711.4112Anti-War/25: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton)
108. Your 93 May 2, 11 a.m. is encouraging, but the information contained therein does not seem to agree with the action of the British Government reported in Fletcher’s 42 May 2, 11 a.m., which has been repeated to you from Rome.
As indicated in my 104, April 30, 1 p.m., I can see absolutely no need for submitting the question to a conference of technical experts. As a matter of fact I would deplore any such step. Both the United States and Germany have been able to take a clear and unequivocal position on this important problem without any consultation with an international conference of jurists, and I can see no reason whatsoever why the other Governments concerned cannot, if they wish, make up their minds with equal independence. I hope you will use your best efforts to discourage the idea of a preliminary conference of jurists.
In your 88, April 27, 2 p.m. you stated that Chamberlain had expressed pleasure at a report from the British Ambassador at Washington that I had intimated to him that I might be willing to come to London to attend a meeting of the various Foreign Secretaries. It appears from Fletcher’s telegram that the British Government has already raised with the Italian Government the possibility of holding such a conference as that “of which Mr. Kellogg spoke to the British Ambassador in Washington.” I am at a loss to know upon what the British Ambassador could have based any such report to his Government. I have never even contemplated the idea of going to Europe to negotiate with respect to my proposed anti-war treaty, and I can see not the slightest need for a preliminary conference of Foreign Secretaries. A simple form of anti-war treaty has been proposed by the United States for acceptance, modification or rejection. I have never indicated a willingness to go abroad to negotiate the treaty. You should, therefore, explain to Chamberlain that I never suggested a conference of Foreign Ministers for the purpose of negotiating and agreeing upon a form of treaty, and that in my opinion such a conference is wholly unnecessary. The position of the United States is clearly set forth in its notes and in the draft treaty [Page 47] it has proposed. The position of Germany is no less clearly indicated in its unqualified acceptance of the American proposal. If the United States and Germany can determine their respective positions on this important subject without an international conference, I can see no reason why the British, French, Italian and Japanese Governments cannot do likewise.