BANISHING BAR.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 22 May 1928, Page 7

BANISHING BAR.

SUPPORTED TO THE UTMOST.

BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT

RUGBY, May 19. The text of the British Reply to the United States Note on the proposed Peace Pact is issued for publication in Sunday morning’s papers. The Reply states: —“The suggestion for the conclusion of a Treaty for the Renunciation of War as an instrument of national policy has evoked widespread interest in this country, and His Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of its. power.” The reply proceeds-- — “After making a careful study of the text contained in Your Excellency’s Note and of the amended text suggest led in the French Note, His Majesty’s "Government feels convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these, two drafts. “This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of a speech by the ■Secretary of State of the United States en April 28. “The aim of the United States Government is to embody in a treaty a broad statement of principle, to proclaim witho'ut restriction or qualification that- war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim His Majesty’s Government is wholly in accord. “The French proposals-, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in - which a violation of that, principle by one party may oblige Others to take action, seem ing at first sight to be inconsistent witi y thff terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty’s Government appreciates the scruples which have prompted those suggestions by the French Government. “The exact fulfilment of Treaty engagements is. a matter which affects national honor and precision as to the scope of such engagements is therefore of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view.

Eight of Seif-Deience. “After studying the wording of Article 1 of the United States draft, His Majesty's Government does hot think that its term's exclude any action which a State may bo forced to take in self-defence. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech referred to above that he regards the right of self-defence as inalienable, and His Majesty’s Government is disposed to think that on this question no addition of the text is necessary. “As regards the text of Article 2 no appreciable difference is found between the American and French proposals. His Majesty’s Government is therefore content to accept the former, if, as it understands to be the case, a dispute

‘ among the high contracting parties’ is a phrase.wide enough to cover a dispute between any two of them. “The; French Note suggests the addition of an article providing that a violation of the Treaty by one of the parties 'should release the remainder from their obligations under the Treaty toward that party.

“His Majesty’s Government is not satisfied that, if the Treaty stood alone, •the addition of some such provision won Id not be necessary.

“Mr. Kellogg’s speech, however, shows that he put forward for acceptance the text of the proposed treaty on the understanding that violation of thc undertaking by one party would free remaining parties from obligations 'to observe its terms in respect of the treaty-breaking State. * ciple which will apply in the case of this particular Treaty, His Majesty’s Government is satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can, no doubt, be found without difficulty for placing this un--derstanding on record in some appropriate manner, so that it may have equal value witli the. terms of the Treaty it.self.

League and Locarno. “The point is one of importance, be--cause of its bearing on treaty engagements by which'His Majesty’s Government is already bound. “The preservation of peace has been Ihe chief concern.of His Majesty’s Government, and the prime object of all-its endeavours. It is the reason why it has given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why it has undertaken the burden of guarantees em : bodied in the Locarno Treaty. “The sole object of all those engagements is the elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, just as it is the purpose of the peace pact now proposed. It is because the object of beth is' the same that there is no real '.antagonism between the Treaty engagements which His Majesty's Government has already accepted and the pact which is now' proposed. f

'♦The machinery of the Covenant and of the Treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further than the renunciation -of war as a policy, in that they provide for certain sanctions for a break of their obligations. - * “A dash might thus conceivably «rise between the existing treaties and the proposed pact, unless it’ is understood that thp obligation of jhe now engagement will cease to . operate in rooff the patty which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile means -against 6i\e of its co-contractants. “For British Government respect for the obligations arising out of the League ..Covenant and of the Locarno 'Treaty is fundamental.

"'Our position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government, as indicated in it's Note of April 27. His Majesty’s Government could not agree to any new Treaty which

would weaken these .engagements on which. the peace of Europe rests. - ; i :

“Indeed, the public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great that His Majesty’s Government would for its part, prefer to see some such provision as Article 4 of the Freneti draft embodied in the text of the Treaty.. To this we understand there will be no objection.

“Mr. Kellogg has made it clear that he has no intention by the terms of the new Treaty of preventing the parties to the League Covenant or to the Locarno Treaties from, fulfilling, their obligations. ■ Certain Vital Interests.

‘ ‘ The language of Article 1 as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world, the welfare and integrity of which constitute special and vital interest for our peace and safety. “His Majesty’s Government has been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with. these regions cannot be suffered. Tfteir protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence.

