§ LORD PARMOOR, who had placed the following Question on the Paper:—To ask His Majesty's Government for information as to the amendment said to have been moved by the British Delegate on the Technical Committee of the League Conference on Arms Traffic, said: My Lords, I suggested to the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, that I should postpone the Question which stands in my name on the Paper because I thought there would not be time to deal with it after the noble Lord Lord Banbury of Southam's Question was disposed of. Seeing that he has postponed his Question, and, as I understand it is not inconvenient to the noble Viscount that I should proceed to ask mine, I propose to do so. I have also given private notice to the noble Viscount of my intention to raise the question of publicity, in addition to that which actually appears upon the Paper, so that if I go somewhat outside the terms of the Notice it will be remembered that I have informed the noble Viscount of my intention.
§ My Question has reference to a very important matter. Few questions are more important, so far as the. League of Nations is concerned, than those which are concerned generally with disarmament. It is well known that disarmament and the traffic in arms are matters which, under Article 8 of the Covenant, have been specifically committed to the Council of the League of Nations. I had the honour last year of meeting Major Hill and others who at that time, under what is called the Temporary Mixed Commission, were concerned in the question of the traffic in arms, and we had a meeting in this country on the subject. If I understand aright, what has been deal+ with at Geneva is, I do not say in terms, 296 but in substance, the proposal which was being formulated by Major Hill's Committee. Major Hill has taken an enormous interest in this important question and spent a large amount of time upon it. The matter began when my noble friend Lord Cecil was our delegate or representative to the League of Nations, and it will be fully present to his mind.
§
I am asking for information as to the amendments said to have been moved by the British Delegate on the Technical Committee of the League Conference on Arms Traffic, and the information which I have obtained really comes from a paragraph in The Times. That paragraph is as follows:—
This afternoon the technical committee on military, naval, and air questions, sitting ill secret session, adopted a British amendment to exclude warships, aeroplanes, and submarines from the control which it is proposed to exercise over the export of armaments. There has been a three days discussion on this amendment, which was finally carried by a close majority vote. The question will come up again before the General Committee for rectification of the decision of the technical committee.
That is a very important announcement, and the first question I want to ask the noble Viscount is whether it is the fact that an amendment of this character was introduced before the Technical Committee at the instance of the British Delegate. If we are to be genuine in our desire to deal with the suppression of the traffic in arms it is extremely important that we should not ask for an exception in regard to those matters of naval equipment in which we are specially interested beyond all other countries. It is impossible to be aware of all that has gone on in connection with such a matter, which has been discussed on many occasions; but so far as I am aware, no suggestion was made for the exemption of those matters of naval equipment from the general provisions which were to be applicable to military and naval matters. It is not only naval equipment, hut I think that aeroplanes were also dealt with. It is obvious that if these three subject-matters are to be excluded from the Convention, if it is ultimately adopted, it will put us in a very invidious position, and will exclude things of great moment and importance.
§ Perhaps, however, the statement to which I have referred may not be 297 justified, and may not be true. We cannot always rely upon paragraphs of this character. It may be that no such amendment was ever introduced before the Technical Committee by the British Delegate. I think I am right in saying—the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong—that there is one Delegate in Geneva at the present time in regard to this matter, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I do not want to emphasise unduly the point I am making, but it is a matter of extreme importance to the future of this Inquiry.
§
The second point about which I wish to ask the noble Viscount, and of which I have given him private notice, is publicity. That question was discussed in another relationship in your Lordship's House yesterday, and I think the noble Viscount expressed the view then that full publicity should be given, and I see no reason why he should not express it again in reference to the matter to which 1 intend to refer. There is no reason why any fear should arise from the disclosure of names in this instance. The difficulty was this. The countries importing arms did not desire to give publicity to the quantities imported so long as the countries producing arms gave no similar information. It was not unnatural that the importing countries and the producing countries should take entirety different views upon such an issue. At one time—according to information which I am again obtaining from The Times—there seemed to be fear of a deadlock, but the representative of America made a suggestion which would appear to be a solution of the difficulty. This is the report of the suggestion he made:—
At this stage of the discussion the United States delegate, Mr. Theodore Burton, said that the United States Government is willing to adhere to a. convention compelling arms-producing States to publish statistics as to their production of arms.
