Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Article 6. In the discussion of this article I am happy to report a certain measure of achievement. The Japanese delegate could not agree to the inclusion of the remark following this article although Mr. Cadogan did so agree. I thereupon asked the Japanese delegate whether his instructions were definite. He replied that they were. I then stated that my Government had no desire to take such an unbending position in this debate that it would cause difficulties to other governments and make it impossible for them to accept; that I was able to show a certain measure of conciliation in this matter if it was essential, but I pointed out to the Japanese delegate that he was alone in his opposition to the inclusion of this additional information and begged him to consult his Government again as to whether, in view of the circumstances, they would not alter his instructions. In the final meeting Mr. Sato reported that he withdrew his opposition and that therefore the additional information could be inserted. I should like to emphasize at this time the continuous endeavor of the Japanese delegate to meet our point of view as far as his instructions permitted.

The Italian delegate was anxious to adopt in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the phraseology of the Washington Treaty, at least not to adopt any phraseology which delayed publication more than that provided for in the Washington Treaty. The Chairman appointed a subcommittee composed of the naval experts of Italy, France and England to redraft Article 6 satisfactorily. Their redraft is contained in Document C. F. A. 29. In presenting its report, the subcommittee explained that the phrase "date of signing the contract” under subheading (a) had been eliminated, since for purposes of state arsenals the signing of the contract did not exist and was a plain absurdity. Furthermore, to require the date of the signing of the contract for manufacture for outside states and not for manufacture for the state itself would be a violation of the principle of equality of treatment between public and private manufacture.

I acquiesced in Article 6 as prepared by the drafting committee, but stated at the same time that I would have to reserve the right to consult our naval authorities as this was in some degree a technical question and should be passed on by experts.

Article 7. No debate.

Article 8. This article was revised to read: "In time of war the application of the present Convention shall be suspended until the restoration of peace as regards belligerents”. Certain reserves were made as will be seen in Document C. F. A. 29.

On the subsequent articles I made the suggestion, which was immediately taken up by Count Bernstorff, that they should be reserved for the final conference, since nothing was to be gained by attempting to work out phraseology on these articles, which dealt merely with the machinery of ratification, notification, etc. The subcommittee accepted this view.

The text of the projected convention as revised by the subcommittee is contained in Document C. F. A. 29.

As I stated in my first paragraph, the Commission was unable to adopt the report of the subcommittee. Document C. F. A. 28 contains the original report of the subcommittee, while Document C. F. A. 28 (1) contains the revised report.

Bearing in mind your instructions in paragraph 6 of No. 354, relative to the publication of full particulars, and desirous that a certain measure of publicity be given to the point of view that full publicity is essential, I took occasion to prepare certain remarks on this subject for the plenary meeting. When it became clear that the Commission would not even transmit the report of the subcommittee to the Council, it became still more necessary, in my opinion, that some expression of this view should be embodied in permanent form in the records of the third session of the Commission. I therefore delivered a speech, the text of which the Department will find in the minutes of the second meeting:81 This speech, as was to be expected, aroused a high measure of satisfaction among those who were advocating a large degree of publicity, but Mr. Massigli, the French Delegate, in taking leave of me after the session, remarked : “I had thought that the elections in the United States were over".

I venture to invite the Department's attention to the advisability of immediate consideration of these questions, and especially of im. mediate study by technical experts of the Belgian proposal in anticipation of the meeting of experts which will presumably be summoned around March 1st. Probably this meeting will shortly be followed by another meeting of the full Commission and therefore I would appreciate the study and preparation of fresh instructions based on the events in the third session at the earliest possible moment. This is particularly necessary in view of the fact that it was decided in the final plenary meeting that full discussion of all the articles of the draft convention will again be opened. I shall submit subsequently various considerations as to the new instructions.

With reference to the latter half of the final paragraph of your 354, I constantly bore in mind your suggestions and venture to submit what can only be impressions. I found that the British delegation made certain concessions in the direction of the draft conventionconcessions which were designed to make possible unanimity in the adoption of a single text. There was, however, no such complete agreement between the British delegate and his French colleague as to prevent them from debating actively certain points on which their views differed. In fact I could find no evidence of a previously prepared common basis on naval matters.

* Of these minutes only an extract containing the speech is printed ; see supra. *C. F. A./29, Geneva, Dec. 7, 1928; submitted by the Sub-Committee.

