OUTLAWING OF WAR

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 189, 12 May 1928, Page 9

OUTLAWING OF WAR

PROPOSAL FOR MULTILATERAL TREATY

ATTITUDE OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT

EXPLANATION BY SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Sir Austen Chamberlain, after explaining the position concerning Mr. Kellogg’s proposals fop a multilateral treaty outlawing war, said that as soon as the replies of the Dominions had been received the British Government hoped to deliver an answer to the United States Government to the effect that it was its desire to co-operate in the conclusion of such a pact as proposed, and to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations required for that purpose.

(United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—

Copyright.)

(British Official Wireless.)

Rugby, May 10.

Dealing in the House of Commons tvith Mr. Kellogg’s proposals for a multilateral treaty outlawing war, Sir Austen Chamberlain said that while there had been some nations in the past which had deliberately worked tor war at the moment convenient to themselves in order to solve some problem in their favour, war had never been an instrument of policy in this country within any time that we could contemplate, when discussing the Europe of to-day. Both because it was in consonance with the general policy of all British Governments and because it was a move forward in the direction to which the present British Government had devoted all its energies, ever since it came into power, in international relations, the British Government welcomed the American proposal and hoped that it would be brought to a successful conclusion. It had been asked why there had been delay. The Government had to consult —and he was sure the Government of the. United States recognised this and would take no umbrage at it —the Governments of the British Dominions in other parts of the world. In a matter of this kind the policy of the whole Empire must be one. “We want all to sign an engagement and not leave one portion of His Majesty’s Dominions out. That is not all. We, like other nations and like Germany, which has already replied, have undertaken certain engagements already.” Only Way to Preserve Peace. In .conference at Geneva, Sir Austen continued, it was so easy to make large, and generous declarations, to propose high-sounding resolutions, and then vote for them; but if they supported one it was found sometimes that they had voted only‘with mental reservations which made their intentions quite other than the verbal form which had been publicly accepted. Peace could not be preserved by signing a declaration which, because it was signed with different interpretations and meanings, would lead to misunderstandings. Realising . the new ' obligations which they were asked to undertake in the service of peace, was it not obvious that they should take a little time for consideration? Our object and the object of the United States was to negotiate a document which all signed in the same spirit, which all signed meaning the same thing, and which all signed with the same good-will, the same heartiness, and the same intention to maintain it. He did not think the time had been wasted. ■

The Government had been greatly helped in its consideration of this problem by a remarkable and very interesting speech recently delivered by Mr. Kellogg himself before an American audience. That speech showed quite clearly that it was not the desire of the United States Government to impair the engagements of those who had already laid the foundations of peace and reconciliation in Europe, either by the League Covenant, with Its larger obligations, or by the Treaty of Locarno, and that it was quite possible to reconcile our obligations under these Instruments with the new declaration which Mr. Kellogg invited us to make. The Present Position. “The present position of the matter,” continued Sir Austen Chamberlain, “is that His Majesty’s Government has concluded its examination of the proposals. Then its comments and its suggestions for the reply to be made to the Government of the United States are, I suppose, on their way to the Dominions at the moment when lam speaking.” Having regard to the number of Powers already addressed by the United States, to the difficulty of bringing by correspondence six Powers readily and easily into agreement, and to the tendency which often arose in' correspondence of magnifying differences, instead of diminishing them, he had thought some other procedure would perhaps have led more quickly and most surely to the end they desired. His mind reverted naturally to the procedure which was employed so successfully before and at the Conference of Locarno, and he had tentatively suggested that, as in the case of Locarno, the way might be smoothed for them and their differences, if there were any, reduced to a minimum, if a meeting of jurists took place in which they could exchange opinions and arguments. But as soon as he learned that the proposal did not com-

mend itself to one of the Governments concerned, he withdrew it, and they now proceeded therefore by ordinary diplomatic channels.

Replies of Dominions Aw’aited.

“As soon, therefore,” concluded Sir Austen, “as the replies of the Dominions have been received by us, we shall hope to deliver an answer to the Government of the United States, and I heed scarcely say, after, my opening words on this point, that onr answer will be to the effect that our desire is to co-operate in the conclusion Of such a pact as is proposed, and to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations required for that purpose:”

INFLUENCE ON ANGLO-AMERI-CAN RELATIONS

(Australian Press Assn.—United Service.,

London, May 10.

In the discussion in the House of Commons on the proposed treaty to outlaw war, Mr. J. R. MacDonald said: —“Our answer to Mr. Kellogg’s Note is going to considerably influence Anglo-American relations, which are not as good as they ought to be. Complete, unreserved acceptance is the best method. I hope we shall not raise League of Nations problems. It would be one of the greatest tragedies in history if our League commitments in Europe prevented us from participating in Mr. Kellogg’s wider and more comprehensive proposals.”

Commander Kenworthy (Lab.) : “Should we be free, provided the Dominions are with us, to negotiate directly, or should we be bound to consult France or anyone else?” Sir Austen Chamberlain: “We are not bound to consult any other Government, unless we think it desirable. America’s first purpose was to obtain the signature of six Governments. If we can contribute anything to secure' unity among the six we shall be happy to do so.”

Asked when he expected to be able to reply to America, Sir Austen said that if the Dominions concurred in the proposed reply, further time would not be needed, and he would immediately hand the reply to the American Ambassador in London. DOMINIONS’ ANSWER HARDLY IN DOUBT VALUE OF CO-OPERATION OF EMPIRE

(“Times” Cables.) (Rec. May 11, 8.45 p.m.)

London, May 11.

The Times, in an editorial, says: “There have been instances in which Dominion Governments signed treaties concluded by the Government of Britain concerning matters which have not directly affected the Dominions. This time there Is neither room nor occasion for isolated action. The Dominions’ answer is hardly in doubt. The almost unanimous expressions of approval in the Australian and Canadian Press have already given great satisfaction at Washington. When once the British reply is reinforced by the cheerful consent of all the Dominions, the Empire will be committed to real co-operation with the United States in the cause of peace. That in itself is a forward movement. Details of the procedure have not yet been determined, but are of minor importance. Of outstanding significance is the fact that the Government of Britain, after scrupulous inquiry, with ■the fixed determination to abide by its pledged word, has decided to join in the appeal, and , the. Dominions likewise, in the enterprise of peace initiated'by the United States. The co-operation of the Empire and the United States in such a work can hardly be in vain.”