500.A15A4 Steering Committee/489: Telegram
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 27—12:59 p.m.]
1069. My 1068, September 26, 6 p.m.14 The French are reticent as to exactly what they will propose in the Bureau of the Disarmament Conference. I find the British and other delegations as well as the Secretariat equally unaware in regard to French aims. As near as I can estimate them the French will suggest as a development of the first step of the solution which Delbos16 proposed that the committees on traffic in and manufacture of arms and budgetary publicity be called again into existence to continue their work.
The British tell me that they will be consulted by the French and that they have not changed their attitude as shown in the discussions of February and March 1935. It may be however that the French [intend] to make some offer more capable of acceptance by the British.
I must admit that I find widespread skepticism as to positive results developing from the French initiative. Germany and Italy will be [Page 14] absent from the Bureau. I am convinced after numerous attempts that no document completed in Germany’s absence will gain Germany’s adherence. I can conceive of useful work being done under one hypothesis only, namely, that the French will so modify their attitude on the traffic in and manufacture of arms as to gain the acquiescence of the British. In this case a second reading of the text might be undertaken provided that the work were stopped at the end of that second reading so that Germany and Italy could participate in the final preparation of the treaty text. On the other hand it may well develop that [if?] no modification of the positions in respect to traffic and manufacture is apparent, an attempt will be made to gain agreement on budgetary publicity alone. As you remember although the latter draft was satisfactory to the majority of the committees the United States had grave objections and we had reserved our final position.
The Bureau will presumably be called in the near future and unless you instruct me to the contrary I shall assume that you desire me to attend.
Although the situation is unclear it may be possible to foresee two contingencies. Hypothesis 1: that the French have nothing new to offer other than resumption of the work of the committees. In this event since we were in a large measure responsible for this draft I should be inclined to take the position that the first reading showed such wide divergencies of views that I saw no useful purpose [would] be served in the mere reiteration of these conflicting theses and to ask whether the French or the other delegations could inform me of any change in attitude which would make the work more fruitful now than it was 2 years ago. I make this suggestion because it seems to me that there has developed in the public a certain impatience with repeated fruitless efforts in the field of disarmament.
Hypothesis 2: that the French or any other delegation make a constructive suggestion. In this event I should prefer to consult with you before making our attitude clear at a subsequent meeting of the Bureau.
If, however, you feel that it is advisable that we should support energetically any attempt whatsoever to reopen the subject of disarmament I would appreciate your instructions.