711.542/16
The Minister in Switzerland (Wilson) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 31.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to the Department’s instruction No. 518 of September 29, 1926,4 and to other correspondence relative to the negotiation of a Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between the United States and Switzerland, and to report that Mr. Motta, Federal Councillor and Chief of the Political Department, took occasion a few days ago to bring up this matter in informal discussion.
Mr. Motta stated that he was about to bring before the Federal Council a projected answer to the American proposal which would take the form of a counter-proposal that we should negotiate separately a Treaty of Friendship and a Treaty of Commerce; this for the sake of clarity and to make it feasible for either Government if it felt so inclined in the future to denounce one or the other as altered conditions might necessitate, without the need for denouncing both. The morning papers today state that his project was accepted by the Council but give no further details.
He then added that he should like to discuss this with me in more detail at some future time and that he had another idea in which he was much interested which he would like to examine with me. He then sketched that idea briefly. The recent arbitration treaty between France and the United States5 is very much to his liking and he would welcome the opportunity to enter into similar negotiations with us but would greatly like to see the addition of some declaration by which the United States would undertake to respect the neutrality of Switzerland. Practically all other great powers have given such an undertaking in accepting the Theory of Versailles particularly with respect to Art. 435.6 He recognized that this was not [Page 896] of great practical importance to us, but to Switzerland it might, in some international cataclysm, be of enormous value to have the moral force of an American declaration in favor of Swiss neutrality.
Mr. Motta suggested that since he was extremely busy at the present time, and since I was shortly leaving for the conference of the Preparatory Commission, we postpone the more detailed discussion until I returned from that conference, whereupon he would explain the counter proposals of the Federal Council and his idea of the neutrality declaration.
The following morning I sent Mr. Motta a letter dated February 25th, of which a copy and translation is enclosed,7 asking for certain elucidation regarding the undertakings of the states signatory to the Versailles Treaty and to the treaties of 1815 relative to Swiss neutrality.8 I append herewith a copy and translation of Mr. Motta’s reply dated March 5th, as well as certain documents listed at the end of this despatch which were transmitted with Mr. Motta’s letter.7
Subsequently Mr. Dinichert, Chief of the Division of Foreign Affairs of the Political Department, raised the question with me and I then inquired of him what he considered the extent of the undertakings of the contracting states in the event that a third state threatened or violated the neutrality of Switzerland. Mr. Dinichert replied that a great deal had been written and said on this question, that the extent of their obligations was not entirely clear. However, it was probable that in a multilateral agreement a state which had undertaken to respect the neutrality of Switzerland and failed to respect that neutrality was thereby violating its treaty obligations not only with Switzerland but with the other contracting states. It appears to me that their obligation is even more specific and I refer to enclosed document No. 1143 (Message of the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly, October 14, 1919, page 51),7 which transcribes “the act recognizing and guaranteeing the perpetual neutrality of Switzerland and the inviolability of its territory, November 20, 1815”. The word “guarantee” is used in the text of the document.
However, we continued the discussion as to the situation of the United States if it undertook in a bilateral treaty the obligation to respect the neutrality of Switzerland. It would appear that such an undertaking might be phrased in such a way that it would carry no [Page 897] obligation on our part to maintain the neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland.
Since Mr. Motta is desirous of postponing further conversations for some weeks it seemed well to apprise the Department in some detail of the course of these conversations and to request guidance from the Department as to what my attitude should be at the time of their renewal. Clearly, in regard to the division of our proposed treaty into two integral parts, I should withhold all comment until I am able to put before the Department the exact nature of this offer. It would, however, be useful I believe to have an indication of the Department’s views as to the neutrality idea. If the Department is of the opinion that such an undertaking might under certain conditions be acceptable to us, it might be well to negotiate all treaties at the same time and thus to utilize our acceptance of a neutrality undertaking as a bargaining measure to counteract the objections which I am given informally to understand are going to be raised by the Swiss Government to certain sections of our draft.
I have [etc.]
- Instruction not printed.↩
- Vol. ii, p. 816.↩
- Malloy, Treaties, 1910–1923, vol. iii, p. 3516.↩
- Not printed.↩
- See declaration in the protocol of the Congress of Vienna, March 19, 1815, signed March 20. 1815. by the eight signatories of the Treaty of Paris, May 30, 1814, namely, Austria, Spain, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden, Annex XI.A. of the Act of June 9, 1815, of the Congress of Vienna, British and Foreign State Papers, vol. ii, pp. 3, 142; act of accession to this declaration by Switzerland on May 27, 1815, Annex XI.B., ibid., p. 147; act of November 20, 1815, signed by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, ibid., vol. iii, p. 359.↩
- Not printed.↩
- Not printed.↩