That is the whole statement as to the production of arms. Of course, if the producing States generally would accept the view put forward on behalf of America the difficulty that I have referred to would not exist, and one of the great difficulties in the way of a satisfactory settlement of the disarmament question in that way would be solved.
§
One can readily understand in a case of this kind that, as between the producing country are the buying country,
298
if the producing country would give the same statistics as we are asking from the buying country the difficulties might be got rid of. I wish to say that in my view, having had to deal with this matter at Geneva and elsewhere, that would be a real forward step in carrying out the obligation which we and other countries have accepted. This morning, in The Times, there was a further reference to the same subject, and especially to what I understand was a statement on this subject by the British Delegate. It is in these words:—
Lord Onslow, the British Delegate, without referring specially to Mr. Burton's statement in regard to publicity"—
that is, the statement of the American Delegate in favour of publicity —
maintained that the British Government was, generally, in favour of publicity, and urged that the Conference should approve the publicity clauses in the draft Convention prepared by the Temporary Mixed Commission.
Pausing here for a moment, may I say that the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood was himself the author, to a great extent, of the Temporary Mixed Commission which, undoubtedly, did admirable work on this question of a Disarmament Convention. The report in The Times proceeds:—
The General Committee unanimously accepted the publicity principle, entrusting its Customs Committee with the task of preparing detailed provisions.
I am not a critic of what is suggested there to be the attitude on the question of publicity of the British Delegate, and what I want to ask the noble Viscount, in no antagonistic sense, but with a very real desire, which I am sure he would have too, of bringing the issue of the Traffic Arms Convention to a successful result, is whether it is true that the British Delegate has been enabled to accept the suggestion made by Mr. Burton on behalf of America, that publicity should be extended to the production of arms in the same way as it would be for the sale of arms to a non producing country.
§
On this point it is material to bear in mind what are the obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant. The object of the obligations under Article 8 of the Covenant is that all countries which are supposed to be in friendly co-operation upon a. point of this kind should be really
299
aware of the conditions of armaments in their respective countries. The Article states:
The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes, and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to warlike purposes.
I admit at once that that is a considerable responsibility, but there are very considerable responsibilities undertaken in the Covenant by the signatory members, and I am sure that Great Britain is the last country which would not realise the necessity of carrying out, not merely in the letter but in the spirit, the obligations so undertaken, because the Covenant of the League is in the nature of a Treaty, and Great Britain has always prided itself, and rightly prided itself, on observing with scrupulous respect treaty obligations. In a matter of this kind it is not only a question of the actual arms, but it is also a question of equipment as a whole. That brings into consideration very difficult matters connected with the scientific production of gases, questions of minerals, questions of the adaptability of ordinary commercial equipment for military purposes; in fact, you bring into consideration all those matters which can really give a picture of the armaments and preparations in a particular country.
§ I do not intend this afternoon to go into the general question of disarmament. That is a matter which requires ample discussion at some future time. Therefore I limit myself to asking the noble Viscount the two questions: First, whether it is true that the amendment attributed to the British Delegate, for the exclusion of naval equipment and aeroplanes from the Disarmament Convention is accurately so attributed; and, secondly, whether he can confirm the statement that the British Delegate has been enabled to assent to the suggestions brought forward by the American, Mr. Theodore Burton, in order that the difficulty between producing and buying countries may be solved, and at the same time that all the information will be given that, it was anticipated, should be obtained under Article 8 of the Covenant of the League. I do not wish to go outside the terms of my Question, with the addition of which I have given private notice to the noble Viscount. Those are the questions which I would like him to answer.
