Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1928, Volume I

500.A16/69

The Minister in Switzerland ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State

Berne , September 10, 1928.
[Received October 1.]

No. 584
L. of N. No. 1201

Sir: I have the honor to report that the Special Commission for the preparation of a draft convention on the private manufacture of arms and ammunition and of implements of war held sessions from August 27 to August 30, inclusive. Several copies of the provisional minutes of these meetings,⁶⁴ as well as of the report of the Special Commission to the Council (No. C. F. A. 20 (1) have already been sent to the Department.⁶⁵

I attended this conference with every intention of urging the acceptance of the Department’s draft, enclosed with instruction No. 276, August 9, 1928, to the fullest possible extent. The debates of the very first session, however, made it clear that in spite of the optimistic attitude in which the Commission had met, the widest divergencies of opinion as to the degree of publicity to which public manufacture should be subjected were still existing in the minds of the delegates. Furthermore, every delegation, as far as I could see, with the exception of the delegation of the United States, desired the incorporation of some form of licensing system in the Convention. Since it was evident that this meeting would be in the main a mere restatement of views, it seemed wise not to submit the Department’s draft, but to save it for some future occasion when there might be more hope of obtaining its adoption by the delegates.

Since the sessions were held in rapid succession there was no opportunity to consult the Department on tactics and I therefore determined to advocate the policies embodied in the Department’s draft and, where essential, to submit reservations showing the views therein expressed. In regard to the form of paragraph 6 (relating to category 3 concerning naval production), I was able to gain a large measure of assent from the delegates to the form of article suggested in the Department’s draft of Article 4.

Preliminary study led me to send my telegram No. 1, of August 27, 12 noon, and to request Major Yount to proceed from Paris. We considered the matter of civil and commercial aviation with the utmost care and reached the conclusion that it was advisable to submit a reservation or explanation of our attitude to be incorporated in the text of Article 1. In the minutes of the fourth meeting (C. F. A./P. V. 4) the Department will find a statement which I made in explanation of our attitude in submitting this reservation.⁶⁶ As I rose to present this, the Department’s telegram No. 1, of August 28, 1 p.m., was handed to me, and I was happily able to assure myself that the action which I had planned was in harmony with the Department’s views on this subject.

I shall take up the preliminary draft article by article.

Preamble: I stated that the use of the phrase “governmental supervision” in paragraph 2 of the preamble, as amended, might cause us some embarrassment in view of our known attitude as to the in-acceptability for us of any form of licensing. I added, however, that I did not insist strongly on this at the present time since this was a preliminary agreement only and our interests were, I believed, covered by our general reservation.

• Article 1: I have already explained the attitude taken by the delegation in a preceding paragraph.
• Articles 2, 3, and 4, which deal in general with the licensing system, was a subject of extensive debate in which I took little part, save to insert remark No. 3 under Article 3 published in the Report. My observations in this connection will be found on pages 12 and 13 of the minutes of the first meeting (C. F. A./P. V. I).⁶⁷
• Article 5: The debate began on this article and it was on this article that the most divergent views were expressed. The Department will find my remarks on this article on page 23 of the minutes of the first meeting and on pages 17 and 18 of the minutes of the third meeting.⁶⁷ I believe that the Department’s point of view was adequately covered, although in view of the impossibility of reaching an accord and the thoroughness with which the subject had been analysed by the American delegations in preceding conferences, I made my declarations as terse as possible.
• Article 6: Both in my telegrams and in the paragraph in the first part of this report I have explained the action taken by the American delegation in reference to this article. The Commission was entirely willing to have the terms of this article harmonize with the terms of Article 7 of the Arms Traffic Convention, but certain delegations, notably the Japanese, were unwilling to extend the type of information which must be given regarding battleships. The British delegation, while offering no objections to the extension of the type of information, was without instructions on the subject and consequently unable to acquiesce. It was therefore found essential to insert the remarks which follow Article 6 rather than include this additional information in the body of Article 6.
• Article 7: No remarks.
• Article 8: In view of the terms in which Article 9 of your draft is drawn, I joined those delegations who considered that reference to non-belligerents threatened by war should be eliminated from the body of Article 8.
• Article 9: No remarks.
• Articles 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14: The French delegation informed Chairman Bernstorff and the Secretariat privately that they did not desire that the French Government should be named as the depository for ratifications and as the means of notification for this treaty and hoped that it would be possible to write this treaty in the terms in which the other instruments done at Geneva had been drawn, namely, to use the Secretariat of the League of Nations in place of the French Government. In view of the fact that the Department had authorized my signature to the Convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions,⁶⁸ in which the Secretariat General is indicated as the place of deposit, and in view of the unwillingness of the French Government to accept this responsibility, I raised no objection to this procedure.
• Article 15: The delegation of Salvador having recommended that the Convention should come into force after ratification by fourteen powers, I took the position that in the present stage of the Convention it was unwise to endeavor to settle this point. The final conference of plenipotentiaries is certain, in any case, to reopen discussion on this question and with the realization that no good purpose could be accomplished by discussion in advance, I urged that full discussion of this subject should be postponed until that final conference.

In transmitting the report to the Council, the Rapporteur recommended, and the Committee accepted, the following phraseology:

“As the starting-point of its work, the Commission took the draft convention prepared at its first session in March and April, 1927. After attempting to reconcile the different points of view, it can do no more than place on record the continued existence of fundamental divergencies, and the impossibility of laying before the Council the single text which the Assembly desired. Inasmuch as, in the draft which the Commission is submitting as the outcome of its labors, the divergent opinions are set down at the close of each article, the Commission does not consider it necessary to analyse in this report the various points of view which found expression during the debates. It is of the opinion that this document contains all the information required for an appreciation of the stage at which its work has now arrived.”

This phraseology, I believe, is an adequate summary of the measure of success achieved by this session. It might be added, however, that whereas in previous meetings certain governments had entirely excluded the idea of publicity for state manufacture, at the present time these same governments are willing to accept a very limited measure of publicity for state manufacture. To this extent, it may be considered that there has been some measure of rapprochement.

In the penultimate meeting the Rapporteur asked for the views of the Commission regarding the desirability of convening an international conference, whereupon the Chairman stated: “From our discussions it appears impossible to suggest a date or even to consider the convening of an international Conference. The best course would be to submit the results of our work to the Council, leaving it to take a decision.” There was no objection to this statement, and indeed it clearly expressed the views of all the delegates who had listened to the discussions.

I have [etc.]

Hugh R. Wilson

64. Of these minutes, only the extract containing the American Representative’s statement, August 29, is printed.
65. The report consisted of the preliminary draft convention printed supra, with a covering statement, the substance of which is quoted near the end of this document, the paragraph beginning “As the starting-point of its work”.
66. Statement, ante, p. 303.
67. Not printed.
67. Not printed.
68. Post, p. 336.