Conference. We quite easily reached agreement that 21 states
should be represented at the present Conference. World pub-
lic opinion also approved of this decision. What, then, is
Mr. Byrnes after when he reproaches the Soviet delegation
on the ground that the composition of the Peace Conference is
too restricted?
True, a broader composition of the Peace Conference was
proposed: it was to comprise representatives of practically all
the states which declared war. Then it would have been nec-
essary to supplement the list of 21 states by states which
had at some time proclaimed a state of war with Italy, such
as Haiti, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Cuba, Nicaragua, Hon-
duras, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Salvador, the Phi-
lippines. I have enumerated ten countries. There are some
more countries in this group.
Of course there would have been more participants at
the Conference if the representatives of even these ten states
had been added. Then, perhaps, in adopting the voting pro-
cedure, two-thirds, and even three-quarters, would have been
agreed to. I must admit, however, that the Soviet delegation
has never considered proposals of this kind for the expansion
of the present Conference as ideal. Incidentally, no one at this
Conference ha's expressed regret in connection with the num-
ber of its participants.
There is another question—that of convening meetings
of the Council of Foreign Ministers during the Conference.
What are the facts? The Soviet delegation proposed that the
Council of Foreign Ministers should meet, among other
things, for an exchange of views on the election of the chair-
man of our Committee. Is there anything in this that would
have hindered the work of the Conference or that of our
Committee?
It is said that in the four Ministers' Council the Soviet
delegation insisted on a preliminary discussion of the main
90