17
Press Releases, vol. VIII, p. 387
Address Delivered
by the Honorable Norman H. Davis, Chairman Of the United States Delegation, at
the General Disarmament Conference, Geneva, May 22, 1933
The initiative taken by the President of the
United States in communicating directly with the heads of states participating
in the Economic and Disarmament Conferences was prompted by the pressing need
for concerted and decisive action to solve the interrelated problems with which
these two conferences must deal.
The Disarmament Conference has reached the
moment for definite decisions. We must face the issue; we must now determine
whether the nations of the world propose to go forward with progressive disarmament
or revert to the pre-war system of unrestrained competition in armaments with
all the continuance of the international suspicion and fear which this will
involve.
At the end of the World War the peoples of
all states and their leaders resolved that the suicidal armament policy of the
preceding decades must be changed. They were convinced that this policy had
been one of the contributing factors which brought about the war. Hence a new
policy regarding armaments was incorporated as a fundamental part of the peace
settlement. This policy, adopted to prevent a future race in armaments, was
based on the principle that armaments are a matter of general concern and that
the time had passed when each state should be the sole judge of its armaments.
To carry out this conception, provision was
made for the disarmament of the defeated powers, and at the same time a
decision was taken unprecedented in history whereby the victorious states
voluntarily assumed an obligation to reduce their own armaments.
As a first step the peace treaties reduced
the armaments of Germany and her allies with a view to rendering impossible any
aggression on their part. In fact, the theory behind these treaties was that
the military forces of the disarmed powers should be fixed on the basis of the
maintenance of internal order and the necessary policing of frontiers, but no
more. The whole purpose of these provisions
186
DOCUMENTS
was to guarantee that the armies of Germany and her former allies should
thenceforth stay at home.
It would neither have been just nor wise, nor
was it intended, that the Central Powers should be subject for all time to a
special treatment in armaments. There is and has been a corresponding duty on
the part of the other powers, parties to peace treaties, that by successive
stages they too would bring their armaments down to level strictly determined
by the needs of self-defense. While the United States is not bound by the
provisions or the implications of hose treaties, I have no hesitancy in saying
that it is the will of our people, interpreted by President Roosevelt, to join
with the other powers in disarming down to that level, and we are prepared to
exert our influence to bring this about, not by theoretical statements of rood
intentions but by decisive and progressive reduction of armaments through
international agreement.
The present situation admits of no further
delay. The states of he world must either go forward in good faith to carry out
in all its implications the disarmament policy which they adopted in 1919 or we
must recognize frankly that this policy has been abandoned and reconcile
ourselves to reverting to a race in competitive armament. If the latter course
is taken, the consequences are inevitable. Sooner or later there will be the
break-down of the peace machinery which has been so laboriously built up since
1918, and the world will be swept into another war.
The immediate result of a failure here would
be a set-back to economic recovery, which depends upon such mutual confidence
between nations as will permit a real collaboration in the task of restoring
international trade and the freer movement of goods. This is impossible in a
situation clouded by the fear of war. National budgets which should be devoted
to productive and social ends are burdened with excessive and wasteful
expenditures for armament. This leads in turn to an almost unbearable load of
taxation on all our peoples.
If we thus candidly face the situation, there
is really no alternative for a sane world to consider. It is inconceivable that
the responsible leaders of any country in the world could hesitate over this
issue. We cannot shirk the duty which this choice imposes upon us. We cannot
safely delay taking effective steps to reduce armaments to a purely defensive
basis.
As far as the position of the United States
is concerned, we are frank to recognize that we have a simpler problem to meet
than have many of the European powers. Fears and apprehensions
187
DOCUMENTS
based on historical and racial grounds have led to the maintenance of
large armaments in Europe. These large armaments have caused resentment,
particularly in the less-armed countries. The resulting; political tension has
in turn reacted to keep up the general level of armaments. We are not unaware
of the difficulties which lie in the way of reduction in armaments here. It is
our very detachment from this situation which gives us hope that we may exert a
helpful influence toward the realization of our common objective. But we are prepared
to aid in other ways than through exerting our influence, and I shall take this
opportunity to show what we are prepared to do.
As regards the level of armaments, we are
prepared to go as far as the other states in the way of reduction. We feel that
the ultimate objective should be to reduce armaments approximately to the level
established by the peace treaties; that is, to bring armaments as soon as
possible through successive stages down to the basis of a domestic police force
In particular, as emphasized by President
Roosevelt, we are prepared to join other nations in abolishing weapons of an
aggressive character, which not only are the more costly to construct and
maintain but at present are those most likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
To cut the power of offense and remove the threat of surprise attack would do
more than anything else to lessen the danger of a war. Almost a year ago the
American Government submitted a proposal along these lines. This proposal,
which received the approval of a large number of states, was not acceptable to
certain states and was therefore not adopted. A few weeks ago the British Prime
Minister submitted a detailed proposal which embodies many of the features of
the American plan of last year. As the British proposal represents a real
measure of disarmament, we accept it whole-heartedly as a definite and
excellent step toward the ultimate objective. We therefore are prepared to give
our full support to the adoption of this plan.
