Papers relating to the foreign relations of the United States, 1931, Volume I

500.A15a3/1527

Memorandum by the French Embassy¹³

Washington, April 29, 1931.

[Translation¹⁴]

Text of the Note To Be Delivered to the British and Italian Governments

(Note delivered by the French Government April 23.)¹⁵

1. During the final drafting of the agreement the “bases” of which had been adopted on March 1 last, divergencies in views have recently appeared which, if prolonged, would threaten to endanger the happy results which, after long and laborious negotiations it was justifiable to consider as attained. The Government of the Bepublic had not been the last to rejoice at the understanding accomplished, and, in the common interest, it expected beneficial effects therefrom; those reasons are sufficient to warrant it in considering itself at present authorized to draw the attention of the British and Italian Governments to the situation now created and which it is of importance to remedy without delay. In the conviction that the sentiments which inspire it are shared at London and Borne, it will state with all frankness the terms of the problem and the solution which it believes it calls for.

2. After the failure of the negotiations carried on subsequent to the London Conference to bring about a limitation of the total tonnage of the Italian and French fleets, the experts had bent their endeavors to seek, on a practical basis, a more limited understanding, merely concerning the building which the two countries might complete by December 31, 1936, i. e. the building which, to this end, they might undertake during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, and even 1934. Such was, in any case, the conviction, supported by various documents, which the French experts had sincerely formed during the conversations initiated with their British colleagues and which they had not allowed them to overlook.

3. For this purpose, and knowing that their Governments were anxious to avoid any solution involving a considerable increase of the present tonnage of the fleets, the experts, after having studied various combinations, had finally decided upon a system based on the replacement of tonnage which had become over-age; but they had quickly recognized the impossibility of completely solving the question of the replacement of the total over-age tonnage, under penalty of encountering delicate questions which had formed an obstacle to the success of the preceding negotiations. The necessity had, therefore, been recognized on both sides of eliminating from the present negotiations the problem of the replacement of the tonnage which would remain overage on December 31, 1936. The solution of this would be reserved for subsequent negotiations. The agreement about to be concluded was not to anticipate the issue in any way.

4. On the other hand, there was nothing to prevent the regulation immediately of the laying down of replacement units for tonnage becoming over-age in 1937, 1938, and 1939; the French experts therefore accepted without difficulty the suggestions which were made to them in this sense.

5. With this exception, the Bases of Agreement did not deal with the building to be completed subsequent to January 1, 1937. The situation which would result from their adoption could therefore in nowise be compared to that which part III of the London Treaty has created for the affected navies. In effect, part III of this treaty, so far as it affects the three fleets to which it applies and for certain classes of war vessels, fixed tonnage limits on which is based the building which these three navies will be able to undertake in the classes in question during the period covered by the treaty. On the contrary, the Franco-Italian arrangement was to deal with the building which in all classes of warships the two countries could, respectively, complete before a given date; with the exception indicated above, which only affected a very small tonnage, it did not affect the question of the building which would only be completed after December 31, 1936.

6. It was in order to make this fundamental difference clear that when the British Ministers returned from Rome on March 1, the French delegates requested of their colleagues the insertion in the Bases of Agreement, of an amendment indicating specifically that the contemplated adherence to the clauses of a general bearing inserted in part III of the Treaty of London could not aim at those of the provisions of part III which would be in contradiction to the principles recalled above, which were at the basis of the arrangement contemplated. The suggestion was accepted without difficulty; therefore, on the French side, the objections which it was going to arouse at Rome when it was communicated to the Italian Government could not be foreseen: these were the objections which were definitely indicated during the meeting of the drafting committee and which brought out in its true scope the misunderstanding which had prevailed at the conversations carried on at the same time at Rome and Paris. Even if this misunderstanding is of a serious character, its import may at least be very exactly defined.

7. Since the meeting of the drafting committee three points of view have been in opposition.

8. On the Italian side, the Bases of Agreement have been interpreted as excluding any possibility of proceeding, before December 31, 1936, to any laying down (of vessels) other than that corresponding to the building which could be completed before that date, to which building there would be added that which is authorized by article 1 of the Treaty of London, and that which is intended for the replacement of the tonnage becoming over-age in 1937, 1938, and 1939.

