500.A15A4 General Committee/425: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 31—3:17 a.m.]
675. 1. I took no part in the discussion relating to the definition of an aggressor (see the draft act quoted paragraph 5 my 658, May 24, [Page 173] 9 p.m.; 662, May 25, 7 p.m.; 672, May 29, 9 p.m.42) as the matter was primarily of concern to the states accepting part I of the British plan, or the continental European pact of mutual assistance. Further as the lines were clearly drawn beyond the French and the Little Entente on the one hand, and the British, Germans and Italians on the other hand, it seemed preferable not to be drawn into the debate in order to preserve our position to help in bringing about an agreement. Today, however, the General Commission took up the second part of the proposals advanced by Politis’43 Security Committee which was to figure as annex Y under article 6 to the British plan. The first article of this annex (Conference Document CG108A) embodied in the following terms the idea of the European pact renouncing the use of force.
“The high contracting parties have agreed upon the following provisions: Article 1. Being desirous of promoting the cause of disarmament and with a view thereto of encouraging a spirit of mutual confidence among the nations of Europe by a declaration forbidding resort to force in the circumstances in which the Pact of Paris forbids any resort to war,
The high contracting parties solemnly reaffirm that they will in no circumstances resort among themselves to force as an instrument of national policy.”
2. The balance of annex Y relates to measures of mutual assistance to be agreed upon between continental European states.
3. During the course of the discussion of article 1 above several states urged that the no force pact be made of universal rather than continental European scope. In view of the fact that in this discussion as well as in the preceding discussion with regard to the definition of an aggressor (see particularly point 3 my 672, May 29, 9 p.m.) frequent references had been made to the President’s proposal regarding a nonaggression pact I felt that it was necessary for me to intervene in the debate and accordingly made the following statement:
4. “In the course of the debate this afternoon the question has been raised as to whether the so-called no force pact which figures as article 1 of annex Y should not be given universal rather than solely European scope. I recognize that it is quite natural that this question should be raised in view of the proposal which the President of the United States made with regard to a nonaggression pact, the purpose of which was to insure peace in a world which had set its face toward peace through agreeing to substantial measures of disarmament. It may be useful at this point to refresh our memories as to the exact nature of the President’s suggestion. After stressing that a first step should be taken as outlined in the British plan, followed up by the [Page 174] successive steps according to a procedure and a time schedule to be agreed upon, the President stated that the peace of the world must be assured during the whole period of disarmament and therefore proposed a further step concurrent with and wholly dependent on the faithful fulfillment of disarmament and subject to existing treaty rights. He then added:
‘That all the nations of the world should enter into a solemn and definite pact of nonaggression; that they should solemnly reaffirm the obligations they have assumed to limit and reduce their armaments and, provided these obligations are faithfully executed by all signatory powers, individually agree that they will send no armed force of whatsoever nature across their frontiers.’
There is no doubt that the fundamental purpose sought by the no force pact and the nonaggression pact is the same. The President in his message clearly indicated that the measures which he proposed were contingent upon substantial measures of disarmament and that it was our first task to reach agreement on such measures of disarmament and, contingent upon their being reached, solemnly reaffirm that armed forces should not be sent to disturb the peace. I have no intention, however, of reopening the old debate as to the order of precedence. In dealing with our problems in the order which has been established, we are now considering a matter which is closely related in purpose to the nonaggression pact proposed by the President. While reserving a more complete statement of my Government’s views for the second reading I feel that the draft of article 1 if expanded so as to have universal scope would not be incompatible with the intention of the President’s proposal.”
5. This statement received general approval and the consensus of opinion was that the Conference should endeavor before the second reading to coordinate the no force pact with the President’s proposal for a nonaggressor pact. In this connection see my 677, May 30, 10 p.m.