Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1926, Volume I

500.A15/376: Telegram

The American Delegate on the Preparatory Commission (Gibson) to the Secretary of State

Geneva, September 21, 1926—5 p.m.
[Received September 22—12:20 a.m.]

109. My 108, September 21, 2 p.m. The American delegation welcomes the opportunity that is afforded by this plenary meeting of the Preparatory Commission to review the work thus far accomplished and to consider what can be done to contribute to an early and successful conclusion of our task. Our immediate task is to consider how far we have progressed and what, in the light of experience, should be our future course. I venture to submit certain suggestions which in the considered opinion of the American delegation will if accepted contribute to the successful conclusion of our labors and to the achievement of definite results.

Recognizing the complexity of the problems involved, the Preparatory Commission was set up to apply what might be called the laboratory method to a study of general principles upon which further steps could be taken toward disarmament. We are seeking merely to lay the foundation for actual agreements for the limitation and reduction of armaments. I think we are all agreed that one of the essential merits of this form of conference is that it is calculated to permit an unbiased objective examination of all phases of the disarmament problem uninfluenced by the necessity for safeguarding or reconciling special national interests. The American delegation has always assumed that our essential task was to draw up a clear statement of the problem and the methods of approaching it, leaving to a final conference or conferences to take into account the requirements of special national interests. This was clearly indicated in the resolution of the Assembly of the League of Nations adopted on September 25 last year in which it was stated that the Assembly requested the council:

“To make a preparatory study with a view to a conference for the reduction and limitation of armaments in order that as soon as satisfactory conditions have been assured from the point of view general security …⁴ the said conference may be convened and a general reduction and limitation of armaments may be realized.”

Thus it would seem that from the very beginning an effort was made to confine the work of the Preparatory Commission to exploring the problem of disarmament and to leave questions of national interests to be dealt with at a later conference when countries not here represented will have an equal opportunity to present their views.

In our last session we referred a number of questions to our technical committee and it was laid down in the most definite manner that they were to report to us upon the purely technical aspects of those questions. The direction to the subcommittees was in the following language:

“The Commission refers to its technical subcommittees the points stated below in order that it may be informed on the technical aspects of the question submitted to it by the Council. The Commission is alone competent to deal with the political aspects of these questions in the same way that it has sole responsibility for the final answers to be given to these questions.”

I think it was generally believed at the time that this was sufficiently clear but our Military Commission appears consistently to have approached questions from both the political and military points of view and the American delegation cannot but feel that this has led to confusion and has detracted from the value of the subcommittee’s work. This meeting affords a convenient opportunity for us to remedy the situation and I venture to submit for the consideration of the Commission two points calling for our attention.

1. Subcommittee A has considered the effects of political and economic factors on the questions referred to it for technical, military, naval or air advice although both economic and political are reserved for other bodies.

2. In the proceedings of Subcommittee A there has been an effort to limit the views embodied in its reports to majority opinions and in many instances the views of a minority with the majority abstaining. There has been a consequent failure to record in the reports thus far drafted or to prepare for presentation to this Commission the divergent views which have developed. There can be no effective approach to disarmament until all possible methods have been explored. If this Commission is to act in the light of adequate information the advantages and disadvantages of each method should be clearly stated and where no single method is unanimously accepted the divergent views should be submitted in a report to the Preparatory Commission. This would obviate the present tendency to state merely those views which command the greatest number of votes and leave this Commission without knowledge of other views unless those holding them make minority reports.

The American delegation believes that this situation can be remedied and further progress facilitated by specific directions addressed to Subcommittee A to the effect that this Commission desires to receive replies to the questions assigned to that Commission based on expert technical information without regard to political or economic considerations; that if the views of the two delegations are divergent we wish to receive all such views with adequate explanations. Unless some such directions are given I feel apprehensive as to the value of the report which Subcommittee A will eventually draw up as it will not be a purely technical report. And only if we have at our disposal a sound technical report on the various questions which have been referred to Subcommittee A shall we have a safe foundation for taking the next step of considering the various factors of the problem.

In consequence the American delegation proposes that the Preparatory Commission direct Subcommittee A to revise the work thus far done on each question and to present in their replies to all questions the divergent technical views, which should be uninfluenced by political, economic or financial considerations, and should be accompanied by a clear statement of the advantages and disadvantages of each view which is set forth.⁵

We are all of us anxious to achieve positive results. The American delegation has consistently kept in mind the practical object for which we are all working, namely, actual agreements for the limitation of armaments. We are all of us in agreement that it is desirable to reach such actual agreements.

The American delegation believes that the acceptance of its proposals will not only tend greatly to expedite the satisfactory conclusion of our labors but will also give us an adequate foundation for the next phase of our work and finally that it will render possible the calling of a further conference or conferences on the limitation and reduction of armaments at a much earlier date than would otherwise be possible but I believe we all realize that we cannot hope to reach such agreements until we have satisfactorily disposed of the task which has been entrusted to us.

Gibson

4. Omission in the original telegram.

5. In the statement Mr. Gibson made on Sept. 22, this paragraph was replaced by the following:

   “In consequence, the American delegation submits the following proposal:

   “‘With regard to the questions or parts of questions which have not so far been answered by Subcommission A, the Preparatory Commission directs that the former [Sub]commission shall answer those questions on purely technical grounds, uninfluenced by political or economic considerations, and that all divergent views on each question, accompanied by a clear statement of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, shall be furnished to the Preparatory Commission in its report.

   “‘With regard to the questions already dealt with by Subcommission A at first reading, the Preparatory Commission directs that the former [Sub]commission at second reading shall revise the answers to those questions in such a manner that these answers shall be prepared on purely technical grounds, uninfluenced by political or economic considerations, and that all divergent views on each question, accompanied by a clear statement of the relative advantages and disadvantages of each, shall be furnished the Preparatory Commission in its report’”. (File No. 500.A15/375.)