Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

all rights, titles or privileges of whatever nature in the submarine cables set out below, or in any portions thereof:

Emden-Vigo: from the Straits of Dover to off Vigo.
Emden-Brest: from off Cherbourg to Brest.

Emden-Teneriffe: from off Dunkerque to off Teneriffe.
Emden-Azores (1): from the Straits of Dover to Fayal.
Emden-Azores (2): from the Straits of Dover to Fayal.
Azores-New York (1): from Fayal to New York.

Azores-New York (2): from Fayal to the longitude of Halifax.
Teneriffe-Monrovia: from off Teneriffe to off Monrovia.
Monrovia-Lome:

[blocks in formation]

Lome-Duala: from Lome to Duala.

Monrovia-Pernambuco: from off Monrovia to off Pernambuco.
Constantinople-Constanza: from Constantinople to Constanza.
Yap-Shanghai, Yap-Guam, and Yap-Menado (Celebes): from
Yap Island to Shanghai, from Yap Island to Guam Island,
and from Yap Island to Menado.

shall con

Such of the above-mentioned cables as are now in use, tinue to be worked in the conditions at present existing; but such working shall not prejudice the right of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to decide the future status of these cables in such way as they may think fit.

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers may make such arrangements as they may think fit for bringing into operation any of the said cables which are not at present in use.

The Principal Allied and Associated Powers shall as soon as possible arrange for the convoking of an International Congress to consider all international aspects of communication by land telegraphs, cables or wireless telegraphy, and to make recommendations to the Powers concerned with a view to providing the entire world with adequate facilities of this nature on a fair and equitable basis."

(The Meeting then adjourned.) PARIS, 2nd May, 1919.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/68

BC-61

Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Monday, 12th May, 1919, at 4 p. m.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

M. CLEMENCEAU asked M. Tardieu to explain the finding of the Committee on Jugo Slav affairs.

Frontiers of

Austria and
Hungary:
(a) Frontier
Between Jugo-
Slavia and
Austria

M. TARDIEU gave an explanation of the finding of the Committee substantially identical to that given in I. C. 1821 and in I. C. 184.2

MR. BALFOUR asked whether any method of obtaining a plebiscite in the Klagenfurt Basin had been thought out. M. TARDIEU replied that no methods had been suggested, as the Committee had not thought it necessary to propose any, until the plebiscite had been accepted in principle.

M. CLEMENCEAU enquired whether the principle of the plebiscite was accepted.

PRESIDENT WILSON replied in the affirmative.

MR. LLOYD GEORGE also agreed.

BARON SONNINO expressed the view that if a plebiscite were resorted to in this area, there should be one in Marburg and in other doubtful corners along the proposed frontier.

MR. BALFOUR said that it was true there were other regions with mixed populations, but if the Conference were satisfied that it possessed sufficient knowledge to solve these problems without a referendum, he could see no reason why a plebiscite should not be resorted to in the isolated case of the Klagenfurt Basin if the Conference did not think itself sufficiently well-informed to decide its fate without one.

M. TARDIEU pointed out that the Commission had been unanimous not only regarding the rest of the frontier, but in recommending a plebiscite in this area.

PRESIDENT WILSON pointed out that the most urgent business before the meeting was to frame a clause for the Treaty. Some definite stipulation should be put down. He read the draft prepared by the Committee on Roumania and Jugo-Slavia, given as Article 5 on page 31 of Report No. 2 (W. C. P. 646.) :—

"In the whole of the basin of Klagenfurt, as defined below, an InterAllied Commission will be charged by the five Allied and Associated Powers with the duty of ascertaining on the spot the wishes expressed by the inhabitants as to the attachment of their territory to that of the Jugo-Slav State.

If the conclusions of this Commission establish the formal desire of the population to be attached to the Jugo-Slav State, the five Allied and Associated Powers reserve the right to give satisfaction to such desire".

MR. BALFOUR agreed that all Austria need know was that the people in the area in question would be consulted.

[blocks in formation]

M. ORLANDO said that if he understood the clause aright, it meant that the fate of this territory was reserved until the conclusion of the labours of the Commission set up by it. On these terms he would accept the draft Article.

