Armament > Committee for the regulation of the trade in, and private and state manufacture of, arms and implements of war

- 9 -
delegation, which had enabled these definite proposals to be put forward. They were based
(1) on the principle of national responsibility for the manufacture of and trade in arms and
(2) on that of equality of treatment for private and State manufacture. With regard to the
former, the United Kingdom delegate pointed out that for some years Government control
over the export of arms and implements of war had existed in the United Kingdom. He
was sure, therefore, that the United Kingdom would examine the present proposals with
the greatest sympathy. As some of them were new, however, the United Kingdom delegation's
approval of the report and draft articles should not be regarded as prejudging the attitude
of the United Kingdom Government with regard to the proposals contained therein.
Mr. Wilson (United States of America) said that the United States delegation was very
grateful for the Chairman’s remarks. His observations had been reflected in the statements
of other delegations, and Mr. Wilson thanked them cordially. The Chairman of the Sub-
Committee was to be congratulated, as well as the members, who had shown a real community
of ideas. That was one of the most satisfactory events in the history of the Conference. As
the Chairman had said, one of the difficulties encountered in the past had been the great
complexity of the problem and the multiplicity of suggestions for its solution. Much time had
had to be devoted to finding a sound basis, not because the Governments had shown any
reluctance to establish control or to admit that it was necessary, but because they had not
been unanimous as to the means of achieving the desired results.
The Committee had before it a draft which was somewhat austere, surprisingly simple, and
the United States representative greatly appreciated that feature. Thanks to it, the question
would really be understood by the man in the street and it would be possible to create a public
opinion able to press for the acceptance and operation of the draft articles in a practical spirit.
Apart from its other advantages, the draft would greatly contribute towards establishing
that feeling of security which was so important to many States. The fact that what was
happening in a neighbouring country with regard to the manufacture of arms was known and
that any preparation for a surprise attack would certainly be disclosed would increase that
feeling of security. In addition, the adoption of the draft articles would facilitate the work of
the delegations in a more general sphere. There was no need for him to enter into details, but
a number of technical difficulties would be solved once the draft articles were adopted.
Like M. Aubert, the representative of the United States felt that control should be stricter
and that the various factors in control should be co-ordinated. He merely expressed the hope
that the character of control and the complementary features it was desired to add to that idea
would not modify and attenuate the strictness and striking simplicity of the draft articles.
Lastly, he hoped that the States that had been unable to send representatives to the present
discussions would regard the draft as acceptable and would feel able to support it.
For those reasons, Mr. Wilson had no hesitation in approving the Chairman’s draft on
behalf of the United States delegation.
General Burhardt-Bukacki (Poland) thought it necessary at so important a stage in the
proceedings to confirm the Polish delegation’s attitude as explained on many occasions in the
General Commission, the Bureau and the present Committee. Its attitude had never altered :
it was based mainly on two fundamental considerations.
In the first place, the Polish delegation had always felt that it would be impossible to find
a reasonable solution for the problem of material without at the same time solving that of the
manufacture of and trade in arms—that was to say, the question of the construction and
renewal of material.
Secondly, the Polish delegation had never under-estimated the dangers arising out of the
private manufacture of and trade in implements of war. It had even advocated the
nationalisation of private arms factories. As some delegations had thought that solution went
too far, it now desired, with the other members of the Committee, to devise an adequate
instrument to deal with the control of private manufacture and trade.
It was obvious, in the light of these two considerations, that the Polish delegation had
always been and still was prepared to go as far as the other delegations represented on the
Committee. In any event, it felt that the regulation of the manufacture of and trade in arms
—which was one of the Conference’s principal tasks—must necessarily cover two factors :
the recognition of State responsibility for everything that happened on its territory in that
connection, and the acceptance of international control both over private manufacture and
trade, and over manufacture, export and import on behalf of the State.
The text approved by the Sub-Committee on Manufacture was based on these two factors.
The Polish delegation repeated what it had said in the Sub-Committee—namely, that the text
met with its complete approval.
He desired to emphasise the importance of the fact that, except for a few general reserva¬
tions of which everyone was aware, the Sub-Committee had unanimously accepted the text. It
was the first time that had occurred in the history of the present Committee, which up to that
time had always been torn between two opposing views that had sometimes seemed