In addition I wish to make it clear that we
are ready not only to do our part toward the substantive reduction of armaments
but, if this is effected by general international agreement, we are also
prepared to contribute in other ways to the organization of peace. In
particular, we are willing to consult the other states in case of a threat to
peace, with a view to averting conflict. Further than that, in the event that
the states, in conference, determine that a state has been guilty of a breach
of the peace in violation of its international obligations and take measures
against the violator, then, if we concur in
188
DOCUMENTS
the judgment rendered as to the responsible and guilty party, we will
refrain from any action tending to defeat such collective effort which these states
may thus make to restore peace.
Finally, we believe that a system of adequate
supervision should be formulated to insure the effective and faithful carrying
out of any measure of disarmament. We are prepared to assist in this
formulation and to participate in this supervision. We are heartily in sympathy
with the idea that means of effective, automatic, and continuous supervision
should be found whereby nations will be able to rest assured that as long as
they respect their obligations with regard to armaments the corresponding
obligations of their neighbors will be carried out in the same scrupulous
manner.
The Disarmament Conference has already
formulated measures for the establishing of a permanent disarmament commission.
The powers now proposed for this commission may well be reinforced. The
commission will have many important duties, but none more essential than that
of effectively supervising the fulfillment of the treaty.
We recognize that the ultimate objective in
disarmament must be attained by stages, but we believe that the time for the
next and decisive step is long overdue and cannot be further postponed.
Virtually all the nations of the world have
entered upon the solemn obligation of the Briand-Kellogg Pact to renounce war
as an instrument of national policy and to settle their disputes only by
pacific means. If we are to keep faith with these obligations, we must
definitely make up our minds to settle our disputes around a conference table
instead of preparing to settle them on the battlefield. It was with such a
thought that the President proposed an undertaking by the nations that, subject
to existing treaty rights, armed forces should not be sent across national
frontiers. In the long run, we may come to the conclusion that the simplest and
most accurate definition of an aggressor is one whose armed forces are found on
alien soil in violation of treaties.
There have been two main obstacles to
disarmament. One was the apprehension that Germany proposed to rearm; the
other, the reluctance of the armed powers of Europe in the present state of the
world to take a real step in disarmament.
If at this decisive point any nation should
fail to give conclusive evidence of its pacific intentions and insist upon the
right to rearm, even though the other powers take effective and substantial
steps toward disarmament, then the burden of responsibility for the failure of
the Disarmament Conference, with the incalculable cones-
189
DOCUMENTS
quences of such a failure, would rest on the shoulders of that nation.
The problem with which we are faced cannot be solved if one nation insists on
rearming while the others disarm. The result inevitably would be another race
in armaments.
As regards the action of the other powers, we
are not unaware in the United States of the political difficulties which still
lie in the way of the reduction of European armaments. We recognize the
legitimate claim which any state has to safeguard its security. But we are
firmly convinced that in the long run this security can best be achieved
through a controlled disarmament by which the military strength of the most
heavily armed nations is progressively reduced to a level such as that provided
for in the peace treaties. To the extent that armaments create political
tension, they in themselves constitute a menace to peace and may jeopardize the
security of the very nations which maintain them.
If we take a long step in the direction of
disarmament today and agree by stages to achieve our ultimate objective, we can
meet any legitimate claim of the powers bound by the peace treaties and at the
same time effectively help to insure peace.
A few days ago the Conference met a serious
obstacle to further progress in its detailed examination of the British plan.
Since then there has been an appreciable change. The recent speech by the
German Chancelor before the Reichstag clarifying the German attitude and policy
with regard to disarmament and endorsing the proposal of President Roosevelt
has been most helpful. This, and also the subsequent announcement made here by
our colleague, Herr Nadolny, of Germany's acceptance of the British plan as the
basis of the future convention, have so altered the situation as to justify us
in assuming that we can now resume our consideration of this plan with real
hope of agreement. Our present agenda is a consideration of the chapters on war
material. It was understood that other related subjects might be introduced,
and my colleagues may feel that I have made wide use of the latitude thus given
me. But in closing my remarks, and to bring our discussion back to the concrete
question before us, I desire to state that the American delegation accepts the
chapter on material and expresses the hope that the other delegations will join
in this acceptance and that the way may thus be cleared for an immediate
decision on the concrete proposals in this chapter.
This conference is not only a disarmament
conference. It is an emergency conference of a world in a state of political
uncertainty and economic depression. The next weeks will bring the decisive
190
DOCUMENTS
test. It will require courage and statesmanship to meet this test, but
the failure to do so will go far to shatter any hope of world organization for
peace. As far as the United States is concerned, our abilities and our
incentive to collaborate whole-heartedly in the continuing task of helping to
maintain world peace depend in large measure upon the results achieved here in
disarmament. President Roosevelt's message is a clear indication of the fact
that the United States will exert its full power and influence and accept its
just share of responsibility to make the results in disarmament definite,
prompt, and effective.
The results of success here and now would
bring benefits beyond all calculation. It would give new confidence and
hope—confidence that governments can still govern and leaders lead; hope that a
definite step in disarmament having at last been taken, economic recovery will
be hastened and the millions in all countries who are only asking for the
opportunity to work will have restored to them tile possibility of diving in
peace and of earning their daily bread. If by a great act of faith each and
every nation will now summon the courage to take a decisive step in general
disarmament, conditions throughout the world will so improve that we can
henceforth face the future with a real feeling of security and confidence. With
the alternative to success in mind, we cannot allow ourselves to fail.