500.A15A4 Steering Committee/344: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
742. The text of Simon’s and my remarks before the Bureau this morning follow. Text of Simon’s statement:
“Mr. Henderson has invited me to give some account of the conversations to which I have been a party from time to time during recent weeks both at Geneva and elsewhere and in which the participants have attempted to ascertain by means of a friendly exchange of views what are the prospects of reaching agreement on various vital matters. I will do the best I can to comply with the President’s request. I feel that I should speak plainly and frankly for the time has gone by for glossing over difficulties by vague optimistic phrases. A system of agreed disarmament promptly entered into and loyally carried out would I believe be of the greatest value to the world; but I am equally clear that nothing is gained by interminable discussions which do not face essential matters on which differences may still exist.
The address which I have to render is as follows:
So far as the United Kingdom representatives are concerned we have taken part in meetings at different times with the French, German, Italian and American representatives as well as in a number of talks with the representatives of some other powers. These conversations have led me to take the view that the draft convention which the United Kingdom Government put before the General Commission over 6 months ago and which has been unanimously adopted as the general framework for the proposed agreement will require to be in some respects recast. The draft convention is at present drafted to cover a period of 5 years, the discussions which I am summarizing [Page 261] indicate on the part of some powers a wish that the period should be extended to perhaps 8 years and so far as I recall no serious objection to this extension has been raised.
It was further proposed that this period of 8 years should be occupied by the fulfillment of a continuous program, designed to secure at the end of the period two essential conditions:
- (a)
- A substantial measure of disarmament actually realized and completed on the part of the heavily armed powers, and
- (b)
- The achievement of the principle of equality in a regime of security which, ever since December of last year, has been the declared objective not only of the powers who signed the declaration of December 11 but of the Disarmament Conference itself. But in order to attain this it is necessary to proceed by steps. Indeed the method of stages has from a very early date been adopted as the necessary method by the general vote of the Conference. And when I speak of a program which would gradually unfold in action so as to secure at the end of the period these two essential conditions I recall the language of Mr. Henderson in his report to the Bureau on October 9 last when he declared ‘on some of the more important questions the approach is [was] manifestly influenced by the present unsettled state of Europe and the ensuing distrust, fears and alarms’.68 The present unsettled state of Europe is a fact and statesmen in drawing up their plans have to face facts. The need, therefore, for modifying the draft convention so as to accomplish this purpose by a process of evolution is clearly established.
The scheme therefore which emerged for consideration as the result of a number of these interviews was one in which the proposed period of 8 years would begin with the transformation of Continental armies on the lines set out in the British draft, together with the setting up, through the medium of the Permanent Disarmament Commission, of an adequate system of supervision so that the sense of security which the due observance of the convention will afford should provide the ground-work for the practical attainment of the two ideas of disarmament and equality. Mr. Henderson has suggested that the Permanent Disarmament Commission might be set up as soon as the convention is signed without waiting for ratification. If this suggestion is found feasible it ought to be welcomed for its aims at shortening the period when actual disarmament and attained equality would be effectively reached. It is understood on all hands that the supervision contemplated would be of general application. Its purpose would be to ensure that the undertakings contained in the convention were being loyally observed. It is a matter for close consideration to determine how much of 8 years would be needed for the initial steps to which I have referred. Transformation of armies involves technical questions which will govern the time limit and in the meantime a real feeling of confidence should develop when it is seen that the whole plan is agreed to and is in due process of execution. [Page 262] Without binding myself finally to the length of this first stage I report that the period of 4 years was mentioned by several governments though others have raised the question whether it could not be somewhat shortened.
