OUTLAWING WAR

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 81, 29 December 1928, Page 20

OUTLAWING WAR

MR. KELLOGG ON THE PARIS PACT PATHWAY TO WORLD PEACE Mr. Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State, in an address at a meeting of the World Alliance for International Friendship, at the Metropolitan Opera House, New York, said that the best way to abolish war as a means of settling international disputes was to extend the field of arbitration and conciliation, and to renounce war as an instrument of international policy. Thus the illegality of war might be established as a principle of international law. ' ._ ,

One other means which could be taken by Governmental authorities and also by private organisations was to inculcate into the minds of the people a peaceful attitude. “If the people are minded that there shall be no war there will not be.” Mr. Kellogg then outlined the steps taken by the United States in the direction of arbitration and conciliation, and declared that there was a great forward peace movement all over the world, mentioning the Locarno Treaties and many others negotiated in Europe, as well as in Central and South America. Probably no part of the world ; had made such progress in arbitration as Central and South America. National jealousies and ambitions a-d racial animosities often were the causes of war; these causes could be eliminated through education, through the development of tolerance, and through the creation of ah. effective desire for peace.

Dealing with the multilateral antiwar treaty lately signed in Paris, Mr. Kellogg recalled that the original suggestion of this movement caihe from M, Briand, who proposed to the United States to enter into, a bilateral treaty with France to abjure war as a means of settling disputes between them. The United States Government believed that this grand conception should be extended to all the nations of the world. The treaty, negotiated in the blazing light of full publicity, came from visualised expression of the desolated

battlefields, from ruined home*, and broken men, and stirred the great beating heart of Humanity. He could say without the slightest doubt that the treaty met the matured judgment of the people of the United States. The treaty was a simple and plain declaration and agreement, not cumbered with reservations and conditions stipulating when a nation might be justified in going to war. It would not, in his view, in any way conflict with the obligations of the Locarno Treaties, the League of Nations, or other treaties guaranteeing neutrality. Up to the present time 58 nations had either signed the treaty as original parties or had adhered to it, or had notified the State Department at Washington of their intention to adhere to it. In his belief all the nations of the world would adhere to the treaty and make it one of the principles of their national policy. “There are,” Mr. Kellogg added, “’no collateral reservations or amendments made to the treaty as finally agreed upon. During the negotiation of this treaty, as in the case of other treaties, questions were raised by various Governments and discussed-, and in many of my Notes I explained the legal effect or construction of the treaty. There is nothing in any of these Notes, or in my speeches sent to the signatory Powers during the negotiations, which is inconsistent with, or changes the meaning of, the treaty as finally signed. Finally the countries were satisfied that no modification of the treaty was necessary to meet their views.” A nation claiming to act in self-defence must justify itself before the bar of world opinion as well as before the signatories of the treaty. The mere claim of self-defence was not going to justify a nation before the. world. As to a world tribunal or super-state to decide when a nation had violated its agreement not to go to war or by force to maintain peace and to punish the offender, lie did not believe that all the independent nations had yet arrived at the advanced stage of thought which would permit such a tribunal to be established. “I do not believe the United States Or many nations in the world would be willing to submit to any tribunal to decide the question of whether a national had violated this, treaty, or irrevocably pledge themselves to military or other action to enforce it. . . . In any event, it is not at all practical for the United States to ente* - into such an obligation.”.- ■ It could not be said that.the treaty entangles .the United States in the affairs of Europe. It no more entangled them in the political affairs of foreign countries than any other • treaties

which the United States had made. He knew of no moral obligation to agree to apply sanctions or to punish a treaty-breaking State unless there was some promise to do so and no one could claim that there was such a promise in the multilateral treaty. The United States was anxious for the peace, prosperity, and happiness of the people of Europe as well as of the rest of the world. “Because we did not approve of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations in all respects, it has been assumed by some that we no longer take any interest in Europe am! world affairs. I for one do not accepi tins as a just estimate of our national character and vision.” France and the United States had pointed out to other nations a hopeful pathway to world peace, and other na tions had gladly agreed to follow that path. “Whether or not we reach our comvnon goal depends not so much upon Governments as upon the peoples from whom their powers flow. I believe in the people. I have confidence in mankind, and I am happy that I have been privileged to participate in the conclusion of a treaty which should make it easier for men and women to realise their long-cherished ideal or peace on earth.”