500.A15A4 General Committee (Arms)/186: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 29—7:40 a.m.]
1028. At yesterday’s meeting of the Manufacture Committee the French delegation proposed in the form of a suggestion rather than a definite amendment the insertion of a subparagraph in paragraph B of article 26 providing for the appointment by the regional committees of agents “to reside permanently in the territory of each of the states for which the said committee is competent”. The task of these agents would be to effect on behalf of the committee liaison operations and local inspection including surprise visits. The French delegation explained that this system would be the best form of establishing that permanence of control through which alone equality of treatment between producing and nonproducing states could be effected as otherwise nonproducers would be submitted to a more continuous form of control through customs checks. Aubert appealed to the nonproducing states for support. Moreover he believed that the agents who would be accredited to the local authorities could most effectively prepare the task of the Committee. They would be on the spot to proceed immediately to the investigation of any unexpected development and because they were normally resident in the country would create less friction than the formal annual visit of a relatively large inspection committee.
The Soviet representative felt that the proposal reenforced the system of control but reiterated Russia’s objection to any system that was not accepted by its neighbors. The French suggestion was supported [Page 40] by the Czech, Turkish and Yugoslav delegations but opposed by Great Britain and Poland and both of whom felt that it would be hard to distinguish between such a system and that of automatic and permanent espionage. Moreover the British delegate who is taking part in this debate in a purely objective fashion pointed out that any such proposal went far beyond the conception of control envisaged either in the Bourquin report or in the American draft or ever contemplated by the British Government.63
While explaining that I would of course refer this suggestion to my Government and that I was speaking in a personal capacity, I pointed out the dangers which I saw in this proposal, namely, that the permanent residence of such agents in foreign states would create opportunities for all sorts of friction with the local authorities and I feared such proposal tended to distort the object of the convention which was primarily that the states assume national responsibility for the control of these matters with international supervision to determine the accuracy of the information submitted. The constant checking by these agents runs counter to the fundamental principle of our draft and departs from the middle way whereon appears to be the only hope of achieving a solution. Please advise if I have correctly interpreted your views.
- See note of June 28, 1934, to the President of the Conference, Conference Documents, vol. iii, p. 888 (Official No: Conf. D./C.G. 170).↩