INTERNATIONAL PEACE

Evening Star, Issue 19757, 6 January 1928, Page 5

INTERNATIONAL PEACE

M. BRIAND’S PROPOSAL DISCUSSIONS PROCEEDING Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. PARIS, January 4. It is stated that M. Briand has cabled to the Ambassador in Washington stating that all the powers of the proposed pact are contrary to the spirit of the covenant, and would prevent the League of Nations authority from coping with international disputes. WASHINGTON, January 4. 'The reaction of the Arbitration Treaty in Paris, Berlin, and London has had a peculiar reverberation in Washington, particularly in so far as it concerns the French attitude. The first Press reports from Paris that the French Government showed an unfavorable attitude to the American proposals led to the comment by an observer here that this was “ laying the foundation for irritation in Washington official quarters.” A Press despatch from Paris just received stating that M. Briand is informing Mr Kellogg that the French Government looks with great favor upon the American proposal for a multi-lateral pact outlawing war is puzzling officials, because of the first unfavorable reports. Despatches from London indicate that Britain is doubtful of the practicablcness of the American proposal, while a Berlin message states that M. Briand’s original proposal was designed for the express purpose of getting better terms for a debt settlement and to influence Washington opinion on the Dawes plan revision.

POSSIBLE RIVALRY TO LEAGUE,

LONDON, January 4

The ‘ Daily Mail ’ interprets M. Briamt’s reply as tantamount to a rejection of Mr Kellogg’s proposal, which, if accepted, would establish a new association of nations under the mgis ol Washington and possibly in opposition to the League of Nations. M. Briand now proposes that Franco and America should sign a bi-lateral agreement, similar separate agreements being signable between the United States and tho other Powers, thereby preserving the League’s independence and power to deal with disputes arising outside tho United States.

BRITISH PRESS COMMENT

LONDON, January o

Mr Kellogg’s invitation to the Powers puzzles the Press, especially in view oi the League Assembly’s resolution ol September, beginning; “First, all war is prohibited.” The 1 Daily Telegraph's ’ diplomatic correspondent says that Franco has naturally been gratified to obtain the American assurance that whatever conflict might occur between France and Germany France would in no circumstances find America against her, but if America should give a similar assurance to Germany one assurance would merely cancel out the other, so that in the event of a Franco-German conflict the belligerents would be able to rely merely on American neutrality. Tho ‘ Morning Post’s ’ Paris correspondent says that M. Briand hoped for a strictly private and personal treaty between the two great republics, but this is not envisaged in the treaty, wliich would be little more than a renewal of the already existing arbitration treaties. Tho ‘Post’ editorially asks: “Did not the League recently pass a resolution much more sweeping than Mr Kellogg’s Note?” The ‘ Daily Telegraph ’ says that a multi-lateral treaty such as Mr Kellogg contemplates is clearly inconsistent with the League’s machinery, and must be particularly unacceptable to the French Government, which takes the lead inurging a case for the protocol. The ‘ Daily Express ’ declines to associate itself with those critics who see only a pious gesture intended to soothe that section of the American public which is agitated over tho largo navy programme. “ America has been the hope and despair of war-wearied humanity. Maybe she is lasing at last to the glorious opportunity which history has assigned her.” WASHINGTON VIEWS. NEW YORK, January 4. "While tho expression of willingness of tho American Government to enter a treaty, not only with Franco, but with tho entire world, has taken the wind out of the French sails, Washington opinion in some quarters is inclined to the belief that certain elements _ in France are now seeking to repudiate “the paternity of the child of peace which was laid by M. Briand on the American doorstep.” Officials reiterate that tho value of tho French proposal lies in its applicablcncss to all Powers, and that this would give greater assurance of the preservation of world peace. While it is admitted that tho proposal contains no provision for compelling obedience it nevertheless is contended here that tho moral obligation would be so great that any nation violating its pledge woiikUming upon itself the condemnation of the world.