500.A15A4 General Committee (Arms)/256: Telegram
The American Delegate (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received April 13—3:25 p.m.]
1035. The draft report conference document71 which follows the outline contained in my 1034, April 11 [10], 9 p.m., was adopted in Plenary Session by the Committee this morning. Copies will be mailed immediately to the Department.72
Henderson was present at the session and addressed a few words of appreciation of the work accomplished. He hoped that the second reading could begin at an early date when circumstances would permit but made no specific proposal for further meetings. He will devote the next 3 days to discussing the prospects for a meeting of the Bureau with the delegates to the Council.
[Page 47]The Canadian delegate explained that he had received instructions from his Government to accept the principles of inspection on the spot, transit licenses, distinction of treatment between civil and military aircraft and publicity of orders.
In a brief statement I proposed the adoption of the report indicating that I still felt that the middle road proposed in our draft, the essential features of which are contained in the middle column of the Committee draft, offer the best hope of eventual success. This draft contains the elements of solution and the next step is up to the governments to find the grounds for agreement.
Aubert developed at considerable length the “maxima list” position with respect to the draft. In other words the position of the French delegation is that through this convention they may obtain enough information respecting the future of other people’s armaments to enable them to meet any presumptive threat of aggression. For this reason they feel that the middle ground is objectionable in that the publicity envisaged therein is too long delayed and maintain their thesis which in our opinion goes beyond the limited objectives of this treaty.
Stevenson,73 who followed him, reviewed in an impressive fashion the British proposals for a simplified scheme which his Government considers the maximum accord possible at the present time and appealed earnestly to the governments concerned not to take the responsibility of another failure by insisting upon a more ambitious program which certain states could not accept. He urged them to adopt the scheme outlined by Stanhope in the early days of the Committee’s work as being the only generally acceptable scheme. He was superseded in this contention by the Polish and Italian delegates. The Japanese delegate stated “that if his Government was compelled to choose between the two conceptions of a treaty it would choose the British”.
The Soviet representative backed the French proposals.
The representatives of Sweden, Switzerland and Spain advocated a compromise between the two schools of thought.
Nearly all the members of the Committee recognized the impossibility of continuing the work at present and will accept postponement of the second reading until the governments have had an opportunity to study the proposals and agree among themselves with the President when will be the most appropriate time for continuing the work with any hope of success.
The Committee has adjourned without any discussion as to a date of convocation.