500.A15A4 General Committee (Arms)/46: Telegram
The Chairman of the American Delegation (Davis) to the Secretary of State
[Received November 12—6:20 p.m.]
28. Your No. 16, November 9, 6 p.m.
1. As for explanation the proposal to embody the articles, setting up the Permanent Disarmament Commission in a separate protocol, was made to permit of the possibility of writing more than the one separate treaty covering control of arms manufacture and trade. Other powers have envisaged the possibility of concluding agreements covering such subjects as budgetary publicity and aviation. Also there [is] the technical consideration that the various subjects had been handled in separate committees of the Conference. Henderson in particular refuses as yet to admit even in the face of argument that it is not possible at the present time to do more than prepare a treaty covering arms traffic. Many powers feel that the establishment of the P. D. C. is so important that it should be done separately and have less interest in the other protocols, but apparently do not yet recognize as we do that it will be impossible to establish this body without giving it some definite function, such as the control of arms manufacture and traffic.
2. We consider that the best procedure will be to urge in the meeting of the Bureau that it is essential that the protocol on manufacture and trade and the protocol of the Permanent Disarmament Commission should form an indivisible whole and to argue that it is difficult to conceive that all states would participate in a commission which had no definite function and reason for existence, pointing out that publicity on manufacture and control of such publicity are inextricably woven. We might add, if you concur, that we are working on a draft of a treaty showing how it is possible to treat the problems as a unit bringing the Permanent Disarmament Committee into being and giving it sufficient elasticity to assume other functions beyond the control of arms traffic as soon as other protocols covering other subjects may be written. Further, if you approve and in order to crystallize the situation as far as possible we could state at the Bureau meeting that we proposed to circulate a draft text before the meeting of the committee next year in order that the states should have an opportunity to study it before the meeting of the committee. I am inclined to think that such an announcement and action would be useful in canalizing conflicting theories.
Furthermore, such a promise and procedure on our part would tend to keep the initiative and give us a better chance of securing what we desire.
[Page 179]3. There will doubtless be considerable pressure to include in the same treaty the treatment of publicity of budgetary expenditure. I think we should do our best to discourage this as a complication of the problem and one which might considerably delay the realization of the proper handling of the matter of trade in arms. However, should such pressure be overwhelming I would like an expression of your views as to whether you consider that we might admit in a contemplated treaty a chapter on budgetary expenditure.
4. I would appreciate an answer as urgently as possible. Also please repeat answer direct to Geneva.
Repeated to delegation Geneva.