Annex C.
GENERAL REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE FIFTH ASSEMBLY
ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST AND THIRD COMMITTEES
BY M. POLITIS (GREECE) AND M. BENES
(CZECHOSLOVAKIA).
I Introduction
After being examined for several years by the Third Committee, the problem of the reduction of armaments has this year suddenly assumed a different, a wider and even an unexpected form.
Last year a draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance was prepared, which the Assembly sent to the Members of the League for their consideration. The replies from the Governments were to be examined by the Fifth Assembly.
At the very beginning of its work, however, after a memorable debate, the Assembly indicated to the Third Committee a new path. On September 6th, 1924, on the proposal of the Prime Ministers of France and Great Britain, M. Edouard Herriot and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the Assembly adopted the following resolution:
“The Assembly,
“Noting the declarations of the Governments represented, observes with satisfaction that they contain the basis of an understanding tending to establish a secure peace,
“Decides as follows:
“With a view to reconciling in the new proposals the divergences between certain points of view which have been expressed and, when agreement has been reached, to enable an international conference upon armaments to be summoned by the League of Nations at the earliest possible moment:
“(1) The Third Committee is requested to consider the material dealing with security and the reduction of armaments, particularly the observations of the Governments on the draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, prepared in pursuance of Resolution XIV of the Third Assembly and other plans prepared and presented to the Secretary-General since the publication of the draft Treaty, and to examine the obligations contained in the Covenant of the League in relation to the guarantees of security which a resort to arbitration and a reduction of armaments may require:
“(2) The First Committee is requested:
“(a) To consider, in view of possible amendments, the articles in the Covenant relating to the settlement of disputes;
“(b) To examine within what limits the terms of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice might be rendered more precise and thereby facilitate the more general acceptance of the clause; and thus strengthen the solidarity and the security of the nations of the world by settling by pacific means all disputes which may arise between States.”
This resolution had two merits, first, that of briefly summarising all the investigations made in the last four years by the different organisations of the League in their efforts to establish peace and bring about the reduction of armaments, and, secondly, that of indicating the programme of work of the Committees in the hope that, with the aid of past experience, they would at last attain the end in view.
The Assembly had assigned to each Committee a distinct and separate task; to the First Committee, the examination of the pacific settlement of disputes by methods capable of being applied in every case; to the Third Committee, the question of the security of nations considered as a necessary preliminary condition for the reduction of their armaments.
Each Committee, after a general discussion which served to detach the essential elements from the rest of the problem, referred the examination of its programme to a Sub-Committee, which devoted a large number of meetings to this purpose.
The proposals of the Sub-Committees then led to very full debates by the Committees, which terminated in the texts analysed below.
As, however, the questions submitted respectively to the two Committees form part of an indivisible whole, contact and collaboration had to be established between the Committees by means of a Mixed Committee of nine members and finally by a joint Drafting Committee of four members.
For the same reason, the work of the Committees has resulted in a single draft protocol accompanied by two draft resolutions for which the Committees are jointly responsible.
Upon these various texts, separate reports were submitted, which, being approved by the Committees respectively responsible for them, may be considered as an official commentary by the Committees.
These separate reports have here been combined in order to present as a whole the work accomplished by the two Committees and to facilitate explanation.
Before entering upon an analysis of the proposed texts, it is expedient to recall, in a brief historical summary, the efforts of the last four years, of which the texts are the logical conclusion.
Historical Statement
The problem of the reduction of armaments is presented in Article 8 of the Covenant in terms which reveal at the outset the complexity of the question and which explain the tentative manner in which the subject has been treated by the League of Nations in the last few years.
“The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.”
Here we see clearly expressed the need of reducing the burden which armaments imposed upon the nations immediately after the war and of putting a stop to the competition in armaments which was, in itself, a threat to the peace of the world. But, at the same time, there is recognised the duty of safeguarding the national security of the Members of the League and of safeguarding it, not only by the maintenance of a necessary minimum of troops, but also by the co-operation of all the nations, by a vast organisation for peace.
Such is the meaning of the Covenant, which, while providing for reduction of armaments properly so called, recognises at the same time the need of common action, by all the Members of the League, with a view to compelling a possible disturber of the peace to respect his international obligations.
Thus, in this first paragraph of Article 8, which is so short but so pregnant, mention is made of all the problems which have engaged the attention of our predecessors and ourselves and which the present Assembly has specially instructed us to solve, the problems of collective security and the reduction of armaments.
Taking up Article 8 of the Covenant, the First Assembly had already outlined a programme. At its head it placed a pronouncement of the Supreme Council:
“In order to diminish the economic difficulties of Europe, armies should everywhere be reduced to a peace footing. Armaments should be limited to the lowest possible figure compatible with national security.”
The Assembly also called attention to a resolution of the International Financial Conference of Brussels held a short time before:
“Recommending to the Council of the League of Nations the desirability of conferring at once with the several Governments concerned with a view to securing a general reduction of the crushing burdens which, on their existing scale, armaments still impose on the impoverished peoples of the world, sapping their resources and imperilling their recovery from the ravages of war.”
