500.A16/69
The Secretary of State to the Minister in Switzerland (Wilson)
Sir: With reference to your Despatch No. 584 of September 10, 1928, reporting on the second session of the Special Commission for the Preparation of a draft Convention on the Private Manufacture of Arms and Ammunition and of Implements of War, you are advised that the Department has studied your report, in the light of the minutes of the meetings and of the Special Commission’s report to the Council, and is appreciative of the fact that you have presented the views and supported the interests of this Government, in harmony with your instructions.
In its Instruction No. 276 of August 9, 1928, the Department stated in paragraph two of page one that
It should be clearly understood that any draft convention adopted must provide for the same degree of publicity for state manufacture as for private manufacture, and that any convention which establishes a regime of supervision, control, or inspection will not be acceptable to the United States.
And in paragraph two of page two, that
While the Department does not anticipate that any attempt will be made to resume the controversy regarding publicity of government manufacture, you should, in the event of this contingency … reassert with due emphasis this Government’s refusal under any circumstances to consider entering an agreement which does not deal with government manufacture on the same footing as private manufacture. You should similarly oppose the inclusion of any provisions looking toward the supervision and control of arms manufacture as distinct from publicity.
These instructions remain the basis of this Government’s position.
The Department regards its Draft Convention as affording a desirable basis of discussion and authorizes you to make such use of it, either in its entirety or by separate clauses, as seems to you most likely to support this Government’s interest or to make clear this Government’s desire to promote disarmament.
The position of this Government with respect to the manufacture of arms, munitions and implements of war remains substantially unchanged. The same objections and same reservations set forth in its Instruction No. 276 of August 9, 1928, still apply to the proposals elaborated in the minutes and report of the second session of the Special Commission. However, within its reservations, it is felt that there is room for accommodation to the views of other Governments, where it seems likely that such an attitude would promote a general agreement to which this Government could subscribe. The Department, [Page 319] therefore, brings to your attention its views with regard to the draft convention adopted by the Special Commission on August 30, 1928.73
The Department considers that the words “government supervision” in the second paragraph of the Preamble are covered by your general reservation on the system of licensing under Article 3.
As concerns your reservation regarding Category IV, under Article 1, the Department refers to its telegram No. 1, of August 28, 1928, particularly the sentence: “If the other Governments are not prepared to accept the inclusion in the provision of all those manufactured under military specifications, you should take the position that only aircraft and engines manufactured for the armed forces of the respective countries should be included.” Should you find that there is a greater possibility of agreement on the basis of this latter position, you are authorized to withdraw your above-mentioned reservation and to propose the inclusion only of aircraft and engines manufactured for the armed forces of the respective countries.
Your stand on Articles 2, 3 and 4, especially as concerns the system of licensing, is approved. The Department is firmly convinced that the fullest publicity should be called for in Article 5, for both public and private arms manufacture, and is in full accord with your reservations under this article. You are requested to continue your endeavors to secure the agreement of the other Governments to the publication of full particulars of weight, number and value of arms manufactured.
The object of the words “for it” in paragraph two of Article 5 is not altogether clear. If they are intended to exclude from the annual returns arms manufactured by the State for a foreign Government or for private individuals or organizations, they are clearly open to grave objections. The Department would like to be informed of the object of these words, and suggests that you endeavor to have them stricken out.
The Department continues to believe that Article 4 of its draft is preferable to Article 6 adopted by the Commission, as being more specific, and you should endeavor to secure the adoption of the American proposal appended to Article 6 relating to naval specifications. In this connection it is pointed out that since the data referred to may often be obtained in such manuals as Jane’s “Fighting Ships”, there would appear to be no valid reason why Governments should be unwilling to publish the details requested. If the other Governments remain unwilling to accept the proposal, you need not insist on this point. You may also make a concession with regard to the two-month [Page 320] period in which returns must be published, although the Department is of opinion that it may prove difficult to collect the necessary statistics in so short a time.
With regard to Article 8, it appears evident that in the event of a major war the convention would in fact be suspended, whatever its provisions. However, the Department is of opinion that certain European states are more concerned in this provision than is the United States, and that this Government may find it possible to acquiesce in a text acceptable to the other Governments; provided that the text adopted is not manifestly to the disadvantage of this Government, as, for example, being so phrased as to exempt all European Governments from publicity in the event of a European war, while imposing upon this Government a continued obligation which might be used as a means to impugn its neutrality. The Department wishes to be informed of the text of this Article, as agreed upon, before deciding whether or not it is acceptable.
The Department views the question of full publicity of State and private manufacture as the most important feature of this convention, and desires particularly that its support of complete publicity shall be duly registered in the forthcoming session of the Special Commission. It considers that the concessions referred to which this Government might be prepared to make in regard to Articles 1, 6 and 8 might afford an opportunity of gaining the consent of the other Governments to the form of publicity desired. Under our system of government, Congress has jurisdiction over interstate and foreign commerce, while manufacture or production is generally within the jurisdictions of the several States. Accordingly, the United States Government would be unwilling to sign a convention which incorporated a license system subjecting private manufacturers to Federal control. Should the other delegates insist on retaining, as among themselves, the license system contemplated in the report, the Department desires that you should promptly notify it in order that it may take such action as may seem best calculated to prevent a substantial domestic situation from being represented in any way as an unwillingness to cooperate with other nations.
With reference to the selection of the League under Articles 10–15, as the depositary for ratifications and as the means of notification for this treaty if eventually concluded, while the matter does not appear to be pressing at this time, the Department would not, of course, wish to encourage the selection of the League for this purpose if arrangements can be made for deposit elsewhere. As you point out, however, the Department has already accepted deposit at the League as satisfactory in the case of certain other conventions, which, however, have not yet been ratified by this Government. It [Page 321] is believed that it would be undesirable, prior to ratification of these conventions, to commit the Department to such deposit for further treaties when other arrangements can be made. It would, therefore, appear advisable to encourage postponement of the discussion of this question in relation to the present treaty until such time as the treaty itself has assumed a more concrete form.
The Department desires that you keep it currently informed by telegram as to the course of negotiations and particularly as to the extent of coordination between the points of view expressed by the French and British delegations. In this connection, the Department commends your activities in securing a large measure of support from the delegates to the form suggested in the Department’s draft of Article 4 (relating to Category III, concerning naval production) and desires that you continue to advocate publicity as to armament, as well as displacement and dimensions, of vessels of war. It will probably occur to you that your advocacy of more complete naval publicity might afford an avenue by which to explore the possibility of a concerted Anglo-French stand on naval matters, while the question of commercial aircraft might indicate whether the British delegation tends to support the French thesis of “potentials of war”, which is unacceptable to this Government.
I am [etc.]