Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1932, General, Volume I

500.A15A4 Land Armaments/185: Telegram

The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, November 9, 1932—10 p.m.
[Received 10:34 p.m.]

441. Thanks for your 234, November 8, 3 p.m. Since this whole situation is moving with great rapidity I venture to submit certain remarks on the tendency of the debate and observations thereon. This afternoon I raised the question as to “universality” as against a renunciation and pointed out the effects that might follow in regard to the application of prohibitions and sanctions in case of a renunciation rather than a universal prohibition which would immediately be embodied in international law.

1. The speakers who discussed my observations on “universality” all emphasized that in accordance with the resolution of July 23d we are drawing up a new rule of international law. They all desire that the application shall be universal. Certain of them notably the British are willing to consider it universal for prohibition purposes if all states capable of being considered seriously from the standpoint of chemical warfare join in. Certain of the speakers stated that even if the treaty was not “universal” it was essential, in treating a rule of international law, to envisage sanctions as applicable not only to signatory but to non-signatory powers, if any. In its essence they all approve the universal idea but we can not have a real commitment on this subject until the General Commission meets in which sit the representatives of all states.

2. Another striking feature of the debate was that no nation raised any objection to the general principle of the “prohibition of preparation and training in peace time” and several including Great Britain and France expressly approved it. The Japanese delegate went further and suggested the prohibition of preparation and training in all matters relating to chemical warfare including measures taken for protection. Motta frankly brought out the impracticability, in the present state of civilization, of abandoning provisions for defensive measures. No question was raised by any power on the Bureau in regard to the prohibition of peace time preparation or training for the war time use of means of chemical warfare, nor in any conversations have I found anybody who was not willing to accept this principle. In the course of the debate I raised the question as to protection against the illegal use of means of chemical warfare (see second paragraph concerning conclusions my 424¹⁸ or section 2 conclusions document (CD 142) and pointed out the necessity of defining the field of protection, the means to be employed in that field for both material and personnel and the measures of preparation and training necessary for the employment of those means. Indeed I am inclined to believe that had I not said that it was difficult for me to pass on this matter until these technical points were cleaned up the Bureau would have accepted and passed section 2 in principle. At Massigli’s suggestion and in view of the fact that there has been no technical discussion as to the abolition of preparation and training it was agreed that a technical committee should be set up to study this question.

3. We have most carefully considered that paragraph of your 234 which begins “b and c” and entirely understand your difficulty as well as the necessity that there should be no undertaking which would interfere with our private industry. I believe that a thorough consideration in a technical committee of the questions already raised in regard to prohibition of preparation and training will result in a solution which will be satisfactory in so far as the questions you raise in this paragraph are concerned, and may further result in satisfaction to the Army and Navy through the retention of units charged with preparation of protective measures.

4. In considering this general problem, I venture to raise the thought that we who are most advantageously situated geographically and with the greatest industrial resources can afford better than others to enter into an agreement to forego the peace time preparation for the use of gas in war, provided we are left free to take adequate measures for the protection of our military forces and our civil population against the illegal types of chemical warfare.

5. Relative to paragraph “d” your 234 I called upon the ingenuity of the rapporteur to find a way in which states might preserve the right to prepare and use lacrymatory gas for internal police purposes. The rapporteur replied that in any case his report only envisaged the suppression of its use for the purpose of injuring an adversary in time of war and that states were of course free to use it for police purposes.

6. Concerning retaliation (1) do you feel that under “universality” it is essential to provide for retaliation in kind? I venture to express doubts as to the propriety of such an insertion if we assume that we are formulating a general rule of international law although if we envisage merely a renunciation of limited scope such a clause would be proper. (2) if you consider a provision for retaliation necessary in the event of “universality” would it not be well at least to stipulate that such retaliation should only follow satisfactory establishment of the fact by the Permanent Disarmament Commission or other authorized body?

7. The record will show clearly our position on the principle of universality as I have stated that “our final consideration of this question depends upon the universal application of such a prohibition.” Do you not consider therefore that we may continue the work in the technical committee on the subject of prohibition of preparations since our final acceptance will be dependent on its universal scope? Such procedure would avoid any formal reservation attached to the document itself when it goes to the General Commission.

The Bureau tomorrow considers the remainder of the conclusions of the report. As I said before the debate on the report is proceeding so rapidly that I would much appreciate your thoughts on this telegram or any other phase of the problem as urgently as possible.

Wilson

18. Not printed.