CO129-416 - Public Offices - 1914 — Page 54

6

Norway, Peru, and Switzerland, would seriously prejudice the effect of the measures proposed for checking the export of morphine and cocaine to the East, and that a not improbable result of the strict control to be exercised in the dominions of the signatory Powers over the manufacture of, and trade in, the drugs in question might be that in non-signatory countries new factories might be started and the output of existing factories increased. Moreover, non-signatory countries would be open to unrestricted importation of the drugs and their ports could be freely used for their illicit transmission to the Eastern consumer. The abstention of Peru would of itself be sufficient to render useless any effort to regulate the trade in cocaine. His Majesty's Government had therefore come to the conclusion that any attempt to suppress the illicit trade in morphine and cocaine would thus be seriously impeded unless all countries which manufacture or are likely to manufacture these drugs could he induced to agree to proposals on the lines of those laid down in the Opium Convention. The first step, therefore, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, was not ratification under circumstances unlikely to achieve the real object of such ratification, but a combined attempt on the part of the signatory Powers to secure the signatures of those Powers which had either refused to sign or had for the present abstained from doing so. A study of the replies received from certain of those countries had convinced His Majesty's Government that some of the refusals were due to misapprehensions as to the purport and provisions of the convention and that these misapprehensions could be removed by explanations. We laid particular emphasis on the fact that our statement was not to be interpreted as a refusal on the part of His Majesty's Government to ratify, but only as a postponement. On the contrary, we explained that His Majesty's Government were most anxious to ratify at the earliest possible moment at which such action on their part would be likely to achieve the fullest effect, and meanwhile our instructions were to seek to hasten that moment by securing the co-operation of all the Governments represented at the Conference in inducing those countries which had, for one reason or another, abstained to alter their attitude and consent to sign the convention without further delay.

If we have dwelt at some length on the attitude taken up by us on this occasion we have done so because we feel that on it hinged the whole work accom- plished by the Conference and incorporated in the final protocol.

The Portuguese delegate also declared that ratification by his Government must await the signature of the other Governments; the Powers that had signed the convention had pledged themselves to make economic sacritices in a humanitarian cause, but these sacrifices should not conduce to the profit of other nations who remained free to continue and even to develop their trade in opium, morphia, and cocaine.

The Russian delegate also explained that his Government were not ready at present to ratify the convention, and expressed his agreement with the views put forward by the British delegation.

The Conference was therefore confronted with the position that, while a majority of the Powers represented were ready to proceed to ratification, an important minority declared that, for the present at all events, they were unable to do so. The President expressed the personal opinion that the Governments which were willing to do so might proceed to deposit their ratifications, without waiting until the other Governments had decided to do likewise, but as a matter of fact at this stage of the proceedings no formal action was taken to answer the question submitted to the Conference in the invitation of the Netherland Government, in accordance with article 28 of the convention, namely, whether, notwithstanding the fact that certain of the Powers invited to sign the convention had hitherto failed to do so, the deposit of ratifications could nevertheless take place. It was pointed out subsequently that, unless some definite decision on this point was taken by the Conference, the Govern- ment of the Netherlands would have no authority to accept the instruments of ratification from the Governments which were prepared to ratify. This omission was remedied at the fourth session by the unanimous adoption of a resolution by the Con- ference to the effect that the deposit of ratifications might now take place. Those, therefore, of the signatory Powers which were ready to ratify were authorised to deposit their ratifications at The Hague, and some Powers proceeded forthwith to make the deposit.

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, some 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 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. 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.

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 muke further representations to the various Governments concerned, and that those represen- tations should be framed so as 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 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 months 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

[158]

C

52