300§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD)My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for having given me notice that he intended to extend the ambit of his Question. I will endeavour to answer as shortly as I can the questions he has put to me. In the first place I should like, as a matter of historical accuracy, to explain that this question of the traffic in arms did not arise under, and has not really any connection with, Article 8. It is a separate matter altogether, and it arose in this way. At the Paris Conference an arrangement was arrived at by which, under the Convention of St. Germain (not the Treaty of St. Germain, but the separate Convention of St. Germain) broadly speaking two things were done. Publicity was secured for traffic in arms generally speaking, and the traffic in arms, as part of that publicity arrangement, was to be with Governments, and not with private individuals, unless they were specially authorised, I think, by Governments. I am quoting from memory.
Secondly, there was a provision extending the Berlin and Brussels Acts, prohibiting in fact, except under very exceptional conditions, the trading in arms altogether in certain areas of the world. That arrangement was arrived at between the main signatories to the Treaties of Paris, but unfortunately, owing to circumstances of which the noble and learned Lord is well aware, it was not ratified by the United States, and it therefore fell to the ground. Evidently an arrangement of that kind depends on a general agreement. It is no use four out of five producing countries making such an arrangement, if the fifth country is left absolutely free to do as it likes.
At the very first meeting of the Assembly of the League attention was called to this matter, and strong resolutions were passed at each Assembly urging that in some way this deadlock should be removed. The matter was referred, as all matters connected with armaments were referred, to the Temporary Mixed Commission, which dealt with these questions. It was not upon my suggestion at all, but on the suggestion of Mr. Fisher, who represented the British Government at the First Assembly, that the Temporary Mixed Commission was appointed. I did not have anything to do with the Temporary Mixed Commission until 301 some little time later, and I was glad to hear the somewhat belated tribute to its merits by the noble and learned Lord, because he was largely responsible for putting an end to that Commission, an action with which I was never able to sympathise. After a great many discussions, into which I need not enter, the United States at last intimated that they would be prepared to attend as observers a meeting of the Temporary Mixed Commission, to consider whether anything could be done to remove the difficulties, arid it was at that meeting, attended by Major Hills, and at which Major Hills, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, did the most admirable work—a meeting which I also attended—that the Draft Convention was drawn up which is now practically the basis of the discussions that are going on at Geneva.
The broad lines of that Draft Convention followed the lines of the St. Germain Convention. It was the same principle—namely, that you should have a system of licensing for the export of arms, that is of all arms primarily of a warlike character, and only to be exported to Governments and not to individuals, and that there should be publicity as to the trade. The main purpose was to secure publicity. It was recognised that Governments should be entitled to buy arms where they liked. You could not control that, but it was of great advantage to the world at large to know what was happening in the trade of arms. Whether some subsequent control of that trade could be carried out was to be a matter of further consideration. But within what are called prohibited zones, special zones, we adopted with certain modifications in detail the original St. Germain Convention, though there was no difference in principle. That was the Draft Convention.
Great difficulty was found in determining to what arms it should apply, and, ultimately, after a great deal of consideration, this plan was adopted. Three categories of arms were drawn up; first, those which were exclusively of a military character, things like cannon: secondly, those which were of ambiguous use, which might be military in character, but might also be of civilian character, such as for sport or personal defence, which would include—I am speaking 302 rather vaguely, because 1 have not the document before me—such things as sporting rifles; and, as the third category, arms which practically could not be used for military purposes, like fowling pieces. It was said that the first category should only be exported to Governments, that the second category might be exported to anybody, unless the numbers were so great that it led to the view that they really were for military purposes; and that the third category might be exported with much greater freedom.
