j z w = r > league of natiohs c ommuni o ated to the c ...~ which, by the treaty of peace, is the...
Post on 27-Jun-2020
0 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
LEAGUE OF
J Z w = r >
NATIOHS
C ommuni o ated to the Ifombers of the Council,
8/27236/11518
C » 235 c 1923. IX.
Geneva, April 3rd, 19 23,
CONTROL OF THE OBSERVANCE BY BULGARIA OF THE
MILITARY AND AIR CLAUSES OF THE TREATY OF NEUILLY.
Noto by
irculate for
Charge d 1 Affaires
renci >f
The Socretary-C
the consideration of the Counc
1 ) a lotter receive^
at Berne,
2) Correspondence
Ambassadors.
In conformity with Article 2 of the rules of procedure
of the Councilr and in accordance with the desire expressed Toy
the Bulgarian Government, this question has been placed on the
agenda of the 24th session of the Council.
- 1 -
I. letter from the Bulgarian Çl.jrfq d Taffairos at Berne
to _t]je_ Soc Gt'iry -ftenoral.
EEREB, March 17fch, 19 23,
arslation,
Sir,
In conformity with Article 94 of the Treaty of Peaco
of Houilly-sur-Seine} tho execution of the military, naval and.
air clauses - which was to he completed within a prescribed time, -
was entrusted to an Inter-Allied Commission of Control appointed
for that purpose by the principal Allied Powers. Bulgaria having
executed the majority of these clauses, the work of this Commission
was considered at an end, and it left Bulgaria several months ago,
leaving in its placo a liquidation organisation which has also
finished its work, since Bulgaria has now carried out all her
military, naval and air obligations under the treaty. The
Sobranje has in fact just voted the last of the laws necessary
for modifying Bulgarian legislation and permanently bringing it
into conformity with Part IV of the Treaty of 1-euilly,
Wo have come to the end of the period of provisional
control provided for in Article 94 to ensure the execution of the
military, naval and air clauses, within a prescribed time limit.
In the Eoto which the President of the Conference of
Ambassadors sent to the Bulgarian Government on December 6th 1922,
the Allied Governments recognised the desirability of the departure
of the liquidation organisation, owing to the necessity of reliev
ing the Bulgarian finances from the burdens imposed by tho working
of this organisation..
The Allied Governments, anxious to ensure the continua
tion of a military supervision affording guarantees that the
military, naval and. air clauses already carried out by Bulgaria
v/ill also be loyally observed in the future, havo considered, and
have proposod. to the Bulgarian Government, the establishment of a
new organ of control to take tho place of the present control
organisations,
The Bulgarian Government considers tho creation of
this now body suoerfluous, since the Treaty of Nonilly provided
in Article 104 that throughout the whole period of the validity of
the treaty the control of the loyal observance by Bulgaria of the
military, naval and air clauses should be entrusted to tho Council
of the league of Nations, on which the principal Allied Powers are
represented„
Determined to fulfil all its obligations as a Member
of tho League of Nations, the Bulgarian Government asks the Council
~ which, by the Treaty of Peace, is the organisation whoso investi
gations Bulgaria can accept in tho period following the departure
of the liquidation organisation - to examine tho question of tho
application of Articlo 104 of the Treaty of Neuilly,
In bringing this to your notice, I am instructed by my
Government to ask you, Sir, to place this question on the agenda
of the next session of the Council.
I have the honour to "be,
Sir, etc„
(Signed) 21IK0ZF
Chargé d 1Affaires, Bulgarian Representative attached to the
Lnague of Nations„
~ 3~
Letter from the Oonferonco of .Ambassadors to the
S o c r o t ar y - G e no r al,
PAPIS , March 30th, 1923.
illation.
Sir,
On March 21st 1923 you forwarded to the Conference of
Ambassadors copy of the letter which was sent to you on March 17th
by the Representative of the Bulgarian Government attached to the
league of Nations. Ymi informed the Conference that tho question
raised in this letter had been placed upon the agenda of the next
mooting of the Council of the League of Nations, and you requested
it to forward to you all documents which might in its opinion bo
likely to aid tho Council.
