500.A15 a 1/b: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France ( Herrick )7
26. Following is text of President’s proposed message,8 action in regard to which is outlined in Department’s Nos. 24, 25 and 27:
To the Congress of the United States: Pursuant to my instructions the American Ambassadors at London, Paris, Rome, and Tokyo, will today present to the Governments of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, a Memorandum suggesting that they empower their delegates at the forthcoming meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference at Geneva to negotiate and conclude at an early date an agreement further limiting naval armament, supplementing the Washington Treaty on that subject, and covering the classes of vessels not covered by that Treaty. I transmit herewith, for the information of the Congress, a copy of this Memorandum.
I wish to inform the Congress of the considerations which have moved me to take this action.
The support of all measures looking to the preservation of the peace of the world has been long established as a fundamental policy of this Government. The American Government and people are convinced that competitive armaments constitute one of the most dangerous contributing causes of international suspicion and discord and are calculated eventually to lead to war. A recognition of this fact and a desire as far as possible to remove this danger led the American Government in 1921 to call the Washington Conference.
At that time we were engaged in a great building program which, upon its completion, would have given us first place on the sea. We felt then, however, and feel now, that the policy we then advocated—[Page 7]that of deliberate self-denial and limitation of naval armament by the Great Naval Powers—promised the attainment of at least one guarantee of peace, an end worthy of mutual adjustment and concession.
At the Washington Conference we found the other nations animated with the same desire as ourselves to remove naval competition from the list of possible causes of international discord. Unfortunately, however, it was not possible to reach agreements at Washington covering all classes of naval ships. The Washington Treaty provided a specific tonnage limitation upon capital ships and aircraft carriers, with certain restrictions as to size and maximum caliber of guns for other vessels. Every nation has been at complete liberty to build any number of cruisers, destroyers and submarines. Only size and armament of cruisers were limited. The Signatories of the Washington Treaty have fulfilled their obligations faithfully and there can be no doubt that that Treaty constitutes an outstanding success in its operation.
It has been the hope of the American Government, constantly expressed by the Congress since the Washington Conference, that a favorable opportunity might present itself to complete the work begun here by the conclusion of further agreements covering cruisers, destroyers, and submarines. The desirability of such an agreement has been apparent, since it was only to be expected that the spirit of competition, stifled as regards capital ships and aircraft carriers by the Washington Treaty, would, sooner or later, show itself with regard to the other vessels not limited under the Treaty. Actually, I do not believe that competitive building of these classes of ships has begun. Nevertheless, far-reaching building programs have been laid down by certain Powers and there has appeared in our own country, as well as abroad, a sentiment urging naval construction on the ground that such construction is taking place elsewhere. In such sentiments lies the germ of renewed naval competition. I am sure that all governments and all peoples would choose a system of naval limitation in preference to consciously reverting to competitive building. Therefore, in the hope of bringing about an opportunity for discussion among the principal naval Powers to ascertain whether further limitation is practicable, I have suggested to them that negotiations on this subject should begin as soon as possible.
The moment seems particularly opportune to try to secure further limitation of armament in accordance with the expressed will of the Congress. The earnest desire of the nations of the world to relieve themselves in as great a measure as possible of the burden of armaments and to avoid the dangers of competition has been shown by the establishment of the Preparatory Commission for the Disarmament Conference, which met in Geneva last May, and which is continuing its work with a view to preparing the agenda for a final general conference. For more than six months, representatives of a score or more of nations have examined from all points of view the problem of the reduction and limitation of armaments. In these discussions it was brought out very clearly that a number of nations felt that land, sea, and air armaments were interdependent and that [Page 8] it would be difficult, if not impossible, to agree upon the limitation of one type of armament without simultaneously limiting the other types. The consequence to be feared is that a deadlock will be reached, should even partial progress in the reduction of armaments be conditioned upon the acceptance of some universal plan covering land, sea, and air forces together. If the prospective deadlock cannot be broken, it is probable that little progress will be made for the time being. It appears to me to be the duty of this Government, which has always advocated limitation of armaments, to endeavor to suggest some avenue by which concrete results may be achieved even though such results may be short of an ultimate ideal solution for the threefold problem of land, sea, and air armament.
Our delegates at Geneva have consistently expressed the view that under conditions as they exist in the world today the problems of land and air armaments are most susceptible of solution by regional agreements covering regions within which the land or air armaments of one country could constitute a potential threat to another country. Geographical continents have been suggested as regions appropriate for land and air limitation agreements.
The American land and air force constitute a threat to no one. They are at minimum strength; their reduction has been suggested by no one as a necessary condition precedent to general arms limitation. This reduction of our land forces has been rendered possible by our favored geographical position. I realize that the problems of armaments on land and in the air in Europe are beset with difficulties which in all justice we must recognize and, although this Government will always be ready to lend its assistance in any appropriate way to efforts on the part of European or other Governments to arrive at regional agreements limiting land and air forces, it would hesitate to make specific proposals on this subject to European nations.
The problem of the limitation of naval armament, while not regional in character or susceptible of regional treatment, has been successfully treated, in part, by an agreement among the five leading Naval Powers, and, in my opinion, can be definitely dealt with by further agreements among those Powers.
It will be a contribution to the success of the preliminary work now going on at Geneva should the Great Naval Powers there agree upon a further definite limitation of naval armament.
It is my intention that the American representatives at Geneva should continue to discuss with the representatives of the other nations there the program for a general limitation of armaments conference. If such a conference should be possible in the future, on a basis generally acceptable, this Government would, of course, be highly gratified. Pending the formulation of the plan for such a general conference, however, I believe that we should make an immediate and sincere effort to solve the problem of naval limitation, the solution of which would do much to make the efforts toward more general limitation successful.
Repeat text of message only to London as Depts. No. 22, to Rome as No. 9.