Paris Peace Talks of 1919 - Part 3 - Independent Macedonia Proposals by Risto Stefov

The Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State was discussed. The Italian proposals for conferring autonomy on Macedonia (Annex (A)) and Albania (Annex (B)) were discussed and a long discussion took place on them. The Italian representative laid stress on the importance of providing the necessary securities for the protection of the inhabitants of Macedonia and in particular the Slavonic population which was not Serbian. Mr. Leeper (2) suggested that while it was no doubt desirable that some form of self-government should be given to Macedonia by the Serbian Government, it was doubtful whether the obligation to do this should be imposed upon the Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and it would be better at any rate as a first step to enquire what the proposals of the Government for dealing with this district were. M. Laroche (3) again laid stress upon the extreme importance of not undermining the authority of the Government by setting up a State within a State, and strongly urged the desirability of keeping to a minimum interference with the internal institutions of the State.

After a discussion on the historical and ethnical problem of Macedonia, it was eventually determined that a letter should be written to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation enclosing a copy of the minority clauses in the Polish Treaty, and explaining that these were an indication of the nature of the general clauses which they would be asked to agree to. It would be pointed out in the letter that there were of course differences in the conditions of the different States and that therefore the Treaties could not be identical in each case. It would not be proposed to include the Jewish clauses in the Serbian Treaty, but on the other hand it might be desirable to include special clauses dealing with other Minorities. The Macedonian and Albanian question should be referred to and the Government be asked for an indication of the manner in which they proposed to deal with these problems.

M. Laroche undertook to draft the letter. It was agreed also that a similar letter should be sent to the Greeks ...(4)

Annex (A) to thirty-third meeting Draft of Articles for Macedonia

Article

Jugo-Slavia agrees to organize the territory of Macedonia within the frontiers fixed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers under the form of an autonomous unit within the Jugo-Slav State, provided with the greatest degree of self-government compatible with the unity of the Jugo-Slav State.

Article

The territory of Macedonia shall have an autonomous Diet. This Diet shall exercise the legislative powers in matters of language, education, and religion, and for questions of local administration and all others the competence for which may be assigned to it by the laws of the Jugo-Slav State. The Governor of the said territory of Macedonia shall be named by the Jugo-Slav Government and shall be responsible to the Diet.

Article

Jugo-Slavia agrees that the officials of the territory of Macedonia shall be chosen as far as possible from among the inhabitants of this territory.

Article

Jugo-Slavia guarantees to the territory of Macedonia an equitable representation in the Legislative Assembly of the Jugo-Slav State, to which this territory shall send deputies elected according to the constitution of the Jugo-Slav State. However, the said deputies shall not have the right to vote in the Skupshtina in any legislative matter of the same order as those assigned to the competence of the Diet of Macedonia.

D. H. Miller, My Diary. At the Conference of Paris.

With Documents. New York 1924, vol. XIII, pp. 263-265;

Recueil des Actes de la Conference. Paris 1922, vol. VII. Commission des Nouveaux Etats. .Paris 1929, pp. 175-178.

2. MINUTES OF THE THIRTY -NINTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON NEW STATES

30th July, 1919.

...The Committee then discussed the Macedonian question. (5) Two proposals were put forward, first a draft which had been prepared by Colonel Castoldi, (6) by request, making Macedonia an autonomous district on the line similar to those adopted for Ruthenia. (7)

It was generally agreed that it would not be possible to adopt this. The other was a suggestion made by the British representative that arrangements should be made by which the League of Nations would be authorized to maintain representatives in Macedonia in order to strengthen the guarantees against oppression.

As a result of the discussion no definite decision was reached, but it was agreed that the different members of the Committee should, if possible, bring forward some concrete proposals at the next meeting.

D. H. Miller, My Diary, p. 323; Recueil, 215.

3. MINUTES OF THE FORTIETH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON NEW STATES

1st August, 1919.

...The Jugo-Slav Treaty. (8) -The question of Macedonia was again discussed. The British representatives submitted a proposal giving to the League of Nations the right to maintain representatives in Macedonia. The Italian representatives submitted a proposal for conferring on Macedonia certain rights of local autonomy, which was a modification of the draft they had submitted at a previous meeting. A lengthy discussion took place. M. de Celigny (9) stated that he must reserve any opinion as to the British proposal; he was not inclined to accept even the modified form of autonomy now suggested. The Italian representative maintained that the British proposal was not sufficient to meet the situation.

It was finally agreed that the decision should be reserved for the next meeting, when the two proposals, with such modifications as might appear desirable, would be brought before the Committee. If, as was to be expected, there was a difference of opinion as to which was preferable, then the two proposals would have to be sent up to the Council of Five for their decision. The Chairman explained that it seemed to him most desirable that in this way both proposals should receive equal consideration.

