United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 1 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 1 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook



■ I^J Q

^ W



Given By


General Policy Page

United States Policy Toward Asia. By Secre-
tary Acheson 467

Tensions Between the United States and the

Soviet Union. By Secretary Acheson . 473

U.S. International Air Policies — Annual Re-
port to the President by the Air Co-
ordinating Committee, 1949 488

The Department

Results of Senator McCarthy's Loyalty
Charges Harmful to Conduct of Foreign
Relations —
Answers to Senator McCarthy:

Statements by Deputy Under Secretary

Peurifoy 479

Statements on Haldore Hanson and

Esther C. Brunauer 480

Statement by Esther C. Brunauer . . . 481
John S. Service Recalled To Answer

Charges. Statement by Deputy Under

Secretary Peurifoy 479

United Nations and Specialized Agencies

Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt Kamed Chair-
man of Citizens' Committee for U.N.
Day 481

Poland Withdraws From International Fund

and Bank 497

The United States in the United Nations . . 501

Occupation Matters

Control of Government in the Soviet Zone . 482

Occupation Matters — Continued Page
Rare Mainz Psalter of 1457, Looted, Re-
turned to U.S. Zone in Germany . . . 487
English-Language Newspaper for Schools . . 496

National Security

Weapons of Peace for Mutual Defense. By

James Bruce 498

Treaty Information

Tuna Convention With Costa Rica Enters

Into Force 496

U.S. Will Not Apply New Press Rates in

Revised Telegraph Regulations .... 497

International Organizations and Conferences

U.S. Delegations:

International Tin Study Group 500

Executive Committee and General Council

(Iro) 500

The Foreign Service

Matters Considered by Regional Conference

of U.S. Envoys in Bangkok 502

Consular Offices 502

Second Meeting of American Ambassadors

in Europe 502

Confirmations 502


Recent Releases 472

"Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-
45" Released by the Department of

State 503

Corrections 487


zl)eha/^tmenl/ ^ t/tai^/


Louise Smith '>'S3


Unm- I»\|{'1 ni • f' f. I II I'nrneroy . ... 507

For complete contents see back cover

Vol, XXII, No. 561
April 3, 1950

VlB""^ O*.

'•*TBS O*


^.%,..w^^. bulletin

Vol. XXII, No. 561 • Pubucation 3808
April 3, 1950

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington 25, D.C.


62 issues, domestic $6, foreign $8.60

Single copy, 20 cents

The printing of this publication has

been approved by the Director of the

Bureau of the Budget (February 18, 1949).

Note: Contents of this pubUcation are not
copyrighted and items contained herein may
be reprinted. Citation of the Departuent
or State Bulletin as the source will bo

The Department of State BULLETIN,
a weekly publication compiled and
edited in the Division of Publications,
Office of Public Affairs, provides the
public and interested agencies of
the Government with information on
developments in the field of foreign
relations and on the work of the De-
partment of State and the Foreign
Service. The BULLETIN includes
press releases on foreign policy issued
by the White House and the Depart-
ment, and statements and addresses
made by the President and by the
Secretary of State and other officers
of the Department, as well as special
articles on various phases of inter-
national affairs and the functions of
the Department. Information is in-
cluded concerning treaties and in-
ternational agreements to which the
United States is or may become a
party and treaties of general inter-
national interest.

Publications of the Department, as
well as legislative material in the field
of international relations, are listed


APR 21 1950


Its Supervision and Control — III

hy Leonard H. Pomeroy

This is the third and ftruil installment of a senes
of three articles being published in the Depart-
ment of State Bulletin on this subject. The
first two articles published in the Bulletin of
February 6 and March 6, 1950, discussed the me-
chanics and effectiveness of current adryiinistr-ative
action, together with certain special problems con-
nected icith existing control measures. The his-
torical setting both with respect to the concern of
the United States Government with regard to the
manufacture of arms and current United States
arms export policy is the subject of the present

The United States does not regard the interna-
tional traffic in arms as an incidental part of inter-
national commerce. This view has prevailed be-
cause arms have a potential military use and may
be diverted to bring about conditions of political
instability. As a part of this concept, the United
States recognizes that the activities of the arms
maker as well as those of the intermediate arms
trader have direct and important implications for
the continued peaceful relations between nations.

