OUTLAWRY OF WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19952, 22 May 1928, Page 11

OUTLAWRY OF WAR.

PBOPOSAL BY AMERICA. TEXT OF BRITAIN'S REPLY. THE PRINCIPLE FAVOURED. RESERVATIONS DEFINED. APPROVAL OF DOMINIONS. By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. British Wireless. RUGBY, May 20. The text of the British Government's reply to the proposal of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. F. B. Kellogg, for a multilateral treaty to outlaw war, was issued to the Sunday newspapers and published by them this morning. It says: The suggestion for the conclusion of a treaty for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy has evoked widespread interest in Britain and the British Government will support the movement to the utmost of its power. After having made a careful study of the text of the American Note and of the amended text suggested in the French Note, the British Government feels convinced that there is no serious divergence between the •ffect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of the speech delivered by Mr. Kellogg on April 28. He said the aim of the United States Government is to embody in the proposed treaty a broad statement of the principle to proclaim, without restriction of qualification, that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim, the British Government is ■wholly in accord. Examination of French Draft, The French proposals are equally imbued with the same purpose. They have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which a violation of that principle by one party to the proposed treaty might oblige the other parties to take action. Though these seem at first sight to be inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact the British Government appreciates the scruples which have prompted the suggestions oy the French Government. The exact fulfilment of treaty engagements is a matter which affects the national honour, and precision as to the scope of those engagements is therefore of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view. After having studied the wording of Article 1 of the United States draft, the British Government does not think its terms would exclude action which a State might be forced to take in self-defence. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the Bpeech referred to, that he regards the right of self-defence as an inalienable one, and the British Government is disposed to think that on this question no addition to the te.\t is necessary.

In Case of Treaty Violation. As regards the text of Article 2 of the United States draft no appreciable difference is found between the American and the French proposals. The British Government, therefore, is 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 to provide that any violation of the proposed treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder of the signatories from their obligations under the treaty toward that party. The British Government is not satisfied that if the treaty stood alone the addition of some such provision would not be necessary. Mr. Kellogg's speech, however, shows that he put forward for acceptance the text of the proposed treaty upon the understanding that a violation of the undertaking by one party would free the remaining parties from their obligations to observe its terms in respect of the treaty-breaking State. If it is agreed that this is the principle •which will apply in the case of this particular treaty the British Government is satisfied, and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can no doubt be found, without difficulty, of placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner, so that it may have equal value with the terms of the proposed treaty itself. This point is one of importance because of its bearing on the treaty engagements by which the British Government is already bound. Possible Clash With Other Treaties. The preservation of peace has been the chief concern of the British Government, and the prime object of all its endeavours. That is the reason why it has given its ungrudging support to the League of Nations, and why it has undertaken the burden of the guarantees embodied in the Treaty of Locarno. The sole object of all these 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 both is the same that there is no real antagonism between the treaty engagements which the British Government lias already accepted and the pact which is now proposed. The machinery of the covenant of the League and that of the Treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further than the renunciation of war as a policy, in that they provide certain sanctions for a breach of their obligations. A clash might thus conceivably arise between the existing treaties and the proposed pact unless it be understood that an obligation under the new engagement would cease to operate in respect of a party which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile means against one of its co-con-tractants.

Interests of the Empire Preserved. To the British Government, respect for the obligations arising out of the covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty is fundamental. Britain's position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government as indicated in its Note of April 27. The British Government could not agree to any new treaty which would weaken, or undermine, these engagements, on which the peace of Europe rests. Indeed the public interest in Britain in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great , that the British Government >-ould for its part prefer to see some

such provision as Article 4 of the French draft (providing that the proposed treaty shall in no way nullify obligations consequent upon previous treaties) embodied in the text of the proposed treaty. To this, the British Government understands, there will be no objection. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear that he has no intention by the terms of the proposed treaty of preventing the parties to the covenant of the League, or to the Locarno Treaty, from fulfilling their obligations. The language of Article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that Britain should remind you that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for Britain's peace and safety. The British Government has been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Its protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly under, stood that the British Government accepts the proposed treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice its freedom of action in this respect. Tlie United States Government has comparable interests, any disregard of which by a foreign Power it has declared it would regard an unfriendly act. The British Government believes, therefore, that in defining its own position it is expressing the intention and the meaning of the United States Government. Britain agrees that it is not necessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties to the proposed pact. It would bo embarrassing if certain States in Europe, with whom the proposed participants in the pact 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 its existing commitments which would prevent its hearty co-operation in the new movement to strengthen the foundations of peace. It 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 necessary for that purpose* The foregoing detailed arguments are expressed on behalf of the British Government. The proposed treaty is one in which it could not participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously with the Governments of the British Dominions and the Government of India. As a result of communications 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 would no doubt be prepared to participate in its conclusion. TEXT OF THE TREATY. UNITED STATES' SCHEME.

THREE ARTICLES DETAILED. The following is a copy of the American proposal as submitted by the United States Ambassador to Britain, Mr. A. B. Houghton, on April 14, to the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austen Chamberlain: —

The President of the United States of America, the Fresident of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, the President of the German Empire, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the. Emperor of Japan Deeply sensible that their high office imposes upon them a solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind; Inspired by a common desire not only to perpetuate the peaceful and fiiendly relations now happily subsisting between their peoples, but also to prevent war among any of the nations of the woild; Desirous by formal act to bear unmistakable witness that they condemn war as an instrument of national policy and renounce it in favour of the pacific settlement of international disputes;

Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavour and, by adhering to the present treaty as soon as it comes into force, bring their peoples within # the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilised nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy; Have decided to conclude a treaty and, for that purpose, have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries the President of tht United States of America, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, lieland and the British Dominions Beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, the President of the German Empire, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan Who, having communicated to one another their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following articles:

Article I. The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare, in the name of their respective peoples, that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another. Article 11. The High Contracting Parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means. Article 111. The present treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at . ...

This treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at . . . and the treaty shall, immediately upon such deposit, become effective as between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto. It shall be the duty of the Government of ... to furnish each Government named in the preamble, and every Government subsequently adhering to this treaty, with a certified copy of the treaty and of every instrument of ratification or adherence. It shall also be the duty of the Government of . . telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence. In faith whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in the French and English languages, both texts having equal force, and hereunto affixed their seals.