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

— II
With regard to this article, and in connection with paragraph 9 of the report, M. Palacios
drew attention to what he had said in the Sub-Committee ; it was desirable, in the articles in
laws, conventions and contracts to omit the considerations, which should rightfully be placed
in the preamble that usually accompanied them, or left to commentators. The actual text of
the articles should contain only the operative part of an instrument. That was why M. Palacios
had proposed to make no specific reference to “ public international order ”, in Article A.
The Chairman thanked the delegates for their friendly remarks. As delegate of Poland,
he was glad to have had an opportunity of presiding over such fruitful debates. In view of the
importance of the statements that had been made, it would be advisable to append the Minutes
of the meeting to the text to be transmitted to the President of the Conference for distribution
to all the States taking part in the Conference.
Colonel Ali Khan Riazi (Persia) paid a tribute to the breadth of outlook displayed by the
United States delegation, whose bold suggestion had given a new impulse to the Conference.
As representative of a country that imported arms, he was glad that the question of equality
of treatment between producing and non-producing countries had been settled.
He asked, however, that the second sentence of paragraph 6 of the report might be
amended as follows :
“It is the field of manufacture which has been the subject of more especial study,
seeing that, as regards trade in arms, the text of the 1925 Convention, which it was decided
during previous discussions to revise and adapt to the needs of the Disarmament
Convention, has to some extent been amended in the Sub-Committee on Trade (see its
report—documents Conf.D./C.C.F.qo and 40(a), May 27th and 30th, 1933) and that, as
regards the definition of categories of arms, publicity and other restrictions on the trade
in arms, the said Sub-Committee should await the result of the work of the Sub-Committee
on Manufacture before establishing a final text for the Convention on the Trade in Arms.”
The Chairman regretted that the Persian delegation had not handed in its amendment
before the meeting. It would be very difficult to discuss it now. Perhaps it would suffice if
the statement just made were recorded in the Minutes, Moreover, the present text did not in
any way prejudge, either in a positive or negative sense, the question of the revision of the
1925 Convention. On the contrary, it stressed the fact that the re-drafting of that Convention
had already been undertaken by the Sub-Committee on the Trade in Arms. All the questions
reserved in its last report were still reserved.
Colonel Ali Khan Riazi (Persia) said that he had been unable to hand in his amendment
earlier, as he had only received the report at midday. The passage in paragraph 6 to which he
objected read : “... seeing that there exists already the Convention of 1925, ratified
by several States ”
This revision, which the League Assembly had referred to the Disarmament Conference,
had been decided on the basis of the report of the Committee for the Regulation of the Trade
in, and Private and State Manufacture of, Arms and Implements of War (document Conf.D.
145) which contained in its conclusions the following statement: “ it is already agreed
that the 1925 Convention concerning trade in arms will have to be revised ”. In view of this
decision, the part relating to land and sea zones had been examined in detail in this report,
but the study of the categories of arms and publicity had been held over until the question of
manufacture had been settled.
Since paragraph 6 did not mention this important decision, the Persian delegate could not
approve it, especially as the Convention in question did not exist for Persia.
Necmeddin Sadik Bey (Turkey) supported the Persian delegate.
M. Gorg6 (Switzerland) thought that the Persian delegate might be given satisfaction by
making a slight change in paragraph 6 of the report. It was perhaps a mistake to lay too much
emphasis on the still-born Convention of 1925, which many of the signatory States—Switzer¬
land, for example—would not ratify so long as there was no convention on manufacture. The
Swiss delegate suggested the deletion of the words ‘ ‘ there exists already the Convention of
1925—ratified by several States—and ” ; the second sentence of paragraph 6 would then read
as follows :
“ However, it is the field of manufacture which has been the subject of more especial
study, seeing that, as regards trade in arms, the adaptation of the Convention of 1925 to the
needs of the Disarmament Conference has already been studied in the Sub-Committee
on Trade (see its report—documents Conf.D./C.C.F.qo and 40(a), dated May 27th and
30th, 1933—Annex 6 to document Conf.D.160).”
In view of the Chairman’s assurance that the questions left in suspense in the report of the
Sub-Committee on Trade (documents Conf.D./C.C.F.qo and 40(a)), already approved by the
plenary Committee and the General Commission, still remained in suspense in particular the