National laws of different countries provide for
varying degrees of control over arms production.
In France, for instance, the arms industry has
been partially nationalized. In Great Britain,
firearms and munitions manufacturers must regis-
ter with the police and are under the close sur-
veillance and regulation of the Government. In
the United States, every manufacturer of arms,
ammunition, and implements of war is legally ob-
ligated to register with the Secretary of State.
In so doing, he is required to furnish full informa-

tion concerning his business organization and his
foreign and domestic affiliates. He is further re-
quired to maintain at all times appropriate rec-
ords of munitions transactions.

Supervision and control over the trade and
traffic in arms extends to and directly affects the
activities of the producer as well as the trader in
arms. From a historical point of view as well as
that of current arms-export policy, it is desirable
to deal first with the problem of effective control
over the international movement of munitions and
implements of war because of its relation to the
production of those articles.

The United States arms maker has a heavy
moral responsibility with respect to transactions
into which he enters to exercise utmost vigilance
to avoid negotiations which could result in em-
barrassment to this Government. American arms
firms of established reputations have come to rec-
ognize that their own welfare is best served by con-
sistent adherence to the objectives of the United
States Government in the fields of foreign policy
and national defense and to high standards of busi-
ness ethics. These firms, furthermore, frequently
find that it is to their advantage to cooperate with
the Government in order to frustrate threatened
illegal exports of arms and to furnish the Govern-
ment with information concerning suspected
transactions and persons.

Thus, American private arms producers are or-
dinarily quite willing to cooperate with the Gov-
ernment in solving the many problems connected
with destination control. Such cooperation by
private firms is helpful in alerting the United

April 3, 1950


States Government to possible unlawful ship-
ments prior to exportation as well as after exporta-
tion to destinations other than those authorized.




United States legislation, as well as the laws of
other countries, making arms producers subject
to government supervision and control, came as a
result of public indignation over alleged exposures
of war-provoking activities of international
armament firms prior to World War I.

These exposures began with charges made by
Karl Liebknect before the Reichstag in the spring
of 1913 against the intrigues of German arma-
ment firms.' Subsequently, many books and arti-
cles were written concerning the activities of arms
producers; the writers presenting voluminous
factual data in an effort to show that armament
firms had developed vast international organiza-
tions, a great number of subsidiaries, and inter-
locking directorates in many different countries,
enabling them to dictate prices and stir up war

Arms firms were specifically charged with en-
gaging in the following types of activities : =

(1) Fomenting war scares and attempting to
persuade various governments to adopt war poli-
cies and to increase their armaments;

(2) attempting to influence public opinion
through control of the press in their own and for-
eign countries;

(3) dissemination of propaganda against in-
ternational agencies for peace and interference in
attempts of international conferences to limit
armaments ;

(4) dissemination of false reports concerning
military preparations in various countries;

(5) recruiting former high officers of defense
establishiiieiit.s, public officials, and other govern-
ment employees in order to influence government
decisions in awarding contracts;

(G) bribery of government officials.

' George Seldes, Iron, Blood and Profits, p. !j5.

' The following books were published about this period :
J. T. Walton Newbold, How Europe Armed for War (1811-
191J,), London 1910; 7'Ae War Trust Exposed, London
191G; George H. Perris, The War Traders, London, 1914;
Union of Democratic Control, The International Industry
of War, London 1915.

