CO129-477 - Public Offices - 1922 — Page 223

[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

CHINA.

CONFIDENTIAL.

223

[February 16.]

SECTION 1.

[F 745/110/10]

No. 1.

February 16.)

Mr. Balfour to Mr. Lloyd George.—(Communicated by Cabinet Offices,

(No. 21.) Sir,

Washington, February 2, 1922. AS you are aware it has more than once been suggested by His Majesty's Minister at Peking, and by the representatives there of other Powers, that the unsatisfactory state of affairs in the matter of the China Arms Embargo justified an attempt at its reaffirmation being made by the Washington Conference. I would refer you more especially to Sir B. Alston's telegram No. 531 of the 14th December last.

2. An opportunity having presented itself, I accordingly introduced a draft Resolution before the Committee for Pacific and Far Eastern Affairs on the 24th January last (copy enclosed).

3. There had been insufficient occasion to circulate advance copies of this Resolution to my colleagues, and it was no doubt largely on this account that the various Delegations showed less alacrity in dealing with the subject than might naturally have been expected seeing that all their Governments were already formally committed since May 1919 to the policy it embodied.

4. The Italian, Belgian and Netherlands Delegations having stated that they must consult their Governments, the Resolution was held over until they should have received their instructions.

5. In the interval informal discussion was carried on by a member of my staff with the various Delegations, and it was ascertained that the position was as follows: the French Delegation were entirely in favour of the reaffirmation of the embargo, and had indeed received instructions to raise the matter themselves if no other Delegation did so; the Japanese Delegation were equally in agreement, but had special difficulties to meet in view of certain outstanding Japanese contracts involving very considerable sums (see the Record of Conversation with Mr. Hanihara forwarded in my despatch No. 140 of the 30th January); the Belgian Delegation anticipated no objection on the part of their Government, but had to await formal instructions; the American Delegation were anxious to see the matter put through, and quoted the legislation just passed by Congress (copy enclosed) enabling the American Government to enforce the prohibition of export from the United States to China. As to the Italian Delegation, whilst professing their personal wish to see the Resolution adopted as it stood, without more ado, they intimated that they anticipated legal difficulties in making its application retro- active in the matter of contracts signed prior to the passing of the original Peking Resolution of May 1919.

6. In the circumstances there was no option but to await upon events. The first Delegation in a position to act was the Netherlands. On the 26th January Jonkheer Beelaerts von Blokland informed me in the letter of which I enclose a copy that his Government were prepared to accept the Resolution as it stood with the exception of the words "materials destined exclusively for the manufacture of arms and munitions of war," which were not covered by the existing Dutch legislation. This point I was easily able to meet by the substitution of the phrase whether complete or in parts." The text of the amended Resolution is ênclosed.

7. Meanwhile, the Belgian and Italian Delegations had received their instruc- tions and the matter again came before the Committee on the 31st January. The American, Belgian and Netherlands Delegations at once notified their readiness to accept the Resolution in its amended form; but when it came to the turn of the Italian Delegation, Signor Schanzer, whilst asserting his Government's entire adherence to the policy of the Arms Embargo, added that their adherence was conditional upon the same reservation as that made by the Italian Legation at Peking in May 1919.

8. In these circumstances, it was no matter for surprise that, when it came to the vote of the Japanese Delegation, Mr. Hanihara at once stated that the Italian reservation prevented him from adhering to the Resolution now before the Committee.

78447-1]