In reply to this request, the Conference has decided to
place you in possession of the documents which I have the honour
to forward herewith:
1) Copy of its letter dated Decombor 6th, 1922, to the
Bulgarian Minister in Paris.
2) Copy of its letter dated March 15th, 1923, to the
Bulgarian Minister in Paris.
3) Copy of a note drafted on March 27th, 1923, by the
Allied Military Committee at Versailles, to which the Conference
forwarded your letter of March 21st.
In forwarding these documents the Conference cannot but
inform you of the surprise with which it views the step taken by
the Bulgarian representative attached to the League of Nations.
The letter of December 6th, 1922, expressly stated that the Treaty
of Neuilly had not yet boon completely carried out and that when
they proposed to substitute a Committee of Guarantee, which Bulgaria
«s 4g?
bad already aooeptod in priooipBc/in rogpaot of p\r s,*
the Treaty, for the Organ of Liquidation of the Commission of
Control, the Allied Powers1 only objeot was to assist Bulgaria
in discharging hor obligations. The Alliod Powers were prepared to
defray the expenses of the Committee of Guarantee, although under
the Treaty Bulgaria is liable for the maintenance of the Orgen of
Liquidation now operating, as for that of the Commission of Control,
of which the former is only a reducted fcrm= This metamorphosis
of the organisation of control would have afforded appreciable
relief to Bulgaria, who has on several occasions drawn attention to
the heavy expenditure laid upon her.
In maïing its proposal of December 6th to Bulgaria, the
Conference of Ambassadors pointed out clearly that, ’’should the
reply bo unfavourable or even delayed", it would be forced "toV
maintain the present Organ of Liquidation in office until the
military clausos of the Treaty of ITeuilly had boon completely ,
put into effect.11
Ever since December 6th, 1922, as shown in the letter
sent to tho Bulgarian Government by the Conference on March 15th,
Bulgaria has unfortunately not shown that eagerness to fulfil her
obligations for which the Powers had hoped.
Under these circumstances the Allied Powers are bound to
onforce in their entirety the rights which they derive from tho
Treaty. «
In so doing they are satisfied that they are serving tho
cauqe of peaco; so long as the clauses of the Treaty are not
completely put into effect,, tie presence of some organ of control
is indeed necessary to allay tho apprehensions which might bo caused
in the neighbouring countries by the dilatory manner in which dis
armament is being carried out in Bulgaria,'
I havo the honour to bo, Sir, etc.
(Signed) POILCARE.
- 5-
À 1-J 1\F E X I.
Letter from the Conference of Ambas 3 ad ors t o
General Savoff. Bulgarian Minister in Parisa
PARIS , December 6th, 1922.
relation.
Sir,
Although the Allied Governments are resolved to ensure
the execution of the Treaty of Peaoe in its entirety as regards
all matters in which the Organ of Liquidation is Sofia has not
yet boon ablo to complete its v/orlc, and also to obtain guarantees
for the faithful observation, in future, of the military and air
clauses of the Treaty of leuilly, they nevertheless desire to re
establish normal relations with the Bulgarian Government as soon as
possible. In these circumstances they have examined the question
ofcreating a Military and Air Committee of Guarantee, whose sphere
of operations would include Bulgaria, Austria and Hungary, and whose
expenses would bo paid by tho Principal Allied Powers.
The Allied Governments were of opinion that, if they
were assured of co-operation on the part of tho Governments con
cerned, this method would enable them to carry out military and
air control effectively with the least possible friction and risk,
and to reduce the costs at present imposed upon the Bulgarian
budget by the work of the Organ of liquidation in Sofia*
This Committee, the organisation and work of which are
explained in the attached Annex, would,should tho Powers concerned
agree to its creation, take tho place of the present organisations
of Control»
I have the honour to call your attention to your letter
of September 25th, in which you informed me that your Government
* - 6~
accepted the principle of the supervision of aviation in Bulgaria
at the expense of the Allied Governments* The Conference hopes
that the Bulgarian Government will extend this acceptance to apply
to the military clauses of the Peace Treaty, and will raise no
objection to the creation and work of the proposed Committee of
Guarantee,
I have the honour to request you to "be good enough to
bring the foregoing observations to the notice of your Government,
pointing out to it more especially the groat importance of the
Conference of Ambassadors receiving a reply at a date as near
December 15th next as possible, so as to allow the Committee of
Guarantee to tako up its duties on January 1st, 1933, as at present
contemplated.