Writing in 1919, Lord Wester Wemyss, First
Sea Lord of the British Admiralty during World
War I, made the following summarization :

Every firm engaged in the production of armaments and
munitions of any kind naturally wants the largest pos-
sible output. Not only therefore has it a direct interest
in the inflation of the Navy and Army estimates and in
war scares, but it is equally to its interest to push its
foreign business. For the more armaments are increased
abroad, the more they must be increased at home. The
interrelation between foreign and home trade In arma-
ments is one of the most subtle and dangerous features
of the present system of private production. The evil is
intensitied by the existence of international armament
rings, the members of which notoriously play into each
others' hands. So long as this subterranean conspiracy
against peace is allowed to continue, the possibility of
any serious concerted reduction of armaments will be

Lord Wemyss wrote in the light of his wartime
experience and 50 years of unparalleled growth
and amalgamations of armament concerns prior
to World War I. The immediate result of this un-
favorable publicity given arms makers was the
inclusion in the Covenant of the League of Na-
tions of certain provisions for dealing with the
weaknesses of the existing system.

League of Nations Efforts
To Regulate the Arms Trade

The Covenant of the League of Nations made it
encumbent on that organization to take certain
steps with respect to the arms trade. Article 8,
section 5 of the Covenant, provided that —

The members of the League agree that the manufacture
by private enterprise of munitions and implements of war
is open to grave objections. The Council shall advise how
the evil effects attendant upon such manufacture can be
prevented, due regard being had to the necessities of those
members of the League which are not able to manufacture
the munitions and implements necessary for their safety.

Under article 23, paragraph (d) of the Cove-
nant, the League of Nations was entrusted —

with the general supervision of the trade in arms and
ammunition with the countries in which the control of
this traffic is necessary in the common interest.

The St. Germain Convention of 1919 was the
first post World War I endeavor of the powers in
this field. Although never becoming effective,
this convention marks an important milestone in
the history of the development of the supervision
and control over the arms trade since it formulated

"Memorandum on The Production of Armaments, pre-
sented to the Admiralty in 1919 and cited by Philip Noel-
Baker, The Private Manufacture of Armaments.


Deparfmenf of Slate Bulletin

a comprehensive list of arms of war * ami set a
pattern of arms-export controls which served as a
prototype for subsequent enileavoi"S. The refusal
of the United States to ratify the convention was
due primarily to its opposition to the provisions
envisagring international supervision through the
League of Nations and calling for reports on arms
exports to signatory States.

In 1921, the League of Nations assigned the
problem of devising a system of supervision and
control over private manufacture of arms and
arms traffic to the Temporary Mixed Commission.
In 192-i, the efforts of the Commission resulted
in a majorit}' and a minority report with respect to
the manufacture of arms. The majority main-
tained that "the private manufacture of arms
must be regarded as a purely national matter, the
regulation and inspection of which should be left
to the national authorities" and held that "the
control of private manufacture should be exclu-
sively national though based on principles common
to all countries." The minority opinion recom-
mended international measures of control.^

The Geneva Convention of 1925 was much more
specific than the Convention of St. Germain in
defining the subject matter of the arms trade."
The two provisions which had been the chief ob-
stacles to obtaining the United States' ratification
of the St. Germain Convention were omitted from
this Convention. It was finally ratified by the
United States in 1934 but did not go into effect

* In the St. Germain Convention of 1919, the prohibition
of export without license applied to the following arms of
war : artillery of all kinds : apparatus for the discharge of
all kinds of projectiles, explosives or gas diffusing ; flame
throwers, bombs, grenades, machine guns, and rifled small-
bore breech-loading weaiions of all kinds, as well as
ammunition for use with such arms. Separate provision
was made for firearms and ammunition adapted both to
warlike and also to other purposes.

•League doc. A. 16.1921 IX, cited in M. O. Hudson,
Munitions Industry Report to Congress, 1935, p. 27.

'The Geneva Convention established five categories of
arms, ammunition, and implements of war, as follows :
(1) Arms, ammunition, and implements exclusively de-
signed for warfare, comprised in the armament of any
State's armed forces, or capable of only military use with
the exception of arms, ammunition or implements in-
cluded In other categories (Twelve subcategories were
listed) ; (2) arms and ammunition capable of use for
both military and other purposes (Four subcategories
were listed) ; (3) vessels of war and their armaments;
(4) aircraft and their engines; (5) gunpowder and ex-

because of the failure of several other states to
take similar action.


