The Geneva Protocol Part 26

Upon these various texts, separate reports were submitted, which, being approved by the Committees respectively responsible for them, may be considered as an official commentary by the Committees.

These separate reports have here been combined in order to present as a whole the work accomplished by the two Committees and to facilitate explanation.

Before entering upon an a.n.a.lysis of the proposed texts, it is expedient to recall, in a brief historical summary, the efforts of the last four years, of which the texts are the logical conclusion.

HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

The problem of the reduction of armaments is presented in Article 8 of the Covenant in terms which reveal at the outset the complexity of the question and which explain the tentative manner in which the subject has been treated by the League of Nations in the last few years.

"The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to {159} the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations."

Here we see clearly expressed the need of reducing the burden which armaments imposed upon the nations immediately after the war and of putting a stop to the compet.i.tion in armaments which was, in itself, a threat to the peace of the world. But, at the same time, there is recognised the duty of safeguarding the national security of the Members of the League and of safeguarding it, not only by the maintenance of a necessary minimum of troops, but also by the co-operation of all the nations, by a vast organisation for peace.

Such is the meaning of the Covenant, which, while providing for reduction of armaments properly so called, recognises at the same time the need of _common action_, by all the Members of the League, with a view to compelling a possible disturber of the peace to respect his _international obligations_.

Thus, in this first paragraph of Article 8, which is so short but so pregnant, mention is made of all the problems which have engaged the attention of our predecessors and ourselves and which the present a.s.sembly has specially instructed us to solve, the problems of _collective security_ and the _reduction of armaments_.

Taking up Article 8 of the Covenant, the First a.s.sembly had already outlined a programme. At its head it placed a p.r.o.nouncement of the Supreme Council:

"In order to diminish the economic difficulties of Europe, armies should everywhere be reduced to a peace footing.

Armaments should be limited to the lowest possible figure compatible with national security."

The a.s.sembly also called attention to a resolution of the International Financial Conference of Brussels held a short time before:

"Recommending to the Council of the League of Nations the {160} desirability of conferring at once with the several Governments concerned with a view to securing a general reduction of the crushing burdens which, on their existing scale, armaments still impose on the impoverished peoples of the world, sapping their resources and imperilling their recovery from the ravages of war."

It also requested its two Advisory Commissions to set to work at once to collect the necessary information regarding the problem referred to in Article 8 of the Covenant.

From the beginning the work of the Temporary Mixed Commission and of the Permanent Advisory Commission revealed the infinite complexity of the question.

The Second a.s.sembly limited its resolutions to the important, but none the less (if one may say so) secondary, questions of traffic in arms and their manufacture by private enterprise. It only touched upon the questions of military expenditure and budgets in the form of recommendations and, as regards the main question of reduction of armaments, it confined itself to asking the Temporary Mixed Commission to formulate a definite scheme.

It was between the Second and Third a.s.semblies that the latter Commission, which was beginning to get to grips with the various problems, revealed their const.i.tuent elements. In its report it placed on record that:

"The memory of the world war was still maintaining in many countries a feeling of insecurity, which was represented in the candid statements in which, at the request of the a.s.sembly, several of them had put forward the requirements of their national security, and the geographical and political considerations which contributed to shape their policy in the matter of armaments."

At the same time, however, the Commission stated:

"Consideration of these statements as a whole has clearly revealed not only the sincere desire of the Governments to reduce national armaments and the corresponding {161} expenditure to a minimum, but also the importance of the results achieved. These facts"--according to the Commission--"are indisputable, and are confirmed moreover, by the replies received from Governments to the Recommendation of the a.s.sembly regarding the limitation of military expenditure."

That is the point we had reached _two years ago_; there was a _unanimous desire to reduce armaments_. Reductions, though as yet inadequate, had been begun, and there was a _still stronger desire to ensure the security of the world_ by a stable and permanent organisation for peace.

That was the position which, after long discussions, gave rise _at the Third a.s.sembly to the famous Resolution XIV_ and at the Fourth a.s.sembly _to the draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance_, for which we are now subst.i.tuting the Protocol submitted to the Fifth a.s.sembly.

