'League of Nations, Conference for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, Geneva, 17th June 1925' [‎48r] (102/138)

7
made of the Press to advertise the French efforts in the cause of Disarmament
and Peace-so far as these might be promoted by an Arms Traffic Convention
--and whether under tne guidance of the French delegation or not, the
French Fress did not refrain from misrepresenting the attitude of others for
the purpose o showing the French position, by contrast, in a more favourable
light, indeed, the British delegation found it necessary to reinforce itself
with the services of a publicity officer, in order to combat these activities on
on the part of the French Press.
This desire of the French delegation to impress public opinion brought
about a curious situation ; for under its influence the delegates were urging
With all their power that the Convention must take cognisance of and deal
with that most formidable engine of modern warfare, the aeroplane, at the
very time that the French Government were expounding to the British
-•Government, in connection with the China Arms Embargo, the theory (which
the British delegation was energetically propounding at Geneva) that, since
aircraft designed for purel}^ peaceful service are indistinguishable in their
essential qualities from aircraft useful for war, it is impracticable to legislate
for aircraft as engines of war.
In regard to aspects of Arms Traffic Control which are a matter of less
general public interest and offer less scope for advertisement, the French
delegation showed less overt devotion to the general cause.
12. M. Dupriez, the chief Belgian delegate, had been one of the (c) The Belgian
Tapporteuvs of the Temporary Mixed Commission, and was inconsequence delegation,
much to the fore in the recent Conference. Having shown to his satisfaction
that Belgium, though admittedly an arms-producing country, manufactures
only weapons designed for personal defence or sport, he devoted most of his
energies, as did his colleague, to obstructing any proposal that tended in any
degree to limit complete freedom of trade in weapons of this description.
The Belgian delegates did not sign the Convention; their reason being that,
as the Belgian Government had just fallen, they did not feel at liberty in
any way to commit its successor.
13. The Japanese delegation, of which M. Matsuda was the leader—a (d) Others: the
lawyer who brought to the discussions in which he took part a notable Japanese,
degree of precision of thought and diction—maintained a somewhat impassive kalian, and
attitude, though in general they tended to support the British point of view s Panish dele-
in questions of major importance. So did the Italian delegates, especially gatl0ns -
in regard to the inclusion in the scope of the Convention of warships and
aircraft, and on questions relating to the special zones; in this last
connection the British and Indian delegations could always rely confidently
■ on the vote of M. Chimienti.
Senor de Palacios, the chief delegate for Spain, proved himself an
r admirable Chairman of the Geographical Committee, combining courtesy
and patience with skill in fixing upon the essential point under debate, and
preventing discussion from wandering too far from it. In the General
Committee and in the plenary sessions of the Conference he displayed no
less skill in indicating means for reconciling conflicting points of view ; and
as Spain apparently had no particular axe to grind in the Conference, he
was the more able to devote himself on all ocasions to the task of mediation.
Of the other delegates and their general attitude there is no need to make
particular mention, save, perhaps, of Tewfik Bey, the Turkish delegate, who
in the closing stages of the Conference made no secret of his intention not
to sign the Convention, which in his view went much too far in the
direction of limiting the power of Governments of non-producing countries
4o acquire such armament as they feel desirable.
14. The Conference opened with a series of four plenary sessions on (iii) The course
4th, 5th, and 6th May; the Conference then resolved itself into a General of the Con-
Committee (comprised of a single delegate—or substitute- from each of the fei:,e nce.
participant delegations), by which the Temporary Mixed Commission's draft
was discussed article by article, and amendments put forward by the various
delegations, including those comprised in the " British draft," were debated
on broad lines and referred for more detailed consideration to one or more
of the technical committees set up by the Bureau of the Conference, namely,