500.A15A4 Steering Committee/124: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 10:09 p.m.]
434. At a special meeting of the Bureau this morning Paul-Boncour explained the general lines of the French plan in a long speech which may be summarized as follows:7
The French conception of the problem of disarmament was described as that of two concentric circles, the larger including all nations. Their task should be to transpose into international law the proposition inherent in the Briand-Kellogg Pact8 along the lines explained by the American Secretary of State which are:
- 1.
- To consider that no nation can continue to benefit from belligerent rights or those of neutrality and,
- 2.
- To deny recognition to any acquisition territorial or otherwise obtained through violation of the Pact.
The small circle is composed of nations who by their situation as continental powers are particularly exposed to certain risks. Among these must be concluded a pact of mutual assistance, precise because it is restricted, which will provide that the sole professional forces remaining in these states will be definitely limited in number and placed at the disposal of the League of Nations. This force will not be sufficient to stop aggression but will check it by furnishing immediate assistance to the League.
Within the frame work of the Hoover plan France has endeavored to find a means of establishing a just and equal method of reduction. The difficulty with which it was faced was to establish a fair comparison between the forces of the different powers. France believes it impossible to arrive at any equitable reduction of armaments without taking into consideration the essential discrimination between the uses of different forces such as that set up by the Hoover plan between police forces, overseas forces, and those known either as defense forces or forces of aggression. In these categories no purely mathematical comparisons can be made owing to the differences in nature existing between the forces of various nations. France proposes that [Page 361] those nations bound by the more restricted pact should therefore agree to nationalized unification of their types of forces, that is, the establishment of conscript armies.
As regards qualitative disarmament the French plan envisages the abolition of chemical and bacteriological warfare provided an effective control be exercised over its preparation, a prohibition of aerial bombardment under the conditions set forth in the resolution of July 23, placing at the disposal of the League reduced national air contingents. The discrimination between defensive and offensive weapons which forms the basis of the American proposals is applied to heavy war material such as artillery and tanks. Fixed material of this nature should be reserved to each country for its coastal and frontier defense. Other heavy material should be prohibited to national forces but placed at the disposal of the League of Nations.
The French proposal to reduce the armies of the continental forces to a uniform type “in order to render practicable and just the reductions foreseen in the American plan” will primarily be accomplished by a reduction of the period of training.
As regards the question of international control, the control should be specially efficacious as regards those nations which will be bound by the more restricted form of agreement.
The conclusions to be drawn from this speech envisage a more definite plan of disarmament and control to be applied to the continental nations rather than to all powers and the system of conscript armies proposed is stated to be destined to provide an equitable basis for the reductions envisaged in the Hoover plan and a distinction is drawn between defensive and aggressive weapons, the latter to be placed at the disposal of the League of Nations by the continental powers.
A more considered analysis of the proposals contained in the speech will be telegraphed as soon as the necessary detailed study can be completed.
- For text of speech, see Records of the Conference, Series C, Minutes of the Bureau, vol. i, pp. 32–38.↩
- Treaty for the Renunciation of War, Foreign Relations, 1928, vol. i, p. 153.↩