724.3415/3796: Telegram (part air)

The Consul at Geneva ( Gilbert ) to the Secretary of State

131. Consulate’s 129, June 2, 6 p.m., paragraph 2. As a background for such developments in the Chaco arms embargo proposal as may take place here in the immediate future the following seem to me to be the chief elements in the present situation.

[2.?]
Luxemburg is the only state which has not replied to communications thus far77 whereby two grave difficulties are present in the pursuance of this project of two separate types, although each has its repercussion on the other.
(a)
—The chief obstruction lies in the divergence in the replies particularly in the matter of the reservations and in the interdependence of the action involved. Note may especially be taken of Italy’s reply upon which position at least six other states have made their action depend (Consulate’s 99, paragraph 378). This goes beyond a mere matter of technicalities; the implications are of the present unreadiness or a basic unwillingness on the part of a number of important states to institute an embargo. In respect of this difficulty, while a large number of separate factors have become known [Page 254] to me it is impossible for me from this point in any comprehensive or satisfactory way to distinguish as to its causes in which so many states are involved between genuine practical considerations, a basic opposition to the embargo either for immediate commercial reasons or as an unwelcome precedent, or because of less evident political interests (Consulate’s 89, paragraph 5;79 and 98, paragraph 580).
(b)
—With respect to League procedure it will have been noted that it has been conducted under a scheme devised to obviate certain technical difficulties (Consulate’s 8581). It was seen at the outset that favorable Council action would be exceedingly difficult to obtain not only because of the unanimity rule vis-à-vis the evident attitude of Bolivia and Paraguay but more fundamentally because it was undoubtedly known to Council leaders that the position taken by important Council states in response to 1933 embargo proposals would be maintained in respect of the present proposals. The receipt of the formal replies only confirms this and renders evident that any Council action which must be predicated on the common denominator of all the replies received would be worthless as a practical embargo measure. While conducted under the aegis of the League and theoretically under League procedures it was seen that in essence it was a “matter for individual states”. The inconsistencies in this situation in my mind militate against incisive action. The Committee of Three cannot divest itself of the fact that it is a Council Committee. Although close questions are involved a good case can be made that the embargo proposal itself and action envisaged thereunder do not harmonize with or are perhaps even subversive of various provisions of the Covenant. Note Bolivia’s repeatedly expressed position in this respect which I have reported and the attitude Czechoslovakia (Consulate’s 85) and doubtless of other League states, an open statement of which would undoubtedly be made were the matter forced to an issue in a League body. Again in objections of this character it is extremely difficult to determine the underlying motives.
3.
The technical problems discussed above are those which the Commission of Jurists have before them and the political and practical problems those which the Committee of Three must consider during the coming week.
4.
The situation is so uncertain that it is impossible for me to forecast developments. In my opinion, however, what is fundamentally required as in all such cases here to bring this matter to a successful issue is a strong and unequivocal position taken by the great powers in the League.
5.
For reasons which I have indicated as related to the League itself, and for practical reasons respecting the embargo, preoccupations are current to the effect that unless some satisfactory advance can shortly be made here to disembarrass the League of this problem and to arrange if possible for some important League state to take the matter in hand and to conduct the affair under an enhanced freedom of action, the point of departure for such action on the part of such a state might be made to rest primarily on practical and humanitarian considerations.
Gilbert
  1. Consulate’s telegram No. 134, June 4, 5 p.m., reported that Luxemburg accepted without conditions (724.3415/3791).
  2. May 28, 2 p.m., p. 247.
  3. May 22, 3 p.m., p. 242.
  4. May 28, noon, p. 245.
  5. May 19, midnight, p. 239.