500.A15A4 General Committee/905: Telegram

The American Delegate to the General Disarmament Conference (Wilson) to the Secretary of State

838. Definite estimate as to what will take place in the General Commission on May 29th is still premature. Nevertheless an idea which appears to have been advanced by Avenol20 seems to be gaining adherence. The suggestion is to pass a resolution that under present conditions the Disarmament Conference cannot carry out its mandate and that therefore the problem is returned to the Council of the League of Nations which called the Conference into being. The decision as to subsequent work would of course rest with the Council but it has been suggested that the Council might create a small committee including the Great Powers which should carry on the work of disarmament perhaps on a new basis not strictly connected with the League of Nations. [Page 64] While I have found many delegates who are deeply disappointed at the probability of such termination of the Conference I have found none who are willing to oppose it nor who have constructive alternatives to offer. However, Henderson,21 having heard the rumor in London, telephoned Aghnides22 today that he was opposed to such procedure and requested Aghnides to oppose it, apparently desiring to continue the Conference.

2.
Avenol’s primary reason for advancing the suggestion appears to be concern for the future of the League of Nations. He is convinced that the Conference cannot succeed in its present form; that in public opinion the fate of the League is tied to the fate of the Disarmament Conference. Therefore the sooner the League is disembarrassed of this burden the sooner it can prove that it has vitality for other purposes.
3.
Barthou23 has taken the position that he can express no opinion as to his plans for the General Commission until he has consulted the Chamber of Deputies and the Cabinet. Massigli,24 however, speaking personally, favors the idea of the return of the problem to the Council. Acquiescence to this procedure was expressed by Eden,25 Aloisi,26 Westman,27 Bourquin28 and others. Nevertheless Eden made it clear that his Government had taken no decision.
4.
One factor may enter the discussions which will affect their outcome. Aloisi tells me in strict confidence that he has reason to believe that Litvinoff,29 who will attend the Bureau and the General Commission will propose: (a), return of the problem to the Council; (b), the drafting of a pact of mutual assistance; (c), that disarmament having failed as a world problem security should be sought on a regional basis and that the European states should undertake the task of working out security among themselves. If this indication as to Russia’s attitude is true it will simplify the security problem for France since Russia has previously refused to consider guarantees locally. Russia’s insistence that guarantees should be universal has involved their Siberian possessions and the risk of trouble with Japan. [Page 65] Apparently the scheme is to be worked out by special agreements binding Russia and the Baltic States on the one hand and France and the Little Entente on the other hand. This conception seems to harmonize with the vigorous endeavors which France is making to bring about the greatest measure of encirclement of Germany going so far as to try to enlist Greece behind them. They have apparently had some success with Turkey but not with Greece. Massigli, while not giving me the identical story, nevertheless hinted at some such possibility in discussing the problem of Russia and the League.
5.
There is considerable apprehension felt here lest the meeting of the General Commission turn into an arraignment of Germany and indeed this is a possibility. The French hope that they can ascertain at the meeting of the Bureau on the 28th the position of the various powers and the position which Henderson himself will take since the necessity for a French arraignment of Germany by France in the General Commission will depend on what turn the debate in the General Commission may take. I gained the impression that at the present moment the French have not determined that an arraignment of Germany is expedient.
6.
Barthou had luncheon today at the Anglo-American Press Association and gave the correspondents an impression of optimism regarding disarmament based upon certain negotiations now in hand and which he considered would be prejudiced by premature publicity. I questioned Massigli regarding this and was told by him that there was nothing at the moment in the way of negotiations; that Barthou desired some form of convention; that he had not given up hope of a convention and his optimism was based on the possibility that the General Commission would return the matter to the Council where the work would continue and might have better hope of success.
7.
The representatives with whom I have talked have been preoccupied with European aspects of the problem. There has been no discussion of the position of the United States.
Wilson
  1. Joseph Avenol, Secretary General of the League of Nations.
  2. Arthur Henderson, President of the General Disarmament Conference.
  3. Thanassis Aghnides, Director, Disarmament Section, League of Nations.
  4. Jean Louis Barthou, French Minister for Foreign Affairs; Chairman of the French delegation to the Disarmament Conference.
  5. René Massigli, member of the French delegation to the Disarmament Conference; Assistant Director of Political Affairs in charge of League of Nations Section, French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  6. Anthony Eden, member of the British delegation to the Disarmament Conference; Lord Privy Seal.
  7. Baron Pompeo Aloisi, Chairman of the Italian delegation to the Disarmament Conference.
  8. K. I. Westman, member of the Swedish delegation to the Disarmament Conference.
  9. Maurice Bourquin, member of the Belgian delegation to the Disarmament Conference.
  10. Maxim Litvinov, Chairman of the Soviet delegation to the Disarmament Conference; People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs.