AGAINST WAR.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 48, Issue 75, 9 January 1928, Page 4

AGAINST WAR.

UNITED STATES AND FRANCE. FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS. 'v Press Association—Copyright ) (Received This Day, 8.50 a.m.) m, ... PARIS, January 8. The reply by M. Briand (French Foreign Minister) to Mr R. B. Kellogg (United States Secretary of State) in regard to the proposed pact, recalls M. Briand’s previous proposal on the same subject, and adds:—“The French Government highly appreciates the favourable reception the United States Government accorded to M. Briand’s proposal. It considers Mr Kellogg’s suggested procedure satisfactory, and thatit would be advantageous to consecrate its character forthwith by . FrancoAmerican signature. The Note says; “I am authorised to inform you that the French Government is ready to co-operate with America in submitting for the approval of all nations a pact signed by France and America, under which the contracting/ parties renounce aggressive war and accept every pacific method. Franceand America would invite other Statesto adhere to it.” . ' ■

THE FRENCH POINT OF VIEW.

WASHINGTON, January &. M. Briand’s reply to' Mr Kellogg’s - Note changes the proposal to deal with “wars of aggression,” and official reaction here was unfavour- - able, contrary to Parisian Press dispatches that. M. Briand had accepted Mr Kellogg’s plan and the abandonment by M. Briand of his own original proposal. It is stated that whatever - the ultimate reaction will be to the new Briand offer, it will require time to decide. One decision was reached today, however, namely,to reject the suggestion of M. Briand that a treaty for renouncing war would be forthwith, signed by France and the United States. Such a bilateral treaty is • held to be tantamount to a defensive . alliance, and the French Ambassador, M. Claudel, was plainly informed today that the United States will enter no such arrangement. It is understood that Mr Kellogg will continue the conversations with M. Claudel, and if sufficient encouragement is forthcoming, it is felt that efforts may be made to sound other Powers on the question, of" '■ a multilateral declaration renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. The word “aggressor” is used quite incidentally, but most effectively, in M. Briand’s Note. It constitutes thechief stumbling block, and at the same time is a source of amazement to American officials. There are intimations here that M. Briand avowedly admits that the League of Nations is not- exclusively an instrument of peace, hut through Articles X to XIY. relies upon war as one of the keystones of its structure. The question is asked: If Air Kellogg’s proposal for a multilateral treaty might conflict with the Covenant of the League, would not a bilateral treaty between France ahd the United States outlawing aggressive war be equally conflicting? The American position is that it is impossible to define in advance what constitutes an aggresor nation.