500.A15A4 Land Armaments/260: Telegram
The Secretary of State to the Acting Chairman of the American Delegation (Gibson)
290. Your 528, February 7, 5 p.m. I do not attach especial importance to the wording of the resolution, whether it calls for “renunciation” or “prohibition” (why not both?) of chemical warfare. You will find that in earlier treaties, notably the Gas Treaty of 192219 and the Gas Protocol of 192520 the word “prohibition” was used without subsequent reference to sanctions. The essential purpose of the Treaty is to do away with gas warfare as a method of hostilities.
When the question of sanctions comes up for discussion, however, you must bear in mind that it is useless for us to agree to more than public opinion in this country (especially as exemplified in the Senate) would approve. We have not noted in recent months any trend toward favoring commitments before the event that might involve us in affirmative action; on the contrary, the trend has been visibly in the other direction. The solution of the problem of sanctions (whether in the case of chemical warfare or more generally) is to treat it regionally. This was indicated in your 445, November 10, 8 p.m.21 and my 242, November 12, 5 p.m.22 I rely on your tactical skill to assure this result.
Document Bureau 41 was received February 5 and is being studied.
- Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare, signed at Washington, February 6, 1922, Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. i, p. 267.↩
- Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva, June 17, 1925, ibid., p. 89.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. i, p. 376.↩