73
613
57388/24.
No. 52,
MR. AMERY (COLONIAL OFFICE) to MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN (FOREIGN OFFICE). MY DEAR CHAMBERLAIN,
Downing Street, 4th December, 1924.
I HAVE read with the greatest alarm the India Office memorandum on the difference of opinion betwen the American and Indian Delegations at the Second Opium Conference.
I see that, although it is not definitely proposed to do so, there is a possibility that India may be driven to agree to limit the export of opium to what is required for medical and scientific purposes. This would solve the difficulty as regards Indian domestic consumption but would have disastrous effects as regards the Far East. If Hong Kong and Malaya cannot get from India the opium which they must have for their Chinese populations we shall be obliged to buy from Persia and I need not point out how extraordinarily unfortunate this would be.
My predecessor explained very fully the reasons which absolutely preclude us from putting an immediate stop to opium smoking in these countries. I will not waste your time by going into the whole matter again. I adhere fully to the memorandum which he circulated to the Cabinet.
If it is necessary, as it may well be, that an effort should be made to placate American opinion I would urge, as my predecessor urged, that the British Delegate should be definitely instructed to take the initiative by proposing that the League should send out a Commission with an American Chairman to examine the question of opium smoking both in our own Far Eastern Possessions and those of other countries and to report to the League what further measures of repression can be taken without doing much more harm than good.
I am circulating a memorandum about the re-draft of Article 8 of The Hague Convention and for the moment will only point out that my predecessor said that he could not accept responsibility for the political consequences if the considered advice of the Governors on this matter were rejected. I am as fully persuaded as he was of the very grave objections to the ten-year proposal.
I am writing in similar terms to Birkenhead and Joynson-Hicks.
Powers, if not all, whose Territories are affected will probably do the same. The line I should take would be to say that the matter was clearly outside the scope of the Conference; that the question had been considered at length in the First Conference and that we had, with great difficulty, arrived at an agreement in respect of the further measures to be taken; that the position in the British Territories had been fully set out in the reports which had been laid before the First Conference and in the explana- tions which I had given during the discussions; and that quite apart from the com- petence of the Conference, no useful purpose would be served by reopening the matter. I would then proceed to make the suggestion of the Commission of Inquiry.
I thought it only fair and courteous to the Dutch Delegate (who has worked with us in an extremely friendly way throughout the First Conference) to let him know confidentially of the proposal we were going to make with regard to the Commission of Inquiry, so that he might not be taken by surprise and might have time, if he thought fit, to consult his Government. He understood our position in the matter, but after thinking it over he said that he was very strongly opposed to the proposal and that it would be impossible to get a Commission which would be competent to make such an investigation.
In view of the line the French have taken here I am not inclined to mention it to the French Delegate, but I thought, and still think, that it would be desirable to see whether the French Government could not be got to agree to support the proposal If a heated debate takes place on when I bring it forward in the Second Conference. the American proposal I am afraid the offer may meet with little acceptance, either on the American side, or on the side of the other Far Eastern Powers, and may fall rather flat. Of course, one cannot be sure; the Americans may be glad to find any way out of the mess. The French Delegate here has been courting the Americans and it is possible that the French Government might, if they were advised beforehand, be inclined to instruct him to give some support to the proposal. However, that is a matter for you to settle and I only explain why I made the suggestion.
Yours, &c.,
MALCOLM DELEVINGNE.
Yours, &c..
L. S. AMERY.
57762/24.
No. 54.
57726 24.
No. 53.
ŞIR M. DELEVINGNE (GENEVA) to MR. S. P. WATERLOW (FOREIGN Office). (Copy received in Colonial Office, 10th December, 1924.)
MY DEAR WATERLOW,
[Answered by No. 54.]
British Delegation, Hotel Metropole,
Geneva, Switzerland, 26th November, 1924.
I WROTE to you very hurriedly last night and only had time for a few words about the question of the proposed Commission of Inquiry. You may rely on me to do my best when the Americans bring forward the question of the use of prepared opium in the Far Eastern Territories of the Powers. It is not clear yet how or when the matter will be raised. The body of proposals which the American Delegation have submitted to the Conference include two which are clearly outside the scope of the Conference. The first is a proposal that the Contracting Parties shall control the production and distribution of raw opium so that there will be no surplus available for purposes mot strictly medical or scientific. The other is that the Contracting Parties in whose Territories the use of prepared opium is temporarily permitted shall agree to reduce the importation of prepared opium for that purpose by ten per cent. each year so as to bring it to an end within a period of ten years. The first proposal raises the question of the domestic consumption of opium in India and unless the Americans withdraw it, there will be a battle royal between Campbell and Porter, and the question of the competence of the Conference to discuss matters not specifically included in its Agenda will be raised. The decision on that point will have a bearing on the other American proposal with regard to the use of prepared opium.
If the second proposal is brought up for discussion then the course which the proceedings are likely to take will be as follows. The Netherlands Delegation will refuse absolutely to take part in any discussion on the subject, and some of the other
FOREIGN OFFICE to MR. LONDON (Geneva). (Sent 2.15 p.m., 2nd December, 1924.)
TELEGRAM.
(Copy received in Colonial Office, 10th December, 1924.) [Answered by No. 56.]
No. 116 (R). Following for Sir M. Delevingne :—
Your letter of 26th November* to Waterlow, attitude of American Delegation at Second Opium Conference.
I am instructing His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, if he thinks pro- posal for Commission of Inquiry would have desired effect and would be acceptable to United States Government, to explain position frankly to United States Govern- ment and to ask them to instruct their Delegation to help to give effect to the proposal by co-operating with you when you put it forward. Similar instructions are being sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Paris.
The general line of action set out in your letter is approved.
57727/24.
No. 55.
FOREIGN OFFICE to MR. LONDON (Geneva),
(Sent 1 p.m., 6th December, 1924.)
TELEGRAM.
(Copy received in Colonial Office, 10th December, 1924.)
No. 118 (R). Following for Sir M. Delevingne :-
It seems probable that American Delegation will hold themselves to be precluded
* No. 53.
. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
EPELNIC.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
74