Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia - Societa italiana di storia ...

Italian Fascist War Crimes in Ethiopia 117
In this situation the Paris Conference found no difficulty in accepting the
Council of Ministers’ provision that World War II had started, for Ethiopia, on
3 October 1935. Article 38 of the final treaty, adopted at the conference’s closing
session, on 15 October, thus stated:
The date from which the provisions of the present Treaty shall become
applicable as regards all measures and acts of any kind whatsoever entailing
the responsibility of Italy or Italian nationals towards Ethiopia, shall
be held to be October 3rd,1935.
This article, it should be emphasized, applied to the war crimes issue. This was
covered in Article 45, which laid down the Italian Government’s responsibility
for the apprehension and surrender of alleged war criminals. Ethiopia’s position
seemed further strengthened by Article 56, which stated that the
Ambassadors of the Four Great Powers in Rome, “acting in concert,” would
“represent the Allies and Associated Powers in all matters concerning the execution
and interpretation of the present Treaty.”
Post-Peace Treaty Foreign Office Thinking
The formulation of the Peace Treaty, with Article Number 38, stating that
the war for Ethiopia had begun on 3 October 1935, and Article 45, providing
for the trial of Italians accused of committing war crimes, disturbed the Foreign
Office. Realizing that it could no longer oppose the trial of Italians accused of
committing war crimes in Ethiopia, it developed a new line of obstruction. It
argued, on the lines of Garner’s minute, that the prosecution of Italians for
crimes in Ethiopia was a matter of concern only to the two countries, and that
Britain should not be involved.
This argument was developed by a Foreign Office official, Derek Riches, in
a minute of 13 August. In it he observed: “If Italy and Ethiopia sign the peace
treaty Italy will have engaged herself to ensure the apprehension & surrender
for trial of persons accused by Ethiopia of ‘having committed, ordered or abetted
war crimes & crimes against peace or humanity.’” The British Government,
he argued, would only “come into the matter in the shape of H.M.
Amb[assador] at Rome who w’d [would] be a member of the cttee.[committee]
of Ambassadors charged with resolving disagreements.” 52 Another official,