500.A 15A4/1846: Telegram (part air)
The American Delegate ( Wilson ) to the Secretary of State
[Received May 8—9:10 a.m.]
630. Saavedra, Chilean representative, handed me a memorandum which reads in translation as follows:
“Draft amendment presented by the delegations of blank part V section II, final provisions. Add the following article:
Considering that the problem of the reduction and the limitation of armaments [which] presents itself to the states of Latin America has not the same character as among the other contracting parties, the states of Latin America should by means of direct agreements fix within a reasonable period the reduction or limitation of their land, sea and air armaments while remaining within the framework of the present convention (treaty).
Before the deposit of the instrument of ratification these states should advise the Secretariat General of the League of Nations the maximum of the land, sea and air effectives which they have established. The Secretariat of the League of Nations will transmit immediately the figures of these effectives to the other contracting parties who should formulate the observations they deem desirable to the Permanent Disarmament Commission within the period of 3 months. At the expiration of this period, and if no opposition has been made, these figures shall be included in the present treaty (convention).”
Saavedra has discussed this matter with his Latin American colleagues here present. He does not claim that they have all acquiesced officially and indeed adds that he has not submitted the thought to his Government; he desired an expression of my views before going further with the matter; he explained that the obvious objection to such a proposal would be that the figures should be worked out among the Latin American delegates here, and inserted here, in Geneva. But the difficulty lay in the fact that they had no technical assistance, that representatives of important countries such as Peru were not present and that they were under such a regime of economy that the necessary communication with home governments would be too costly.
I told him that at first glance it seemed common sense to me that they should work out their figures among themselves providing of course, the qualitative measures of disarmament in the treaty applied to Latin America as well, but I would prefer not to give him an answer until I had had some days for reflection. He replied that when they [Page 128] used the words “within the framework of the convention” they had meant to state that the qualitative rules will be followed in Latin America; but that this could be made more clear. He thereupon gave me a copy and said he would welcome a further conversation after I had had time to consider.
I should be grateful to the Department for guidance as to how to handle this matter. That the states of Latin America should discuss their figures among themselves would seem to me a much more propitious way of tackling the problem than to have a list drawn up here to which they would each bring objection in general debate. At the same time it would be desirable that the final disarmament treaty of universal scope should contain figures for all nations when it is signed. You may think it well, therefore, for me to suggest to Saavedra that after consideration it seems to me entirely reasonable that they should settle this problem among themselves but that the treaty itself would have a much better acceptance in world opinion, if, when it was signed, it was of universal scope and showed full obligations of all nations. To this end I might add that the reasonable procedure would seem to me to be immediate consultation among themselves at some convenient point where their experts could assemble in order to write their own figures for land, sea and air armament in order to have them ready when such figures have been reached for the other states of the world.