Whatever the length of this first stage may be it is essential to make clear that the convention itself would have to contain at the time of its signature the detailed scheme of disarmament provided for as the final result to be attained by the time its full period of say 8 years comes to an end. I have described that disarmament as ‘substantial’ and the extent of it has been the subject of detailed discussion. Since general phrases will not advance matters I add that by ‘substantial’ disarmament is meant either the disarmament provided for in this draft convention or some comparable variation of it. I say quite definitely that the whole scheme would not be satisfactory to my Government and we could not lend our own support to it unless the degree of disarmament by the heavily armed powers is both fully defined in the convention and really adequate. But there is another feature in the second stage of the plan which is equally definite—it is this: the results of the abolition of various kinds of armament and of prohibition against their further use will be to constitute a common list of permitted arms which would become the same for all countries and thus the differential position of the powers whose armaments were limited by the peace treaties would finally cease. Quantities and other detailed regulations would, of course, be in each case the subject of negotiation and agreement.
The Bureau will, therefore, see that the plan I have outlined is one which if it were adopted and loyally observed would bring into practical operation the principal of equality of status by the method of substantial disarmament on the one hand and the application to all countries of a common list of prohibited arms on the other hand.
But this program involves a feature which appears to me to be essential. I must state it with complete frankness to the Bureau the scheme involves the principle that the powers now under restriction of the peace treaties should not begin to increase their armaments forthwith but should express their willingness to conform to a time table such as I have indicated. The Government of the United Kingdom take the view that agreement could not be reached on the basis of a convention which would provide for any immediate rearmament. In speaking of ‘no rearmament’ I do not mean to dispute the reasonableness, as the Reichswehr is transformed into a more numerous short service army, of a proportional numerical increase in its armament. And there should be from the beginning of the convention an agreement that no government will manufacture or acquire any further weapons of any of the types to be eventually abolished.
In our view, therefore, for the reasons indicated by Mr. Henderson in the passage I have quoted the attainment of the object which we all have in view at the Disarmament Conference must be in accordance with a regular program. We earnestly desire to establish by international agreement the attainment of equality of status and we point out that it is attained in a most complete and effective way by providing for disarmament through the adoption and loyal fulfillment of [Page 263] such a program as I have indicated. By accepting the principle of no immediate rearmament and cooperating with the rest of us in framing a convention which is best calculated to restore the sense of confidence which has recently been so rudely shaken the necessary conditions of success can be established.
The statement I have been asked to make has necessarily involved some plain speaking and a perfectly clear declaration of our own point of view. I feel that if the General Commission which meets on Monday is now to do useful work it is most desirable to ascertain what is the view of other countries on these essential points and I sincerely trust that we may thus find a way of removing the obstacles which at present stand in the way of an agreed convention.”
Text of my statement:
“The statement which Sir John Simon has just made contains an account of conversations in many of which I have participated. It also contains a very definite indication of the modifications which he feels should be introduced into the British draft convention to make it more generally acceptable. I am glad to be able to add my confirmation to his account of the conversations and to endorse and support the position he has taken on the important questions of substance before us for immediate decision. I am the better able to give my support to the statement which has just been made to you because as a result of the frequent and exhaustive conversations which I have had during the past few days with Sir John Simon [I have?] come to the common conclusions which he has so clearly and forcefully expressed in his statement.
It is not difficult for me to state my position in this frank and unequivocal manner. The report which has been laid before you, both in its broad outlines and in many of the points of detail, is in agreement with the position of the American Government set forth in the communication which President Roosevelt addressed to the Heads of Governments69 represented at this Conference last May and with the statement70 which I made in the General Commission a few days later. In these statements my Government took the position that a disarmament convention could not properly be made an instrument for rearmament and that qualitative equality in armaments should primarily be sought through the reduction in the armaments of the heavily armed powers and not through acts on the part of others to attempt to build up. Under present conditions steps are necessary in the attainment of that equality. It cannot be achieved at one stroke.
I will not attempt to restate on this or on other points the position which has been so adequately presented to you. I only wish to emphasize one point to help reassure those who are impatient or skeptical because of the long delay: from the conversations in which many of us have been recently participating I am more than ever convinced of the sincere purpose of the heavily armed countries to make effective measures of disarmament a reality and I would add that no treaty would be satisfactory as far as my Government is concerned [Page 264] or justify our participation in a system of supervision designed to ensure its faithful observance unless that treaty contained precise provisions for such measures of disarmament.”