Office of the Historian

500.A15A5/148: Telegram

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Bingham) to the Secretary of State

London, July 17, 1934—8 p.m.
[Received July 17—3:54 p.m.21]

422. From Norman Davis. Subject to your approval Bingham and I have just agreed with Simon on the following joint statement to be issued by us: [Page 296]

  • “(1) In the conversations preparatory to the forthcoming Naval Conference, the representatives of the Governments of the United States and Great Britain have discussed their Governments’ views concerning the agenda at the Conference and the time and place at which it should be held, but without reaching any definite conclusions which must naturally await bilateral exchanges of views with the other powers parties to the naval treaties.
  • (2) The American and British representatives have likewise exchanged views with regard to the technical questions which fall within the framework of these treaties and examined possible ways by which future economies might be effected. No effort has been made to reach agreement on these technical points, which are necessarily matters to be dealt with by the 1935 Conference.
  • (3) The two Governments are in agreement that parity as between the two Navies, which has been recognized as a basic principle, shall be maintained. They are also in agreement that every endeavor should be made to frame a new treaty to replace and to carry out the purposes of the London Naval Treaty of 1930, which expires on December 31, 1936.
  • (4) The conversations will be resumed in the autumn.”

Paragraph 3 above represents the maximum agreement possible. Reference to the maintenance of the Washington Treaty was omitted at the insistence of the British who felt that specific reference now to its maintenance might be construed by Japan as evidence of the formation of a united front against her and because the 1935 Conference is to deal primarily with the London Treaty. The British also argued that since our understanding with regard to the maintenance of the Washington Treaty and any change in ratio is incorporated in the minutes of our conversations it is unnecessary to include it in a public statement. Inasmuch as the British were reluctant to agree specifically to a renewal of the London Treaty without substantial modifications we thought it better to use the actual wording of article 23 of that treaty,22 which after all covers the objective we have in mind.

We have agreed furthermore, in case you do not approve of paragraph 3 above, for each nation, in that event, to issue as a unilateral communiqué the above statement with paragraph 3 eliminated.

Please advise immediately in order that we can agree upon the time for the issuance of the statement, which time we shall communicate to you as soon as fixed. [Davis.]

Bingham
  1. Telegram in two sections.↩
  2. Foreign Relations, 1930, vol. i, pp. 107, 123.↩