(The draft Article regarding the consultation of the population in the Klagenfurt Basin by an Inter-Allied Commission was accepted.) M. TARDIEU then proceeded to explain the difficulty regarding the triangle south-east of Tarvis. (See I. C. 184 and Annexure.)3

BARON SONNINO asked at what date the final attribution would be made. He expressed the opinion that the occasion of making a Treaty with Austria was the best moment for settling this.

MR. BALFOUR explained that the result obtained at the last meeting of the Foreign Ministers (see I. C. 184) a compromise had been reached solely in order to obtain means of settling speedily with Austria. He agreed with Baron Sonnino that the final attribution of this territory must be made at some date. He suggested that if it were not settled immediately, it might be considered when the Conference came to decide on the boundaries of Jugo-Slavia.

M. CLEMENCEAU suggested that this course should be adopted.

BARON SONNINO adhered to the view that the matter should be settled immediately; not only was it an Italian interest, but it was also a first rate Austrian interest. It concerned the Austrians to know by what means they would communicate with the sea. The territory in question was a small mountainous wedge with a very small population. It was quite separate from the question of Fiume, and it could readily be decided in connection with the forthcoming Treaty with Austria.

PRESIDENT WILSON pointed out that two questions were involved. One was that of the ultimate sovereignty to be acknowledged by the population of the district. As this population was predominantly Jugo-Slav, the natural answer would be that the sovereignty should be Jugo-Slav. The second question was that of direct railway communication between Austria and Italy. In a similar instance the Conference had found no great difficulty in settling an almost identical problem. Arrangements had been made to ensure unimpeded transit between Eastern and Western Prussia.

BARON SONNINO pointed out that in order to give Czecho-Slovakia some 60 kilometres of railway, about 60,000 Magyars were to be subjected to Czecho-Slovak sovereignty. This had been done in order to ensure unimpeded railway communication between Czecho-Slovakia and Roumania. Similarly, no less than 280,000 Magyars had been handed over to Roumania, and in Poland, together with 100 kilometres of railway, some 100,000 Germans had been made Polish subjects.

(Considerable dissent was expressed from this statement. Such FM-14, pp. 696, 701.

solutions might have been proposed by Committees, but had not yet been accepted by the Council.)

M. CLEMENCEAU said that the proposal which he asked the Council to accept or reject was, that the limits of Austria should be fixed provisionally, and that the final attribution of the triangle in question be reserved until the frontiers of Jugo-Slavia were determined. This would be in accordance with the decision of the Foreign Secretaries of the previous Saturday. (I. C. 184.)

(This was finally agreed to and the frontier of Austria as proposed by the Committee on Jugo-Slavia in the report, and in the annexure to I. C. 184 was accepted.)

(The southern frontier of Hungary as set forth in the document annexed to these Minutes (Annexure A) was also accepted.)

M. CAMBON made a statement explaining the findings of the Committee on Czecho-Slovak affairs. He pointed out that the adminis

B. Frontier
Between Czecho-
Slovakia and
Austria

trative boundary between Austria and Bohemia had been followed almost throughout. There were two small deviations. Firstly, at Gmund, the railway junction of which was to be left within CzechoSlovakia. This junction was situated at some 4 kilometres from the town and was the junction of the two main lines serving Bohemia. The second deviation was near Feldsberg, at the join of the rivers Thaya and Morava. These two streams were the main arteries of Moravia and gave access to the Danube. The line had therefore been drawn in such a way as to give the stream to Czecho-Slovakia, while the railway parallel with the stream which was necessary to Vienna, was left within Austria.

M. CLEMENCEAU asked whether any objections were raised to the solution proposed by the Committee.

(No objections were raised, and the frontier proposed by the Committee was adopted.)

PRESIDENT WILSON pointed out that it would be necessary to specify the frontier between Austria and Hungary in the Treaty with the

C. Frontier Between Austria and Hungary

former. He reminded the Meeting that it had been decided to set up a Commission to investigate this matter in order to prepare the Conference for the raising of the question by either of the parties interested. He was informed that the Austrians would raise the question, and that the Allied and Associated Powers would be called upon to decide it. He read the decision recorded in I. C. 182 Para. 1, D, and asked whether any nominations had been made.

(No nominations had been made.)

BARON SONNINO asked whether it would not be enough to require FM-12, p. 674.

« AnteriorContinuar »