Armament > Conference for the control of the international trade in arms, munitions and implements of war

46
Count Bonin-Longare asked Viscount Cecil not to insist on pressing his proposals to a vote.
Viscount Cecil had concentrated the substance of several treaties into these proposals. They
had a very wide scope and were sufficiently serious to require careful consideration. Personally,
he would be extremely embarrassed if he were required to give an opinion on these proposals
at that meeting. He was not opposed to them for the moment, but he had not as yet formed
any definite views. He thought they might well be referred to the Sub-Commission for consi¬
deration.
He accepted the first of the resolutions presented by M. Jouhaux, and he was not for the
moment opposed to the second.
The second resolution, however, appeared to contain within it the germ of an international
control and should also, he thought, be referred to the Sub-Commission/
Viscount Cecil hoped that Count Bonin-Longare would reconsider his attitude. He would
not press to-night for a vote on the proposals which he had presented. They could be taken
up after the draft treaties had been considered on the following day. He would point out that
his proposals contained nothing which was not already laid down in the Convention of Saint Germain,
with the exception of the clause relating to belligerents, which he was prepared to withdraw!
He thought it would be a distinct advantage to lay down the principles of action for the guidance
of the Sub-Commission. This would assist the Sub-Commission in its work and create a better
impression outside. He would ask Count Bonin-Longare whether he could not at a later meeting
of the session assent to the proposals which he had submitted. He also thought that the proposals
of the resolutions of M. Jouhaux should be put to the vote.
The Chairman said it would not be taken as indicating any lack of good-will if the Com¬
mission refused a vote on the proposals presented by Viscount Cecil. Some of these proposals
might at once be accepted; others — for example, the second and third — in effect anticipated
the draft treaty and needed very careful consideration. The third proposal assumed the existence
of a control of arms. Such proposals were at the basis of the schemes which had to be examined
and there would seem to be no reason why they should be treated differently from the material
on which the Commission would hold its preliminary exchange of views.
He proposed, as Chairman, that these proposals should be sent to the Sub-Committee. If,
however, the Commission wished to vote upon them at once, he would personally find it necessary
to abstain. As to the resolutions of M. Jouhaux, the first might be accepted by the Commis¬
sion, but the second was, in fact, an anticipation of the control to be set up by the treaty.
8. Decision to refer the Vote to the Next Meeting.
He proposed that this resolution should also be referred to the Sub-Commission and that
only a general discussion upon it should be taken in the plenary Commission. He asked Viscount
Cecil and M. Jouhaux whether they wished to press for an immediate vote.
Viscount Cecil said he was not asking the Commission to vote upon his proposals at that
meeting. He would prefer to wait until the schemes before the Commission had been read.
It might then be decided whether his proposals contained any contentious matter.
M. Jouhaux did not insist on an immediate vote, but it was understood that the question
whether a vote should be taken would be decided at a later meeting.
The Chairman said that, in these circumstances, the question whether a vote should be taken
on these proposals was postponed to a later meeting. This decision applied equally to the pro¬
posals of Viscount Cecil and the resolutions of M. Jouhaux.
FIFTH MEETING
held on Wednesday, February 6th, 1924, at 10.30 a.m.
9. Statement by the Representative of the United States of America.
Mr. Grew desired to make clear the position of the United States with regard to certain
points which had arisen at a previous discussion in order that there should be no doubt as to his
position on the Sub-Committee which would shortly discuss the schemes before the Commission
and in which he had been asked to participate. ' yj
The letter of December 14th, 1923, from the Acting-President of the Council to the Secretary
of .State of the United States, in which Resolution IV {a) of the last Assembly was quoted, had
invited the United States to participate in the work of the Commission. The resolution of the
Assembly had stated that the Temporary Mixed Commission was requested to draw up a draft
convention or conventions to replace that of St. Germain for the control of the traffic in arms
and that this convention should be in such a form that it could be accepted by the Governments
of all countries which produced arms or munitions of war.
One of the points which the Temporary Mixed Commission had discussed and which would
also be discussed by the Sub-Committee was the organisation of a central international office