500.A15A4 Steering Committee/380
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Acting Secretary of State
[Received December 21.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to my telegram No. 800 of December 2, 10 a.m.,58 and to inform the Department that the Committee of the Bureau of the General Disarmament Conference on General Provisions (Supervision and Control) adjourned its meetings on December 6th until after the Christmas holidays. No definite date was set for the resumption of work. It is understood, however, from conversations last month among Mr. Henderson, Sir John Simon, Monsieur Paul-Boncour, Mr. Soragna and myself that the President of the Conference would determine early in the new year when it would be most desirable for the Bureau work to recommence.
The Committee of the Bureau on General Provisions was concerned principally with two topics. First, the question of the adoption, modification, etc., of rules of procedure of the Permanent Disarmament Commission; and, secondly, and of far greater importance, the Committee discussed supervision and control, with particular reference [Page 334] to the French amendments to Article 75 of the British Draft (Conference Document 163 (1), September 22, 1933).
Concurrently with the sessions of the Bureau Committee, in order to simplify his task as Rapporteur-President of the Committee, Monsieur Bourquin had three private meetings of an informal group under his chairmanship, consisting of Mr. Strang for the British, accompanied by Major Robertson; Monsieur Vienot for France, accompanied by Monsieur Aubert and Colonel Lucien; Mr. Stein for Soviet Russia; and myself, accompanied by Mr. Mayer, for the United States.
I have the honor to enclose herewith copies of minutes61 which Mr. Mayer took down of the meetings of this informal group. I also enclose a copy of draft texts drawn up by the Chairman of the Bureau Committee61 “resulting from the exchange of views in the Committee, account being taken of reservations in the course of the exchange of these views.”
These three documents, together with the summary of the introduction to this topic made by Monsieur Vienot (my despatch of November 29, 193361), will give the Department a picture of the meetings of the Committee, the underlying ideas of the French Delegation, who are the active protagonists of automatic, periodic and effective control, and to a certain extent the attitude of the other Delegations thereto in so far as they have crystallized at this time.
While there were many collateral features of automatic, periodic and effective control which will require careful scrutiny and serious consideration before any agreement can be reached, the discussions in the Committee and outside seem to indicate that the principal question to be resolved with regard to this form of control would be the competence of the committees of investigation which shall execute the supervision in the countries concerned.
As the Department will find from reading the minutes of the meetings of the informal group, it was this question which particularly interested those present and seemed to cut across the entire problem. The French were strongly in favor of what in effect would constitute the complete autonomy of the investigating committees. The British took very little part in the discussion, either at the small group conversations or in the Committee. From what they did say and from private remarks there seems no doubt that the British have grave fears as to the wisdom of the liberty of action with which the French would wish to endow the investigating committees, even if in the last analysis the British find themselves able to agree in principle to automatic, periodic and effective control, which has not been the case to date. The [Page 335] Italians took no part in the Committee discussions, nor would they join in the small group conversations. This need not be interpreted that they are completely opposed to automatic, periodic and effective control on principle, but rather in support of the position the Italians have recently taken with regard to the pursuance of committee work at this time. After a general reservation the Japanese took no part in the discussions. The Soviet representative supported the French ideas regarding control, although, generally speaking, I should believe them less radical in their attitude toward the functioning of the investigating committees and other aspects of the application of control. My own position is indicated in various remarks reported in the minutes of the small group meetings, as well as in my telegram No. 800, December 2, 10 a.m., and my despatch of November 29th, referred to above. I followed this same line in my remarks at the last meeting of the Bureau, showing I considered that the discussion still was in a preliminary stage, was exploratory in character, committing no Government to any particular mode of application of control and as affording in the main an opportunity for inquiry and elucidation on which Governments might later take positions.
Respectfully yours,