Appendix J to CM-2 (Supreme Council, December 13, 1919, 3:30 p. m.) (1) that the present Session of the Peace Conference should terminate by Christmas, or at the latest, within the fifteen days following the procès-verbal of the Deposit of the Ratifications of the Peace Treaty with Germany; (2) that at the expiration of the present Session of the Peace Conference, all important political questions should be handled by means of direct communications between the Governments themselves, while all questions of detail should be taken up by the Conference of Ambassadors at Paris. Paris Peace Conf. 180.03701/3 CM-3 Notes of a Meeting Held in M. Pichon's Room, Quai d'Orsay, Paris, Wednesday, January 21, 1920, at 11 a. m. General Cavallero (Italy) was also present at the meeting to deal with questions with which he was concerned. MR. MANTOUX read a draft letter prepared by the British Delegation in reply to a communication from Mr. Lansing.1 (Appendix "A".) A draft letter prepared by Mr. Berthelot in reply to the same communication was then read. (Appendix "B"). (1) Reply to Mr. Lansing's Memo randum MR. BERTHELOT: In preparing this draft reply I took up a different point of view, as the Council observes. Lord Curzon's reply seems to me to be infinitely superior; it is far more complete, and goes to the very bottom of the questions. But I chose to interpret Mr. Lansing's Note as a display of bad temper and not as a direct communication from President Wilson, and I replied without entering very deeply into the questions, which would have been dealt with subse 'Following is a paraphrase of the telegram from Secretary Lansing to Ambassador Wallace, dated January 19, 1920 (file No. 763.72119/8736a): Please take up with Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George the question of the way the Russian and the Italian problems have been handled and ascertain their point of view. The United States is being put in the position of having the matter disposed of before the American point of view can be expressed, as apparently Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George have sought only the views of the Italian and Jugoslav Governments before ascertaining the views of the United States Government. Is it the intention of the British and French Governments quently in an appendix, in which we should have asked to know the opinion of the American Government. MR. CLEMENCEAU: It seems to me that the question of peace with Turkey ought not to be included in this reply to Mr. Lansing; it is important, I know; but this is yet another reason why it should be treated separately from the question of the Adriatic; also it is a question to be dealt with by my successor. I asked Mr. Millerand to permit me to remain until now in order to settle the Italian question, concerning which we have been interrogated by Mr. Wilson; there are papers in connection with it which are signed by me, and I intended to make a suitable reply. The question of peace with Turkey of course remains on the agenda, but it must be discussed with Mr. Millerand; I have no right to deal with it. That being said, I think the two draft letters excellent; each has its advantages and disadvantages: nevertheless, I could not accept that of Lord Curzon without a slight alteration on which he will, I think, be in agreement with me: he says that, once an agreement had been reached, we should not have failed to inform President Wilson; I would rather that we used the following formula: that we should not have failed to submit it for his approval. For it is indeed a matter of approval. MR. DE MARTINO: President Wilson may prefer not to pronounce an opinion. MR. CLEMENCEAU: Then he will not pronounce one. Mr. Berthelot points out to me that, if we use that formula we appear to make President Wilson an arbitrator: but in our system of discussion we are all arbitrators: we must be unanimous among ourselves; if one of us disagreed, nothing would be done. I think the wording I propose would quite disarm Mr. Wilson: it only expresses the truth. LORD CURZON: I agree with you. MR. MILLERAND: So do I. MR. CLEMENCEAU: With this alteration, I am prepared, while thinking Mr. Berthelot's text excellent, to adopt that of Lord Curzon. LORD CURZON: I think Mr. Clemenceau's observation is perfectly true. in the future to dispose of the various questions pending in Europe and to communicate the results to the Government of the United States? There are features in connection with the proposed Fiume settlement which both Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George must realize could not be acceptable to the President. As it was pointed out by Mr. Polk before his departure, the Dalmatian and other questions should be taken up through regular diplomatic channels, and the fact that you are not charged with full powers could have no bearing on the question. As no American official could be sent to these gatherings that could have the same authority as the Prime Ministers of the three Governments in question, it is manifestly impossible for the United States Government to be represented at the meetings of the Prime