500.A16/97
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received January 11, 1929.]
Sir: With reference to the Department’s instruction No. 354, of November 22, 1928, and other correspondence relative to the third session of the Special Commission for the preparation of a draft convention on the private manufacture of arms, munitions and implements of war, I have the honor to report that the Commission sat at Geneva from December 5 to December 7, inclusive. There are few documents to transmit in reporting on this session for the reason that practically the entire time was taken up with subcommittee debates on which there are no minutes. The report drawn up by the subcommittee was submitted to the full Commission in the final meeting on the evening of December 7th, but the members of the Commission who had not been present in the subcommittee took the position that they were unable to approve the report without more time for consideration. It, therefore, has no juridic existence, but the original report (Document C. F. A. 28)75 will serve to indicate the trend of the debates which took place in the subcommittee. The revised report of the subcommittee will be found in document C. F. A. 28 (1).75
The Chairman, Count Bernstorff, in the first meeting urged a general discussion and was seconded in his appeal by the Rapporteur, M. Guerrero. None of the delegates, however, seemed desirous of entering into a general discussion and the Chairman was therefore constrained to suggest an immediate convocation of the small committee which had functioned during the previous session and which was composed of the delegates of Germany, Salvador, Italy, Belgium, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain and the United [Page 324] States. Spain did not have a delegate at the last session and Mr. Cobian therefore sat on the subcommittee for the first time.
The Chairman of the subcommittee, M. Guerrero, opened the debate on Article 1 of the Draft Convention (Document A.43.1928.IX)76 and suggested a discussion of Remark No. 1 thereunder by the Belgian delegation. It was instantly apparent that a situation had arisen which would render it impossible to reach any definite agreement in this session and might perhaps create a situation in which every article of the projected convention might have to be debated over again. The Belgian delegate stated that his Government considered it essential to examine the arrangement of the categories and sub-headings under Article 1 in the light of their unsatisfactory experience in analysing the administrative machinery necessary to carry out the Traffic in Arms Treaty which they expected to ratify at an early date. Sensing a decided opposition on the part of the other members of the subcommittee, the Belgian delegate issued what was in effect an ultimatum, stating that his Government could not sign any convention which was not based on a previous and detailed analysis of the categories of Article 1. At the request of the Chairman, the Belgian delegate submitted his proposal in writing (Document C. F. A. 27).77 The French delegate at once took the position that he could not pass upon the terms of Article 5 until he knew exactly what Article 1 was to contain and this statement naturally robbed the subsequent debate of actuality. It was agreed that the delegates present were not prepared, either by instructions or by the presence of technical advisers, to debate the Belgian proposal, and that it would be essential to call a meeting of experts as soon as possible, approximately March 1, 1929, for the purpose of giving consideration to the proposal. Since the substance of the Belgian proposal was not debated, I did not give the American point of view regarding further discussion of the categories of Article 1.
Relative to Remark No. 2, the German delegate declared that he was prepared to withdraw this remark and associate himself with that made by the delegation of the United States.
Discussion then opened on Remark No. 3 which we had inserted relative to aircraft and aircraft engines. As I telegraphed the Department,78 there was immediate and vigorous opposition to the admission of our proposal, mainly on the part of the military continental Powers and also on that of Japan. It was evident that the alignment on this question was in general the same as the alignment [Page 325] in the Preparatory Commission on the question of “potentiel de guerre”. My suggestion as to limiting the category to those “destined for the armed forces” met with no more favor, nor were the two formulas even seriously discussed. It was merely stated axiomatically that so far it had been impossible to distinguish between civil and military aviation. (One of the French experts confided to me that they felt that a distinction was possible in America, but that they had no confidence in the results of any distinction for the continental states). The delegate of the Netherlands, in the final plenary meeting, made a formal proposal that experts should discuss Category IV as well as the Belgian proposal, but was voted down. I declared that the title of the proposed convention and the phraseology of the first sentence of Article 1 were such that if the convention were accepted as it stands, Category IV would constitute an undertaking by all States that they considered civil aviation as war material. Since the points of view expressed by the other delegations, with the exception of the British delegate, are already familiar to the Department, I shall confine myself to describing that taken by Mr. Cadogan. He declared that his Government had been preoccupied, as mine had been, with this question of the definition of civil aviation as war material and for this reason they had in the first instance objected to the inclusion of Category IV in Article 1; that they had withdrawn their objection in deference to the wishes of the other nations, but still felt the inadvisability of cataloguing all aircraft as implements of war.