The Conference of Ambassadors is obliged to call the
attention of the Bulgarian Government to tho fact that, should the
reply bo unfavorable or even delayed, it would bo forced to maintain
the present Organ of liquidation in office until the military clauses
of the Treaty of Eeuilly had been completely put into offeet, ot
at least until tho Committee of Guarantee, which it is proposed to
organise, had effectively entered upon its duties.
I have the honour to bn, Sir, etc.
(Signed) P0IÎÏCÆB.
- 7-
A It 1 E I II o
Letter from the Conference of Ambassadors to the
Bulgarian Minister in Paris „
PARIS, March 15th, 1923.
Sir,
On "behalf of the Powers represented in the Conference of
Ambassadors, I have tho honour to request you to transmit the follow
ing Note to your Government:
v,The Allied Powers are regretfully obliged to call the
attention of the Bulgarian Government to certain intrigues which
it tolerates within its territory, and which constitute serious
infringements of the Treaty of Ilouilly,,T
Recent reports received by the Conference of Ambassadors
show:
1) that the Bulgarian Government has allowed a number of
irregular military organisations (Agrarian Guard or Orange Guard,
local peasant militia, Red units established with the aid of
Russian ex-soldiers amongst the refugees in Bulgaria) to be created
within its territory;
2) that these formations have only been able to procure
arms because, on the one hand, Bulgarian citizens are still in
possession of an excessive number of such arms, and that in conse
quence, the lav/ for the disarmament of the civil population is not
applied, and, on the other hand, because there exist in Bulgaria
secret stores nf arms; this is shown by the systematic obstruction
by the Bulgarian authorities to searches carried out by control
officers ;
3) that the Bulgarian Government has not yet put into
effect the decision of the Conference of Ambassadors dated
- 8-
October lith,1922, on modifications in the budget law, which
provided for total military expenditure in respect of a larger
numbor of effectives than is fixed in the Treaty;
4) finally, that the Bulgarian Government permits a press
campaign, tho obvious purpose of which is to create a current of
opinion in favour of a return to compulsory military servioo.
In this respect the Conference of Ambassadors has further
laid boforo it certain documents sent b;/- the Bulgarian Government
to the Council of tho League of Nations, which show that the Bul
garian Government is aiming a t ,nothing less than a revision of the
military clauses of the Treaty of Ueuilly and. more especially,
a modification of its army recruiting system.
The Allied Powers are well aware of the difficulties
which the Bulgarian Government has encountered in regard to the
recruitment of a voluntary army7 but they are not fully assiîëd that
tho Bulgarian Government has done all that it might have done in
this direction.
Moreover, they would remind the Bulgarian Government that
on many occasions, and particularly by authorising the latter to
nake up provisionally for the shortage of army effectives by in
creasing the strength of its gendarmerie , police and frontier
guards, they have endeavoured to afford the Government the means
to create the necessary forces for ensuring internal order and
frontier control. They would point out that, according to in
formation supplied by the Bulgarian Government itself, the total
strength of Bu.lgarials armed forces on December 24th, 1922 was
270000 men - not far off the figure (33«,000) which is fixed by the
Treaty; the difference between these two figures would not appear
in any case to justify the Bulgarian Government in having recourse,
for the purposes of the country!a security, to irregular formations,
the existence of which is manifestly incompatible with Articles
69 and 70 of the Treaty of K euilly.
