Foreign Relations of the United States, Diplomatic Papers, 1933, General, Volume I

500.A15A4 General Committee/489: Telegram

The Ambassador in France (Straus) to the Acting Secretary of State

Paris, June 16, 1933—11 a.m.
[Received June 16—8:45 a.m.]

280. From Norman Davis. Referring to the delegation’s 689, June 7, 7 p.m.,⁷⁷ regarding control of arms, trade and manufacture, and text of French amendments⁷⁸ (confidential D/6 G122) mailed June 1. Inasmuch as this matter will presumably be the subject of negotiations before the General Commission reconvenes I should appreciate your views as promptly as possible. I am not commenting now in detail because the questions involved have not yet been fully discussed.

Bearing in mind the views of the President upon the necessity for strengthening measures of control I submit herewith a list of the essential questions of principle brought out in the French amendments, recognizing, however, that the administrative difficulties regarding routine upkeep are obvious.

1 –a. Can we accept a limitation of the amount of material which we may acquire in a given period.

b. Can we accept such limitation if it applies only to those arms which are limited quantitatively by the convention.

2. Can we accept a quota under which our private manufacture for third parties is limited to a fixed proportion of our own yearly reserve.

3. Can we accept the project which gives to the Permanent Disarmament Commission the right to visa licenses both for manufacture and for export?

4. You will note from my reports of the debates (telegrams Nos. 688, June 6, 8 p.m. and 689, June 7, 7 p.m.) that the question has been raised of the analogy between narcotic drugs and manufacture of arms and it has been suggested with fairly wide approval that the same type of machinery might be established for the control of manufacture of arms as now exists under the treaty of 1931 for the control of narcotics.⁷⁹ In this connection see the memorandum by the Secretariat dated May 4 (Conf. D/159).⁸⁰

• Concerning point 1–a above we feel that this would raise serious difficulties in practical application and believe the French amendment in its present form would require considerable modification to be acceptable to us but until the annex referred to in article B–1 of the French amendment is drawn up it is difficult to express a final judgment.
• Concerning point 2 Wilson and I have already told the French that we did not believe our Government would accept such an arrangement both because of the interference with normal competition and because of the almost incredible difficulty which would arise in an attempt to allocate such quotas.
• As to points 3 and 4 we believe that if the control feature is to be adequately strengthened both these points deserve favorable consideration and that we should cooperate in working out the detailed formulation of these points reserving final judgment until this has been done.

The French have emphasized and reiterated the “indispensable” and “essential” character of the proposed measures from their point of view.

Please reply to delegation Geneva. [Davis.]

Straus

77. Ante, p. 187.
78. Records of the Conference, Series B, Minutes of the General Commission, vol. ii, pp. 591–592.
79. International Convention for Limiting the Manufacture and Regulating the Distribution of Narcotic Drugs, and Protocol of Signature, signed at Geneva, July 13, 1931, Foreign Relations, 1931, vol. i, p. 675.
80. League of Nations, Conference for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments, Conference Documents, vol. ii, pp. 494–502.