What progress has been made during these four years?

Although the Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance was approved in principle by eighteen Governments, it gave rise to certain misgivings. We need only recall the most important of these, hoping that a comparison between them and an a.n.a.lysis of the new scheme will demonstrate that the First and Third Committees have endeavoured, with a large measure of success, to dispose of the objections raised and that the present scheme consequently represents an immense advance on anything that has. .h.i.therto been done.

In the first place, a number of Governments or delegates to the a.s.sembly argued that the guarantees provided by the draft Treaty of Mutual a.s.sistance did not imply with sufficient definiteness the reduction of armaments which is the ultimate object of our work.

The idea of the Treaty was to give effect to Article 8 of the Covenant, but many persons considered that it did not, in fact, secure the automatic execution of that article. Even if a reduction of armaments was achieved by its means, the amount {162} of the reduction was left, so the opponents of the Treaty urged, to the estimation of each Government, and there was nothing to show that it would be considerable.

With equal force many States complained that no provision had been made for the development of the _juridicial and moral elements of the Covenant_ by the side of material guarantees. The novel character of the charter given to the nations in 1919 lay essentially in the advent of a moral solidarity which foreshadowed the coming of a new era. That principle ought to have, as its natural consequence, _the extension of arbitration and international jurisdiction_, without which no human society can be solidly grounded. A considerable portion of the a.s.sembly asked that efforts should also be made in this direction. The draft Treaty seemed from this point of view to be insufficient and ill-balanced.

Finally, the articles relating to partial treaties gave rise, as you are aware, to certain objections. Several Governments considered that they would lead to the establishment of groups of Powers animated by hostility towards other Powers or groups of Powers and that they would cause political tension. The absence of the barriers of compulsory arbitration and judicial intervention was evident here as everywhere else.

Thus, by a logical and gradual process, there was elaborated the system at which we have now arrived.

The reduction of armaments required by the Covenant and demanded by the general situation of the world to-day led us to consider the question of security as a necessary complement to disarmament.

The support demanded from different States by other States less favourably situated had placed the former under the obligation of asking for a sort of moral and legal guarantee that the States which have to be supported would act in perfect good faith and would always endeavor to settle their disputes by pacific means.

It became evident, however, with greater clearness and force {163} than ever before, that if the security and effective a.s.sistance demanded in the event of aggression was the condition _sine qua non_ of the reduction of armaments, it was at the same time the necessary complement of the pacific settlement of international disputes, since the non-execution of a sentence obtained by pacific methods of settlement would necessarily drive the world back to the system of armed force. Sentences imperatively required sanctions or the whole system would fall to the ground.

_Arbitration was therefore considered by the Fifth a.s.sembly to be the necessary third factor, the complement of the two others with which it must be combined in order to build up the new system set forth in the Protocol._

Thus, after five years' hard work, we have decided to propose to the Members of the League _the present system of arbitration, security and reduction of armaments_--a system which we regard as being complete and sound.

That is the position with which the Fifth a.s.sembly has to deal to-day.

The desire to arrive at a successful issue is unanimous. A great number of the decisions adopted in the past years have met with general approval. There has arisen a thoroughly clear appreciation of the undoubted gaps which have to be filled and of the reasonable apprehensions which have to be dissipated. Conditions have therefore become favourable for arriving at an agreement.

An agreement has been arrived at on the basis of the draft Protocol which is now submitted to you for consideration.

{164}

II

a.n.a.lYSIS OF THE SCHEME.

1.--WORK OF THE FIRST COMMITTEE.

(_Rapporteur_: M. Politis)

DRAFT PROTOCOL FOR THE PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES.

_Preamble._

The object of the Protocol, which is based upon the resolution of September 6th, 1924, is to facilitate the reduction and limitation of armaments provided for in Article 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations by guaranteeing the security of States through the development of methods for the pacific settlement of all international disputes and the effective condemnation of aggressive war.

These general ideas are summarised in the preamble of the Protocol.