9. On the French side such an interpretation is considered as running counter to the dispositions of the final paragraph of the Bases of Agreement, because it implies that a question which was meant to be reserved is in reality decided, at least for a given period. In effect it would prohibit, up to January 1, 1937, the laying down of units intended to replace tonnage remaining over-age on December 31, 1936; in other words, replacement itself could not, in any event, actually begin to take effect before January 1, 1940, inasmuch as the final paragraph expressly reserves the conditions and consequently the date of replacement. Moreover, its effect will be to bring down for 6 years the average of construction to be undertaken to a figure which closely approximates that which the French Government has always declared to be insufficient for the needs of its navy.

10. Finally, between these two extremes an intermediate position has been adopted by the British. At the latest the question must be settled at the conference which the Treaty of London provides is to take place in 1935; in the absence of an agreement at this conference the Governments would doubtless remain bound up to December 31, 1936, and no construction destined to replace tonnage remaining overage on that date could be undertaken before January 1, 1937; but it would be for the conference possibly to authorize the laying down of certain tonnage after 1936.

11. The difference of views is clear; but it turns on a point so definite as to permit overcoming the obstacle by a common effort of good will.

12. The Government of the Republic has been aware of the objection according to which if, as it maintains, the terms of the agreement would permit France to be granted a supplementary quota of new building prior to December 31, 1936, there would be introduced into the arrangement an element of uncertainty which would annul part of the interest which it has for the Italian Government; but on the other hand it has the firm hope that the Italian Government will not fail to recognize on its part that the interpretation upheld in its name in the drafting committee anticipates, contrary to the French thesis, the solution of a question which has been expressly reserved.

13. The problem, which is to be solved with the collaboration of the British Government, is both to eliminate this element of uncertainty and to anticipate nothing which would run counter to legitimate interests. In order that it may be solved by an equitable compromise, and convinced that its appeal will be heard, the Government of the Republic has the honor to submit to the British and Italian Governments the proposal the text of which follows:

14.

“The work of drafting the agreement would be carried out by the experts on the following bases:

a) The question of the building of ships subject to limitation which may be completed before December 31, 1936, shall be settled as provided in the Bases of Agreement.

b) As regards the building of vessels subject to limitation and which are to be completed only after December 31, 1936, and if a more general settlement does not intervene as the result of the Disarmament Conference of 1932, no laying down of ships can be effected before July 1, 1935, a date at which the Conference, the meeting of which, under article 23 of the Treaty of London is contemplated for the beginning of 1935, may have made a decision.

On that same date the effects of the agreement regarding laying down of vessels will come to an end.

Nevertheless, France and Italy may lay down beginning with January 1, 1934, the replacement tonnage of the vessels which will become over age in 1937 and 1938, as well as the tonnage intended to complete the 70,000 tons of capital ships, the building of which is contemplated by article I of the Treaty of London.”

15. In other words, the agreement on the building which can be completed before December 31, 1936, would bear at the same time on the ensemble of the building which can be undertaken before July 1, 1935.

16. A solution of this kind requires without doubt on the part of the three interested Governments certain concessions with regard to the thesis which they have defended up till now.

17. The Italian Government would have to permit that the provisions of the agreement should govern not all the building which can be undertaken by the two Governments up to December 31, 1936, but only the building which would be begun before July 1, 1935. On the other hand, all uncertainty on the total amount of the building which could be undertaken during this period would be eliminated as the Italian Government requests.

18. The French Government, which held that the Bases of Agreement did not preclude the possible laying down, beginning with the middle of 1934, of the replacement building of the tonnage becoming over-age by December 31, 1936, would have to admit that it could not recover its liberty in this respect until July 1, 1935. It would, therefore, bind itself for a longer period than it had accepted.

19. As to the British Government, which has never excluded the possibility, for the Conference the meeting of which is contemplated for 1935, of deciding on other building, it is true that under the terms of the Treaty of London it remains, in any case, as regards its own building, bound up to the end of the year 1936; but it retains, during the whole life of this treaty, the right to invoke article 21. Furthermore, is the risk of possibly seeing Italy and France, both of which are joined to the British Empire by bonds of such close amity, recover their liberty some months before the British Empire recovers it herself, so serious that the British Commonwealth of Nations could not lend itself to the solution herein proposed, in view of the great advantages which would be gained by a happy conclusion of the present negotiations?

The Government of the Republic is very confident that its appeal will be heard and that the British and Italian Governments, recognizing the fact that the proposal which is made to them requires an equitable concession from each of the interested powers, will be willing to permit that negotiations, the happy outcome of which would be rich in promise for the future, should be concluded in a spirit of conciliation and mutual good will.

13. Handed to the Secretary of State by the French Ambassador on April 30.
14. File translation revised.
15. The original French note was dated April 20.