a reduction or limitation of national armaments in accordance with Article 8 of the Covenant 'to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations."" The following provisions of the draft Treaty may be especially noted: ARTICLE 2 "The High Contracting Parties, jointly and severally, undertake to furnish assistance, in accordance with the provisions of the Present Treaty, to any one of their number should the latter be the object of a war of aggression, provided that it has conformed to the provisions of the present Treaty regarding the reduction or limitation. of armaments. ARTICLE 3 In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties being of opinion that the armaments of any other High Contracting Party are in excess of the limits fixed for the latter High Contracting Party under the provisions of the present Treaty, or in the event of it having cause to apprehend an outbreak of hostilities, either on account of the aggressive policy or preparations of any State party or not to the present Treaty, it may inform the Secretary-General of the League of Nations that it is threatened with aggression, and the Secretary-General shall forthwith summon the Council. The Council, if it is of opinion that there is reasonable ground for thinking that a menace of aggression has arisen, may take all necessary measures to remove such menace, and in particular, if the Council thinks right, those indicated in sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the second paragraph of Article 5 of the present Treaty. The High Contracting Parties which have been denounced and those which have stated themselves to be the object of a threat of aggression shall be considered as especially interested and shall therefore be invited to send representatives to the Council in conformity with Articles 4, 15 and 17 of the Covenant. The vote of their representatives shall, however, not be reckoned when calculating unanimity. ARTICLE 4 In the event of one or more of the High Contracting Parties becoming engaged in hostilities, the Council of the League of Nations shall decide, within four days of notification being addressed to the Secretary-General, which of the High Contracting Parties are the objects of aggression and whether they are entitled to claim the assistance provided under the Treaty. The High Contracting Parties undertake that they will accept such a decision by the Council of the League of Nations. The High Contracting Parties engaged in hostilities shall be regarded as especially interested, and shall therefore be invited to send representatives to the Council (within the terms of Articles 4, 13 and 17 of the Covenant), the vote of their representative not being reckoned when calculating unanimity; the same shall apply to States signatory to any partial agreements involved on behalf of either of the two belligerents, unless the remaining Members of the Council shall decide otherwise. ARTICLE 5 The High Contracting Parties undertake to furnish one another mutually with assistance in the case referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty in the form determined by the Council of the League of Nations as the most effective, and to take all appropriate measures without delay in the order of urgency demanded by the circum stances. In particular, the Council may: (a) decide to apply immediately to the aggressor State the economic sanctions contemplated by Article 16 of the Covenant, the Members of the League not signatory to the present Treaty not being, however, bound by this decision, except in the case where the State attacked is entitled to avail itself of the Articles of the Covenant; (b) invoke by name the High Contracting Parties whose assistance it requires. No High Contracting Party situated in a continent other than that in which operations will take place shall, in principle, be required to co-operate in military, naval or air operations; (c) determine the forces which each State furnishing assistance shall place at its disposal; (d) prescribe all necessary measures for securing priority for the communications and transport connected with the operations; (e) prepare a plan for financial co-operation among the High Contracting Parties with a view to providing for the State attacked and for the States furnishing assistance the funds which they require for the operations; (f) appoint the Higher Command and establish the object and nature of his duty. The representatives of States recognised as aggressors under the provisions of Article 4 of the Treaty shall not take part in the deliberations of the Council specified in this Article. The High Contracting Parties who are required by the Council to furnish assistance, in accordance with sub-paragraph (b), shall, on the other hand, be considered as especially interested, and, as such, shall be invited to send representatives, unless they are already represented, to the deliberations specified in sub-paras (c), (d), (e) and (ƒ).” Without attempting an analysis of these provisions, or of other provisions of the draft Treaty, it is quite apparent that its fundamental principle is to provide guarantees of mutual assistance and to establish the competency of the Council of the League of Nations with respect to the decisions contemplated, and, in view of the constitutional organization of this Government and of the fact that the United States is not a member of the League of Nations, this Government would find it impossible to give its adherence. The Government of the United States has not failed to note that under Article 17 of the draft Treaty "Any State may, with the consent of the Council of the League, notify its conditional or partial adherence to the provisions of this Treaty, provided always that such State has reduced or is prepared to reduce its armaments in conformity with the provisions of this Treaty", but it would not serve a useful purpose to consider the question of a conditional or partial adherence on the part of the Government of the United States when the conditions imposed would of necessity be of such a character as to deprive adherence of any