Concerning the question of war potentials, the Department will note that I have described above Mr. Cadogan's remarks on our reservation to Category IV of Article 1. There was a clear and distinct statement from him that they disliked the inclusion of all aircraft in this category because of the fact that this might cause the acceptance of a definition that commercial aviation was an implement of war. I have [etc.]

Hugh R. WILSON

(Enclosure)

Revised l'ext of the Preliminary Draft Convention for the Super

vision of the Private Manufacture and Publicity of the Manufacture of Arms, Ammunition and of Implements of War

82

PREAMBLE

(To be drawn up by the Conference or at the next session of the special Commission).

Categories

ARTICLE 1

(The same as Chapter I of the Convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms). Remarks

1. The Belgian Delegation has made a reservation with regard to the advisability of a further study being made of these categories.

2. The Delegation of the United States of America reserved the right to propose for incorporation in the final text of the Convention, a statement limiting the material of Category IV of Article 1 to aircraft and aircraft engines manufactured under military specifications within their territory or jurisdiction, either on their own behalf or on behalf of the Government of another State.

By the term “manufactured under military specifications”, it means both material manufactured for purely military purposes and material manufactured for commercial purposes, but on specifications designed to make it capable of military use.

The Delegations of Germany and the Netherlands associate themselves with this reservation.

Supervision and Publicity

ARTICLE 2

(No modification).

ARTICLE 3

The High Contracting Parties undertake not to permit, in the territory under their jurisdiction, the private manufacture as defined in Article 2 of the articles included in Categories I, II, III and IV. unless the manufacturers thereof are licensed by the Government to manufacture the articles referred to in this article.

This licence shall be valid for a period to be determined individually by each High Contracting Party, and shall be renewable for a further period at the discretion of the Government. Remarks

The Delegation of the United States of America recalled its declaration of principle made previously to the effect that its Government is powerless to prescribe or enforce prohibition or a system of licences upon private manufacture which takes place under the jurisdiction of the States which form the Union of the Government of the United States.

ARTICLE 4

The High Contracting Parties undertake to transmit to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or to publish within two months after the close of each quarter beginning on the first day of January, April, July and October, a list of the licences granted or renewed during that quarter, together with: (a) A description of the war material for which the licence is

granted; () The name and address of the registered or head office of

the licensees and the period for which the licence has been granted.

ARTICLE 5

The High Contracting Parties further undertake to transmit to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or to publish annually, a return showing the total production, in value, of the private manufactures licensed in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, in respect of each of the twelve headings of Category I (A and B), of the four headings of Category II (A and B), of the two headings of Category IV, set out in Article I of the present Con. vention.

The provisions of the foregoing paragraph shall also apply to the production of the material manufactured for it in establishments of which the State is the sole proprietor, or in any other establishment on behalf of the State.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to transmit to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, or to publish, the text of the provisions of all statutes, orders or regulations in force within their territory dealing with articles covered by Categories I, II and IV. All provisions enacted for the purpose of carrying out the present Convention and all amendments and additions to such statutes, orders, regulations and provisions shall also be published, or transmitted to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations. Remarks

1. Certain Delegations made the reservation that in order to be effective and to satisfy the requirements of the Assembly's resolution of September 24th, 1927, publicity should be prescribed in terms of weight and (or) number and value.

2. Certain Delegations were of opinion that as regards State manufacture, publicity should be given in terms of total value per category and that publicity in regard to State manufacture must be brought into line with the general conditions which will be laid down by the Convention for the Limitation of Armaments.

Certain Delegations, while accepting that remark, consider that it must not be interpreted in such a way as to subordinate the convening of a Conference on Private Manufacture to that of the General Conference on the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments.

3. The French Delegation, while abstaining from voting upon this Article, stated that its Government was ready to consider in regard to the State manufactures referred to in the present Article, any publicity corresponding to the supervised limitations which may be fixed by the Convention for the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments.

ARTICLE 6 The High Contracting Parties, in all cases covered by Category III, undertake to publish as soon as possible, and in any case not later than within two months after the close of each quarter beginning on January 1st, April 1st, July 1st and October 1st, the return for that quarter, giving the information detailed below for each vessel of war constructed, in the course of construction, or to be constructed within their territorial jurisdiction. (a) The date of laying the keel, and the following data :

Standard displacement in tons and metric tons; the principal dimensions, namely, length at water-line, extreme beam at or below water-line and main draft at standard displacement;

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »