TRIESTE AREA

Evening Star, Issue 25887, 3 September 1946, Page 7

TRIESTE AREA

Italy States Her Case Free Territory Not Solution Arguments to Be Considered

(Rec. 2 p.m.) PARIS, Sept. 2. Trieste first came before the delegates when the Italy Committee reached the consideration of that part of the draft treaty dealing with the Trieste frontier area, also the creation of free territory. The Italian Deputy Prime Minister, Signor Bonomi, gave his views. The Big Four have agreed, in general principles, but not m details. Signor Bonomi said the French line —between the line proposed by Russia and the British-American proposal—would mean the transfer of 266,000 Italians from Italian territory into the free territory, and 50,000 Slavs who otherwise would have remained on Italian territory were also included on the free territory. He said that Venezia-Giulia had been regarded by Italians for centuries as an in- ' tegral part of their territory. Italians, when they reconstructed their national unity, placed in the forefront the aims of liberating Italians in Venezia-Giulia, “ still suffering under foreign domination.” Ho claimed that tho arrangements, at Rapallo after the last war offered a basis of pacific, fruitful, good neighbourliness between Italy and Yugoslavia. Signor Bonomi admitted that methods of violence had been introduced in Venezia-Giulia by Fascists, but fortunately “this sad parenthesis is a thing of . the past. The offence

Italian Armaments

. The Military Committee unanimously adopted the British proposal that Italy be permitted torpedoes in the warships which she is retaining under the peace treaty. The British proposal amended the treaty clause under which _ Italy was prohibited from manufacturing or using any self-propelled or . guided missile or apparatus. Britain suggested that ,this might be taken fo include torpedoes., and the amendment, which,, was carried, excluded torpedoes from the l clause. The committee, by 18 votes to 1, defeated the Greek amendment seeking to limit the percentage of officers and n.c.o.s in the Italian armed forces. Greece wanted to ensure that Italy would be unable to maintain a small but efficient nucleus of a large army,. Admiral Manola (Yugoslavia) opposed the Greek proposal, and said it would be unfair to put such limitations on a modern army. The first sign of. the operation of the Big Four’s new policy to speed up tho

Greek Claims Against Bulgaria

M. Kolarov (Bulgaria), at the Bulgarian Political and Territorial Committee, vigorously opposed the Greek claims for one-tenth of Bulgarian ter- » jitory He pointed out there was no : Greek population in the area claimed, : but the best Bulgarian tobacco, constituting the country’s chietf export, i was grown there. M. Kolarov de- j dared that the separation of Western Thrace from Bulgaria after the First i World War was against all principles of justice and equity. He urged that : Bulgaria should be granted an outlet to the /Egean, which would be in the interests of the Balkans and the

may call for reparations,. but reparations must not offend against justice.” Partition by an ethnic line must undoubtedly sooner or later be accepted by both States, but the existence of territory which from its nature would not cease to be coveted by both sides would be a permanent threat to peace between Italy and Yugoslavia and consequently to world peace. Signor Bonomi listed Italy’s objections to the Big Four proposals:— (1) The French line disregarded the gravitation of population from the Upper Isoiizo Valley to the Venetian Plain. (2) Yugoslavia would hold the Isonzo hydro plant, cutting off supplies from Gorizia, Monfalcone, and Trieste. (3) Communications with Trieste would be seriously curtailed. (4) Gorizia, which would remain Italian, would be separated from its suburbs and aqueducts. The committee, after hearing Signor Bonomi, postponed further consideration of the Trieste problem to allow the Yugoslavs time for further study. The committee adjourned after approving Article 8, giving France full sovereignty over lands .ceded to her, and providing for Italian and French co-operation in establishing a railway between Briancon and Bardonneche, and Article 9, guaranteeing Italy’s water and power supplies from the Mont Cenis plateau.

consideration of amendments came when Poland’s amendment was tabled. Poland concurred with the Big Four’s proposal relating to how the amendment should be made, and to which article in the Rumanian Treaty. The amendment affects the article covering the restitution of all legal rights and interests of Allied nationals as they existed at June 22, 1941. The committee unanimously adopted Article 23. Admiral Manola proposed an amendment limiting the Italian navy, because “we desire security on our frontier.” Both amendments were defeated. The Balkans Committee discussed the Polish claim for the return of property taken to Rumania by refugees and members of the army at the time of the collapse of Poland. Poland moved an amendment requiring Rumania to return property removed from the territory of any member of the United Nations. Poland, by agreement, withdrew her amendment.

United Nations who wished to develop trade with her. The committee adjourned. M. Tatarescu, addressing a joint meeting of the Hungarian and Rumanian Territorial Committees, maintained that the proposal to return part of Transylvania to Rumania would give Rumania a natural geographical frontier He declared that the granting of Hungarian claims on Transylvania would entail. considerable communication difficulties. He repudiated the accusations of maltreatment of Hungarian nationals. The committee adjourned.