NO BELITTLEMENT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 55, 8 March 1929, Page 9

NO BELITTLEMENT

ATTITUDE EXPLAINED

. OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT

British Official Wlrelen. (Beceived Bth March, 11 a.m.)

BUGBY, 7th March. . As a sequel to the publication in American newspapers of a telegram from Geneva, which attributed- to Sir Austen Chamberlain a remark reflecting on the value of the Kellogg Pact alleged to have been made by Kirn when replying to a question during an interview with British correspondents, the British Foreign Secretary to-day. made the following striking .pronouncement to Press representatives at Geneva: "Let me say quite definitely and explicitly that I said nothing to belittle the importance of the Kellogg Pact. If I had done so, it would have been in contradiction with every public utterance that I have made siuce the Pact was'first proposed to us, and it would be directly contrary to the spirit in which both the British Government and the British people welcomed and . supported Mr Kellogg's initiative.

"Since I spoke to the British Press I have had the opportunity, which I had not then had, of reading President Hoover's inaugural speech, and though pur thoughts were naturally, expressed in different language, if I may be permitted to say so, I discovered no great difference between what the President said and what I said to you here I have always regarded the Kellogg Pact as one more barrier erected by international co-operation against war. It goes to confirm and fortify engagements already taken under other auspices by many nations. It is a common ground' to us all that these engagements, valuable as they are for the maintenance of peace, are.not an absolute guarantee against war, The President said: 'Peace will become a reality only through selfrestraint and active effort in friendliness arid helpfulness.' It i s to such a change in the international outlook and m the standard of international relations that I, like the President, look to make real and solid the improved conditions which already reign among us The question put to me the other day. was whether I expected the KelW •fact .-to/have an immediate and large effect on the progress of disarmament As -to this, it would be dangerous to be top sanguine. The President himself, in'the passage from which I have already quoted, observes that ' peace can be contributed to by respect for our ability in-defence, peace can be promoted by limitation of arms and by the creation of instrumentalities for the peaceful settlement of. v controversy ' I agree with that statement. Each'new affirmation of the sanctity of peace and of the obligation of each of us to maintain it helps forward the discussion of disarmament but having regard to'tlw difficulties which we have already experienced, despite the desire for d» armament which is common to us all it-would, I think, have been rash fo> anyone in a position as responsible m my own to pretend that a single ac* however important, had brought- us M the solution of all our troubles. I wish to emphasise and categorically deny that I ever made any statement to the Press here or to anyone else of the character which had apparently bee* attributed to me." • .