PACT TO OUTLAW WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19838, 7 January 1928, Page 9

PACT TO OUTLAW WAR.

AMERICAN PROPOSALS. FRENGH OPINION CHANGED. FAVOURABLE VIEW HELD. INTERPRETATION OF TEXT. FRESH MEANING READ. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. (Received January 6, 5.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. PARIS. Jan. 6. Opinion in France has changed regarding the proposal of Mr. F. B. Kellogg, United States Secretary of State, for a multilateral treaty with all the Powers to outlaw war. French opinion is now regarded even to be in favour of the proposal. The change is the result of study of the full text of Mr. Kellogg's Note, from which it does not appear that Mr. Kellogg wishes to replace the pact between France and the United States by a world pact, as the summary seemed to imply. The newspaper Le Temps says there is no objection in the principle of the United States opening negotiations with other Powers, entirely distinct from the negotiations between France and America. The only essential is that the pacts should harmonise with the Geneva Conference, to which Mr. Kellogg's proposals may bring the United States nearer. America for the first time is willing to unite with the Powers which have made themselves the guardians of peace. The Journal des Debats says: "We must always encourage any initiative against war from Washington." An earlier message said the most interesting development so far is Cabinet's instruction to the French Ambassador in Washington, M, Emile Daeschner, to make a specific reservation to safeguard France's obligations to the League in the event of a war of defence against an aggressor nation.

WASHINGTON SATISFIED POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS. PROMISE OF SYMPATHY. (Received January 6, 7.5 p.m.) A. and N.Z. WASHINGTON, Jan. 6. What seems to be a change of sentiment in French Government circles in favour of the principle of the American proposal for a multilateral treaty renouncing war is accepted in official circles at Washington with unmixed satisfaction. Whatever reactions France might have toward the plan, as far as the League of Nations or treaties with European States are concerned, it is believed M. Poincare's Government could not afford to be placed in a false light by an outright and immediate rejection of the proposal. Some changes in Mr. Kellogg's plan may be suggested as a result of the French Cabinet's deliberation, and if so, these will be received in a spirit of accommodation. The State Department has indicated that it is prepared to consider sympathetically any amendments of the proposals it has made.

BRITAIN NOTIFIED. FOREIGN OFFICE SILENT. SATISFACTION OF PRESS. A. and N.Z. LONDON, Jan. 5. A copy of Mr. Kellogg's Note to France concerning, the proposed war outlawry treaty has been formally handed to the British Foreign Office, which at present is not commenting upon it.

Official quarters in London broadly approve the proposal and express the opinion that a multilateral treaty would not "cut across" the Covenant of the League of Nations, although much depends on the text of the treaty. It is pointed out, however, that the Covenant, in certain circumstances, permits, even commands, war.

Furthermore, in certain limited circumstances, such as are provided for in the Treaty of Locarno, Britain is committed to sanctions which America does not mention. Therefore, until these points are clarified, there is no prospect of an official British communication. Britain may be directly linked in discussions when the proposed enlargement of the Root Arbitration Treaties, which expire in June, is considered.

Mr. Gilbert Murray, President of the League of Nations Union, says America's proposal and the League's resolution declaring war a crime are equally weak, in the sense that each nation will glibly agree until a crisis occurs, when it will say war is being thrust upon it.

If America can devise a treaty to completely outlaw war, says Mr. Murray, he is confident it will be enthusiastically accepted by all the nations. The newspapers generally express satisfaction that America should thus •be "talking the language of peace." They point out at the same time that the League of Nations owes its very existence to a similar inspiration.

The same principle, it is recalled, is expressed in Article 12 of the League Covenant, by which members agree to submit any dispute likely to lead to a rupture either to arbitration or to judicial settlement, or to an inquiry by the Council of the League, and not to resort to war until three months after an award.