The circumstances in which these formations h ivo been
supplied with arms cannot, moreover, be tolerated by tho Allied
Powers , as the latter cannot permit Bulgaria to "k'or-p l-^-gcr
quantities ox arms than those authorised under tho Treaty,
As regards the Budget, it is not the opinion of tho
Allied Powers that the Bulgarian Government would gain any advan
tage by estimating for military expenditure in excess of that
required for tho effectives fixed in the Treatye
As regards a return to compulsory service, tho Allied
Powers can only confirm their fixed and final resolve not to per
mit in any manner the least infringement of the stipulations con
tained in the Treaty on this subject..
The Allied Powers therefore formally request the Bul
garian Government:
l) immediately to disband ail irregular formations organised
in its territory;
ii) to show greater energy in applying the law for the dis
armament of the civil population, and finally to abandon the ob
structive methods practised by the authorities v/ith a view to
hindering tho searches carried out by the Organ of liquidation;
3) to bring tho budget law into harmony with tho military
clauses of the Treaty, and without delay to supply the Organ of
Liquidation with all tho information for which the latter has
asked on this subject;
4) to put an end to the press campaign, which, by the dis
semination of inaccurate information, represents a return to com
pulsory servico as an essential condition for Bulgaria, and to
rcjoct all applications for the substitution of compulsory servico
for tho system of voluntar;7 service as fixed by the Treaty of
Heuilly.
Tho Alliod Powers, whose earnest desire is to secure peace,
would also draw the attention of the Bulgarian Government to the
sorlous risks which such infractions of the Treaty of Nouilly
might ontc.il from the point of the continuance of peace. These
repeated violations can indeed only givo rise to legitimate
anxiety amongst the States who arc Bule-ariars neighbours, and
induce them to take military measures which might provoko the
most regrettable occurrences, mad thereby give birth to danger-
•ous complications. The facts mentioned above prove that the
responsibility would rest upon the Bulgarian Goverment alone.
Convinced as they are that your Government is alive to
the present situation, the /.Hied Powers hope that It will not
fail to fulfil its obligations, aid that in the interests of the
common work of peace it will aid them loyally and whole^hearfcedl
in tho execution of the military clauses of the Treaty of Neuilly
I have the honour to bo, Sir, otc,,,
(Signed) POINCARE*
STATEMENT BY THE ALI.IEL MILITARY COMMISSION AT VERSAILLES
0? TEE QUESTION "RAISED BY THE REQUEST STJEMITTED LY THE
BulGARIAH GOYEItNHEtiT TO T1IE CCUNCI1 OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ooncorning tho application of Artiolo 104 of the
Treaty of Ecuilly.
The Secretary General of the League of Nations has/ -5 A
c^mmunicated to the Conference of Ambassadors a letter' from
the representative of tho Bulgarian Government, concerning the
applioation of Article 104 of the Treaty of Keuilly (investiga
tions by the League of Nations in or5.er to ascertain that tho
Treaty of Neui.Lly is "being observed) » )
Tho Bulgarian letter argaos that as the Conference of
Ambassadors has substituted an Organ of Liquidation for the Inter-
Allied Military Commission of Control in Sofia which was set up
in virtare of Article 94 of tho Treaty of It eu illy, it must havo
been of the opinion that tho Commission had completed its work»
It is suggested that, "as Bulgaria has fulfilled all
her military, naval and air obligations'} tho duties of tho Organ
of liquidation are now legally at an on:!*
The Bulgarian Government argues that tho Alliod Govern
ments have themselves recognised that it is time for tho Organ of
1 No o 207, dated March 17th .y 19 20 e2 s Article 104 roads as follows :~
,rSo long as the present Treaty remains in force, Bulgaria undertakes to submit to any investigation which the Council of the League of Nations by a majority vote may consider necessary0n
, t . , , tf
.Lj-'-iï-i Nation to leave, since the Confère no g of Ambassadors, in its
note dated December 6th7 IS28, proposed chao this Or£-an should be
roplaccd by a military and air Committee of Guarantee, whose duty
it shall he to ascertain that the military and air clauses "which
have already ‘been c-a;?:-::od ‘o;r-; Bulgaria" shall continue to be
faithfully observed in the future. It considers that this new
