26 ADVANTAGE OF DISCUSSION. on the subject of aircraft and gas. These questions were not regarded as easy. It did not seem fitting to call a conference for the limitation of armament and not to consider these questions. Any attempt to define a limit for military forces would be in vain. He did not believe that it could be done at that time. Each nation would do that for itself under the pressure of its own people. Even if the committee were not able to agree on a detailed statement in respect, for instance, to aircraft, still it could show that it was giving such subjects extensive consideration. It was known how established rules on international law had been blown to pieces. Some expression of the opinion of the civilized world in this regard should be made in the conference. Mr. Root said he wished to suggest an idea in connection with those so ably and appropriately expressed. It was this: Whether the committee succeeded or not in reaching a definite conclusion upon any matter connected with the limitation of land armament, sincere and practical consideration and discussion of the subject would itself greatly relieve the situation and furnish the committee with a base from which some advance, not otherwise possible, might be made thereafter. The mere ascertaining of the obstacles in the way was itself a step in advance, changing vague and indefinite impressions, regarding matters to which they had not addressed their minds, into definite ascertainment of the particular reasons why a definite agreement could, or could not, be reached. This might bring many minds to a consideration of methods which would lead to future progress. Many failures preceded almost every success. The clear and cogent statement by Mr. Briand in the plenary session of the particular situation which would satisfy France—still bearing the heavy burden of a great army--would of itself create a new situation by carrying a definite concept to the millions of minds which are the backgrounds to the governments of the world. It was impossible to do more now toward the reduction of land forces than to set those minds to working out ways of overcoming obstacles. That was no slight advantage in the world of democracies. The committee might rest assured that, if it went on with the consideration of the problems of land armament, it was accomplishing something very useful, even though it did not reach an agreement. The chairman pointed out that one of two courses was open to the committee in order to get on with its work. In the first place, it might refer to the committee on program and procedure (composed of the heads of the five powers) the subject of land armament and of new agencies of warfare, or else appoint a special committee to take up the different phases of the subject. Or, as a second solution, it might now proceed to take up the subject, provided, of course, that it was desired to take up the COMMITTEES PROPOSED. 27 He then sug discussion of particular subjects then and there. gested that attention be focused on the particular points that had to do with the progress of the committee's work. Sir Robert Borden said that surely no member of the committee would think of imposing upon France, the victim of two unprovoked attempts in the last 50 years, any conditions that her people would regard as obnoxious. Yet he ventured to express the hope that the Government of France might, in the early. future, find conditions so developed as to enable her to reduce her military preparations even below the point suggested by Mr. Briand. That, however, was by the way. He now wished to emphasize the point that the minds of all the people of the world were concentrated on the conference and its works, and that the members of the conference would be left in a very unfortunate situation if they took the position that they could not discuss the reduction of land armament. That discussion must take place, with due regard to what had been urged by France. The stability of the public opinion of the world and the return to normal conditions depended upon the progress made with this question as well as with others. The situation was difficult, but it seemed to him that this condition could be best met by a conference between the heads of the different delegations. He ventured to express the hope that a clear solution might be arrived at. The chairman now formally asked what disposition it was desired to make of the matter. Lord Lee said that it was in the power of any State to say what it liked about any subject or to decline to discuss any subject. If that were a general right, it was certainly France's right, but he was inclined to think that that should not preclude other States from discussing what they wanted. Mr. Briand stated that the French delegation was ready to appoint three subcommittees: One on aircraft, one on gases, and the third on subjects relating to the laws of war. With a definite program in hand, these subjects might be taken up. In the same way the question of naval armaments had been approached with a definite program in view. In regard to the general question, Mr. Briand repeated that he needed certain further explanations. What was to be discussed? A limitation of armament? Matters of effectives and war matériel? France could not appoint an expert to take part in a committee of that nature. If a definite proposal of collaboration were advanced, if it were a question of establishing in common an international force with the duty of maintaining order, well and good-disarmament might be considered. If the peoples of the earth were as eager as was claimed to see armaments limited, their representatives had only to say: A danger exists; we recognize it; we will share it with you shoulder to shoulder; here is our signature. In that case France 28 REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE. would fully agree to consider the problem of the limitation of armaments. But up to that time no such proposal had been heard, and along those lines nothing but declarations had yet appeared. France had realities to deal with; she had suffered from them 5 years ago and 50 years ago. A French administration which should enter upon the course into which certain members of the conference would entice it would be false to its mandate. Mr. Briand had received from the French Parliament a very explicit mandate; France might agree to any reductions of armament, if her safety were guaranteed. If she were alone, she