FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1946, VOLUME IV



                             [Annex 8]
Statement by the United States Delegation on the Ukrainian Amend-
                        mtent to Article 26

  The Delegation of Ukraine proposed an alternative draft restoring
to the Rumanian Government and nationals all their pre-war rights
with respect to property and assets on the territory of Allied and
Associated Powers. It was rejected by non-unanimous vote.
  The U.S. Delegation opposed it on the grounds that it: a) would
accord better treatment to Rumanian property on Allied territory
than the Treaty accorded to Allied property in Rumania; b) would be
impossible of fulfillment since not all the action taken by Allied and
Associated Powers against enemy property during the war could
in fact be undone; c) would require the complete return of pre-war
property rights to notorious collaborators. The U.S. Delegation also
pointed out that Article 26 as drafted was in no way improperly prej-
udicial to or burdensome upon Rumania since it merely permitted
Allied and Associated Powers to apply Rumanian assets in their
respective territories to the settlements of valid claims againsti Ru-
mania and required any excess of Rumanian assets over such claims
to be returned to Rumania.

                            [Annex 9]
        Statem ent by the Ukrainian Delegation on Article 26

  The Ukrainian Delegation considers that there is no need as sucg-
gested in Article 26 of the present draft Peace Treaty, to impose addi-
tional economic obligations on Roumania and thus further burden her
economy.
  The Ukrainian Delegation considers that this Article should be
deleted from the present draft Peace Treaty and replaced by a new
article. This proposal is based on the following considerations:
  Roumania not only withdrew fromn the war against the United
Nations, but she declared war on Germany and in the course of that
war sustained severe losses in men and material. To make good such
losses is a very complicated matter for a country like Roumania and
demands a lengthy period of time.
  It is not in the interests of the Allies to complicate the process of the
post-war economic revival of Roumania by imposing on her harsh
obligations which would hamper her economic revival. The more so
as we have already the example of Finland on whom no such obliga-
tions are being laid.



462