500.A15A4 Permanent Disarmament Commission/8: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 4—8:40 p.m.]
435. This afternoon the Bureau continued to discuss Bourquin’s report on control (telegram No. 425, October 29, 11 a.m.9) and reached the question of investigation on the spot.
[Page 362]In the earlier stages of the debate the British, the Japanese and the Italians in addition to myself had all made statements reserving their final decisions until they could see the results of the treaty.
Massigli urged the advantages of a system of periodic investigations under the jurisdiction of the Permanent Disarmament Commission specifically for use in Continental countries. The question of exceptional investigations he thought was of more general application and should be made either on a formal complaint submitted as provided in article 52 of the draft convention and the vote of the Permanent Disarmament Commission or solely by vote of the Commission on its own initiative and authority. He rather favored the latter since the method of complaint was so serious that it might and probably would create a serious situation between the public opinion of the two countries.
Eden, British delegate, stated that Great Britain accepted the principle of investigation on the spot but was unable yet to say under what conditions it should be carried out.
At the end of the meeting Sato told me that his Government could not tolerate investigation on the spot. They were faced with a special position in which investigation could only be unilateral in the Far East since it was impossible to make real investigations as to the situation in China and in lesser degree in Russia. He intends to defer making such a declaration until the close of the debate in order not to block progress any more than can be helped.
The Bureau will meet again on Monday afternoon. As it seems important that the form of control on the spot should be worked out in a manner which will be most acceptable to us I propose to take part in this discussion but to withhold indication of our willingness to accept local investigation as authorized in your 163, June 30, 7 p.m.10 until such disclosure can be most effectively made. Obviously I would couple any remarks with a reference to the position which I have previously taken on November 3d, namely, that our final acquiescence in extension of powers of the Permanent Disarmament Commission is dependent on the achievements of the Conference. Therefore, I would appreciate your advice with respect to the following possibilities.
- A.
- I think we would insist on exceptional rather than periodical investigation (unless of course the latter is limited to Europe) both because I believe little would be accomplished by inexpert periodic investigation and because of the increased possibilities of friction.
- B.
- I am inclined to think that exceptional investigation should only take place on a “complaint” by a state and a vote by a substantial [Page 363] majority of the Disarmament Commission but confess that I was impressed by Massigli’s argument as given above.
- C.
- It would seem to be wise to insist that investigation on the spot shall not take place until the Permanent Disarmament Commission is satisfied by its own preliminary investigation that it is essential, i. e. something like the grand jury.
I have been considering whether it would not be advantageous to provide that when a complaint is brought the state against which it is brought may request an investigation on the spot as it would enable an innocent state to vindicate itself promptly by showing a willingness to submit to investigation and would avoid a considerable period during which the press of [the] world would jump to the conclusion that a violation had taken place.