M. Massigli, the French delegate, finally proposed a clause reading as follows:
“Owing to the difficulties in the way of formulating precise rules which would enable a distinction to be made between military and civil aircraft and without prejudice to any definitions which may subsequently be set up of the one and of the other, no distinction will be made between aircraft built for military purposes and aircraft built for or capable of being used for other purposes”.
I transmitted this clause in my telegram No. 2, of December 5, 10 p.m.,79 not with the idea that this phraseology was satisfactory, but with the possibility of working out a satisfactory phraseology in the event that the Department felt that our thesis could be protected in some such way.
If I understand thoroughly the Department’s point of view as to this reservation, it is based more on the implications involved than on objections to the publication of the information that would be demanded by the Convention. I understand that our objection is to the inclusion of all aviation as “implements of war” and the resulting [Page 326] possibility of so branding civil aviation. It had seemed to me that there was a possibility that the note drawn up by the French delegate, or one of revised phraseology, might expressly disclaim any prejudging of the question as to “potentiel de guerre”, and at the same time furnish a basis on which we could all agree to this category. I therefore stated that I had no idea how my Government would view this proposal, but I would transmit it to Washington. When it became apparent that no possible result could be obtained from the meeting, I stated that I maintained our reserve as it was not worth while in the present circumstances further to examine this proposal.
Article 2. No debate.
Article 3. Mr. Cadogan withdrew the British objection to the inclusion of Category IV in this article.
Remark 2. After a lively debate, it was decided to strike out the words in Paragraph 1: “or of the arms, ammunition and implements the use of which in war is prohibited by international law”, and further to eliminate paragraph 3. This did away with the necessity for maintaining Remark No. 2.
Remark 3. I made a brief declaration regarding our position, which the Chairman stated would be brought to the attention of the Council. (It will not be so brought, since the subcommittee’s report was not adopted by the Commission).
Article 4. It was decided to eliminate sub-paragraph (c). The remark therefore disappears.
Article 5. The most vigourous debate, as was to be expected, took place on this article. It is needless to summarize this debate, since the Department is thoroughly familiar with the points of view. The representative of the Netherlands and myself made continuous efforts to force the representatives of France, Japan and Italy to explain why they were reluctant to give full publicity, without eliciting any response from them. The Chairman called for a vote on those who advocated the principle of equal treatment for public and private manufacture. Italy was the only State voting against the principle, with the French delegate maintaining that he would not vote until he knew the text of Article 5. It is safe to assume, however, that they will only acquiesce in the principle of equal treatment if a very limited publicity is accorded. This also was the basis of the Japanese position. A re-wording of Article 5 was adopted which is contained in Document C. F. A. 29.80 This phraseology represents a so-called “minimum agreement”, but an agreement to which the confirmed advocates of complete publicity, among them ourselves, and the confirmed advocates of a distinction between public and private manufacture, as, for example, Italy, made reservations.
[Page 327]Article 6. In the discussion of this article I am happy to report a certain measure of achievement. The Japanese delegate could not agree to the inclusion of the remark following this article although Mr. Cadogan did so agree. I thereupon asked the Japanese delegate whether his instructions were definite. He replied that they were. 1 then stated that my Government had no desire to take such an unbending position in this debate that it would cause difficulties to other governments and make it impossible for them to accept; that I was able to show a certain measure of conciliation in this matter if it was essential, but I pointed out to the Japanese delegate that he was alone in his opposition to the inclusion of this additional information and begged him to consult his Government again as to whether, in view of the circumstances, they would not alter his instructions. In the final meeting Mr. Sato reported that he withdrew his opposition and that therefore the additional information could be inserted. I should like to emphasize at this time the continuous endeavor of the Japanese delegate to meet our point of view as far as his instructions permitted.
