AS INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 118, 21 May 1928, Page 9

AS INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY

BRITAIN'S REPLY TO AMERICA KELLOGG PROPOSALS ACCEPTED British Official Wireless. RUGBY, 19th May. ' The text of the British reply to the United States Note on the proposed Peace Pact is issued for publication in Sunday morning's papers.'The reply states: "The suggestion for the conclusion of_ a Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an instrument of national policy has evoked widespread interest in this country, and His Majesty's Government will, support the movement to the utmost of its power.

The reply proceeds:— • "After making a careful study of the text contained in Your Excellency's Note and of the amended text suggested in the French Note, His Majesty's Government feels convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of a speech by the Secretary of State of tlio United States on , 28th April. The aim of the United States Government is to embody in a treaty a broad statement of principle, to proclaim without restriction 'or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy.' -With this aim 1 His Majesty's Government is wholly in accord. The French proposals, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which a violation of that principle by one party may oblige others to take action, .seeming at first sight to be inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty's Government appreciates the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by tho French Government. The exact fulfilment of Treaty engagements is a matter which affects national honour and precision as. to the scopo of such engagements is, therefore, of importance. Each of tho suggestions made by tho French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view. RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE. "After studying the wording ,of Article 1 of the United States draft, His Majesty's Government does not think that its terms exclude any action' which a State may be forced to take in self-defence. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech referred to above that he regards the right of self-defence as inalienable, and His Majesty's Government is« disposed to think that on this question no addition of the text is necessary. ' ' . "As regards the ( toxt"of Article 2 no appreciable difference is found between tho American and French proposals. His' Majesty's Government is therefore content to accept the former, if, as it understands to be tho case, a dispute "among the high contracting parties" is a phrase wide enough to cover a dispute between any two of them. "The French Noto suggests tho addition of any article providing that a violation of the Treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder from their obligations under the Treaty towards that party. His Majesty's Government is not satisfied that, if the Treaty stood alone, the addition of some such provision would not be necessary. Mr. Kellogg's speech, however, shows that he put forward for acceptance the text of the proposed treaty on the understanding that violation of the undertaking by one party would free remaining parties from obligations to observe .its terms in respect of the treaty-breaking State. "If it is agreed that this is the principle which will apply in the. case of this particular Treaty, His Majesty's Government is satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can, no doubt, be found' without difficulty for placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner, so that it may have equal value with the1 terms of the Treaty itself. •