AMERICA’S WAR RENUNCIATION GESTURE

Evening Star, Issue 19843, 17 April 1928, Page 4

AMERICA’S WAR RENUNCIATION GESTURE

BRITISH PRESS COMMENT Pres* Association —By Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY, April 15. The ‘Manchester Guardian,’ commenting on the United States Note, emphasises the need for a clear definition of what tho pledge is intended to imply. “To make the pledge effective you must have at least two things. You must define what war is, or at any rate differentiate between the kinds of war which yon really mean to renounce and those which you do not, and you must establish effective machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes without which war would otherwise n© the probable or only alternative. Without those two things the pledge becomes. no more than a rather empty assertion of a peaceable disposition. It might have its uses, but it would also have its dangers. Nevertheless, that tho United States should with little encouragement have persisted in this attempt to frame a treaty open for all tho world to sign for the renunciation of war is altogether to be welcomed. It marks a real attempt to collaborate in tho work which the League, from a different angle, i.s trying to do in the cause of peace.” Tho ' Daily Telegraph,’ after pointing out similar difficulties and drawing attention to Air Kellogg’s declaration that ho does not consider that the treaty advocated would afford a certain guarantee against all wars, says . “ Tho question no.v is whether the proposed treaty can bo so strengthened by textual amendments which the United States Government can be persuaded to recognise, not only as indispensable from the point of view of other Powers, but as admissible or even valuable from its own.” Other newspapers also direct attention to these points, but all agree in warmly welcoming the American proposals. The significance of the proposal is fully recognised, and the American Note is regarded as signalising at the very least the rc-entrance of the United States into that international area which she quitted when she refused association with the League of Nations. Her return is heartily welcomed, and it is taken for granted that tho proposals will be examined and responded to with goodwill, particularly in Britain, where, as the ‘ Sunday Times ’ points out, no Government suspected of aggressiveness or a desire for war could last for a week. Tho ‘ Sunday Times ’ adds that examination of tho proposals must, however, be thorough, for, once given, Britain’s word will always be honoured for this reason—it cannot be given lightly. Discussing some of the considerations which the Note raises it examines the questions already put by the French Foreign Minister. M. Briand, as to whether the new proposals in any way conflict with the liabilitits assumed under the covenant of the League of Nations and Locarno, which, while seek-

ing to guard against war, envisage its possibility in certain circumstances. It recalls, too, that even in America, free from the tangle of European affairs, difficulties must be faced, including the apparent limitation now proposed to be put on the rights of the Legislature to declare war. The ‘Sunday Times’ concludesOn both sides of the Atlantic, therefore, there is neo"A for deep consideration and an ever-present sense of realities if substance is to be given to Mr Kellogg’s inspiring conception.” The ‘ Observer ’ admits the existence of difficulties, but declares that “no difficulties can diminish the significance of the forward movement of the American policy. Locarno marked a stage, and the very limitation of its aims widened the scope of its eifect. We see it now as an indispensable prelude to a renewal of American interest in Old World affairs. Mr Kellogg’s Note completes the logic of Locarno. _ The ideals which inspire it are implicit in every word of the two operative clauses of the draft Treaty, and are explicitly stated in its preamble. The co-oper-ation for which the world has waited for so many years is at last forthcoming, and Britain, equipped as she is historically and geographically to further its intentions, welcomes it with thank-fullness.”—Australian Press Association. VIEWS IN OFFICIAL CIRCLES. LONDON, April 10. The diplomatic correspondent of the 1 Daily Telegraph ’ says that British official circles express the oninion that the British decision regarding Air Kellogg’s plan for the abolition of war will be determined not on technicalities but on a broad appraisement of the political and moral values involved after the fullest consultation between the Home and dominions’ Governments. The latter are bound to carry the greatest weight. It. is a safe assumption that as most of the dominions were unwilling to sign even a Rhineland pact, dominion opinion will be found in close agreement with Washington’s plea that the conclusion of a multi-lateral pact should not be obstructed or frustrated by the claims of military alliances. The opinion is universal in British circles that renewed collaboration between America and Europe is worth generous concessions.—Australian Rress Association,