500.A15A4 General Committee/165: Telegram

The Acting Chairman of the American Delegation ( Gibson ) to the Secretary of State

537. The Political Committee met this afternoon and discussed a British draft for the renunciation of force of which text follows:

“Draft declaration (to be signed by the governments of Europe simultaneously with the disarmament convention).

(List of governments) acting respectively through their undersigned representatives, duly authorized to that effect;

Anxious to further the cause of disarmament by increasing the spirit of mutual confidence between the nations of Europe;

Determined to fulfill, not only in the letter but also in the spirit, the obligations which they have accepted under the Pact of Paris, signed on August 27, 1928;

Hereby solemnly undertake that they will not in any circumstances resort to force for the purpose of resolving any present or future differences between them.”

This was followed by a formal motion by Litvinoff39 to extend the scope of the undertaking to all countries of the world as well as to Europe. Various amendments were offered to the British text and at the close of the session the Chairman appointed a drafting committee of some 12 countries not including the United States, to deal with the resolution and amendments, and without taking formal action on [Page 15] whether the scope should be universal or European. He stated, however, in summing up that there appeared to be general agreement that this undertaking should be embodied in the disarmament treaty and not in a separate instrument.

It is our impression that the drafting committee will take the ground that since this declaration of renunciation of force is a prelude to the study of part 3 of the French plan applying specifically to European states and designed to increase the feeling of security in that portion of the world the declaration should be of European scope only to begin with and that its extension to non-European powers will be discussed subsequently when the outer concentric circle of the French plan is opened for discussion.

The point was made repeatedly that the adoption of a declaration giving precision to the Kellogg Pact by a certain number of states only would raise the presumption that other states which were bound only by the original Kellogg Pact were under no further obligation then to renounce war in its legal and diplomatic sense thus creating two categories of states, one which had renounced all acts of force and the other which had renounced “war” only.

Buero of Uruguay made a declaration which aroused interest in which he declared that the very act of presentation of the British proposal raised doubts as to the efficacy and scope of the Kellogg Pact; that on the part of his country he could not accept a situation where there were two categories of states and insisted that the other states of the world should be equally bound with Europe. If this were not the fact, Buero continued, states outside of Europe could have recourse to violence without declaration of war and claim that they had that right under the Kellogg Pact inasmuch as European states had admitted the necessity of establishing greater precision and taking a step further than the Kellogg Pact. His view was sympathetically received by a number of speakers who, however, presumably in deference to us in view of the conversations which we have had with them all agreed to examine the problem for Europe in the first instance and subsequently to take up the problem of extension of its scope. It was clear from the veiled references of nearly every speaker that they were under the conviction that every loophole must be stopped to prevent action similar to that of Japan of carrying on war in Manchuria under another name. There was repeated expressions of regret at the necessity for amending the Kellogg Pact but no indication of refusal to accept British proposal.

We are inclined to feel that the renunciation of force proposal was unfortunate even from the British point of view. In the proposition of Sir John Simon and in the text cited in this telegram it is regarded as a reciprocal European undertaking and so specifically excludes [Page 16] any special situations which Great Britain may have outside of Europe. The insistence, however, of a large number of delegations on the extension of the proposal to universal scope will doubtless create a situation where the British will be obliged either to accept, refuse or amend it. We have so far succeeded in keeping out of public participation in the debate and shall endeavor so to continue. However, the entire question is so intricate and so fraught with future perplexities that we venture to suggest that without further delay it be given careful study in the Department with a view to determining how its adoption as it is or in amended form would affect American interests; for instance in connection with our rights in Panama and Cuba.

We venture to urge that this be given immediate attention for, although we hope to be able for the moment to avoid being faced with direct public questions as to our intentions, the whole problem is bound to arise within a relatively short period and we should be apprised of your views in full as soon as possible.

Gibson
  1. Maxim Litvinov, Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs; delegate to the General Commission.