File 1355/1917 Pt 6 'Arms Traffic Convention: revised convention, 1925' [‎498r] (1002/1226)

3
ssrr
d States
dthough
> and it
paration
ebates.
3 Saint ^
At the
'envision
opinion
^reat an
naments
general
ust and
J direct
problem
ction of
-rade in
J for its
ecessary
ories.
of this
s traffic
o create
■estricts
md for
ct to a
:'ore the
world,
dons of
and 23
, of the
tion as
pe may
will no
met?
what is
it end?
om the
pect of
tee for
porary
mating
:ure in
y made
elating
equent
clinical
’s none
in the
of the
of any
s upon
What
itional
e war
n this
These
,n will
These qualities will be further put to the test when you come to discuss questions
relating to supervision and publicity. Possibly some of the controversial points
which suggest themselves in this matter may be due to the two-fold meaning of the
word “ controle ” in international discussions, since this word has a different value
in French and English. The spirit of your convention inclines rather to the meaning
,if the French word “ controle,” which does not extend beyond the idea of supervision
r surveillance ”), and thus does not go so far as the English word “ control," which
implies a certain measure of “authority.” Moreover, this idea of supervision is
limited in the draft convention to the purely moral supervision which can be
exercised by a public opinion, based on a proper system of publicity. Here, too, a
uniform system of publicity, which will meet the very different requirements of
producing and non-producing countries, of old-established States and newly-
created ones, raises difficulties of all kinds which can only be solved by a common
determination to concentrate on points of agreement and to minimise differences of
opinion.
Turning to another aspect of the question, the part referring to the prohibited
zones, which the draft convention before you has inherited, so to speak, from the
Convention of Saint-German, it will also present a number of problems, some
geographical, such as the definition on the map of the zones to which this system
shall apply; others of a technical kind, which your military and naval experts will
have to study and elucidate. Without deceiving ourselves as to the complexity of
these problems, I think that we may enter upon our work with a large measure of
confidence in its success. The first point in our favour seems to me to be the careful
preparation of the draft which is now submitted to you. As you are aware, it is
the result of unremitting labour on the part of the different organisations of the
League of Nations. All the Assemblies of the League have dealt with the question.
The council has devoted to it numerous discussions at almost all the sessions which it
has held since the foundation of the League of Nations. The Temporary Mixed
Commission, comprising political and technical experts of every kind, has
thoroughly examined it, and the military and naval questions raised by the problem
have been several times examined in detail by the Permanent Advisory Commission
for Military, Naval and Air Questions, upon which are represented the technical
military organisations of the ten States of which the council is composed.
During the last two years the two commissions have dealt with all the aspects of
this problem. They have examined several drafts, article by article, discussed,
adopted and rejected numerous amendments, and have finally arrived at the text
which is now submitted to us. The documentary history of this work, and of the
successive minutes, amendments and texts, is reproduced in the brown book which
has been distributed to you. This summary will be of the utmost value, since it
places at our disposal the long experience and the detailed knowledge of the question
gained by the two commissions of the League of Nations.
Further, the conference is fortunate in including among its members, either as
delegates or as technical experts, many of those who originally took part in this
preparatory work accomplished by the two commissions, and I regard this as a
circumstance which is likely to contribute largely to our success.
Rut our greatest asset appears to me to lie in the general composition of the
conference. Forty-three nations, members and non-members of the League, are here
represented. I may be allowed to refer in particular to the presence among us of the
delegations of four countries not belonging to the League of Nations, namely, the
^nited States, Germany, Turkey and Egypt. The great American Republic has
already lent its assistance to the Temporary Mixed Commission, and its official
Participation in the present conference acquires a new and valuable significance from
the fact that, as a pre-eminently producing country, America’s signature and
ratification are indispensable to our success. We are also gratified at the participa-
t'onof Germany, who, although she has accepted obligations in the matters before us
w bich are defined in the Treaty of Peace, has consented to give us the benefit of her
Valuable assistance.
I should also like to welcome the delegates of the Argentine Republic, whose
Presence here, even as mere observers, must be welcomed as a happy augury.
The collaboration of the American, German, Turkish and Egvptian delegations,
coming from States which do not belong to the League of Nations, gives our
conference a degree of universality which the League of Nations has never yet
attained. Formed within the framework of the League and convened by it, aided
hv the work of its commissions and assisted by its secretariat, our conference enjoys