KELLOGG’S NOTE.

Grey River Argus, 9 January 1928, Page 5

KELLOGG’S NOTE.

FRENCH REPLY. Tantamount to Rejection. NO DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE FOR U.S.A. (Australian and N. Z. Cable Assn.) (Received January 7 at 10 p.m.) WASHINGTON, January 6. M. Briand’s reply to Mr Kellogg’s note changes the proposal to deal with “wars of aggression,” and immediate official reaction here was unfavourable. Contrary to Parisian Press despatches Hint DI. Briand had accepted Mr Kellogg’s proposal in principle, officials saw in the reply a rejection of Mr Kellogg’s plan, and the abandonment by M. Briand of his own original proposal. It is stated that, whatever the ultimate reaction will be to the new Briand offer, it will require time to decide. One decision was reached to-day, however, namely, to reject the suggestion of AL Briand that a treaty for renouncing aggressive war be forthwith signed by France and the United States. Such a bilateral treaty is held tantamount to a defensive alliance, and the French Ambassador, M. Claudel, was plainly informed to-day that the United States will enter no such arrangement.

It is understood that Air Kellogg will continue conversations with Al. Claudel, and if sufficient encouragement is felt, efforts may be made to sound the other Powers on the question of a multilateral declaration renouncing war as an instrument of national policy.

The word aggressor is used quite incidentally, but most effectively in. Al. Briand’s note. It constitutes the chief stumbling block, and at the same time is the source of amazement to American officials. There is an intimation here that AL Briand avowedly admits that the League of Nations is not exclusively the instrument of peace, but though Articles ten to sixteen rely upon war as one of the keystones of .’.ts structure, the question is asked if Mr Kellogg’s proposal for a multilateral treaty might conflict with the Coveuant of the League, would not a bilateral treaty between France and the United States, outlawing aggressive war, be equally conflicting? The American position is that it is impossible to define in advance what constitutes an aggressive nation.