500.A15A4 Steering Committee/471: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received 5:05 p.m.]
949. Henderson’s opening statement at the Bureau meeting this morning followed the lines indicated in his statement of November 5 (see my 941, November 6, 11 a.m.). I was the first speaker12 and agreed with Henderson’s outline emphasizing the indispensability of incorporating the provisions on the three subjects in a single document which would require but a single ratification and further emphasizing the deep interest of the American Government in manufacture of and trade in arms. I then presented the text13 with a brief analysis of its broad lines.
Litvinoff followed with rather a mild suggestion that consideration be given to his proposal for a permanent peace organization which in a later statement he denied as replacing the League. He referred pleasantly to our proposal but pointed out that inasmuch as the General Disarmament Conference had thus far accomplished nothing the setting up of the Permanent Disarmament Commission was more or less futile since it would have very little work to do. Henderson replied vigorously stating that the work of the General Disarmament Conference must go on. He expressed appreciation for our proposals which he accepted as being exactly in line with his ideas of the present situation.
Madariaga and Undén,14 Sweden, associated themselves with the American proposal emphasizing especially the desirability of a single treaty for the three subjects. Eden spoke briefly and supported the idea of the continuity of the Conference and desirability of adopting Henderson’s suggestions. He welcomed the American proposals which he said he would look forward to studying carefully. Massigli spoke very briefly saying merely that the three questions proposed for detailed study were questions the French delegation considered fundamental elements of any convention, agreeing to the President’s proposal as likely to lead to useful work. He made no reference to our statement or proposal. The Japanese representative did not speak. Both Eden and Massigli have subsequently told me that the [Page 188] idea of a single treaty and single ratification is in entire harmony with their thoughts.
Soragna called attention to the previous Italian position. He questioned the advisability of attempting to get a solution of the three subjects under consideration and made full reservation as to Italy’s future action thereon although he did promise collaboration in the work anticipated. Soragna emphasized strongly the Italian thesis of the interdependence of all questions relating to disarmament indicating that it was all or nothing and stated “no disarmament, no control”.
The Bureau session ended with the adoption of Henderson’s program on the understanding that he and the chairmen of the subcommittees concerned would hold frequent consultations in order to assure coordination and close collaboration in the preparation of the three subjects to be considered. Under the program adopted the committees will meet at the call of their chairmen probably in January. Our draft text, copies of which were distributed at the meeting, will be circulated officially to the Governments represented at the Conference with a request that it be studied and suggestions or comments be sent to Mr. Henderson prior to the January meeting. Henderson also said that he would specially see that a copy of our text would be put in the hands of the chairman of each of the three committees.
Copies are being mailed to the Department today.
Repeated to London for Davis.
- For complete text of Wilson’s speech, and for remarks of others mentioned in this telegram, see Minutes of the Bureau, vol. ii, pp. 246–255.↩
- The American draft treaty text is printed in Department of State, Press Releases, December 22, 1934, p. 391, and in Conference Documents, vol. iii (Conf. D. 167), p. 776.↩
- B. O. Undén, Swedish Minister without portfolio.↩