CO885-11 — Page 631

87

625

357/25.

No. 70.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES

GOVERNOR-GENERAL

to

CANADA.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. NEW ZEALAND.

THE UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA.

GOVERNOR, NEWFOUNDLAND.

(Sent 12.55 p.m., 7th January, 1925.) TELEGRAM.

Your

7TH JANUARY. Confidential. My despatch 7th December, 1923.* Ministers may be interested in the following summary of events at Opium Conferences at Geneva and attitude of His Majesty's Government on certain points which have arisen.

First Conference which consisted of Delegates of eight Powers having Far Eastern territories and was confined to question of measures to be taken in such territories for more effective application of Chapter II, Opium Convention, 1912, which deals with opium smoking, resulted in drafting of an agreement. When Second Conference assembled, main object of which was to restrict manufacture of dangerous drugs and the production of the raw material for such manufacture to amounts required for medicinal purposes, United States Delegates strongly criticised results obtained at First Conference as being attempt to avoid fulfilment of obligation under 1912 Con- vention, and put forward proposal that countries in which opium smoking still per- mitted should engage to reduce imports of opium for smoking by 10 per cent. annually so as to bring about a complete suppression at end of ten years. Delegations of His Majesty's Government and other Governments directly concerned objected that this matter outside scope of Second Conference. In view of impasse reached Conference was adjourned until 12th January.

Having regard to situation which has arisen and of importance of the subject, His Majesty's Government have appointed Marquis of Salisbury as their Chief Delegate at Conference. As regards attitude to be adopted by Delegation of His Majesty's Government when Conference reassembles they have come to following decisions :-

(1) Delegation should maintain view that we cannot admit in principle com

petence of Second Conference to enlarge scope of prescribed agenda and decide questions entrusted to and already decided by First Conference, but for reasons of policy and in order to remove impression that Powers in question unable to meet United States criticisms, His Majesty's Govern- ment are willing to agree that United States Delegation should be given opportunity to state their case without prejudice to question of competence and opportunity should be given to other Delegations to reply but with- out any decision being taken by the Conference.

(2) Agreement prepared at First Conference which has already been signed on behalf of India should be signed on behalf of His Majesty's Govern- ment, since though not going so far as had been hoped when His Majesty's Government initiated proposal for Conference last year or even as far as measures already in force in British Far Eastern territories it repre- sents considerable advance on present position in Far Eastern Possessions of certain foreign Powers, and is maximum on which it has been found possible to obtain agreement of all Powers directly concerned. (3) Delegation of His Majesty's Government should renew the suggestion that League of Nations should be invited to send to Far East impartial Com- mission to investigate and report on all relevant facts as affecting further measures of repression of opium smoking.

Governments of France and Netherlands as foreign Powers chiefly interested have been informed by His Majesty's Government of decisions (1) and (2) above with expression of hope that they will be able to give similar instructions to their Delegates. Intention is to arrange meeting with United States Delegation before Conference reassembles in order to obtain if possible their agreement in course pro- posed and so avoid serions situation which would otherwise arise.—AMERY.

-

* 56737,23: not printed.

1073/25.

No. 71.

SIR E. DRUMMOND (LEAGUE OF NATIONS)

to

MR. A. CHAMBERLAIN (FOREIGN OFFICE). (Copy received in Colonial Office 8th January, 1925.) [Answered by No. 72.]

MY DEAR MR. CHAMBERLAIN,

League of Nations, 19th December, 1924. SINCE my return here I have been approached from various quarters about this unhappy opium situation. Malkin and Delevingne will give you the latest news from the British point of view. I saw both of them before they started home. But apart from their opinions, I think it might be useful for you to know the opinion of the President of the Conference, M. Zahle, who was chosen by the Council for the post.

He has written me a letter, of which I enclose a copy,* which explains his views. In conversation with me he has made it clear that unless there is a really reasonable chance of a successful issue to the present impasse he would not feel disposed to return here on 12th January. His own idea is that the best way out would be an agreement between all the Powers concerned to fusion the First and Second Con- ferences. He thinks that if all the Plenipotentiaries agree, the Assembly resolution that there should be two Conferences could not stand in the way. This is a very simple solution, and if it could be effected, all the difficulties as to procedure would, I presume, vanish.

There seems to me to be another possibility on the lines of the suggestion made at the Council Meeting, namely, that the two Conferences should each conclude their own draft Conventions, that neither of them should be signed, but that when they had both been prepared there should be a joint conference, or a fused conference of the First and Second Conferences, to discuss both drafts and the final form which they should take, i.e., whether there should not be an amended Hague Convention.

Zahle is convinced that the Americans will not sign any Convention unless it con- tains some advance on Part 2 of the original Hague Convention. He urges that we should at once open negotiations in Washington to ascertain what the real situation is, and that Porter should receive definite instructions before the Conference meets again

The trouble about this is Porter's position. I understand, and Porter himself confirms it, that he is really independent of Hughes and the State Department. He has received his instructions from Congress and has therefore a free hand. He is inclined to be stiff because of the backing he is receiving from the Asiatic, South American, and smaller European Powers. I fear Zahle may be right in thinking that Porter will refuse to sign any Convention unless he secures some concession to his views as regards a gradual reduction of prepared opium. At present his proposal is for a 10 per cent. reduction per annum. But on the figure I believe he will not insist. For instance, he might be content with a very much lower figure for the next five years, at the end of which there is to be a fresh conference to reconsider the question. If he fails to obtain anything, he intends to break off, to explain the American stand- point, and to trust to the support of the next Assembly. But of course this would lead to a violent campaign in the United States Press against the countries which opposed the Porter proposals.

I gather that the French and many of the other Governments on the First Con- ference would be prepared to make some small concessions to Porter's views. I do not know what the British attitude will be, but the great stumbling block seems to me to be the Dutch. If, therefore, we decide to try to meet Porter to some extent, it might be wise to tell the Dutch what we are doing and try to carry them with us.

These are only some general ideas, and perhaps Malkin may be able to find some much better legal method of meeting present difficulties. I feel, however, that I ought to put them before you, because the opium settlement is likely to be of the greatest importance to the future of the relations of the United States with the League.

Porter, from being opposed to League control of opium, has become very friendly to the League. He will have to defend any agreement before Congress, and his advocacy of League control will be a great asset when other similar questions, such as that of the Traffic in Arms Conference come up for discussion in the United States.

*Not printed here.

Yours, &c.,

ERIC DRUMMOND.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TPC.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO