'League of Nations, Conference for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, Geneva, 17th June 1925' [‎47v] (101/138)

(ii) The foreign
delegations,
(a) The Ameri
can delegation.
(b) The French
delegation.
leaving them, so far as possible, to find their own level and cancel each other
out in the more free and easy atmosphere of the smaller committees.
9. Count Carton de Wiart would, we think, be the first to acknowledge,
and indeed in his concluding speech did handsomely acknowledge, the debt
that the Conference owed to the tact and accessibility of its Secretarv-
General, Sencr de Madariaga, without whose driving energy in the latest
stages the Conference would have been even more protracted than it was.
10. Of the foreign delegations pride of place must undoubtedly be given
to the American. The delegation was strong in numbers and no less in the-
quality of its personnel. It was, moreover, in a peculiarly conspicuous
position for two reasons: firstly, "because the Government which it
represented had been principally responsible for the failure of the St.
Germain Convention of 1919 to come into force ; and secondly, it represented,,
in a conference summoned by the League of Nations, the only State which
has deliberately refrained, up to the present, from entry into the League.
The former circumstance gave the American delegates a certain tactical
advantage, of which they were fully aware; they knew that in order to win
the signature of the American delegation to the Convention, or, at any rate,
prevent it from being torpedoed prematurely, other delegations would be
ready to concede a great deal on any point on which the former took a firm
stand. The second circumstance may have caused them some moments of
slight embarrassment, but, if so, they bore it with dignity and humour.
Possibly with a recollection of the unfavourable impression created by
American delegations at other international meetings at Geneva, the United:
States delegates generally showed themselves anxious to understand, and
ready to appreciate the point of view of other nations' representatives at the
Arms (Conference in regard to phases of the matter under discussion which
were not familiar to themselves. But all the time they were mindful of the
difficulties which are likely to have to be surmounted before the American
Legislature's approval and ratification of the Convention is obtained; and
they were most cautious to concede no point which is likely to be regarded
as important by American commercial interests, and to undertake no
commitments in respect of any aspect of arms traffic which is not of :
immediate interest to Americans. They were particularly careful to avoid
any implication or responsibility in matters affecting the special zones ;;
indeed, Mr. Burton stated that he had been much inclined to propose a
division of the Convention into two self-contained instruments, one relating
to the arms trade in general and the other relating to traffic in the special
zones ; of the latter, he said, the American delegation would have been„
careful to keep entirely clear.
Mr. Burton was perhaps the dominating figure in the Confereuce. A
big man physically, with an appearance of age and ill-health that concealed'
a quick intelligence and a vast amount of energy, he made his points with
lucidity and emphasis. A deliberate, almost pondereus delivery lent weight
to a style of oratory that was usually curt, and sometimes almost offensively
so, but on occasion rose to a level of rough pulpit eloquence. Mr. Gibson,
the second delegate, the United States Minister at Berne, filled admirably
the role of foil to, or complement of Mr. Burton. The latter usually was
spokesman when it was desired to beat down opposition ; Mr. Gibson when
it was a question of graceful concession or of winning opinion to the
American point of view—a task for which his urbane manner particularly
qualified him.
11. The French delegation also was strong in numbers, and all its
members possessed in a marked degree the qualities of skilled, if perhaps
superficial debaters. What the French delegation's guiding policy really
was, was hard to fathom. M. Paul Boncour, the chief delegate, a prominent
politician of the Socialist Party in France, no doubt had a watchful eye on
the political effect in France of his actions in Geneva ; he generally spoke
vehemently, and on occasion with real eloquence, when supporting any
measure that would appeal to Labour and Labour's intolerance of war. Nor
did he—or the French delegation—confine their efforts to "play to the
gallery " to speeches in the Conference ; directly or indirectly full use was-
W ti