Fifteenth meeting, April 11, 1919

I return once again to this crowded session. Lord Robert Cecil at this his first opportunity called the attention of the Commission to the difficulties which would arise if the Japanese amendment forbidding military preparations in a day of crisis, which had been presented as Article XIIa, should be adopted.

Such a provision would give an important advantage to such states as maintained their military establishment in a highly developed state. Should a crisis arise, the small and peaceful nations with a low military establishment would find themselves at a serious disadvantage if they could not make use of the period of three months (the delay imposed by the Covenant) in order to prepare a better defense against a nation with superior armaments and larger effectives.

Baron Makino observed that the whole spirit of the Covenant was opposed to the principle that nations might make military preparations in a crisis. If they should undertake warlike measures, a tense atmosphere would be created which would hardly conduce to a peaceful settlement. Moreover, if the nation whose military preparations were inadequate should augment them, the better armed nation would do the same and the discrepancy between the two military forces would remain the same.

The Committee (drafting the Covenant) had raised the objection that the Japanese amendment would result in forcing nations into a military program of serious dimensions. In answer, it might be said that the purpose of Article VIII was to lay down limits of armaments which might not be exceeded.

President Wilson said that he understood the provisions of Article VIII as they had been interpreted by Baron Makino. Nevertheless, without violating the obligations imposed by this Article, the states members of the League might increase their armaments up to the permitted maximum even during the period of time which would follow recourse to arbitration.

Lord Robert Cecil imagined the following hypothetical case. Suppose that an unscrupulous nation should be considering an attack against a neighboring state. She mobilizes all her troops, masses them on the frontier, and thereupon starts a dispute of a nature calculated to lead to a rupture. The dispute would then, in conformity to the Covenant, be submitted to arbitration, and while the case was being examined, the aggressor state would have all its forces ready for action. On the other hand, the state which was threatened would not be able to take any preparatory measures. As far as naval power was concerned, a state might quite easily, without violating Article VIII, mobilize its fleet with a view to aggression. The Japanese amendment would seem, therefore, to impose obligations too great for human nature and to put tremendous advantages into the hands of unscrupulous states.

M. Larnaude supported these observations of Lord Robert Cecil, which had previously been discussed by the Drafting Committee. He himself thought that the Japanese amendment would compel states to increase the number of their effectives. On the other hand, if they knew that they might take advantage of the period of three months, they would not maintain in time of peace forces equal to the maximum allowed them.

Viscount Chinda asked whether it was the idea of the Committee that military preparations might be made during the period of three months.

Lord Robert Cecil replied that if the forces of any state were less than the maximum fixed by the program of reduction they might be increased up to the maximum, but not beyond this point. Moreover, he recognized the force of the argument made by M. Larnaude, if the amendment were adopted, it would compel each state to maintain its forces at the maximum in order that it might be sure of defending itself against any aggressive act.

M. Bourgeois remarked that in this matter, as in many other matters, the whole difficulty lay in the fact that a control of armaments such as he advocated would not exist.

Mr. Orlando said that the Japanese amendment was unquestionably in harmony with the spirit of the Covenant. If the three months’ period were to be considered as a period of military preparation, the first thing which every state would do in case of dispute would be to mobilize its armies on the frontier and increase its output of material. Could anyone imagine a state of things less favorable to a peaceful settlement? It would be a kind of invitation to war.

Mr. Vesnitch thought that the states about to become members of the League would become uneasy if they were not able to make military preparations in case they thought themselves threatened by a more or less open aggression. For this reason, he thought that it would be better not to adopt the Japanese amendment.

Mr. Koo said that he only wished to add a few words to what had already been said. The spirit of the proposed amendment pleased him inasmuch as it had unquestionably been conceived in the interests of peace. He thought, however, that it would not achieve the desired object inasmuch as it would encourage certain states, as M. Larnaude had so justly said, to maintain throughout a period of peace the maximum military force. Finally, such a situation would turn the world into a veritable armed camp just as it had been before the war. Military preparations were contagious. Should one nation maintain its forces at the maximum, another nation would do the same, and still another nation would follow the example set by the two. Moreover, the possibility of taking military steps during the moratorium would make it possible for nations to pay less attention to military preparations and would not compel such nations as were favorably disposed toward a program of disarmament to keep their establishment up to the maximum permitted. Therefore, Mr. Koo thought that the amendment should be rejected.

Lord Robert Cecil said that the League of Nations looks toward a program of complete disarmament and that the Japanese amendment would tend to force nations into maintaining the maximum of armaments in order to avoid finding themselves at a military disadvantage.

Mr. Reis (Portugal), as a representative of a small power, said he was opposed to the amendment. The Great Powers always could impose their will upon the small powers and the only salvation of the latter lay in their being able to arm themselves as well as possible in case of need in order to re-establish the balance as well as they might.

President Wilson explained why he had welcomed the adoption of the Japanese amendment at an earlier meeting. In a Treaty concluded by the United States with twenty-six other states, an unsuccessful attempt had been made to introduce a provision like the one before the Commission. In other words, he had a sentimental interest in the Japanese amendment inasmuch as it had given him a momentary feeling that he was taking a friendly revenge upon those who had opposed the insertion of a similar clause in those other treaties (the Bryan Treaties). He admitted, however, that he had perhaps not given sufficient consideration to all the consequences which a provision of this sort might lead to. Every member of the Commission must be in sympathy with the generous impulse which had inspired the Japanese amendment, but he thought that a majority now saw the inconveniences which would arise if it were accepted.

Baron Makino did not insist upon the retention of his amendment, but expressed the desire that the Council would strictly supervise the performance of the program of armament reduction laid down for various states.

Thereupon the amendment was withdrawn.