'League of Nations, Conference for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, Geneva, 17th June 1925' [‎60v] (127/138)

3. Other points
in regard to the
special zone.
The American
delegation's
refusal of respon
sibility in regard
to the special
vessels " would equally apply ; the category would comprise all vessels of less
than 500tons hailing from countries having a coastline between longitude 60° E.
and 95° E. Persia has a strip of some 90 miles of coast to the east of 60° E.
and Persian vessels would therefore fall within the category of " local vessels."
It is extremely doubtful whether the proposal would have been in the least
degree acceptable to the Persian delegate,but in any case the subterfuge
was so transparent that if it had been adopted it would have introduced an
element of farce into the Convention, placing, as it did. Great Britain,
through Basidu, and Oman, through Gwadur, in both categories ; and the
Indian delegation declined to be a party to it.
100. The Persian's withdrawal therefore stood. It was a regrettable
occurrence ; but in the circumstances we consider that it was perhaps the
best solution of what was fast becoming an impossible situation. We find
it hard to believe that the Persian Government will endorse the extraordinary
demands formulated by its delegates, or will find any difficulty either in
signing the Convention before 30th September 192G or adhering to it at a
later date, if it is ratified by the requisite number of States.
101. While this protracted struggle with the Persian delegation was in
progress the Geographical Committee had in the intervals carried on its
task of examining the Articles laying down the regime for the special zones
by land and by sea As a rule the " British draft," the work of a delegation
acknowledged to have special interests in, and special experience of the
areas in question, was taken as the basis of discussion ; and, generally
speaking, though constant attempts were made by M. Dupriez, in the
interests of Belgian manufacturers and in the sacred name of Free Trade,
to water down the somewhat stringent rules proposed, the British proposals
were adopted without any important alteration of their substance. A
considerable alteration of form will, however, be noticed; this is the result
of representations by the American delegates, who urged that the
Convention avou M have a better prospect of being accepted by the
American Legislature if its text were not overloaded with minute detail
as to the regulations to be imposed in a part of the world which is of little
concern and less interest to the average American. Chapter III of the new
Convention, therefore, embodies in the text little more than provisions which
are important by reason of a point of principle contained in them: Articles
of pure detail have been relegated so far as possible to annexes, which,
however, are no less binding on High Contracting Parties than the main
text—vide Article 31.
102. The American attitude of aloofness towards questions affecting the
special zones was once more in evidence when the report of the Geographical
Committee and the draft of Chapter III came before the General Committee
on 12th June. Mr. Burton, without previous discussion or notice of his
intention, proposed the addition of an Article laying down that ''High
Contracting Parties which have no territories under their sovereignty,
jurisdiction, protection or tutelage within or adjacent to the special zones
accept no obligation or responsibility" in regard to the administration of
the special zones regime. Sir P. Cox, fearing that the adoption of such a
statement of disassociation might well encourage delegates to abstain from
recording any vot^ on Persia's preposterous claims, which were still to be
considered, and would certainly be misinterpreted in the special zones
themselves as evidence of a lack of solidarity among the authors of the
Convention, suggested that Mr. Burton's object might be better achieved by
a reservation at the time of signature than by an Article in the body of the
Convention. Mr. Burton pressed his point, obtaining support from repre
sentatives of the South American States and also that of the British
delegate, who unfortunately did not appreciate the reasons for the Indian
delegate's intervention. M. de Palacios (Spain) attempted to reconcile the
two points of view; and as a result of his efforts, though the American
amendment w T as adopted in principle, it emerged from the Drafting
Committee in the less objectionable form in which it appears in Article 27.
* He had explained that he did not object to the term "native vessel" as conveying
derogatory meaning.