could agree to nothing. Mr. Briand said he must, then, either disobey his mandate or call upon his colleagues to reflect upon the gravity of the problem. He had the right to demand precise information as to the contemplated discussions. If a definite program were presented, France was ready to discuss it; but no such program could be laid down. There were but two solutions: Either to confirm the existing situation and let it go at that, or else to say to France, "We will join forces; here is our signature." These words, Mr. Briand said, he would hear with the greatest satisfaction, but up to that time they had not been uttered. No nation facing a question of life or death could present the problem otherwise. When the enemy was at the door, when one saw one's country torn asunder, 600,000 homes destroyed, factories leveled to the ground, thousands of peasants living in holes, the soil itself laid waste, when through the streets passed 2,000,000 of crippled men and under the ground lay 1,500,000 dead, that was not a platonic situation, and one did not discuss aspirations, but realities. No statesman aware of his responsibilities would present the question otherwise. Senator Lodge believed that the best and most practical plan would be to refer the matter to the committee on program and procedure, with power to arrange subcommittees on aeronautics, poison gases, and the law of nations. The chairman inquired if that were agreeable, and the committee unanimously assented. Senator Schanzer said that since he had had the opportunity to mention the States of central Europe which had been created since the war, and in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, he wished to make a formal statement that, not only did Italy not consider them as foes, but that she looked upon them as friendly States; that she was the enemy of no people, having no reasons for conflict with any nation whatsoever. He would further add that the Italian delegation agreed to the proposal to submit the question to the committee on program and procedure. The chairman said that it was then 1 o'clock and suggested that the committee adjourn subject to the call of the Chair. The committee would meet after lunch and after the full membership of the committee on Pacific and far eastern questions had been consulted. The communiqué was then prepared: CONFERENCE ON THE LIMITAT.ON OF ARMAMENT. (For the Press. November 23, 1921.) The committee on the subject of the Limitation of Armament met at the Pan American Building at 10.30 this morning. All the members were present except Baron Shidehara and Signor Meda. After a general discussion of the subjects relating to land armament and new agencies of warfare, these were referred to the subcommittee consisting of the heads of the delegations with instructions to bring in an order of procedure with regard to these subjects and with power to appoint subcommittees to deal with the questions relating to poison gas, aircraft, and rules of international law. THIRD MEETING, COLUMBUS ROOM, PAN AMERICAN UNION BUILDING, MONDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1921, 1 P. M. PRESENT. United States.-Mr. Hughes, Senator Lodge, Mr. Root. Accompanied by Mr. Wright. British Empire.-Mr. Balfour, Lord Lee, Sir Auckland Geddes, Senator Pearce (for Australia), Sir John Salmond (for New Zealand), Mr. Sastri (for India). Accompanied by Sir Maurice Hankey, Mr. Lampson. Accom France.-Mr. Viviani, Mr. Sarraut, Mr. Jusserand. The secretary general. Accompanied by Mr. Cresson. 1. The third meeting of the Committee on Limitation of Armament was held in the Columbus Room of the Pan American Union Building on Monday, December 12, 1921, at 1 p. m. 2. The following were present for the United States, Mr. Hughes, Senator Lodge, Mr. Root; for the British Empire, Mr. Balfour, Lord Lee, Sir Auckland Geddes, Senator Pearce (for 30 TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. Australia), Sir John Salmond (for New Zealand), Mr. Sastri (for India); for France, Mr. Viviani, Mr. Sarraut, Mr. Jusserand; for Italy, Senator Schanzer, Senator Albertini; for Japan, Admiral Baron Kato, Prince Tokugawa, Mr. Hanihara. . 3. Secretaries and advisers present included the following for the United States, Mr. Wright; for the British Empire, Sir Maurice Hankey, Mr. Lampson; for France, Mr. Kammerer, Mr. Massigli, Mr. Garnier, Mr. Duchène; for Italy, Marquis ViscontiVenosta, Mr. Fileti, Mr. Cora, Mr. Giannini; for Japan, Mr. Saburi, Mr. Saito, Mr. Ichihashi. The secretary general, assisted by Mr. Cresson, was present. Mr. Camerlynck and Mr. Talamon (interpreters) were also present. 4. All the members being present at a previous meeting of the Pacific and far eastern committee, the chairman, Mr. Hughes, called a meeting of the Committee on Limitation of Armament to discuss a change of procedure. The chairman referred to the subcommittee which had been appointed by the Committee on Limitation of Armament to deal with the questions of naval armament and to which certain persons had been appointed in order to benefit by their expert advice. He now suggested that this procedure be modified and that in its place a subcommittee be appointed consisting of the heads of delegations, and in addition, as representing each delegation, a civilian (who might or might not be a delegate), and a naval expert. The chairman stated that this suggestion had been made with the object of obtaining expert advice and expediting decisions by the principal delegates at the same time. Senator Schanzer asked whether he was to understand that the decisions of this committee were to be referred to the plenary committee or whether it was a mere change in subcommittee. The chairman stated that he believed the latter to be the sense of the committee. Mr. Hanihara asked whether it was in order to bring only one naval expert, in which case he desired that Baron Kato be accompanied by an interpreter. The chairman then ruled that interpreters would not count in this matter and could attend. Senator Schanzer asked whether in place of a civil and technical delegate he might bring two technical delegates. The chairman stated that the permission allowed was for a delegate, a naval expert, and a civilian. Mr. Balfour stated that the British Empire delegation would be composed of Lord Lee, Mr. Balfour, and Admiral Chatfield. The chairman stated that the American delegation would consist of himself, Col. Roosevelt, and Admiral Coontz. |