THE DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE.
Under Article 17 of the Protocol, a Disarmament Conference to which all
States of the world are to be invited is to meet at Geneva on June
15th, 1925. It is made the duty of the Council to draw up a general
programme for reduction and limitation of armaments to be laid before
the Conference and to be communicated to the various Governments not
later than March 15th, 1925. The provision to this effect says that
the Council shall give due regard to the undertakings of the Protocol
regarding sanctions, but the preparation of this general programme is
in substantial accord with Article 8 of the Covenant.
The Assembly adopted a quite elaborate resolution[1] regarding this
Conference. This resolution makes seven or eight suggestions in
general terms for the agenda of the Disarmament Conference. While the
resolution was adopted, it was pointed out in the discussion that the
Council has a perfectly free hand in the matter and that the requests
of the Assembly regarding the agenda were nothing more than requests.
There is perhaps no occasion to go over them in detail, but one or two
points may be mentioned.
The matter of demilitarized zones figures in this Assembly list. As
such zones are specifically mentioned in Articles 9 and 10 of the
Protocol there is no doubt that this is one of the questions that would
be on the agenda. Another suggestion of the Assembly for the agenda of
the Conference is "the control and investigation of armaments in the
contracting States." Such control and investigation were a part of the
so-called American Plan,[2] and in view of the fact that the control
and investigation of the armaments of the former enemy States are now
before the League, there can be no doubt that this matter also would be
on the agenda of the Disarmament Conference prepared by the Council.
{98}
It was pointed out previously[3] that the date of the Disarmament
Conference may be postponed. It now seems very likely that it will
be.[4] Indeed, I feel that there was a little too much optimism at
Geneva in fixing the date as early as June 15th, 1925, involving the
completion of a programme by March 15th.
Of course, in getting up a programme of general disarmament, and an
agenda for the Conference on Disarmament, it is true that the Council
would have available the advice of the Permanent Military Commission
and of the different bureaus of the Secretariat. Even so, the task of
finishing these preparations in three or four months, getting them
approved by the Council and also by at least the chief of the
interested Governments, is one that seems to me to be very doubtful of
accomplishment.
It is perhaps not generally understood what an amount of work and how
great a number of questions are involved in such discussions as are
proposed. There are something like twenty European Governments that
are vitally interested. Some of these Governments have quite different
points of view and all of them have their military, naval, air and
chemical programmes in force and subject to the control of their own
Parliaments.[4] The idea of a general reduction of armaments involves,
at least provisionally, the recasting of the entire military system of
Europe. It is complicated by numerous possibilities of regional
agreements which in themselves would create new problems of complexity.
Furthermore, it is not generally recognized that a great deal of the
work of such a Conference as this has to be done in advance. Doubtless
no Conference in plenary session ever drew up a paper; no Legislature
ever wrote a law. The utmost that any such body can do is to consider
concrete proposals drawn up often by one individual, but certainly
always by very small groups. I venture to say that ten lawyers could
hardly draw a {99} deed without appointing a sub-committee. The
success or failure of the Disarmament Conference will very largely
depend on the care and judgment used in the preparations for its
meeting.
We can look back on the Washington Conference and see the truth of some
of these observations there. That Conference dealt with only a portion
of the field of naval armaments, among only five powers, only three of
which had any substantial naval force. The naval staffs of the
countries particularly interested had to prepare in advance elaborate
studies, and yet with all this the Conference lasted nearly three
months. Certainly the task of a general conference on disarmament is
very much greater than that of the Washington Conference was.
It took nearly four months to draw up the Treaty of Versailles, which
is by far the most elaborate and complex international agreement ever
written. In the circumstances this was a remarkably short time. The
most serious detailed criticism that I have seen of the time involved
suggests that it might have been two or three weeks less. It is to be
remembered, however, that the Peace Conference worked at that time
under a perfectly enormous pressure from all sides to complete its
task, which, as a matter of fact, would never have been completed
within anything like the time taken if the decisions had not finally
been left to three or four men to take.
I need not dwell further on the difficulties of the details. Any one
who reads the Disarmament Treaty drawn up at the Washington Conference
will appreciate something of their nature; but, looking at the matter
from the larger point of view, there is a question of real
statesmanship involved. The possible field to be covered by a general
conference on disarmament cannot perhaps be limited; but the extent to
which the first discussion shall go will determine its success or
failure. If it attempts to go too far, that will be fatal; if, on the
other hand, the attempt is only to go a short distance now and to
continue on the road further later on, the Conference may be a success,
despite the fact that it will meet with the criticisms of those who
want to do everything at once.
{100}
The question of a permanent, or rather of a recurrent, Conference on
Disarmament, as proposed by the so-called American Plan,[6] is one that
is inevitably bound to come up at any such Conference, for whatever the
Conference does or whatever it tries to do, it will have to leave much
undone. Many questions will remain open, many changes of the future
will not be foreseen, and those who meet in the Conference will see
when they end their work that they have only begun it.
It is also to be noted again that the Conference is to fix the period
within which the plan of reduction which it adopts is to be carried
out. If within that time the plan is not carried out, the Council is
to make a declaration rendering the Protocol null and void. The
Conference is also to lay down the grounds on which the Council may
make such a declaration.
In other words, the Protocol itself is to depend wholly upon the work
of the Conference; it is to the Conference that the whole
responsibility is transferred. If the Conference does not adopt the
plan, and then if that plan is not carried out[7] within the time and
on the conditions that the Conference declares, the Protocol falls.
Never, I venture to say, has any important treaty ever been drawn up
depending upon a more impressive condition subsequent.
[1] See Annex D, p. 210 at p. 213, _et seq._
[2] Annex F, p. 263.
[3] p. 5.
[4] This was written before the meeting of the Council in Rome in
December, 1924. The Disarmament Conference certainly cannot meet
before 1926. The present situation of the preliminaries is stated in a
note to the Resolution of the Council of October 3, 1924, _infra_, p.
215.
[5] For a statement of existing European armaments, see note to page
100.
[6] Annex F, p. 263.
[7] See the discussion as to this, _supra_, p. 7, showing that the
"plan" will be another Treaty or Treaties and that the "carrying out"
probably means ratification thereof.
NOTE.--A statement of existing European Forces was made to Parliament
on June 18, 1924 (Hansard, Parliamentary Debates [Commons], N. S., Vol.
174, page 2151). It gave the following figures:
Great Britain ........ 155,935 Latvia ............... 20,000
Germany .............. 100,000 Lithuania ............ 15,000
Austria .............. 21,500 Poland ............... 250,000
Hungary .............. 35,000 Norway ............... 16,000
Jugo Slavia .......... 130,000 Sweden ............... 32,000
Rumania .............. 125,000 Denmark .............. 27,000
Czecho Slovakia ...... 149,877 Greece ............... 110,000
Netherlands .......... 163,262 Bulgaria ............. 20,000
Italy ................ 250,000 Turkey ............... 88,000
Switzerland .......... 500,000 France ............... 732,248
Soviet Union ......... 1,003,000 Belgium .............. 86,531
Finland .............. 30,000 Spain ................ 240,113
Esthonia ............. 16,000 Portugal ............. 40,000
Total armed forces in Europe, 1924 ........... 4,356,466
{101}