That was the plan, and in the first category we included in the Draft Convention warships and aeroplanes. It is quite true, as I understand it, that the British Delegate, not Lord Onslow, but his representative, moved to exclude warships and aeroplanes. I think perhaps I shall most clearly express the reasons for this action by reading an answer which was given in the House of Commons this afternoon on the subject. This is the answer:
Compressed within the limits of an answer to a question, the grounds underlying the instructions of the British Delegate on this point are as follows: The object of the Drat Convention is to institute a general supervision of the trade in armaments by giving it, through the medium of a licensing system, the fullest possible publicity That condition already exists in the case of warships, the construction, movements and ownership of which are public property.It is evident there can be no concealment of the expert of warships.While, therefore, no increase of publicity would be gained by the application of the licensing system to warships, the execution of the provisions relating to search in transit which is an adjunct to that system, would lead to serious inconvenience. As regards aircraft, experience has shown that it is impossible to formulate any satisfactory definition of military as opposed to civil aircraft, and it was feared that the application of the Convention to aircraft designed exclusively for war would only lead to difficulties without achieving any useful result.It is evident that this is a technical matter, on which I am not competent to express an opinion. That is the answer given on that point in another place, and I am afraid I cannot carry it any further.With regard to the other very interesting point made by the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid my information is even less. The noble and learned Lord asks 303 me what has happened with regard to the suggestion of Mr. Theodore Burton. I do not think this is a question that arises under Article 8 of the Covenant. There we have undertaken an interchange of information, and that ought to be done, and is being done. The lamented Temporary Mixed Commission did set on foot a system by which information should be published of all the armaments and all the provisions for armaments which the signatories of the League were carrying out. There was considerable difficulty about it, because these are delicate matters, but ultimately an arrangement was arrived at by which all the published documents should be collated by the Secretariat of the League, and a book published—and I believe it is published annually—setting out the whole of the armament situation as far as it can be derived from the published sources of the different countries who are Members of the League. That was the question of interchange.
Mr. Theodore Burton's proposal is a rather different matter. What I understand happened was this. The smaller countries, the non-producing countries, said: "You wish to control our purchase of arms, no doubt by a system of licence and publicity; but still you wish to control. That will put us at a certain disadvantage. All you big countries, which produce your own arms, are entitled to produce them for yourselves without any publicity or control at all." That, I understand, is the difficulty that has been reached at Geneva, though we have no information which goes beyond the accurate report in The Times newspaper. Still I understand that is Mr. Burton's main proposal: that all the producing countries shall state not only what they use for themselves, but what is their production of armaments in their own country, so that everybody will be on equal terms if you have this control by publicity as far as publicity amounts to control. I have no information as to what exactly Lord Onslow has said on that point beyond what has appeared in The Times.
If I read rightly what appeared in The Times, he proposed that we should go on with the publicity proposal of the Draft Convention which, after all, is a 304 Convention for traffic in arms, and not for anything else at present. The British Government favour very strongly the adoption of publicity, so far, at any rate, as that is concerned, and on general grounds. He appears to have been very successful in that appeal, and to have induced the Convention to take up the question of the whole of this publicity system, which there was apparently some fear might be strangled at birth. Unless I am misinformed, that is all that has happened at present. I am not in a position to say exactly what view the Government will ultimately take of Mr. Burton's proposals. I need not say that proposals coming from that source, from a gentleman of Mr. Burton's eminence, and with the support of the powerful Delegation he has taken to Geneva, will receive the most sympathetic consideration of the Government. I cannot go further than that.
§ LORD PARMOORMay I say a few words in answer—
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPDid you move for Papers?
§ LORD PARMOORNo, I did not move for Papers. With the permission of the House I will say a word in answer to the noble Viscount. I think that his answer on the publicity question is in many ways satisfactory. There is a reasonable doubt from the report which I read, and it is the only report that has given information as to the extent to which this publicity principle has been recognised. I hope it has been recognised in the full sense in which it was brought forward by Mr. Burton. I accept what the noble Viscount says, that he has no further information at the present moment, other than that which he has stated so clearly. He read to us, I understand, an answer of the Government in another place. The answer appears to me extremely unsatisfactory. I shall not go beyond that, because it is only with the leave of the House that I can say anything at all. Subject to that, I thank the noble Viscount for the information he has given.
§ House adjourned at five minutes past seven o'clock.