BARON SONNINO said that each Delegation was accompanied by its experts and he felt quite sure that at least eight members of the Council must have already consulted them. M. CLEMENCEAU asked Baron Sonnino whether he raised no objection to the formation of a Committee to investigate the other frontiers claimed by the Yugo-Slavs. M. SONNINO said that he raised none, provided that the questions pending between Italy and Yugo-Slavia were excluded. M. CLEMENCEAU suggested that a Committee should be set up and that the Dalmatian Coast should be excluded from the terms of reference. He thought it impossible to entrust this question to any Committee or Commission, by reason of the commitments of the Powers and certain difficult political aspects of the question. This question resembled that of the Rhine, which also could not be entrusted to a Committee. Such questions must be dealt with in the Council, which was not ill-supplied with the necessary statistics. In this matter, therefore, he agreed with Baron Sonnino. He proposed to name a Committee to deal with the problems raised, with the exception of those pending between Italy and the Yugo-Slavs. MR. BALFOUR then read the following draft resolution: "It is agreed: That the questions raised in the statements by MM. Vesnitch, Zolger and Trumbitch, on behalf of the Serbian Delegation on the Serbian territorial interests in the peace settlement (excepting only the question in which Italy is directly concerned) shall be referred for examination in the first instance to an expert Committee similar to that which is considering the question of the Banat. It shall be the duty of this Committee to reduce the questions for decision within the narrowest possible limits and to make recommendations for a just settlement. The Committee is authorised to consult representatives of the peoples concerned." MR. LANSING suggested that this question be referred to the same Committee as was dealing with the Banat. M. PICHON said that some of the questions raised were different to the one under discussion in that Committee. It might, however, be convenient that the Committee on these other questions should be composed of the same members. BARON SONNINO said that he supported Mr. Lansing's proposal as questions of reciprocal concession might arise. (It was therefore decided that the above Resolution be adopted and that the Committee be the same as that appointed to deal with the Banat) (See I. C. 130) 'BC-20, vol. m, p. 851. M. CLEMENCEAU proposed that there should be no meeting on the following day as he wished to devote the whole day to thought on the Russian question. Interval in (This was agreed to.) (3) M. CLEMENCEAU said that he found some difficulty in fixing the Agenda for the next meeting. In addition to the military questions pending with Germany there was the Russian problem. Questions for Future Discussion: (a) Morocco Among other questions that might be raised was that concerning Morocco. MR. BALFOUR asked in what manner this question concerned the Peace Conference. M. CLEMENCEAU said it involved an agreement with Germany which France wished to revise. France desired to abolish some of the stipulations of the Treaty of Algeciras.' He did not mean to raise any question as between France and Spain. M. PICHON pointed out that eleven Powers had signed the Treaty of Algeciras. Its reconsideration would, therefore, affect them. M. CLEMENCEAU said that he did not wish to surprise the meeting and would give full time for each delegation to reflect on the subject. MR. BALFOUR said that there remained a subject of some interest, that of Schleswig Holstein. This was not like other questions, as it concerned a neutral. (b) Schleswig Holstein M. PICHON observed that before discussing the Danish question he must ascertain whether the Danes had any representative in Paris ready to defend his case. He pointed out that the question of the Aaland Islands which would have to be discussed also involved neutrals. (c) Albania BARON SONNINO said that the Albanian question still remained to be discussed. There were also the Armenians of the Erivan Republic. (d) Erivan Republic (4) MR. LANSING said that he wished to ask informally whether in the opinion of the Council it would be wise to send ant Inter-Allied Commission to Syria. Question of Inter Allied Commission to Syria (5) SIR ROBERT (This question was postponed.) BORDEN said it had occurred to him that possibly time might be saved if the Council made up its mind what questions could suitably be sent to Committees in anticipation of hearing statements. A list of such questions might be established beforehand and thereby in each instance a meeting of the Council might be saved. Reference to Committees Before Mr. LANSING observed that this had been discussed before the departure of President Wilson. It had been thought that many dele General Act of the International Conference of Algeciras, April 7, 1906, Foreign Relations, 1906, pt. 2, p. 1495. gations anxious to make statements would be dissatisfied if referred direct to Committees. SIR ROBERT BORDEN said that his suggestion only had in view the saving of time. In the same order of ideas he would suggest that statements reduced to writing should not be read aloud before the Council. (6) MR. BALFOUR submitted the following list of questions which it would be necessary to discuss: BARON SONNINO suggested the hearing of the Persian statement. (a) Persian Statement (b) Recognition of Polish Government MR. BALFOUR pointed out that as Persia was not a belligerent the case did not arise. M. CLEMENCEAU said that another item on the list should be the question of recognising the Polish Government. (7) M. CLEMENCEAU proposed that at the following meeting the question of the recognition of the Polish Government and the question of Danish claims in Schleswig Holstein should be discussed. Agenda for Fol lowing Meeting (This was agreed to.) (The Meeting then adjourned.) VILLA MAJESTIC, PARIS, February 19th, 1919. Paris Peace Conf. 180.03101/43 BC-36 Secretary's Notes of a Conversation Held in M. Pichon's Room at the Quai d'Orsay, Paris, on Friday, February 21st, 1919, at 3 p. m. 1. On the proposal of MR. LANSING, Mr. Pichon was asked to take the chair during the temporary absence of M. Clemenceau. Election of M. PICHON, having thanked his colleagues for the honour conferred upon him, said that he had seen M. Clemenceau a few hours ago. He was progressing very satisfactorily and hoped to be able to take his place at the Conference on Monday next. Though this might not be possible, his return could, nevertheless, be expected shortly. 2. The first question to be discussed related to the creation of a neutral zone in Transylvania, and he would call on M. Tardieu, the Chairman of the Committee on Rumanian Affairs, to make a report. Report From the Committee on Transylvania M. TARDIEU said that the Committee on Rumanian Affairs had reached the conclusion that the question of Transylvania should be referred back to the Conference for settlement, for the following reasons. When the General Commanding-inChief of the Allied Armies of the East had signed the Armistice with Hungary,' Rumania had not yet re-entered the war and no reason had then existed for fixing a definite line of occupation between Rumania and Hungary. Hungarian troops, therefore, remained in occupation of Transylvania. These troops had been accused by M. Bratiano, in a report dated 9th February, 1919, of having committed acts of cruelty; and, consequently, Rumanian troops had moved forward with the intention of occupying the whole of that region up to the line fixed by the Treaty of 1916.12 On February 14th, 1919, General Franchet d'Esperey had cabled that the Rumanian troops were continuing their advance into Transylvania and had already reached the line:-MaramarosSziget, Zilak, Czucza, Nagy-Szebecs, Zam. Now, the final frontiers of Rumania had not yet been fixed by the Committee on Rumanian Affairs, who were still engaged in studying that question. But, owing to the advance of the Rumanians, it was possible that serious conflicts might take place at any moment between the Rumanian and Hungarian troops; an incident which would be doubly regrettable, seeing that the question in conflict was now under consideration. The Committee, therefore, had considered it expedient to report the situation to the Conference in order to avoid any conflict taking place in that region, and a proposal had been submitted four days' previously, suggesting: (1) The fixation of two lines at a certain distance from each other beyond which the Hungarian and Rumanian troops should not be permitted to advance, and (2) The establishment of a neutral zone between the two proposed 1 Vol. II, p. 183. 18 Italy, R. Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Trattati e convenzioni fra il regno 'Italia e gli altri stati, vol. 23, p. 412. 314579-43-VOL, IV-5 |