'League of Nations, Conference for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, Geneva, 17th June 1925' [‎59v] (125/138)

30
Practical diffi
culties foreseen
by the Drafting
Committee.
Geographical
Committee's
decision to reirert
to the original
proposal.
Discussion in the
General Com
mittee.
the least of his difficulties was that he had just sent off a five-page telegram
^ 0 i ^ an re P or tiE8' his success at the morning's meeting, and now was
asked to abandon his victory, and inform his Government that the whole
question was reopened. Mr. Gibson, speaking as the representative of a
Government not directly concerned in the immediate issue, solemnly urged
him ^ not to reject the solution now offered without the most serious
consideration. The French delegate spoke in a similar sense, but Tewfik Bey
(Turkey) and Dr. Tcheou-Wei (China) supported .Prince Arfa-ed-dowlel/s
argument that the present proposal, being, in effect, a reopening of a
question decided by a formal vote, was out of order. Eventually, the
Prince, seeing that he would be outvoted at the moment, made a formal
reservation of his right to demand further consideration in the General
Committee, and withdrew. M. Dendramis urged the Committee to record
its unanimous approval of the British suggestion, and this was done.
94. The consequential re-drafting of the chapter on the maritime zone
regime was left to the Drafting Committee. Fortunately or unfortunately
this Committee, in the course of executing this task, found or envisaged
such possibilities of friction in the application of the regime to all vessels
of under 500 tons that it asked that the Geographical Committee, whicji
had, it had believed, completed its work at the afternoon session on »th June,
should be re-convened to reconsider the matter yet again. ' The Geographical
Committee met therefore once more on the morning of 11th June, but
finding it impossible to devise on the spur of the moment any means of
suitably disposing of the Drafting Committee's difficulties, appointed a
Sub-Committee (Turkey, Great Britain, India, Italy, Portugal, and France).
This Sub-Committee, which met the same afternoon, also found it impossible
to get round the Drafting Committee's criticisms and recommended as the
only way out of the impasse a frank reversal of the two last decisions, and
reversion to the original wording of Article 15 of the Temporary Mixed
Commission's draft, including the term " native vessel " and the original
definition of that term.
95. The next morning, 12th June, the Geographical Committee met to
consider the Sub-Committee's report. The Persian delegate (General
Habibullah Khan) protested—this time, it must be admitted, with some
justification—against the procedure adopted, and complained that all his
efforts, made in accordance with specific instructions from Tehran to seek
an accommodation with the Powers interested in the maritime zone
compatible with respect for Persia's sovereign rights, had been rebuffed
by the Indian delegation. The Greek delegate then suggested that the
Committee should now make its decision on the Sub-Committee's report,
and that the Persian delegate should make whatever reserve he thought
proper, and take an opportunity at leisure to make a separate agreement
with other Powers directly concerned. The French and Chinese delegates
having offered their services as intermediaries to this end—an offer which
Sir P. Cox gratefully acknowledged'^—M. Dendramis' suggestion was
adopted and a decision taken—under a final protest by General Habibullah
Khan—by seven votes to none, to revert to the Temporary Mixed Commission's
draft of Article 15 (with the modifications previously mentioned of the
definition of the Indian Ocean).
96. The General Committee stage had still to be faced.
On 11th June (twenty-third session of the General Committee)
M. Matsuda's report of the work of the Geographical Committee and the
draft Articles recommended by that Committee came up for discussion.
General Habibullah Khan rose, and combining with arguments that he had
previously used a bitter complaint of the procedure adopted by the
Geographical Committee, proposed that " the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. and Gulf of Oman "
be deleted from the definition of the maritime zone. M. dePalacios replied to the
Persian complaint as to procedure and Lord Onslow and Sir P. Cox followed,
* The Persian delegate had plainly hinted more than once before that his Government-
wonld be ready to conclnde a private arrangement with Great Britain (and India). These
offers had always been evaded as (1) it seemed improper to effect by private arrangement
measures which should be provided for in the Convention; (2) His Majesty's Government
(and India) has in the Hardinge Agreement of 1897 all the special agreement that it requires.