Arms Traffic Related to Disarmament

In the period between the First World War and
the Second, the United States took certain steps
designed to promote international peace and pub-
lic order which, though similar in objective, were
separate from actions taken by the League of
Nations. Prior to 19.34, the United States re-
garded international control over the traffic in
arms as directly related to the broader problem of
disarmament, and action on this topic was made
to depend on a general disarmament agreement
being reached. Although responsive to the strong
isolationist sentiment of the American public, the
United States did take the initiative in seeking
the promotion of peace through disarmament.
Thus, the United States sponsored the Washington
Disarmament Conference of 1921 and joined in
drawing up the Washington Naval Treaty placing
limitations on certain types of naval armaments.
It is to be noted that the Disarmament Conference
in London, which drew up the London Naval
Treaty of 1930, revealed the unwillingness on the
part of some of the major powers to cooperate in
reducing armaments.

Impact of Local Conflicts on U.S. Policy

The occurrence of regional wars, having direct
implications for United States interests abroad on
the one hand, and the strong isolationist or so-
called neutrality sentiment in this country on the
other produced a situation requiring recognition
of the problems by the United States.

Since 1905, the United States had applied re-
strictions on shipments of war materials to certain
Latin American countries with a view to curtailing
civil strife and promoting political stability in the
Western Hemisphere. In 1919, this policy, which
obtained its legal sanction from the joint resolu-
tions by Congress of April 22, 1898, and March 13,
1912, was extended to China. The joint resolu-
tion of January 31, 1922, repealing the earlier laws
restated the provisions of the 1912 resolution and
extended them to apply to countries, such as China,

April 3, 1950


in -which the United States then exercised extra-
territorial jurisdiction.

In 1928, the United States and other American
Republics, who joined in signing and ratifying
the Pan American Convention ' on the Duties and
Eights of States in the Event of Civil Strife,
agreed to observe the following rule :

To forbid the traffic in arms and war material, except
when Intended for the Government, while the belligerency
of the rebels has not been recognized, in which latter case
the rules of neutrality shall be applied, and to prevent
that within their jurisdiction there will be equipped,
armed, or adapted for warlike purposes any vessel in-
tended to operate in favor of the rebellion.

The Gran Chaco war between Bolivia and Para-
guay, which had been in progress since 1928, began
to receive the attention of the international com-
munity in 1930. In 1932, when repeated efforts
by the United States in cooiDeration with other
American Republics and the League of Nations
had failed to induce the two govenmients to settle
their differences peacefully, a number of govern-
ments * agreed to take steps to stop the flow of arms
to both countries. The joint resolution of May 28,
1934, was adopted to authorize the imjjosition of
an embargo on the sale of arms to the belligerents
in this war. The action of the United States dif-
fered from that of the League of Nations in that
the League subsequently lifted the arms embargo
against Bolivia, retaining it only against Para-
guay, whereas the United States continued to
prohibit the sale of arms to both belligerents
throughout the period of hostilities.* Since
neither Bolivia nor Paraguay was an arms-pro-
ducing coimtry, the curtailment of foreign arms
consignments directly affected the ability of both
sides to continue the war.

In the Far East, following the Japanese invasion
of Manchuria in September 1931, China, on Sep-
tember 21, appealed to the United States to pre-
serve the peace in the Far East. Secretary of

' Signed at Habana, Cuba, on Feb. 20, 1928.

"On September 1, 1934, the following countries had
taken effective steps in support of the embargo : The
United States, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Brazil, Canada, China, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, France,
Great Britain, Guatemala, Irish Free State, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxemburg, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Po-
land, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, U. S. S. K.,
and Yugoslavia.

