THE KELLOGG PACT

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 93, 14 January 1929, Page 9

THE KELLOGG PACT

DEBATE IN UNITED STATES SENATE BITTER ATTACK ON BRITAIN GOOD-WILL NOT. CREATED BY TREATIES . In a speech in opposition to the ratification of the Kellogg Pact, Senator Keed made a bitter attack on Britain. He described the treaty as being so mutilated by reservations that nothing was left to preserve lasting peace. CUutted Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—copyright.) (Australian Press Association.) Washington, January 11. Senator Heed is staging what may be the last fight of his legislative career, due to his impending retirement, when he opened his final stand against the Kellogg Pact. Reservationists sought to reveal that the Paet was equal to the United States’ recognition of the old order of things in Europe, established by the Treaty of Versailles. Senator Reed ridiculed the Treaty as a vain effort to establish peace by a document that in reality was the official authorisation of any war by any nation that wants to promote it. His was the last scheduled debate, and the only thing now to prevent an early vote would be a filibuster by Senator Reed and his cohorts, some of whom believe that they can defeat the Treaty if they are able to stretch the debate a little longer. While Senator Reed marched slowly about the Senate floor delivering a bitter appeal to the committee, the leaders were planning what they will do when the Treaty battle is closed. Some quarters are hoping that a vote may be reached before to-morrow night. Senator James Reed, who is famed as a League of Nations opponent, described the Kellogg Treaty as being so mutilated by reservations that nothing was left to preserve lasting peace. He asserted that treaties do not create good-will, as they must express the will already formed, and the will to maintain peace was not universal. India was rising against Britain and China against Japan, while Germany and Austria were discontented under the foot of oppression on their soil. Egypt was fretting under a strangelhold by Britain. Attributing exceptions to the Treaty to the efforts of Britain during the negotiations, the Senator walked to a large map placed on an easel showing the British possessions and spheres of interest in bright colouring, and he detailed the scattered world defences of Britain, dwelling upon Canada, Bermuda. Jamaica, and other points near the United States. He declared that in five hours Britain could destroy the Panama Canal. “In the negotiations Britain had reserved these as spheres of interest in which she was not bound.” continued Senator Reed. "This is what Britain says is not in the treaty. She reserves complete freedom of action and mollycoddles this country and says we shall sit quietly' without protection under the Monroe Doctrine so that some South ■ American" countries will sign. If this country is ever destroyed it will be by pacifists who shout ‘Peace, peace, peace,' when there is no peace of the kind they talk about.” ! SIGNATORIES’ OBLIGATIONS NOT COMMITTED TO DEFEND ANY COUNTRY (Australian Press Assn.—United Service.) (Rec. December 13, 5.5 p.m.) Washington, January 12. The Paris Pact for the renunciation of war commits none of the signatories to go to war in defence of any country attacked in defiance of the Treaty, said Mr. F. B. Kellogg to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations at recent hearings which were held in camera and published to-day. Mr. Kellogg added .that Canada had made it plain that the Dominion would not be a party to the Treaty unless that were understood. Mr. Kellogg added emphatically that there was absolutely nothing in the Notes of the various countries which would change the treaty. In the Senate to-day Senator Samuel Shortridge, California, said he believed that Senator Reed’s opposition to the Treaty “causes him to see danger where none exists. He forgets that every nation has certain Ineradicable rights which cannot be abrogated.” Special Zones of Influence. At an in camera sitting Mr. Kellogg also said the British references to special zones of influence did not give that Government a reserved right to say what should be done anywhere in the Empire. “I do not believe it leaves Britain free to make war anywhere in the world where she considers it in her interests. The treaty contradicts it absolutely. All the British note said, or would mean if it were written into the treaty, was that there were certain regions the welfare and integrity of which were necessary for the security and defence of the Empire. I have said over and over again that any country had the right of selfdefence.” RUSSIA’S PROPOSED SPECIAL PROTOCOLS POLAND’S REPLY CONSULTING OTHER NATIONS [Australian Press Assn, —United Service i Warsaw, January 11. Poland’s reply to the Moscow Note sent to Poland and Lithuania suggesting the signature of special protocols with Russia, giving effect to the Kellogg Pact, without awaiting its general completion, agrees to the principle of the plan, but says that Poland is astonished that Russia should have addressed the proposal only to Poland and Lithuania, and not to other of s her neighbours. Poland is, moreover astonished'that Moscow approached Lithuania, which has no common frontier with Soviet Russia. and which refuses

to enter into diplomatic relations with Poland. The reply adds that Poland has always maintained the necessity for treating the problem of security of Eastern Europe conjointly by all the interested States. Only thus can there be effective guarantees for the maintenanu of peace, hence she is consulting Latvia, Esthonia, Finland, and Rumania before moving further. Incidentally, the reply points out that even the initiators of the Kellogg Pact have not at present ratified It. Being one of the first signatories, the Polish Government ought first to come to an agreement with the initiators on the subject of partial enforcement of the pact. THE SOVIET’S AIM SPEEDY OPERATION OF PACT (Australian Press Assn.—United Service.) (Rec. January 13, 5.5 p.m.) London, January 12. Moscow messages report that the Soviet's second Note to Poland expresses satisfaction at the Polish Government’s readiness in principle to accept the Soviet proposal. Referring to the statement that the Polish Note regarding the desirableness of inviting other Eastern European States to participate in the Protocol, the Soviet Note of December 29 made it perfectly clear that any State might join the Protocol. Regarding Lithuania, the Soviet says that only recently the Polish and Lithuanian relations aroused serious fears for the fate of European peace, and Poland herself requested the League of Nations to discontinue the state of war between herself and Lb thuania. Therefore the Soviet Government believed that Poland would welcome its invitation to Lithuania to join, the Protocol. The Soviet Government’s aim was to bring about as speedily as possible the operation of the Kellogg Pact, even if only between a number of States. The Soviet believed that the hope expressed by Boland for clarification in the near future of the attitude of the fifteen States which had signed but not ratified the Kellogg Pact ought not to have prevented Poland accept ing the Soviet proposal and signing. The proposed Protocol would have a great moral effect. The Soviet-Polish relations would be of greater importance to peace if for one reason or another the ratification of the Kellogg Pact by all the other fifteen signatories should be delayed for a considerable tlm*