File 1355/1917 Pt 6 'Arms Traffic Convention: revised convention, 1925' [‎474r] (954/1226)

5
Mr. MA1SUDA (Japan) (translation) : I desire, in the first place, to express
the very great importance which the Japanese Government attaches to the present
conference for the supervision of the traffic in arms and munitions. It is not
necessary for me to go into the details of the history of this question. You have
already had a very clear exposition from the honourable delegate for Belgium, and,
fioreover, as our president informed us in his eloquent discourse yesterday, our
discussions are strictly limited to the question of the traffic in arms, munitions and
implements of war, and they entirely exclude the question of the private
manufacture, which, it is agreed, is not within the competence of this conference.
The covenant of the League of Nations has instructed the League to examine certain
very important problems. We all understand the preoccupations which were the
origin of those provisions in the covenant, and which also explain the great interest
which is taken in them by public opinion all the world over. We are convinced that
the maintenance of peace depends in a large measure on the effective supervision of
this traffic in arms; and being of that opinion, the Japanese Government has never
spared any effort to exercise the strictest control over traffic of this nature, and it is
glad to be able to state that it has not encountered one single act within the sphere of
its authority, not a single act which would come under the heading of this traffic,
either on public or private order. When the Treaty of Samt-Germain-en-Laye was
under discussion, the attention of its authors was called to this question, and a
convention was drafted on the lines of the Brussels Pact of 1890. That, as you
know, was signed by several countries, and was even ratified by some; but the
Japanese Government declared its readiness to ratify only on condition that other
States also ratified the convention. Unluckily, obstacles arose to this being done,
and since then many efforts have been made, in particular by the organisation of the
League of Nations, the Temporary Mixed Commission, and the Permanent Advisory
Commission, to find some way out of this difficulty. I desire to take this opportunity
of expressing our heartfelt thanks to the Government of the United States of
America, which has always shown itself disposed to lend us its valuable support and
assistance in this matter; and thus we are now met together in an international
conference to find a solution of the question.
When we accepted the invitation to this conference, the Japanese Government
declared that it would only participate on condition that the other Powers referred
to in article 32 of the present draft convention also participated—that is to say,
Belgium, the United States of America, France, Great Britain, Italy and Russia.
We regret to see that Russia is not represented at the conference to-day. That makes
us, however, all the more grateful that the United States of America are represented
among us.
It is not fitting to-day to go into details in regard to all the various provisiohs
of this convention. I shall have an opportunity to make further observations later;
but at the same time I would like to point out very briefly certain general factors
'ouch influence the question before us. Our attention has been drawn in the first
l^ace to the fact that the draft convention will not be effective unless a great number
j Powers adhere to it. That is a factor, I think you will agree, of vital importance.
is desirable that this convention should be as universal as possible, and for that
reason it is essential that the convention should not try to go too far into detail in
°mer that it may not lose sight of the differences which exist between the situalions
. e different countries. If we try to push arguments too closely to their logical
umts, we shall encounter difficulties on the part of certain States which those States
emselves will not be able to overcome even by the exercise of the largest measure
0l goodwill. Of course, it is agreed that the provisions for the supervision of this
ralric must be clearly drafted in order that they may be effective, but we must not
orget that the ultimate success of these provisions will depend not so much upon
s - eir drafting as upon the goodwill, as upon the mutual confidence between the
■ gnatorv countries; and if that mutual confidence and that mutual goodwill are
dy ln & no control of this traffic will prove effective, no matter how clearly or how
g 0 rously the provisions may be framed.
R is most important that this convention should be regarded, not only from the
I onit of view of the world as a whole, but in particular from the point of view of the
Producing and the non-producing countries—that it should represent an agreement
interest between the exporting and the importing countries. There are a few
1 nieipal points I would wish to touch on ; firstly, the questions which concern the
ereignty of States must be approached with the greatest circumspection and
ution; secondly, the definition of what constitutes arms, munitions and implements