substantial effect. WASHINGTON, June 16, 1924. ACCEPTANCE BY THE UNITED STATES OF CERTIFICATES OF IDENTITY ISSUED BY THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO RUSSIAN AND ARMENIAN REFUGEES IN LIEU OF PASSPORTS 511.1 C 1/1 The Russian Financial Attaché (Ughet) to the Chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, Department of State (Poole) NEW YORK, September 22, 1922. MY DEAR MR. POOLE: I am in receipt of the text of the arrangement with regard to the issue of Certificates of Identity to Russian refugees, adopted by the Governmental Conference convened by Dr. Nansen, High Commissioner for Russian refugees at Geneva on July 3-5, 1922, a copy of which is herewith enclosed." It occurred to me that in case the procedure recommended by the Conference is going to be adopted by the European Governments, we may be confronted with the case of Russian citizens bearing these certificates and presenting them to be visa'ed for entrance into this country. Therefore, I take the liberty in writing to you informally to find out what in your opinion will be the attitude of the American Government towards this arrangement. This question is of a great practical importance, as it is quite probable that many Russian refugees will exchange their present passport for these Certificates, thinking that the possession of the latter will assure the protection of the League of Nations. It seems to me that it is our duty to prevent possible misunderstandings in this matter. Hoping that you will appreciate the reasons for my letter and will find it possible to fulfill my request, I remain [etc.] S. UGHET 511.1 C 1/1 The Chief of the Division of Eastern European Affairs, Department of State (Poole) to the Russian Financial Attaché (Ughet) WASHINGTON, October 30, 1922. MY DEAR MR. UGHET: I am sorry that an answer to your letter of September 22, 1922, concerning the certificates of identity proposed to be issued to Russian refugees has been so long delayed. I postponed an answer in the thought that the question might be presented to the Department in some practical way. So far, however, the matter has not been brought before us except through your letter. While the action of the Department cannot be anticipated with respect to such concrete cases as may arise, I believe that I am justified in saying to you that there is nothing in the situation to cause apprehension on behalf of the Russian refugees. I do not see how they can be placed in a worse situation with respect to travel and visas as a result of new provisions made in other countries on the suggestion of the League. There have been many cases since the war of persons holding no passports or the passports of non-recognized governments. To care for this the Department has provided a form (No. 228) which is in effect a declaration by the applicant for a visa as to the facts of his identity and nationality. If a regular passport is lacking, the visa, when granted, is affixed to this form. I think that it is clear that under this procedure Russian refugees will not suffer any new or undue hardship in the matter of obtaining visas. Any document which they may have in the nature of certificates of identity of the kind proposed by the League of Nations will, presumably, only improve their situation by providing additional, though not necessarily conclusive, evidence of their identity and nationality. I am [etc.] 511.1 C 1/7 D. C. POOLE The Secretary General of the League of Nations (Drummond) to the Secretary of State C.L. 72. 1924 GENEVA [, June 10, 1924]. [Received June 26.] SIR: The Council of the League of Nations, at its meeting on September 28th last, had its attention called to the situation of some thousands of Armenian refugees in various countries who are gravely handicapped by the lack of any documents enabling them to establish their identity, or to travel freely in pursuance of their normal occupations. In its desire to contribute towards the removal of this disability, the Council requested Dr. Nansen, the High Commissioner for refugees, "to consider the possibility of having the necessary arrangements made for the issue of identity certificates to Armenian refugees." Dr. Nansen has made a careful study of this problem, in consultation with the Secretariat of the League and with representatives of the refugees, and has reached the conclusion that effect could best be given to the Council's recommendation by the general adoption by interested governments of a form of certificate for Armenian refugees identical, mutatis mutandis, with the certificates established for Russian refugees under the Arrangement concluded at Geneva on July 3rd-5th, 1922. 66 The thirty-five States shown in the annexed list "-two of which, Germany and Mexico, are not Members of the League-are now parties to the Geneva Arrangement which has, in practice, yielded very satisfactory results. The principles laid down in the Arrangement would, it is thought, apply, with only minor modifications, to the proposed certificate for Armenian refugees. In response to a communication enquiring whether, in the event of an inter-governmental conference being convened to consider the present question, it would be willing to send a representative, the Turkish Government has stated that there is no reason for it to take part in any arrangements concerning Armenian refugees as there are no such refugees from other countries in Turkey. Dr. Nansen has prepared, and at his request I forward to you for consideration by your Government, a plan for the introduction, by agreement between interested governments, of an identity certificate for Armenian refugees.67 The plan contains similar rules to those laid down in the Geneva Arrangement relating to Russian refugees and the certificate is substantially identical with the certificate now employed for the latter. The only modification made is the insertion on the certificate of a space authorising its use for the purpose of returning to the country issuing it and the inclusion in the plan of a recommendation that such authorisation should be given if possible. This modification, |