organisation is superfluous, and that the time has arrived when
control, should bo placed in the hands of the League of Nations in
virtue of Article 104 of the Treaty of Keuilly? Accordingly, it
requests the Council of the league of Rations "üo examine the
question of the application of article 104,j
The document in question calls for the following comments
and corrections î
It is incorrect to state that the Commission of Control
in Bulgaria was dissolved because the Allied Powers consider ‘.its '
work at an end. The decision of the Conference of Ambassadors to
substitute for this Commission an Organ of Liquidation on a smaller
scale was purely an act of grace designed to lighten the financial
burden which the maintenance of the Commission imposed upon the
Bulgarian budget; and the duty of the now Organ was expressly
"bo carry on the work, of control until such time as tho military
clauses of the Treaty of Neuilly shall have been carried out in
full, under such conditions and in the exorcise of such powers as
are defined for Commissions of Control in Articles 94 and -90 of that
Treaty-.11
A similar sentiment of goodwill prompted the Conference
of Ambassadors, on April 1st and September 1st, 1922, to replace
tho normal Commission of Control in Hungary by Commissions on a
continously diminishing scale, and finally, in order completely to
remove tho burden imposed on the Bulgarian and Hungarian budgets, to
propose to Bulgaria and Hungary fand at the same time to Austria) in
its JTotc of December 6th last, that the present Organs of Control
should be replaced by a single military and air Committoo of Guaran fees
- 13-
to be maintained at tho oxpense of the Allied Powers and to
exercise supervision over the three c o u n t r i e s . ^
It is however incorrect to say that, by so doingr the
Allied Powers have recognised that Bulgaria haa carried out in
full all the obligations which she incurred under the military
clauses of the Treaty of Nouilly, and that hencoforth it should
bo meroly a question of ensuring tho permanence of the results
obtained.
As a matter of fact, it will bo seen from the documents
attached, that tho military clauses of tho Treaties are still far
from having been executed in their entirety by Bulgaria.
Finally, it is difficult to understand why Bulgaria,,
having aocopted the principle of an Air Cômmittoo of Supervision,
should refuse to recogniso the same principle for the supervision
of t*io military clauses, which are far from having been carried out
in full.
To sum u p ;
The military olausos of the Treaty of Neuilly have not
been carried out in their entirety.
The Commission of Control on a smaller scale is engaged
in supervising their execution.
The setting up of a singlo Committee of Guarantee £or
Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, as proposed by tho Conference of
Ambassadors, has not been aooepted.
In those circumstances tho Allied Powers aro bound to
maintain tho present organisation of control until tho military
clauses of tho Treaties have been executed in their entirety,As they
are responsible for the execution of these clauses, the supervision
of which is their particular duty, they cannot relinquish control
until they have satisfied 'themselves that these clauses have boon
carried out in full,
(l) This change would, moreover, result in setting up at onco an organisation on the smallest possible scale, which could bo utilised whon the Treaties have been carried out in full, and it
ubsoquentl# becomes tho duty of the League of Nations to see that they continue to bo observed.
■lED MILITARY COMMITES
AI VERSAILLES 0
Mar oh 27th, 192-3,
EG TE BY THE ALLIED MILITARY COî>i:ifJTEG AT VERSAILLES
OÜ THE PRINCIPAL MILITARY CLAUSES IE THE TREATY Cl*
ÏŒT/ILLT WHICH HAVE FOT BE EE CARRIED OUT IE FULL-
I - ABO LIT IOE OF CT3MTOJiOKY MILITARY SERVI OB ( Article 65 of the Treaty),
The principle of compulsory military service in Bulgaria
still remains embodied in article 71 of the Bulgarian Constitution,,
As long as this state of affairs oontirx5.es to exist it docs not
seem possible to consider that compulsory military service has been
definitely and entirely abolished in Bulgaria*
The Committee at Versailles has "brought this matter to the
notice of the Conference of Ambassadors, and has roquested the latter
to make representations to the Bulgarian Government in order that
Article 71 of the Constitution may be made to conform with the Treaty
as laid down in Article 101 of the Treaty itself.
