Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the revictualling of Bavaria rapidly and in full agreement with the Brussels arrangement. There was a political question involved but the first question was to decide whether it could be done consistently with our agreements.

MR. LANSING asked why we should study the question unless we wished to give special treatment to Bavaria.

M. PICHON said that one reason was that we wanted to prevent the developing of Bolshevism in Bavaria which was a country in which we could rely on for order being maintained. In Bavaria there were men who had always been favourable to the Entente, and we should facilitate their tasks.

MR. LANSING said that if our object was to get rid of Bolshevism the best way was to consider the Berlin Government which was certainly not Bolshevist. He doubted the expediency of interfering with the internal affairs of any country.

MR. BALFOUR said that the question was one of the first political importance but he did not think it could be decided here. Those present might lay the case before their colleagues and ask their views. Before discussing the political question however there were other aspects such as our agreement with Germany and the quantities of supplies available, which ought to be settled. He thought that these questions could be settled here, if they could not they might be remitted to the Supreme Economic Council.

MR. HOOVER said that if the question was sent to the Supreme Economic Council the first thing they would do was to ask "What was the policy"!

LORD ROBERT CECIL said that if the present body decided the economic question it would create confusion. The economic aspect of the question should be dealt with by the Supreme Economic Council, and the political question could be settled by some such body as that present.

M. SONNINO proposed that a definite reference should be made to the Supreme Economic Council enquiring whether it was possible without violating the Brussels engagement to send supplies to Bavaria. (After some further discussion the following question was referred to the Supreme Economic Council:

Whether, having regard to the terms of the Brussels agreement, it is economically possible to send food independently to Bavaria, apart altogether from the political expediency of doing so.)

3. [sic] LORD ROBERT CECIL asked whether the Ministers present could decide the question raised by the Supreme Economic Council as to the blockade of Austria and of Esthonia.

Blockade of

Austria and
Esthonia

MR. BALFOUR referred to the question raised by the British Admiralty as to whether, in view of the fact

that the Germans in Latvia were fighting the Bolshevists some relaxa

tion of the blockade should not be permitted so as to allow ships of under 1,800 tons to carry food and coal to Latvia.

LORD ROBERT CECIL said that this did not affect the Esthonian question which was merely one of sending food to Esthonia with very careful provisions to prevent it reaching the Bolshevists.

(It was agreed that the Foreign Ministers should meet again on the following day to consider questions of the Blockade of Austria and Esthonia and other questions which Mr. Balfour undertook to remit.) VILLA MAJESTIC, PARIS, 27th March, 1919.

Paris Peace Conf. 180.03201/2

FM-2

Notes of a Meeting Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Foreign Office, Paris, on Friday, March 28th, 1919, at 11 a. 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][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

(1) M. PICHON Opened the Meeting and asked Lord Robert Cecil to make a statement regarding the raising of the Blockade of German

Raising of

Blockade of
German-Austria

Austria.

LORD ROBERT CECIL said that on March 12th the Supreme Economic Council had resolved that all block

ade and trade restrictions with German-Austria and Hungary should be abolished, and that commerce should be free with all parts thereof, as soon as the necessary machinery of control against re-exportation to Germany had been set up. He was not prepared to ask the Council to affirm the part of this resolution which concerned Hungary. In view

of the events that had lately taken place in Hungary he would suggest that this portion of the resolution should be referred back to the Supreme Economic Council. The portion of the resolution relating to German-Austria, however, he would ask the Council to adopt. A certain number of articles susceptible of use for military purposes were to be excepted. These articles were enumerated in the paper forwarded by the Supreme Economic Council (see Annexure "A"). There were also in this paper certain provisions for the establishment of the necessary control, with the object of preventing re-export to Germany. In a word, the general principle recommended was that the blockade should be raised except in respect to articles of military use, as soon as an international control had been established, and was in a position to guarantee that no re-export should be made to Germany.

