:
4
To return to the proceedings at the second session, after all the delegations had declared the views of their Governments as to the possibility of immediate ratification, Boine informal discussion took place in regard to a solution which had already, at the suggestion of the president, formed the subject of private conversations between representatives of the six delegations of Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States of America, with a view to giving practical effect to the British proposal for the adoption by the Conference of measures to secure the signatures of those countries which had, for one reason or another, hitherto failed to sign the convention. We laid stress on the importance of giving careful consideration to the drafting of this resolution (vide p. 14, English summary of minutes) as, in our opinion, it would probably be the chief work of the Conference, and should therefore be worded in such a manner as to command unanimous consent. It was clear that the value and efficacy of the convention depended so largely upon the generality, if not the universality, of agreement that no effort should be spared to secure the solidarity of Europe in regard to this question, and also the co-operation of the countries of South America, especially Peru. In order to afford the delegations who were acting as sponsors of the proposed resolution sufficient time for its elaboration, and to enable members of the other delegations to study it in print, the Conference was adjourned for two days.
The reasons which guided the representatives of the six delegations in the drafting of the resolution, and the methods which they considered best adapted to the attain- ment of the object which they had in mind, can be gathered from the wording of the preamble and of the resolution itself as they appear in the volume of the minutes of the Conference. The representatives were at one in considering that, for reasons which need not be repeated here, as they are already explained both in the instructions which you addressed to us and in the statements made at the second session of the Conference, it was essential to the proper working and full effectuation of the measures contemplated in the convention, to secure the co-operation, if not of all, at any rate of the more important of the Governments which had not yet signed. The first step towards this was to examine the replies received from those Governments, in so far as they had been communicated to us by the Netherland Government, and to consider (1) how far the tenor of those replies might be traceable to misapprehension as to the provisions and scope of the convention, and (2) by what arguments such misapprehension could best be met and removed.
A summary of the replies of the twelve non-signatory States will be found at the beginning of the volume of the minutes of the Conference; but we should point out that the statement in regard to the reply of the Swedish Government, though correct, is not complete, as we had unofficial information that Sweden's attitude was, like that of Austria-Hungary and Norway, due to the supposed necessity of first introducing fresh legislation.
We decided to divide the twelve countries into three groups, according to the nature of the further representations which we considered applicable to each
case :-
1. Powers which, without actually refusing to sign the supplementary protocol, had explained that they were unable to do so immediately, on the ground that the convention entailed for them fresh legislation, and that they could not sign until the new legislative measures had been passed. This group included Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden.
2. Powers which had refused on the ground that their domestic laws in regard to the manufacture and sale of opium, morphia, and cocaine were already sufficiently strict to ensure the prevention of abuse, and that their co-operation would therefore be practically valueless. Under this heading Switzerland stood alone.
3. Powers (a) which had refused to sign without stating any reason, viz., Greece and Turkey; (b) which had promised to sign, but had not yet done so, viz., Bulgaria and Uruguay; (c) which had replied that they were still considering the question and had not yet come to a decision, viz., Roumania; and (d) which had not replied at all, viz., Montenegro, Peru, and Servia.
It was agreed that the Netherland Government should be requested to make further representations to the various Governments concerned, and that those represen. tations should be framed so us to meet the reasons (if any) advanced by those Govern- ments for their refusal to sign, at all events for the present, the supplementary protocol of the Opium Convention.
In regard to the first group, Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden, we were of
>>
5
431
opinion that the Netherland Government should be requested to explain to those Governments that the fact that the provisions of the convention involved fresh legislation on their part was no obstacle to their immediate signature. Legislation was, as a matter of fact, the last of the stages contemplated by the final provisions of the convention; first came signature, then came ratification; a space of three months was then to elapse between the receipt of the last instrument of ratification and the coming into force of the convention; and yet a further six mouths was allowed for the elaboration of the laws, regulations, and other measures contemplated by the convention, while, finally, the date on which these laws, regulations, and other measures were to come into force was to form the subject of agreement between the contracting Powers. As a matter of fact, in this respect most of the signatory Powers found themselves in the same position as the Governments of Austria-Hungary, Norway, and Sweden, and, indeed, have not as yet elaborated all the legislative and other measures involved in the articles of the convention.
In regard to the reasons advanced by the Swiss Government for their refusal to sign, it was felt that they arose from a failure to appreciate the full scope of the convention and the necessity of general international co-operation in order to render fully effective the domestic regulations of the various nations for the suppression of the illicit trade in morphia and cocaine. In regard to the question raised by the Swiss Government as to respective spheres of the federal and cantonal authorities in the matter of the supervision of factories, we pointed out that similar difficulties had confronted the German delegates in the course of the discussions at the first Conference, that they were fully considered at the time, and that the provisions of the convention were specially drafted to meet those difficulties. It was the opinion of the represen- tatives of the six delegations who drafted the resolution, that if the Netherland Government explained these points to the Swiss Government, and represented to them how far from valueless--on the contrary, how essential—the co-operation of Switzerland was, the probability was that the Swiss Government would consent to sign the
convention.
In regard to group 3, we decided that, though the attitude of the various countries included in this group towards the question of signature was not in all cases the saine, it would be simpler to make no difference in the fresh representations to be made, between those Powers that had definitely refused to sign without stating any specific reason, those that had agreed to sign but had not actually done so, those that had not yet concluded their examination of the convention, and those that had not replied at all. ed We merely recommend that the Netherland Government be requested to approach the Governments of all those countries again, to express to them the earnest desire of the Conference that they should sign the convention, and to point out how prejudicial their abstention might prove to the work which the signatory Powers hoped to accomplish.
In our instructions you had suggested that any action taken by the Netherland Government might usefully be supplemented by action taken jointly by all the signatory Powers, and that such action, if decided on by the Conference, would have all the greater weight as being the result of the joint deliberations of the Powers assembled at The Hague. This suggestion, which we had already communicated to the Conference, met with the approval of the delegates of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Russia, and the United States of America, who agreed that it would add weight to the representa- tions of the Netherland Government if the diplomatic representatives of the signatory Powers at the various capitals where such representations were to be made were directed to support the action of their Netherland colleagues. A clause was accordingly inserted in the draft resolution inviting the signatory Governments to issue the necessary instructions to their representatives abroad.
The resolution, as drafted by representatives of the six delegations, was circulated to all the delegates and then formally presented to the Conference at its third session; so entirely did it commend itself to the approval of all the delegations that it gave rise to no discussion and was at once put to the vote and adopted unanimously.
It is perhaps to be regretted that more time was not given to the discussion of a document which embodies practically the whole work of the Conference. It had, it is true, been the subject of considerable thought and discussion at the hands of the delegates who were instrumental in submitting it to the Conference, but as two of those delegates, who may perhaps claim to have had most to do with its actual drafting, we do not feel that in the form in which it was submitted to the Conference it was insus- ceptible of further emendation, and we should certainly have welcomed criticism and
[1247]
ime