Ministers. LANSING As to avoiding all mention of the Turkish question, another argument in favour of the point of view supported by Mr. Clemenceau is that the telegram communicated to us only spoke of Russia and Italy and not of Turkey at all. Moreover, I quite understand that Mr. Clemenceau only wishes to reply to those points which concern the part he has taken in negotiations, and that the Turkish negotiations must in future be considered as within the competence of the new French Cabinet. I am therefore prepared to accept these considerations if the text I have proposed is otherwise accepted. Our draft has, indeed, several advantages. Mr. Berthelot's is, as he said, in reality a reply to Mr. Lansing, but there is no doubt, however the telegram communicated to us is read, that it comes from the Government of the United States; it would consequently be better to address that Government itself. Finally, it is better to go thoroughly into the questions and give arguments, while showing, of course, the greatest courtesy to the American Government, both as regards substance and form. MR. DE MARTINO: Since the American Government addressed the French and British Governments, I am not concerned in the drafting of this reply. I merely thank you for so kindly communicating it to us. Nevertheless, I should like to make one request. In his draft reply, Mr. Berthelot says that the Allied Governments of France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan never intended to come to a decision apart from and contrary to the advice of President Wilson: this idea does not appear in Lord Curzon's note. I request that it may be added. MR. CLEMENCEAU: I agree. MR. MATSUI: The Japanese Delegation has not always been consulted. It would therefore be better to omit this reference to Japan. I ask that this word be struck out, especially as I do not know the contents of Mr. Lansing's note. MR. DE MARTINO: May I, Sir, before you retire, return to the letter sent by Mr. Nitti to the President of the Conference on January 17, of which I was speaking to you a short time ago. It is, in short, a matter of verifying a simple de facto circumstance, and of seeing whether there is or is not a mistake and whether or not Mr. Nitti makes a new proposal. According to us, it is a mistake which has crept into the text and which Mr. Nitti has to rectify by drawing attention to the enormous difficulty by which he would be faced in order to obtain the acceptance by our Parliament of the limitation of the sovereignty of Fiume, thus placed under the control of the League of Nations. I am going to telegraph to Mr. Nitti. MR. BERTHELOT: I share the opinion of the Council, and so think it would be better not to speak of Turkey in the reply to Mr. Lansing. The question was well put recently, but by Mr. Jusserand, who pointed out that the attitude adopted by America would postpone the solution of that question indefinitely. To this Mr. Lansing replied that he had no intention of postponing the settlement by the Allies of the Turkish problem. In reality, the opinion of the American Government seems to be as follows: it did not make war on Turkey; we can therefore deal with the Turkish question among ourselves; on the other hand, if it is interested in the Adriatic question, the Russian problem, it is because it was involved in the war against Austria and was associated with Russia. MR. CLEMENCEAU: Mr. Jusserand's telegram is only of value to the Conference for the information it gives. I do not oppose the request made by the Japanese Ambassador. Finally, Mr. de Martino states that a drafting error has crept into the text concerning Fiume; this is a question to be settled with the Secretariat. For my part, I think we are bound to defend the document transmitted to the Yugo-Slavs; our word is pledged; as far as I am concerned, I wish to change nothing in that text. On the other hand, the British Representative agrees not to mention Turkey in the reply to Mr. Lansing and accepts the addition proposed by Mr. de Martino. We are therefore in agreement. MR. BERTHELOT: Will the note be sent through the intermediary of Mr. Jusserand on behalf of the Conference and signed by the President, or will it on the other hand be transmitted by the British Government? MR. CLEMENCEAU: The question is not who will send it, but who will sign it. I think it should be signed by Mr. Lloyd George and myself, since I remained here specially for this question; especially as Mr. Wallace himself transmitted it to Mr. Lloyd George and to me. LORD CURZON: Then we must give the reply to Mr. Wallace signed by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Clemenceau. I am authorized by the British Prime Minister to sign it for him. MR. CLEMENCEAU: The reply will therefore be signed by Mr. Lloyd George and myself. It was decided: that Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George would hand the telegram appearing in Appendix "C" to Mr. Wallace for transmission to Washington. LORD CURZON: I think an error has crept into the decision adopted after hearing Mr. Ador. We decided that the question of the reten 'ICP-22, minute 4, p. 907. |