PEACE PACT

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 31 July 1928, Page 9

PEACE PACT

DISARMAMENT PROBLEM NEGOTIATIONS WITH FRANCE. WHAT BRITAIN HOPES FOR. (British Official Wireless.) Received 2.15 p.m., to-day. LONDON, July 30. A debate on foreign affairs took place in the House of Commons to-day. Sir Austen Chamberlain made a statement on various matters raised in regard to disarmament. He said that undoubtedly the signature of the Kellogg treaty was now a fact to which all must pay attention, and of which all should take account, but lie would rather deal with the matter of disarmament apart from the Kellogg treaty, because whether that treaty had been proposed or not, one would still have been faced with the question of limitation of armaments. Conversations with France on the reduction of armaments had been isuccessrul, and he was about t-o communicate to other Powers the compromise at which Britain and France had arrived, in the hope that it might, be acceptable to them also; thus an obstacle to progress would have been removed, and a step made in advance, but until these proposals had been communicated to other Governments, he not like to say more about them. The naval issue was the one in which we bad particular interest in regard to a treaty lor the renunciation of war, Sir Austen Chamberlain said. There was a binding obligation to see that the new treaty was not inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant of the League- of Nations. We had satisfied ourselves that it was not, and that* it was not. inconsistent with the treaties of Locarno. As to the- attitude of the British. Gov-cii-n-mcnt on -the question of self-'dcfein.ee i-n cornu cetvon with the- Kellogg -pacit, Sir Austen Chamberlain quoted ia' pas'-s-aige from a statement mn.de toy Mr. Kellogg to the effect that it wois i'Abeiront in every boy e-reign. State- and l was implicit iin every treaty that the- nation was free to defend it® territory from • attack or invasion, and that it alone I was competent to decide when -the circumstances required recourse toi war in self-defence. Sir Austen regretted that some members had been -tr oubled about the British self-defence- reservations 1 , declaring that they wore equivalent to the'Munrac doctrine in the United States. He did hot know why they should toe. prophets of evil for in ©very treaty of arbitration which the l Government -of the United States had signed, and in every model for treaties of arbitration which -they Iliad signed, they expressly reserved all questions relating to -the- Mum-roe doctrine. The British Government were stating nothing mirea'so-notole when they stated -that there were parts of the wo-rld where Britain too- had a Mun-roe doctrine, (because -the integrity of -those countries was part of the. British Empire. He proposed to- g-o, toi Paris before the- end o-f -next month -and to' sign, on behalf of this country, the treaty which the Government the United States 'had proposed. He did not think anyone could say exactly the importance which this treaty would have- in the (future. It might mean very much for the -peace of the would, but it might mean not so much and even very little-, but he deprecated too great expectations being farmed, lost they should be followed by too great a. disappointment. The Kellogg treaty was a recognition of the horrors of war and of the fact that war was a thing to which reic-oursie was- only to (be had in the last res-ort, and for self-defence. It would depend on how the. rest of the world thought the United States were- going to judge the notion of am aggressor, whether they wore going to help or hinder him. If American opinion ranged itself behind its own treaty, then indeed the signature of this -treaty would be an additional and most formidable deterrent of war amid an; -additional and ono'slt valuable -security for peace. That was what the British Government hoped it might toe and it® -w-as in that spirit that.the British Government were glad to co-operate with the United States Government in bringing their proposal to- fruition,.