CO129-482 - Public Offices - 1923 — Page 100

LEAGUE OF NATIONS,

5

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRAFFIC IN OPIUM

MINUTES OF THE THIRD (EMERGENCY) SESSION

held at Geneva on September 1st, 1922.

FIRST MEETING

held on September 1st, 1922, at 10 a.m.

All the Members of the Committee (with the exception of M. Brenier and Mrs. Hamilton- Wright, Assessors) were present.

The CHAIRMAN said it was suggested by the Secretariat that the session should be regarded as a continuation of the preceding session, and with the consent of members he would take the Chair.

He then read the letter addressed to him by the Secretary-General, at the request of the Council, on August 22nd, 1922.

A letter from M. BRENIER (Assessor) was read in which he excused himself for his inability to be present and in which he expressed his views with regard to the various matters on the agenda,

1. Modifications in the Report of the Committee proposed by the Council.

The CHAIRMAN had tried to arrange a compromise which would give satisfaction both to the Council and to the Members of the Committee. He had unfortunately been unsuc- cessful and the Council had referred the question back to the Committee. He expressed appre- ciation of the help given by M. Chao-Hsin Chu.

The Council had referred back to the Committee a passage of its report relating to the situa- tion in China. The Committee might either reconsider the whole question-but he did not think it would get any further than it did last April-or it might merely consider the situation created by the decision of the Council. He pointed out that the latter body had now, with the consent of the Committee, published the report of the Committee, with the omission of the

passage in question.

The Chairman proposed that the latter of the two methods of procedure which he had mentioned should be adopted.

He recalled that there were two main points raised by the Council. The first was the state- ment in the report that the situation which had been found by the Committee to exist in China was in contravention to the Opium Convention. been directed against the Government of the Chinese Republic, but, as he had explained in his The Council appeared to think that criticism had letter to the Secretary-General, that was not in the least the intention of the Committee. He did not think, however, that the Committee need take the matter any further. The Council had been informed of the view of the Committee, and it rested with the Council to decide whether that view should be made public or not.

The second point was the proposal of the Council to substitute, for the action suggested by the Committee, action of a different kind, consisting in the appointment of a representative of the International Anti-Opium Association to collaborate with the Commission of the Chinese Government in its investigation of the opium situation in China and to report, through the medium of the Chinese Government, to the League of Nations. That proposal had been accepted by the Chinese Government.

After careful reflection, the Chairman had come to the conclusion that nothing would be gained in present circumstances by the Committee returning its proposal to the Council. His own feeling was that the best thing to do was to report to the Council that the Committee had considered its suggestion and that it was prepared to recommend its adoption as the best that could be done in the present circumstances; and that it hoped that the result of the further enquiries to be undertaken by the delegates of the Chinese Government and of the International Anti-Opium Association would be available at the next meeting of the Committee. His only fear was that the solution might be considered in China as a weakening on the part of the League of Nations and of the Advisory Committee.

M. ARIYOSHI (Japan) agreed with the Chairman's view.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHU (China) asked whether the Council's recommendation would be consi- dered as a whole or point by point.

The CHAIRMAN did not think it necessary to take it point by point. He proposed that the Committee should simply report to the Council that it accepted its suggestion of requesting the Chinese Government to make further enquiries, in which the Chinese commissioners would be assisted by a representative of the International Anti-Opium Association,

The need for a further discussion of the question by the Council would thus be avoided. He wished particularly to emphasise the fact that, with the Committee's consent, the Council had already published the Committee's report with the omission of the passage under considera- tion. A fresh report, therefore, had to be made by the Committee.

Mr. CAMPBELL (India) said that, in point of fact, the Council had returned an amended report to the Committee. That amended report would, he presumed, in view of the opinions already expressed, be accepted by the Committee. He was also prepared to accept that report in the cir-

cumstances.

The CHAIRMAN said that the important point was that the Committee, as he gathered, was prepared to agree with the Council's proposal in regard to the further enquiries.

The Committee agreed with the proposal of the Chairman.

Mr. CAMPBELL enquired if one representative only of the International Anti-Opium Associa- tion had to be appointed. The representative would have to visit an enormous tract of country; it might perhaps be the only action which it was possible to take at the moment; but it was an impossible task for one man, and he suggested that the Committee, in accepting the Council's proposal as regards this, should point this out and should guard itself against endorsing as valuable a suggestion which could clearly have only a very limited practical result.

Sir John JORDAN proposed that the Chinese Government should make use of the local branches of the International Anti-Opium Association in China; he suggested that the words "one represen- tative" should be replaced by the word "representatives".

The CHAIRMAN enquired whether that was not implied in the Council's suggestion. He himself had read it in that way, namely, that there would be a delegate of the International Anti-Opium Association on each Government Commission of Investigation.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHU (China) agreed that that would be a reasonable interpretation.

M. van WETTUM (Netherlands) enquired whether the principle of employing members of the International Anti-Opium Association was not open to criticism. Was it possible to find five or six gentlemen in China who were capable of undertaking such a task without prejudice ?

Sir John JORDAN expressed the view that as a rule the Committees of Enquiry were fairly well constituted. It would be best to co-opt a member of the Anti-Opium Association.

The CHAIRMAN said that if members of the Association might exaggerate, they would not do so in the sense of concealing anything objectionable.

M. CHAO-HSIN CHU said that he thought that those details relating to enquiries were administrative details which should be left to the Chinese Government and to the headquarters of the International Anti-Opium Association at Pekin,

If the report on the enquiry were drawn up by one person, he himself would be the first to refuse to adopt it. He considered that the Council's suggestion was sufficient.

Sir John JORDAN said that he was in agreement with M. Chao-Hsin Chu, but he thought that the resolution proposed by the Council was not happily worded. It might be possible to express the Committee's point of view.

98