BARON SONNINO said that he had no objection to raise to the resumption of traffic with German-Austria, provided Hungary were not included. He wished, however, to draw attention to a decision taken by the Ban of Croatia-Slavonia, forbidding all import, export and transit of goods between Italy and Yugo-Slav territory. Such a policy, if persisted in, would not harmonise with that recommended by the Supreme Economic Council. Unless these decisions on the part of the Yugo-Slavs were revoked, Italy would be forced to take some counter-action. Up to the present no retort had been made, and he had for the time being stopped any move on the part of Italy.

(For reported action taken by Ban of Croatia, see Annexure "B”.) MR. BALFOUR said that the matter alluded to by Baron Sonnino was a delicate question, though it had no very direct bearing on the proposal under discussion. The affair, however, was new to him.

LORD ROBERT CECIL said that at the earnest request of the Supreme Economic Council Italy had consented to the complete cessation of blockade in the Adriatic. It was, consequently, a very serious matter that the Yugo-Slavs should answer this with a blockade of Italy.

MR. LANSING enquired whether there had been any restriction on the passage of foodstuffs to Yugo-Slavia.

BARON SONNINO said that as far as he knew, food had been allowed to pass, even before the removal of the blockade. With regard to the alleged order by the Ban of Croatia, he was not able to vouch for the correctness of the information he had put before the Meeting, as he had no official intimation of it and only knew what he had related to the Meeting from newspaper reports. He thought, however, that it was right to draw the attention of the Meeting to the matter.

MR. LANSING observed that in view of the presumed action on the part of the Yugo-Slavs, the action proposed by the Economic Council appeared all the more necessary.

MR. BALFOUR agreed, and expressed the opinion that though there was no immediate practical connection with the proposal under dis

814579 43VOL. IV-34

cussion, Baron Sonnino had been right in drawing the attention of the Meeting to this matter. It might perhaps be advisable to ask the Yugo-Slav authorities whether they had issued such a decree, and, if so, in what manner they justified it.

M. PICHON agreed that it would be reasonable to adopt this proposal. The Yugo-Slav authorities should be asked to give an explanation and their answer might be placed before the Council.

(It was then resolved that M. Pichon, on behalf of the Council, should undertake to see the Serbian representatives in Paris about the alleged prohibition of trade between Croatia-Slavonia and Italy and to report to the Council.)

BARON SONNINO made reservations regarding the above decision, pending the result of M. Pichon's enquiries. He said that Italy must have the right of taking counter-measures if the result was not satisfactory.

(It was further resolved that all blockade and trade restrictions with German-Austria should be abolished and that commerce should be free with all parts thereof, as soon as the necessary machinery of control against re-exportation to Germany had been set up, with the exceptions and other provisions set out in detail in Annexure "A”.) 2 (2) LORD ROBERT CECIL read a resolution of the Supreme Economic Council, for the text of which see Annexure "C".

Reopening of
Trade With
Esthonia

He explained that the object was to facilitate commercial intercourse with Esthonia, after taking precautions to prevent the re-export of goods to Germany and Bolshevik Russia.

MR. LANSING inquired why the same proposal was not extended to Latvia and Lithuania.

LORD ROBERT CECIL said that there were political objections to doing so, as the Governments of Latvia and Lithuania were still sketchy, and the delegates had thought it unsuitable to enter into immediate commercial relations with them.

MR. MCCORMICK said that the delegates had been led to believe that there were military reasons against this. He himself, however, thought that some such arrangement might be made.

MR. BALFOUR observed that all the main ports of entry into Latvia and Lithuania were in the hands either of the Germans or the Bolsheviks. This rendered it difficult to resume commercial relations with these countries. He would propose, therefore, that the resolution of the Supreme Economic Council be adopted, with a note that

'A correction to FM-2a (constituting a brief summary of the minutes given in full as FM-2), dated March 29, 1919, reads thus:

"The resolution of the Supreme Economic Council was approved, insofar as it concerned German-Austria, with a reservation by Baron Sonnino, subject to the receipt of a satisfactory reply by the Jugo-Slavs to M. Pichon's inquiry. The question as relating to Hungary was, however, referred back to the Supreme Economic Council."

« AnteriorContinuar »