• The action of the League had been challenged by Bo-
livia on the ground that its Covenant provided for sanc-
tions only after naming the aggressor. When Paraguay re-

State Stimson notified Japan that the invasion of
Manchuria was of concern to the entire world and
that it involved the 9-power treaty which the
United States and Japan had signed in 1922 and
the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1926.^° The question
of the use of an embargo against the aggressor or
against both belligerents in the Far East war was
considered by the Department of State in connec-
tion with proposed legislation in May 1933. Sec-
retary of State Hull took the position that an
embargo on arms and ammunition would not be an
effective means of restoring peace since Japan was
an important producer of arms and munitions of

Arms Traffic Legislation

As a result of the inability of the major powers
to agree to negotiate a comprehensive disarma-
ment pact which would include provisions for
the regulation of the international trade and traf-
fic in arms as well as the supervision of the manu-
facture of arms, the Government of the United
States began to consider the drafting of compre-
hensive legislative measures for regulating the
traffic in arms as a separate problem.

Several other developments also served to clear
the way for such legislation. A new wave of arti-
cles and books exposing the activities of the arms
makers in trading with belligerent governments
and in fomenting war scares was published be-

fused to submit the matters at issue to arbitration as
proposed by the League, the League recommended an em-
bargo solely against Paraguay, a recommendation which
was followed by the members of the League but not by
the United States. The legality of the embargo imposed
by the United States was also challenged by Bolivia on
the ground that it violated the treaty of May 13, 1S58,
between Bolivia and the United States. Article 6 of that
treaty contained a standard clause incorporated in treaties
of that period that no prohibition on the export of articles
produced or manufactured in the United States shall be
applied to Bolivia "which shall not equally extend to
other nations." The American Secretary of State, Cordell
C. Hull, asserted that since the embargo applied only to
sales and not to exports, no violation was involved.

" S. Doc. 55, 72d Cong., 1st scss., pp. .3-5. Note of the
Chinese Government to the American Government, Septem-
ber 21, 19.31. Note of the American Secretary of State,
Henry L. Stimson, to the .Japanese Ambassador, Katsiyii
Debuchi, September 22, 1931.

" Memorandum by the Secretary of State, Cordell C.
Hull, to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United
States Senate, May 17, 1933, Peace and ^yar, V. S. Foreign
Policy 1931-1943. p. 183.


Department of State Bulletin

tween 1933 and 1936." Tlie special Senate Com-
mittee investig;ating tlie iminitions industry dram-
atized the activities of the munitions makers in
carrying on trade witli the belligerents. This
Committee had been appointed to investigate re-
ported sales of numitions by American manufac-
turei"s to foreign governments. The Conunittee,
functioning under the chairmanship of Gerald P.
Nye, Republican Senator from North Dakota, did
not stop there, however, but enlarged the scope
of its inquiry into an attempt to prove that the
United States had been drawn into World War I
by American bankers and munitions makers. In
so doing, it completely ignored such basic reasons
for our entry into that vrar as the sinking of
American ships with consequent loss of American
lives; and the threats posed by a victorious Ger-
many to the United States, the rule of law, and
the American way of life.

The work of this Conmiittee resulted in deepen-
ing the isolationist sentiment throughout the na-
tion and in spurring legislation to deprive the
executive branch of the Government of all discre-
tion in dealing with warring nations.

Notwithstanding the known difficulties in ob-
taining adequate legislation at this time, the
Administration pushed vigorously for legislation
to prevent the shipment of arms to aggressor na-
tions. There was urgent need for such legislation
for two reasons. First, to enable the Government
to implement the Geneva Arms Traffic Convention
which was ratified by the United States in 1934,
assuming that it would be put in effect. Secondly,
to support the action taken by the United States
representative, Norman Davis, at the Geneva Dis-
armament Convention of 1933. Mr. Davis had
stated that the United States would refrain from
any action tending to defeat a collective effort of
the nations of the world against a nation guilty of

Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 1 of 116)