The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1928. THE MOVEMENT AGAINST WAR

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 85, 9 January 1928, Page 8

The Dominion MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 1928. THE MOVEMENT AGAINST WAR

The incidental but apparently quite effective use of the phrase, “wars of aggression,” in M. Briand’s reply to Mr Kellogg has changed the aspect of the Franco-American negotiations for a treaty aimed at the outlawry of war. If all the nations subscrbed to such a proposition the general effect of course would be that there would be no wars at all. But if a limited number only signed a treaty against wars of aggression such an agreement would, according to'American opinion, imply a defensive alliance. America, it is pointed out, has no intention of entering into any such arrange111Cn The American objection to the French reply would appear at first sight to be soundly based. M. Briand’s phrase may . not have been used with the intention of being construed m the limited sense which in American opinion has made it a formidable stumbling block but there appears to be no escape from that inteipretation. On the'other hand, if one is to be quite exact about the letter of these negotiations, instead of judging their broad principles and moral objectives, then M. Briand cannot be criticised on the score of inconsistency. .... His original proposition to America, quoted in a previous article referred to “tlie renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy.” Strictly interpreted, this can be held specifically to mean “wars of aggression.” Taken in conjunction with the definite appearance of the latter phrase in M. Briand s latest Note to America, the suggestion arises that this is what he intended, and that his original Note was too freely interpreted at Washington. . There is a suggestion in to-day’s cablegrams from .Washington on the subject that international conversations may be instituted to broaden the scope of the proposed treaty. To give strength to this, attention is drawn to the fact that M. Briand has avowed that the’League of Nations is not exclusively an instrument of peace, but from the force and intention of certain articles of the-Covenant it relies upon war as the keystone of its structure.. This, is not altogether fair argument, and suggests that American opinion, in order to discredit the League’s functions, has taken the narrowest view of those particular articles. These merely provide for the disciplining of recalcitrant nations which, having accepted the League Covenant, seek to repudiate their obligations with the object of engaging in wars of aggression. If the League did not exist, and the American plan were universally accepted, such an international agreement, be effective, would require some provision for its enforcement. Such a provision need not necessarily mean that war must be the weapon of force used, but such a contingency could not be excluded from the possibilities. The encouraging' feature of the present negotiations, however, is that the popularity of war as an institution is not likely to be enhanced by all this publicity. On the contrary, under the sustained pressure of these attacks, it is likely to lose, and to an increasing degree, much of its glamour and justification. At a recent War Danger Conference, held in London, one of the speakers was a German general, who had served a lifetime in the army, and fought in the War. Explaining his new role as a pacifist, he said: “Formerly I believed that a soldier’s work was chivalrous. Perhaps it was. in the old days when one gallant knight fought' another. But what has modern technique made of this once chivalrous occupation ? In modern war one man with a big engine stands about ten miles behind the front, and kills with his engine perhaps a hundred or a thousand soldiers miles behind the enemy’s front. He never sees thess killed soldiers: all, he knows is that they are men with wives and children just as he is himself.” The old adage, “Give a dog s. bad name . - holds good. We have demonstrated from our own experience that war is brutally cruel, ruinously costly, and profits little in the economy of the world. Public opinion is now becoming convinced that war is a reproach to our civilisation.