town of Trieste and its immediate surroundings formed an integral part of territories which, beyond these limits, were purely Slav. The majority of the population of the said town was Italian-two-thirds, according to statistics-the remainder being Slavs. The Slav element played an important part in the commercial and economic life of Trieste. Furthermore, if national continuity with Italy prevailed in Trieste, they would recognise the rights of the majority in the name of the principle of nationality; but the entire Hinterland of Trieste was purely Slav, and 20 kilometres of Slav coast separated the said town from Italian territory. The question of Trieste had, however, to be considered firstly from the point of view of its commercial and maritime importance. Commercially, Trieste was a world port. Its trade was linked with its Hinterland, which stretched as far as Bohemia, and in particular with its Slovene Hinterland, which absorbed onethird of the total trade of Trieste. Trieste was dependent on its Hinterland, and vice versa. Should Trieste become annexed to Italy, it would be separated politically from its commercial Hinterland, which separation would of necessity prove detrimental to its trade. Since the collapse of Austria as a sovereign Power, the natural solution of the problem of Trieste lay in its reunion with their State, and that was what they now asked for.

The population of Istria was partly Slavonic and partly Italian. According to the latest statistics there were 223,318 Yugo-Slavs and 147,417 Italians, the Slavs inhabiting Central and Eastern Istria in a compact mass. There were few isolated Italian groups in certain small towns. Judging from the vast majority of the population Central and Eastern Istria were essentially Slav.

The Italian population was most numerous on the Western Coast of Istria, chiefly in the towns, where it occupied only five villages North of Pola. These were the only Italian-speaking villages on the entire Adriatic Coast from Monfalcone as far as Spizza. The Slavs constituted part of the population of some coast towns and of all the remaining villages. Thus the Italian sections of the population could claim no territorial unity. For these reasons, and also because the Istrian peninsula was united geographically with Carniola and Croatia, whilst separated from Italy by the Adriatic, it followed that this peninsula should be recognised as part of their State which was what they now demanded.

Generally, it should be noted that none of the regions on the Adriatic coast between Monfalcone and Spizza had any vital interests in common with Italy, but rather with their regions, with which they were geographically united. This most important argument should be taken into consideration when this problem was being settled.

After concluding his statement, M. Trumbitch said he would like to add a few words about the population statistics of the areas mentioned. These statistics were made under Austrian rule by the communal authorities. In most cases where the population was partly Italian and partly Yugo-Slav, the communal authorities were Italian. In these cases, consequently, the statistics could not be accused of bias in favour of the Yugo-Slavs...

(At this stage the Delegation withdrew.)

[ocr errors]

(2) M. CLEMENCEAT said that a request had reached him that M. Tchaikowski of the Archangel Government, should be heard by the Council. He thought it might be of interest at the next meeting to hear a statement by M. Tchaikowski on the state of Northern Russia.

Agenda for Future
Conversations:
(a) Question of
Statement by

M. Tchaikowski

MR. BALFOUR said that he did not wish to object, but he would like to know whether this was part of a systematic endeavour to obtain evidence from all parts of Russia, or was it merely a suggestion that M. Tchaikowski should be heard because he happened to be in Paris.

M. CLEMENCEAU said that there were two or three Russians in Paris, who might have interesting statements to make, for instance, there was M. Sazonoff. In his case, however, there might be some objection, lest it be alleged that the Conference was conspiring with Tsarism.

MR. BALFOUR said that he thought some investigation should be carried out, but in accordance with a settled plan.

MR. LANSING agreed, as he thought there was a danger that only one part of the evidence would be heard.

M. PICHON pointed out that M. Tchaikowski belonged to the same group as M. Sazonoff; in fact, the request that M. Tchaikowski should be heard was signed by both of them.

MR. BALFOUR said that on reflection he thought it was perhaps inopportune to accord a hearing to representatives of Governments which had refused our invitation to proceed to Prinkipo.

MR. LANSING observed that as the Council was in the midst of considering its Russian policy, it should avoid the suggestion that its decisions had been influenced by any one party in Russia.

M. SONNINO proposed that the military advisers should be heard first and the policy could then be devised. After that, the Council could consider whether certain Russians should be allowed to make statements. He suggested that the request made by M. Tchaikowski should be adjourned.

(It was decided that the question of hearing a statement by M. Tchaikowski or any other representative of a Russian Government should be adjourned.)

(b) Procedure Regarding

Yugo-Slav Claims

MR. BALFOUR said that the Council had now heard the evidence of the Yugo-Slavs. Similar evidence had been heard from other nationalities, and in most cases the problems raised had been referred for examination to a Committee without power to decide on solutions, but with a Commission to report on the facts. In the case of the Yugo-Slav statement, he admitted that there were difficulties, especially by reason of the treaty commitments of some of the Powers present. He wished to ask what should now be done. Was the matter to be left just as it was?

M. SONNINO said that the subject was a difficult one. He wished to be quite frank. Italy could not take part in any Commission or in any discussion outside the Conference, or allow any Committee to make recommendations, regarding questions outstanding between Italy and the Yugo-Slavs. He would also oppose any Committee which was to examine collectively all questions raised by the statements heard that day. The question between the Yugo-Slavs and the Roumanians was already being sifted by a Committee. To this he had no objection.

MR. BALFOUR then asked Baron Sonnino to state what procedure he did recommend. He understood that Baron Sonnino would raise no objection to a Committee on the subject of the Northern and Eastern frontiers of Yugo-Slavia. But he would refuse to be a party to any discussion of the frontiers between Italy and Yugo-Slavia outside the Conference. He would point out that the object of a Committee was to furnish the Council with facts, in order that the Council should be in a position to discuss the matter with full knowledge.

« AnteriorContinuar »