The Italian delegate was anxious to adopt in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the phraseology of the Washington Treaty, at least not to adopt any phraseology which delayed publication more than that provided for in the Washington Treaty. The Chairman appointed a subcommittee composed of the naval experts of Italy, France and England to redraft Article 6 satisfactorily. Their redraft is contained in Document C. F. A. 29. In presenting its report, the subcommittee explained that the phrase “date of signing the contract” under subheading (a) had been eliminated, since for purposes of state arsenals the signing of the contract did not exist and was a plain absurdity. Furthermore, to require the date of the signing of the contract for manufacture for outside states and not for manufacture for the state itself would be a violation of the principle of equality of treatment between public and private manufacture.
I acquiesced in Article 6 as prepared by the drafting committee, but stated at the same time that I would have to reserve the right to consult our naval authorities as this was in some degree a technical question and should be passed on by experts.
Article 7. No debate.
Article 8. This article was revised to read: “In time of war the application of the present Convention shall be suspended until the restoration of peace as regards belligerents”. Certain reserves were made as will be seen in Document C. F. A. 29.
On the subsequent articles I made the suggestion, which was immediately taken up by Count Bernstorff, that they should be reserved for the final conference, since nothing was to be gained by attempting [Page 328] to work out phraseology on these articles, which dealt merely with the machinery of ratification, notification, etc. The subcommittee accepted this view.
The text of the projected convention as revised by the subcommittee is contained in Document C. F. A. 29.
As I stated in my first paragraph, the Commission was unable to adopt the report of the subcommittee. Document C. F. A. 28 contains the original report of the subcommittee, while Document C. F. A. 28 (1) contains the revised report.
Bearing in mind your instructions in paragraph 6 of No. 354, relative to the publication of full particulars, and desirous that a certain measure of publicity be given to the point of view that full publicity is essential, I took occasion to prepare certain remarks on this subject for the plenary meeting. When it became clear that the Commission would not even transmit the report of the subcommittee to the Council, it became still more necessary, in my opinion, that some expression of this view should be embodied in permanent form in the records of the third session of the Commission. I therefore delivered a speech, the text of which the Department will find in the minutes of the second meeting.81 This speech, as was to be expected, aroused a high measure of satisfaction among those who were advocating a large degree of publicity, but Mr. Massigli, the French Delegate, in taking leave of me after the session, remarked: “I had thought that the elections in the United States were over”.
I venture to invite the Department’s attention to the advisability of immediate consideration of these questions, and especially of immediate study by technical experts of the Belgian proposal in anticipation of the meeting of experts which will presumably be summoned around March 1st. Probably this meeting will shortly be followed by another meeting of the full Commission and therefore I would appreciate the study and preparation of fresh instructions based on the events in the third session at the earliest possible moment. This is particularly necessary in view of the fact that it was decided in the final plenary meeting that full discussion of all the articles of the draft convention will again be opened. I shall submit subsequently various considerations as to the new instructions.
With reference to the latter half of the final paragraph of your 354, I constantly bore in mind your suggestions and venture to submit what can only be impressions. I found that the British delegation made certain concessions in the direction of the draft convention—concessions which were designed to make possible unanimity in the adoption of a single text. There was, however, no such complete [Page 329] agreement between the British delegate and his French colleague as to prevent them from debating actively certain points on which their views differed. In fact I could find no evidence of a previously prepared common basis on naval matters.
Concerning the question of war potentials, the Department will note that I have described above Mr. Cadogan’s remarks on our reservation to Category IV of Article 1. There was a clear and distinct statement from him that they disliked the inclusion of all aircraft in this category because of the fact that this might cause the acceptance of a definition that commercial aviation was an implement of war.
I have [etc.]
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed. For text of the draft convention under discussion see p. 303.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Telegram not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Enclosure, p. 329.↩
- Of these minutes only an extract containing the speech is printed; see supra.↩
- C. F. A./29, Geneva, Dec. 7, 1928; submitted by the Sub-Committee.↩