BRITAIN AGREES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 118, 21 May 1928, Page 7

BRITAIN AGREES.

PRINCIPLE OP TREATY

Empire Emphatically Favours Peace. REPLY TO AMERICA. (British Official Wireless.) (Received 1 p.m.) RUGBY, May 20. 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 their power.

"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 feel 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 the speech by the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. F. B. Kellogg, on April 28. The aim of the United States Government is to embody in the treaty the broad statement of principle; to proclaim without restriction of qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim His Majesty's Government are wholly in accord.

"The French proposals, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added the 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 appreciate the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by the French Government. The exact fulfilment of treaty engagements is a matter which affects national honour and the precision as to the scope of such engagements is therefore of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view.

"After studying the wording of Article 1 of the United States draft, His Majesty's Government do not think its terms exclude the action which a State may be forced to take in selfdefence. 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 are disposed to think that on this question no addition to the text is necessary.

"As regards the text of Article 2, no appreciable difference is found between the American and French proposals. His Majesty's Government are therefore content to accept the former if, as they understand to be the case, a dispute' 'among the high contracting parties,' is a phrase wide enough to cover a dispute between any two of them.

"The French Note suggests the addition of an article providing that 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 are 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 upon the understanding that violation of the undertaking by one party would free the 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 are satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can no doubt be found, without difficulty, of placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner so that it may have equal value with the terms of the treaty itself. The point, is one of importance because of its bearing on the treaty engagements by which His Majesty's Government are already bound.

"The preservation of peace has been the chief concern of His Majesty's Government and the prime object of all their endeavours. It is this reason why they have given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why they have undertaken the burden of guarantees embodied in the Locarno Treaty. The sole object of all these engagements is the elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, just as it is the purpose of the peace pact now proposed.

"It is because the object of both is the same that there is no real antagonism between the treaty engagements which His Majesty's Government have already accepted, and the pact which is now proposed. The machinery of the Covenant and that of the Treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further than the renunciation of war as a policy, in that they provide certain sanctions for a breach of their obligations. A clash might thus conceivably arise between the existing treaties and the proposed pact unless it is understood that the obligation of any new engagement will cease to operate in respect of the party which breaks its pledges and adopts a hostile means against oiie of its cocontractants for the British Government respect for the obligations arising out of the League Covenant and of the Locarno Treaty is fundamental.

"Our position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government as indicated in their Note of April 27. His Majesty's Government could not agree to any new treaty which would weaken or undermine these engagements on which the peace of Europe rests. Indeed the public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great that His Majesty's Government would, for their part, prefer to see some such provision as Article 4 of the French draft embodied in the text of the treaty.

"To this we understand there will be no objection. * Mr. Kellogg has made it clear that he has no intention, by the terms of the new treaty, of preventing parties to the League Covenant or to the Locarno treaties from fulfilling their obligations.

"The language of Article 1 as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and the integrity of which constitute special and vital interest for our peace and safety. Hie. Majesty's Government- have been at pains to make it clear in the past that

interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence.

"It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States have comparable interests, any disregard of which by a foreign Power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act, His Majesty's Government believe, therefore, that in defining their position tiiey are expressing the intention and mean* ing of United States Government.

"The reply agrees that it is unnecessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties. It would be embarrassing if certain States in Europe, with whom the proposed participants are already in close treaty relations, were not included among the parties, but the British Government see no reason to doubt that these States will gladly accept it.

"The British Government find nothing in their existing commitments which prevents their hearty co-operation in the new movement for strengthening the foundations of peace. They will gladly co-operate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed and are ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for that purpose."

The reply concludes by pointing out that the detailed arguments in the foregoing are expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and that the proposed treaty is one in which they could not participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously with His Majesty's Government's in the Dominions and the Government of India. As the result of communication with these Governments it has been ascertained that they are all in cordial agreement with the general principles of the proposed treaty, and on receipt of an invitation would doubtless be prepared to participate in its conclusion.

RECEIVED IN AMERICA.

SEVERAL RESERVATIONS.

(Australian and N.Z. Press Association.)

NEW YORK, May 20.

The Washington correspondent of the "New York Times" says the text of Britain's Note in reply to the proposal of the United States for a treaty to outlaw war has been published there.

He says it contains reservations which will necessitate further negotiations in an effort to reach a stage of mutual accommodation.

Some disappointment is expressed in Washington that the Note did not contain a more sweeping endorsement of the proposal of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. F. B. Kellogg, who sought a simple, unqualified declaration against war. Mr. Kellogg is still optimistic. He said yesterday he was much encouraged, and felt that progress was being made.

Britain's support of Article 4 of the French counter-draft (providing that the proposed treaty shall in no way nullify obligations consequent upon previous treaties) has been opposed from the first in Washington as something that would vitiate the entire treaty, and the hope was held out yesterday that by siding with France on this question Britain had only gone to the extent of stating a preference from which she might be induced to recede.

Article 10 of the British reply is held to refer to Egypt and the Suez Canal. Both are recognised as vital 'to the defence of the Empire, but fears are entertained that the incorporation in the proposed treaty of any such reservation might go far to sap the treaty's vitality.

The first reaction was that possibly this point might be taken care of by a unilateral declaration by Britain when the treaty is signed.