OUTLAWING OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 83, 6 January 1928, Page 9

OUTLAWING OF WAR

BRIAND’S OPINION OF ALL POWERS’ PACT PROPOSAL CONTRARY TO SPIRIT OF COVENANT DESTRUCTIVE OF LEAGUE’S AUTHORITY By Telegraph.—Press Association. —Copyright. (Rec. January 5, 7.15 p.m.) Paris, January 4. It is stated that M. Briand has cabled to the French Ambassador in Washington that an all-Powers’ Pact would be contrary to the spirit of the Covenant, and would prevent the League of Nations having authority in coping with international disputes.—Sydney “Sun” Cable.

INTERPRETATION OF BRIAND’S

REPLY

NEW ASSOCIATION OF NATIONS

UNDER AEGIS OF WASHINGTON

(Rec. January 5, 7.15 p.in.)

London, January 1

The “Daily Mail” interprets M. Briand’s reply as tantamount to the rejection of Mr. Kellogg’s proposal, which if accepted would establish a new association of nations under the aegis of Washington, and possibly in opposition to the League of Nations. M._ Briand now proposes that France and America sign a bilateral agreement, similar separate agreements being signable between the United States and other Powers, thereby reserving the League's independence and power to deal with international disputes arising outside the United States.—Sydney “Sun” Cable. KELLOGG’S INVITATION TO POWERS ENGLISH PRESS PUZZLED ' “AMERICA’S GLORIOUS OPPORTUNITY” (Rec. January 5, 8.10 p.m.) London, January 5. Mr. Kellogg’s invitation to the Powers puzzles the Press, especially in view of the League Assembly’s resolution of September, beginning. “Firstly all war is prohibited.” • The “Daily. Telegraph’s” diplomatic correspondent says that France naturally has been gratified to obtain American assurance that whatever conflict might occur between France and Germany, France would in no circumstances find America against her, but if America should give a similar assurance to Germany, one assurance would merely’ cancel out the other, so that in the event of a Franco-German conflict the belligerents would be able to rely merely on American neutrality. The “Morning Post’s” Paris correspondent says M. Briand hoped for a strictly private personal treaty between the two great republics, a treaty which would be little more.than a renewal of the already existing arbitration treaties. The “Post’’ editorially asks: “Did not the League recently pass a resolution much more sweeping than Air. Kellogg’s Note?” The “Daily Telegraph” suys a multilateral treatv such as Mr. Kellogg con- ’ templates is clearly . inconsistent with > the League’s * machinery, and must be particularly unacceptable to the French Government, which has taken the lead if! urging‘the case (or the protocol. The- “Daily Express” declines to associate itself with those critics who see only a pious gesture, intended to soothe that section of the American public which is agitated over the larger navy programme. “America has been the hone and despair of war-wearied humanity Mavbe she is rising at last to the glorious opportunity which history’ has assigned her.”. ’ ' WASHINGTON OPINION . VALUE OF FRENCH PROPOSAL (Rec. January 5, 8.10 p.m.) New York, January 4. While the expression of the willingness of the American Government to enter a treaty not only with France but with the entire world has taken the wind out of the French sails, Washington opinion in some quarters is inclined to the belief that certain elements in France are now seeking to repudiate “the paternity of a child of peace which was laid by M. Briand on the American doorstep.” Officials reiterate that the value of the French proposal lies in its applicableness to all the Powers, and that this v.;ould give a greater assurance of the preservation of world peace. While it is admitted that the proposal contains no provision for compelling obedience, it nevertheless is contended here that the moral obligation would be so great that, any nation violating its pledge would bring upon itself the condemnation of the world.

CONTRADICTORY REPORTS AMERICAN OFFICIALS PERPLEXED (Rec. January 5, 8.10 p.m.) Washington, January 4.

The reaction of the arbitration treaty in Paris, Berlin and London lias had a peculiar reverberation in Washington, particularly insofar as concerns the French attitude. The first Press reports from Paris that the French Government showed an unfavourable attitude to the American proposals led to the comment by an observer here that this was “laying the foundation for irritation in Washington official quarters.” A Press dispatch from Paris just received stating that M. Briand is informing Mr. ■ Kellogg that the French Government looks with great favour upon the American proposal for a multilateral pact outlawing war is puzzling officials, because of the first unfavourable reports. Dispatches from London indicate that Britain is doubtful of the practicabl.eness of the American proposal, while a Berlin message states that M. Briand’s original proposal was designed for the express purpose of getting better terms for a debt settlement and to influence Washington opinion on a Dawes plan revision. CANADA QUALIFIED INTERPRETER BETWEEN BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (Rec. January 5, 8.10 p.m.) Ottawa, January 4. Mr. Kerr, foriher secretary to Mr. Lloyd George, addressing the Canadian Club, said "Canada was best qualified to act as interpreter between Britain and the United States. It was Canada that made the Washington disarmament treatv possible. Canada had signed the treatv and the Covenant to the League of Nations, and had expressed approval of the Locarno Pact, therefore she had assumed responsibility in protecting world peace. Mr. Kenexpressed the opinion that if Britain aiid the United States had appointed delegates of similar calibre to'those at the Washington conference, the Geneva disarmament conference might have had different results.