II«ORGANISATION AED EFFECTIVES OF THE BUuGAPIAIÎ ARV (Articles 66, 67
and 70 of the Treaty»)
a) In a report dated March 1 3 3- 1923, the Council of Delegates
of tho Organ of liquidation in Sofia notified the Committee at
Versailles, when the Bulgarian draft budget was being examined, of
tho increasingly marked tendency on the part of the Bulgarian Govern
ment to disregard the provisions of the Treaty of Neuilly,
This tendency was indicated not only by budget estimates
which were much higher than an expenditure corresponding to i,he
effectives fixed under the Treaty, but also dy the retention in
Bulgaria", legislation, and in particular in the regulations govern
ing the application of the Law on Compulsory Labour,* of provisions
1* 3,5 ►»
which are evidence of a desire to preserve - olearly for tlo £ar-
■poses of mobilisation - the former military organisation of
Bulgaria (maintenance of divisional administrations, regimental
districts and a far greater number of recruiting offices than
the country requires)„
In its resolution of IJaroh 1, 1923, the Conference of
Ambassadors formally invited the Bulgarian Government to bring its
budget lav/ into conformity v/ith the military clauses of the Treaty I ' l l
More recently still, on March 21stv 1923, the Conference
of Ambassadors decided to call upon tho Bulgarian Government to
adapt its military legislation to the clauses of tho Treaty,
b) Irregu lar military formations» (Articles 67 and 70 of
tho Treaty) «,
On several occasions, and particularly in December, 1922
and in January, 1923, the Council of Delegates of the Organ of
Liquidation in Sofia notified tho Committee at Versailles of tho
fact that the Bulgarian Government had permitted the formation of
a number of irregular military organisations in the interior of
tho country (Agrarian Guard nr Orange Guard, local peasant militia,
Rod units established with tho aid of Russian ox-soldiers amongst
the refugees in Bulgaria)0
In a resolution of March 1st, tho Conference of Ambassadors
was constrained at the request of-the Committee at Versailles,
formally to call upon the Bulgarian Government to dissolve all
theso formations immediately.^^ The carrying out of this reso
lution !has not yet been notified.
IIIcDIgARMAMENT OF BULGARIA. (Article 77 of the Treaty).
Tho facility with which all the irregular formations
mentioned above were provided v/ith arms clearly proves that
i>l) See letter of March 152 1922, from tho President of theConference of Ambassadors to the Bulgarian Minister in Paris, copy of which is attached.
< -16-
Bulgarian citizens are still in possession of an excessive number
of such arms - Moreover, tho systematic obstruction "by the Bulgarian
authorities of soarchos oarriod out by control officers tends to
prove tho existenco of secret stores of arms in Bulgaria,
The disarmament of Bulgaria cannot therefore be considered
to have been carried out. In its resolution of March 1, 1923, the
Conferenco of Ambassadors was constrained to call upon the Bul
garian Government "to show greater enorgy in applying the law for
tho disarmament of the civil population and finally abandon the
system of obstruction proctised by the authorities with a viow to
( 1 )hindering tho soarchos carried out by the Organ of Liquidationa TT
IT c MAMJF AO TUBE OF WAR MATERIAL (Article 79 of the Treaty).
This matter has not yot advancod beyond the stage of
preliminary enquiry; no steps have yet been taken to establish tho
singlo Stato Factory. Tho proposals submitted by tho Bulgarian
Government on this question seem to be conceived with a view to
an organisation w M c h would produce mu oh more than is required
for the armod effectives of the country.(regular army and cate
gories of officials allowed to carry arms under the Treaty, or in
accordance with the decisions of the Conforenco of Ambassadors)»
The question is therefore still quite an open ene.
fl) See letter of March 15, 1922, from the President of the Confetence of Ambassadors to the Bulgarian Minister in Paris, copy of which is attached.
top related