“It must be clearly understood that His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States has comparable interests, any disregard of which by a foreign Power it has declared that it Would regard as an unfriendly act. “His Majesty’s Government believes therefore that in defining its position that it is expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government.” Glad to Co-operate. The Reply agrees that it is unnecessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties. “It would be embarrassing if certain States in Europe with whom the proposed participants are already in close treaty relations were not included among the parties, but the British Government sees no reason to doubt that these States will gladly accept it. “The British Government finds nothing in their existing commitments which their hearty co-operation in this new movement for strengthening the foundations of peace.

~ “They will gladly co-operate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed, and is ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for the purpose’.'' Dominions Interested. The Reply concludes by pointing out that “the detailed arguments in the foregoing are expressed on behalf of His Majesty’s Government in Greaj Britain, and that the proposed Treaty is one in which it could not participate otherwise than jointly and simitancously with His Majesty’s Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India. “As a result of communication with these Governments it has been ascertained that they are. all in cordial agreement with the general principles of the proposed Treaty, and on receipt of an invitation w r ould doubtless be prepared to participate in its conclusion,”

Practical Purpose is to Endorse Kellogg Principle British Official Wireless. RUGBY, May 20. Commenting on Sir Austen Chamberlain’s Reply to the American suggestion of a multilateral pact renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, the Observer says: — ‘ ‘ The movement initiated by Mr. Kelltfgg, United States Secretary of State, had been virtually suspended till the British attitude was disclosed. The British Government and the British Dominions have now given their full support.

. The practical purpose of fhe British answer issued yesterday was to endorse "Mr. Kellogg’s principle and to suggest prompt negotiation of details.

“The British Government has now committed itself fully ‘to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy.’ “The only specific reservation made in the British acceptance agrees with Article 4 of the French Note that the Kellogg pledge should not conflict with any existing Treaty obligation. The Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty are regarded by His Majesty’s Government as fundamental. Reciprocally Strengthening, “Mr. Kellogg, on And! " u speaking before the American Society of International Law, expressed the view that the two sets of instruments should strengthen each other. No difficulty therefore arises on that score. “Both the-French and the British Governments made the point that a violation of the Kellogg pledge by one party should release others from their pledge toward the defaulting party. Mr. Kellogg had already adopted that view on April 28. Mr. Kellogg had said that a signature of the pact by the six Great Powers would prevent a recurrence of a great war on the 1914 pattern. • “It seems now reasonably certain that a pact win be signed by those Powers. Mr. Kellogg therefore is likely to leave an enviable mark in history.” Britain Keeps Her Word. The Sunday Times says:—“In a Note of this kind dispatched in the name of the' British Government every word counts. Nothing would have been easier for Sir Austen than to have

emitted a loud cheer of unthinking approval in support of the American proposals. “But that is not the way we in Britain like to have our Foreign Secretaries behave. If we put our name to a treaty, it is with the intention of carrying it out. If we make a promise, we mean to redeem it. If we commit ourselves to a principle, it is not until we have done our best to forecast what it may portend in the way of action. “Sir Austen Chamberlain has paid Mr. Kellogg’s approaches the supnyiw compliment of taking them to be serious, practical, and deserving of d& tailed examination.

“When, therefore, the Foreign Sec* rotary, on behalf of the British nation, declares that ‘His Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of its power,’ his words may bo accepted as indicative, not of opinion or a hope, but of policy. “Again, when he talks of the British Government’s ‘hearty co-operation in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed,’ he means neither more nor less than he says. “Such declarations coming at the end of a scries of politely moved amend ments to the original text of the draft treaty carry a far greater weight of conviction and significance for those who know our people than it he had merely endorsed Mr. Kellogg’s general principle without waiting to inquire or to reflect how it might work out in practice. Nothing Antagonistic in it.

“Happily, in this case the Foreign Office, after a realistic examination ol Mr. Kellogg’s scheme and of French criticisms upon it, find nothing vitally antagonistic between them and nothing to which Great Britain cannot willingly subscribe. All Sir Austen Chamberlain’s suggestions are in fact directed toward giving a greater definiteness and, therefore, greater strength and practicality to the American Secretary of (State's original idea. They amount to littlemore than a request that Mr. Kellogg’s verbal interpretations of his intentions should be incorporated in the treaty Itself.

“The Foreign Secretary, for instance, is anxious, and rightly so, that there should be no appearance and no possibility of a clash between our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the Locarno agreement and declarations, to which wo commit ourselves by signing the new pact. “Similarly in regard to those regions of the world, the wclfarS and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and-safety. 1 ‘ So long as it is recognised and explicitly stated ’that the projected treatry would regard the protection of tftese regions against attack as a measure of self-defence on Great Britain’s part—just as America’s active guardianship of the Monroe Doctrine would be regarded as a measure of self-de-fence on her part —then the acceptance of the new oact is feasible. ’ ’