The Chairman undertook, if possible, to present at the next meeting draft reports for the Council of Five to accompany the Treaties with Greece and Jugo-Slavia.

D. H. Miller, My Diary, pp. 345-346; Recueil 229-230.

4. MINUTES OF THE FORTY -FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE ON NEW STATES

4th August, 1919.

...The alternative proposals for dealing with Macedonia put forward by the British and Italian Delegations were first considered. (10) It was agreed that it would be necessary to print these two alternatives in the text of the Treaty; that Delegation which was responsible for each of these two alternatives would have the right of inserting in the report to the Supreme Council the reasons for which they were put forward. The American and Japanese Delegations intimated their adherence to the British proposal. The French Delegation stated that they were unable to accept either, and considered that the general clauses were sufficient.

Certain modifications in the British proposal were then agreed to (Annex (A)) by the British, American and Japanese Representatives; in the Italian proposal a slight alteration was made (Annex (B)) It was determined that they should forthwith be printed in the final form which had been adopted.

A redraft of the Preamble was then proposed by the British Delegation; certain modifications were made and it was then accepted. . (11)

Annex (A) to forty-first meeting

Article 12

(Proposed by the British, American and Japanese Delegations) In view of the peculiar conditions which have arisen in the former Ottoman provinces of Serbia, as a result of the wars of the last six years, and in order to inspire confidence in the populations concerned, the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government undertakes to invite the Council of the League of Nations at its discretion to nominate a Commissioner who shall reside in the district and who shall advise the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government in its execution of the foregoing clauses. The functions of this Commissioner shall be advisory only, and he shall furnish periodical reports to the Council of the League of Nations.

The Commissioner and his staff shall be accorded diplomatic privileges, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene Government undertake to give him all necessary assistance in the performance of his duties. His appointment shall in the first place be for five years, but will be renewable at the expiration of this period by a decision of a majority of the Council of the League.

Annex (B) to forty-five meeting

Article 12

(Proposed by the Italian Delegation)

Section I

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes agrees to grant to the districts of Macedonia (within the boundaries fixed by the principal Allied and Associated Powers) autonomy in matters of language, instruction and religion, as well as in questions of local administration.

Section II

A Central Administrative Council, whose seat shall be at Monastir (Bitola), and an Administrative Council for each district, shall have the power to regulate these matters, as well as all others over which jurisdiction shall be granted to it by the laws of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

The number of elective members in the Administrative Councils shall be at least three times as large as that of the de jure members.

The religious heads of each confession shall be de jure members of the Administrative Councils. The other members shall be elected in conformity with the laws of the Serb-Croat-Slovene State.

Section III

The Administrative Sub-Division of the Macedonian territory shall be made so as to group as far as possible the populations of the same nationality and religion.

Section IV

The Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes agrees that the officials of the districts of Macedonia shall be chosen from among the inhabitants of these districts.

Section V

The Governor of each district shall be appointed by the Serb- Croat-Slovene Government, taking into consideration, as to their choice, and designation, the numerical importance of the population as regards nationality and religion.

Section VI

An organic regulation shall be prepared within three months after the signing of the Peace Treaty, to determine the powers and the attributions of the Governors as well as the administrative, judicial, and financial regime of the districts of Macedonia, taking as a starting-point the preceding regulations on that matter.

Provisions shall be included concerning the right of the General Council to propose modifications to this regulation, in the course of its first session.

The final text, once decided upon, can be modified only on the initiative of the Skupshtina.

D. H. Miller, My Diary, pp. 349-362; Recueil. pp. 236-242.

5. MINUTES OF THE FORTY-SEVENTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE .ON NEW STATES

28th August, 1919.

Serb, Croat-Slovene Report. -Certain modifications were introduced into the report which was then approved and order to be printed (Annex (A)) It was decided, however, that the draft Treaty should if possible be brought up before the Supreme Council without awaiting the printed report.

Annex (A) to forty-seventh meeting

Report to the Supreme Council from the Committee on New States enclosing Treaty for representation to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation

29th August, 1919.

The Committee on New States and for the Protection of Minorities have the honour to submit the draft of a Treaty with the Serb-Croat-Slovene State in accordance with Article 59 of the Treaty of Peace with Austria. ..(12)

...The Committee, in submitting the Treaty to the consideration of the Supreme Council, feel it their duty to call attention to certain points in it.

1. As in the case of Romania the clauses of the Treaty apply to the whole of the Kingdom and no distinction is drawn between the old and the new provinces. ..

D. H. Miller, My Diary, pp. 422-436.

6. MINUTES OF THE FORTY-NINTH MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF NEW STATES

5th September, 1919.

The Committee discussed the decision of the Supreme Council of September 4, relating to the clauses proposed by Mr. Veniselos (13) for migration between the different Balkan States (Annex (A)). It was decided to draft letters communicating these proposals in the form approved by the Committee to Mr. Veniselos and to the Serb-Croat-Slovene Delegation, and Mr. Castoldi promised to prepare the drafts for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee. (Annex (B)) ...

