RENOUNCING WAR

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

RENOUNCING WAR

NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FRANCE AND UNITED STATES

BRIAND’S REPLY TO KELLOGG’S NOTE

CAUSE OF UNFAVOURABLE REACTION AT WASHINGTON

M. Briand’s reply to the Note of the United States Secretary of State concerning a proposed treaty renouncing war is viewed unfavourably at Washington, officials regarding the reply as the rejection of Mr. Kellogg’s plan and the abandonment of M. Briand’s original proposal. It is understood that Mr. Kellogg will continue conversations with the French Ambassador at Washington.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright,

(Rec. January 8, 5.5 p.m.) Washington, January 6.

M. Briand’s reply to Mr. Kellogg’s note changes the proposal to deal with “wars of aggression,” and the immediate official reaction here was unfavourable. Contrary to the Parisian Press dispatches that M. Briand had accepted tile Kellogg proposal in principle, officials saw in the reply the rejection of Mr. Kellogg’s plan and the abandonment bv 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. i

, One decision was reached to-day, however, namely, to reject the suggestion of M. Briand that a-treaty for renouncing . aggressive' war be forthwith signed by France and the United tSates. Such a bilateral treaty is held to be tantamount to a defensive alliance, and the French Ambassador, M. Paul Claudel, was plainly informed to-day that the United States will enter no such arrangement. It is understood Mr. Kellogg will continue conversationes with M. Claudel, and if it is felt there is sufficient encouragement 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 the chief stumbling-block, and at the same time is a source of amazement to American officials. . , v, 'there are iuitmations here that M. Briand avowedly admits that the League of Nations is not exclusively an instrument of peace, but through articles 10 to 16 relies upon war as one of the keystones of its structure. The questioin is asked, if Mr. Kellogg’s proposal for a multilateral treaty might conflict with the Covenant of the League, would not a bilateral treaty between France and the United States outlawing aggressive war, be equally' conflicting ? The American position is it is impossible to define in advance what constitutes an aggressor nation. SYMPATHETIC ATTENTION IN BRITAIN QUESTION OF RENEWAL OF TREATIES Rugby, January 6. The American proposal that France should join the United States in sponsoring a multilateral treaty, to which the other-great Powers might adhere, renouncing war, continues to occupy the sympathetic attention of British circles. 'The matter is one for discussion between the French and American Governments, and the British Government has as yet not been called upon to make comment, since a copy of the American proposal was handed

to the British Foreign Office partly for information.

The suggestion is also contained that the Root Arbitration Treaty, which requires renewal with France next month, should be enlarged, since a similar treaty between Britain and the United States requires renewal in June. • The position is that two treaties of arbitration- . between America and France are in- existence —The Root Treaty of 1908 and the Bryan Treaty of 1914. The former refers to the Hague Court, .established at the end' of last century, issues of a juridicial nature, excluding those held to affect “vital interests independent on the honour of the two contracting States,” and which do not concern the interests of a third party. This treaty is renewable every five years. Tire socalled Bryan. Treaty provided for the establishment- of a Permanent International Commission, which, in fact, has never been constituted, to settle disputes which might arise between Britain and the United States.It is recalled.that.in-1897 the United States Senate rejected the Cleveland Arbitration Treaty, and that _in 1912, after acceptance by the American Government, ‘the Senate also rejected an Arbitration Treaty of a more comprehensive nature which had been proposed by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir lidward Grey. Details of the form in which the United States will propose to France the renewal of the Root Treaty are not as yet available, but according io Press telegrams from America the subjects it is proposed to exclude from arbitration are internal affairs, questions -impinging on the Monroe Doctrine, and matters affecting third parties.’ The proposal for an all-round exclusion of war is, of course, an issue distinct from that for the removal of the - Root Treaty.

PRESS' COMMENT ON MR. KELLOGG’S NOTE.

Commenting on Mr. Kellogg’s “The Times” emphasises that while Britain is for the present a merely, sympathetic and keenly interested outsider, the attitude of France must have a particular significance for Britain in view of Franco-Brtish co-operation in efforts fort promoting European peace. “One result of those efforts has been that Germany and other formerly hostile nations have been gradually brought into a practical movement for the consolidation of peace,” says The Times.” “Another result has been the growing confidence in a real achievement, coupled with reluctance to pin faith, to too general formulas that precipitately declare the. speedy end of war. America has missed this experience, and has taken her own separate wav of settling with Europe matters connected with her participation in the world war. At the same time, it cannot be forgotten that she has from time to time most usefully adapted her policy to the fact of the European situation. Her co-operation in the preparation and execution of the Dawes Plan has been very valuable, and though not a member of the Leagiie, <die had gradually become- associated with "some of its most. generous activities.’’—British Official Wireless.