It also requested its two Advisory Commissions to set to work at once to collect the necessary information regarding the problem referred to in Article 8 of the Covenant.
From the beginning the work of the Temporary Mixed Commission and of the Permanent Advisory Commission revealed the infinite complexity of the question.
The Second Assembly limited its resolutions to the important, but none the less (if one may say so) secondary, questions of traffic in arms and their manufacture by private enterprise. It only touched upon the questions of military expenditure and budgets in the form of recommendations and, as regards the main question of reduction of armaments, it confined itself to asking the Temporary Mixed Commission to formulate a definite scheme.
It was between the Second and Third Assemblies that the latter Commission, which was beginning to get to grips with the various problems, revealed their constituent elements. In its report it placed on record that:
“The memory of the world war was still maintaining in many countries a feeling of insecurity, which was represented in the candid statements in which, at the request of the Assembly, several of them had put forward the requirements of their national security, and the geographical and political considerations which contributed to shape their policy in the matter of armaments.”
At the same time, however, the Commission stated:
“Consideration of these statements as a whole has clearly revealed not only the sincere desire of the Governments to reduce national armaments and the corresponding {161} expenditure to a minimum, but also the importance of the results achieved. These facts”—according to the Commission—“are indisputable, and are confirmed moreover, by the replies received from Governments to the Recommendation of the Assembly regarding the limitation of military expenditure.”
That is the point we had reached two years ago; there was a unanimous desire to reduce armaments. Reductions, though as yet inadequate, had been begun, and there was a still stronger desire to ensure the security of the world by a stable and permanent organisation for peace.
That was the position which, after long discussions, gave rise at the Third Assembly to the famous Resolution XIV and at the Fourth Assembly to the draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, for which we are now substituting the Protocol submitted to the Fifth Assembly.
What progress has been made during these four years?
Although the Treaty of Mutual Assistance was approved in principle by eighteen Governments, it gave rise to certain misgivings. We need only recall the most important of these, hoping that a comparison between them and an analysis of the new scheme will demonstrate that the First and Third Committees have endeavoured, with a large measure of success, to dispose of the objections raised and that the present scheme consequently represents an immense advance on anything that has hitherto been done.
In the first place, a number of Governments or delegates to the Assembly argued that the guarantees provided by the draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance did not imply with sufficient definiteness the reduction of armaments which is the ultimate object of our work.
The idea of the Treaty was to give effect to Article 8 of the Covenant, but many persons considered that it did not, in fact, secure the automatic execution of that article. Even if a reduction of armaments was achieved by its means, the amount of the reduction was left, so the opponents of the Treaty urged, to the estimation of each Government, and there was nothing to show that it would be considerable.
With equal force many States complained that no provision had been made for the development of the juridicial and moral elements of the Covenant by the side of material guarantees. The novel character of the charter given to the nations in 1919 lay essentially in the advent of a moral solidarity which foreshadowed the coming of a new era. That principle ought to have, as its natural consequence, the extension of arbitration and international jurisdiction, without which no human society can be solidly grounded. A considerable portion of the Assembly asked that efforts should also be made in this direction. The draft Treaty seemed from this point of view to be insufficient and ill-balanced.
Finally, the articles relating to partial treaties gave rise, as you are aware, to certain objections. Several Governments considered that they would lead to the establishment of groups of Powers animated by hostility towards other Powers or groups of Powers and that they would cause political tension. The absence of the barriers of compulsory arbitration and judicial intervention was evident here as everywhere else.
Thus, by a logical and gradual process, there was elaborated the system at which we have now arrived.
The reduction of armaments required by the Covenant and demanded by the general situation of the world to-day led us to consider the question of security as a necessary complement to disarmament.
The support demanded from different States by other States less favourably situated had placed the former under the obligation of asking for a sort of moral and legal guarantee that the States which have to be supported would act in perfect good faith and would always endeavor to settle their disputes by pacific means.
It became evident, however, with greater clearness and force than ever before, that if the security and effective assistance demanded in the event of aggression was the condition sine quâ non of the reduction of armaments, it was at the same time the necessary complement of the pacific settlement of international disputes, since the non-execution of a sentence obtained by pacific methods of settlement would necessarily drive the world back to the system of armed force. Sentences imperatively required sanctions or the whole system would fall to the ground.
Arbitration was therefore considered by the Fifth Assembly to be the necessary third factor, the complement of the two others with which it must be combined in order to build up the new system set forth in the Protocol.
Thus, after five years’ hard work, we have decided to propose to the Members of the League the present system of arbitration, security and reduction of armaments—a system which we regard as being complete and sound.
That is the position with which the Fifth Assembly has to deal to-day. The desire to arrive at a successful issue is unanimous. A great number of the decisions adopted in the past years have met with general approval. There has arisen a thoroughly clear appreciation of the undoubted gaps which have to be filled and of the reasonable apprehensions which have to be dissipated. Conditions have therefore become favourable for arriving at an agreement.
An agreement has been arrived at on the basis of the draft Protocol which is now submitted to you for consideration.