Annex (A) to forty-ninth meeting

At the meeting of the Supreme Council held on September 4, 1919, it was agreed:

1. That no clause on the subject of reciprocal immigration in the Balkans should be inserted in the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.

2. That the report of the Committee on New States should be accepted, and that this Committee should be authorized to consult with Mr. Veniselos as to the best methods of putting his proposals into effect.

Annex (B) to forty-ninth meeting

The President of the Committee on New States to Mr. Veniselos, President of the Greek Delegation.

Paris, September 19, 1919.

The Committee on New States and the Protection of Minorities has examined the proposals of the Greek Delegation relative to the emigration which, by exercise of the right of option, may take place between Greece and Bulgaria. The Committee has not considered itself competent to examine certain of these clauses, which seemed rather to deal with questions of reparation. It has given its attention to the proposals relating to questions of minorities, which appear useful in their entirety with a view to regulating emigration, individual or collective, and the questions of property connected with it. The Committee considers that this general conception could advantageously not be restricted to the inhabitants of territories transferred by the present Treaty of Peace, but extended to all inhabitants of any of the Balkan States who desire to transfer their place of residence to another State. The Committee believes that if this general idea were thus extended, it would contribute much toward the settlement of troubles which have so long agitated the Balkans, and would increase the efficacy of the clauses for the protection of minorities. The Committee does not think it would be possible to limit this principle, making these provisions solely in favour of certain minorities of nationality or of race; the only real criterion of this question should be the desire of those interested.

The Committee believes it necessary, in order to put this plan into execution, to obtain the agreement of the different states interested to the formation of mixed commission which would regularize emigration; it would be necessary also that the states interested should advance funds to be expended by this mixed commission.

In this manner reciprocal stipulations common to all the interested Balkan states might be made, and their execution entrusted to a special commission. ..(14)

...I shall be grateful if you will be good enough to communicate to the Committee all the observations which it may appear to you useful to present toward this end.

Please accept etc.

Berthelot, (1507) Chairman of the Committee on New States.

D. H. Miller, My Diary, pp. 441-447.

ON NEW STATES

7. MINUTES OF THE SIXTY -SECOND MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE

24th November, 1919.

The Committee examined the revised draft of the treaty between Greece and Bulgaria for the reciprocal emigration of minorities prepared by the Drafting Committee. The Chairman reported that the Drafting Committee considered that the signature of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to the Emigration Convention was not essential, but that provision could be made for the record in an annex of a formal decision of the Supreme Council that these clauses were approved by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in accordance with Article 56 of the Bulgarian Treaty. ..

The Committee was informed that the Supreme Council had on November 19 adopted its report regarding the submission of the proposed Treaty to the Bulgarian Delegation, and that the draft agreement had accordingly been communicated to that Delegation with the request that a reply be made within forty-eight hours. ..

The Committee also had before it the reply from the Serb-Croat- Slovene Delegation, dated November 23, expressing readiness to sign the Minorities Treaty. ..

D. H. Miller, My Diary, pp. 535-550; Recueil, pp. 351-361.

(1) The question of Macedonia at the Paris Peace Conference was considered solely by the Committee on New States and for the Protection of Minorities, which began working in May, 1919. In the solution of that question a number, of proposals were considered, which can be seen in the minutes of the Committee, excerpts of which we quote in the following text.

(2) Allen Leeper, head of the Press Office of the British Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.

(3) Jules Laroche, delegate in the French Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference and member of the Committee on New States.

(4) The further text relates to the Rumanian Treaty.

(5) The previous text relates to the discussion on the Austrian Treaty

(6) Colonel Castoldi, member of the Italian Delegation at the Committee on New States.

(7) The Ukraine was indicated in the Western maps of the 14th to 16th centuries as Ruthenia. Similarly also: Ruthenians (Ukrainians) in the countries of the former monarchy of Austria-Hungary.

(8) The preceding text relates to the discussion on the Greek Treaty and the privileges of Mount Athos.

(9) De Celigny, member of the French Delegation at the Committee on New States.

(10) The preceding text relates to the Treaties with Czechoslovakia and Romania, the Austrian Note on Minorities and he Serb-Croat-Slovene Treaty.

(11) The following text relates to the different modifications of the drafts proposed.

(12) The following text relates to the given modifications and the way this draft Treaty was worked out.

(13) Elefterios Veniselos, President of the Greek Government, head of the Greek Delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.

(14) Then follows the supplement, "Terms of Agreement'.

(15) F. Berthelot, Chairman of the Committee on New States.

(Pages 666-673, The University of "Cyril and Methodius", Documents on the Struggle of the Macedonian People for Independence and a Nation-State, Volume I)

Comments about this article can be directed to Risto Stefov at rstefov@hotmail.com