201
(1.)-REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS.
(C.I.D. Papers Nos. 774-B, 775-B and 776-B.)
[Previous Reference: C.I.D. Minutes of the 218th Meeting, Minute 19.] THE COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE had under consideration the following documents in connection with the Reduction and Limitation of Armaments :-
(A.) A draft Convention for the Limitation of Military, Naval and Air
Armuments (C.LD. Paper No. 776-B).
(B.) A Memorandum by Viscount Cecil in regard to a draft Convention for the Control of Private Manufacture of Arms, Ammunition and Implements of War (Paper No. 774-B).
(C) A Note by the Secretary covering a Memorandum containing the proposals of the Government of the United States in regard to a Conference for the further Limitation of Naval Armaments, and the Cabinet Conclusions in regard to these proposals (Paper No. 775-B).
(A.) Draft Convention for the Limitation of Naval, Military and Air Armaments.
(C.I.D. Paper No. 776–B.)
[Previous Reference: C.I.D. Minutes of the 218th Meeting, Minute 19.]
LORD CECIL stated that this draft Convention had been discussed by the representatives of the Departments concerned. The object was to put forward a skeleton of a Convention which would become effective if and when agreements were reached in regard to the figures to be inserted in it. The general conception on which the Convention was based was: in regard to naval and air armaments limitation was imposed on material and not on effectives; in regard to land armaments limitation was imposed on effectives and not on material. He considered that it was desirable, especially in regard to land armaments, that some indication should be obtained of the measures adopted by foreign Powers for the purpose of securing an increase in their "fighting strength". This indication could only be obtained by refer- ence to budgetary expenditure on armaments. The object of including this reference to expenditure was not in order to compare State A's expenditure with that of State B, hat in order to compare the expenditure of State A in successive years. The only point in the draft Convention on which agreement had not been reached by his Sub-Committee was contained in the second paragraph of Article 3. The provision in this paragraph only required notice to be given of an increase in expenditure. In effect, no further information would be required than that which was already published in the Service Estimates, where any increase in expenditure was of course explained by means of a note. With regard to land armaments a further provision had been introduced in Article 7 with regard to aggregate expenditure. This provision had been suggested by the War Office representative himself.
MR. BRIDGEMAN said that he understood that the effect of Article 3, paragraph 2, was limited to a notification of the figures included in the Service Estimates. This information was of course available to the public at the present time, but the mere fact of forwarding this information officially to the League of Nations might result in questions being raised, to answer which might not be in our interests. If we refused to give the additional explanations asked, it would give rise to suspicion. At the same time it was not possible for us to accept a situation whereby we would be constantly exposed to cross-examination.
LORD CECIL explained that the provisions of the Article would be applicable to all the High Contracting Powers, and it might be of importance to us to be able to call attention to violent changes in the armaments of other countries.
SIR SAMUEL HOARE said that he realised the importance of the point which Lord Cecil had just made, and that, if all the parties to the draft Convention were reasonable, we might thereby secure information which was not at present available. At the same time he felt that, although the object of the information was not to compare the expenditure of State A with State B, nevertheless, comparisons based on the figures supplied would, in fact, be drawn between different States. In these
3
circumstances we should suffer since, owing to our voluntary system, the cost of our Fighting Services was disproportionately higher than that of Continental nations. In regard to Air Armaments in particular, it would be possible to draw a very damaging picture if our expenditure was compared with that of France. There was a second objection also to the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 3, namely, that with a technical Service expenditure on material was never constant, and was liable to considerable fluctuations. For example, in the scheme for the expansion of the Air Force expenditure for a period of two or three years was mainly devoted to the erection of buildings and the acquisition of aerodromes, but after this period equipment figured as the main item of expenditure. It would be inconvenient if, in such circumstances, a country was pressed to give information in regard to the kind of equipment which it was adopting.
THE PRIME MINISTER said that he disliked the provision contained in the second paragraph of Article 3, since we were the only country which was liable to shift the centre of its military gravity from one area to another. Such changes were difficult to explain to an International body such as the League of Nations. He thought it was essential that we should maintain our freedom in this respect. Had this Convention been in force at the time we should presumably have had to furnish explanations regarding the fortifications of the Singapore Base.
LORD CECIL replied that explanations in regard to the Singapore Base had already been given in the Estimates. He pointed out that, if there was to be any attempt at limitations of armaments, there was always the possibility of being subjected to requests for explanations. The point was that we, in effect, did publish all necessary information to our own Parliament, whereas other countries did not do so.
He suggested that it would be an advantage for us to try and make other countries adopt the same kind of publicity as we did.
LORD SALISBURY stated that there was no intention in the Convention of giving any more information than was at the present time given to the House of Commons. He did not believe that any attempt at coercive control in regard to armaments was possible, and he was very doubtful of the wisdom of Article 7 of the Draft Convention. He thought, however, that there was no disadvantage in trying to get other countries to follow our example in regard to the publication of information.
SIR LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS pointed out that the Convention contemplated giving to the League of Nations the same information as was at present given to the House of Commons. The House of Commons had every right to cross examine. Was this same right going to be given to the League of Nations? The House of Commons was not wilfully unpatriotic, whereas the League of Nations was an International body.
LORD CECIL pointed out that the other Powers represented at Geneva were anxious that some statement of expenditure should be provided for in the Convention and we should certainly be pressed to agree to such a provision. It would he almost impossible for the British Representative to adopt the attitude that his country refused to give to the League of Nations the information which it already gave to its own Parliament.
MR. AMERY enquired whether the information would merely be forwarded to the Secretariat of the League or whether there would be any right to subject this information to cross-examination in the same way as was done by the Mandates Commission.
SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN said that he saw a difference between presenting information to the House of Commons, which thus became available to the League of Nations, and forwarding information officially to the League of Nations. Undoubtedly our Estimates contained more information than those of other Powers. He suggested, therefore, that the British Representative might be authorised to agree to a statement of information, provided that other Powers agreed to give similar information. But the British Representative should be instructed to resist any attempt to create a permanent body at Geneva for the purpose of examining, analysing and reporting on this information. There was a movement to create a sort of General Staff under the auspices of the League. This movement we had openly resisted in the past, and we should continue to do so in the future.
[15855]
B 2
202
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.