RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Otago Witness, Issue 3867, 24 April 1928, Page 29

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

AMERICAN NOTE TO POWERS. “A GREAT STEP FORWARD.” RUGBY, April 15. The newspapers publish to-day the text of the identic Note eotuuiuiHcated to t.ie Governments of the Great- Powers by the UnTied States on the question of a possible international renunciation of wax. Hie Note is accompanied by a preliminary draft treaty representing in a general way the form of a multilateral treaty which the United States Government is prepared to sign.

lue Note refers to the correspondence on the proposal with France, whose Government pointed out certain considerations vvii-ch in a multilateral treaty must be borne in mind by tile Powers which aie members of the League of Nations, and paities to the treaties of Locarno and to other treaties guaranteeing neut: ity Hie United States proposal is well re ceived by the press, and it is recognised that it warrants immediate, careful, and sympathetic examination.

The Times says: "Mr Kelloggs proposal, as now addressed to the live Powers, has taken a much more precise and definite form than had seemed possible at the stage reached m the discussion with France alone. It is. indeed, a very remarkable faqt that the United States, aftei long abstention from any general commitments in world politics, now submits for accept ance to Hie uuier live lowers a treaty which would bind them to the absolute renunciation of war as an instrument of puncy in theii mutual dealings. if these six Powers alone found it possible to oind themselves solemnly m such an engagement, after the fullest considers tion of all that it would imply in the pus sitne v iuiosiuuues of liie cuiuiug /eats, it would, of course, mean a tremendous step forward in tne pacification of the world lhe United States has g nerously assumed a great responsibility in making an ohei ol a scope so far-reaching. That responsibility is shared now by those to whom the offer is formally made. The Powers upon whom such depends are invited to commit themselves to a continuous policy of ypace, and definitely to put war out of consideration in their mutual intercourse, oi. me assumption, upon wiiicu the United States Government lays great stress, that a host of lesser nations would be .-agei loilo-.v so notable an example (?.->, th e British Government the task presents little difficulty. Peace, wmco ieaj !o u.e prevention of war, is for the wfioG British Empire a dominant issue. The chief commitments assumed bv the British Government since the war have been ssumed with the object of ensuring peace, and of builuing up alternatives to v.,- !r ;ls illt j n . st rumen t ..policy. " Referring to M. Briand’s reference to the nearing of the League and Locarno on the proposed pact, lhe Ti nes savs ; It cannot be forgotten that both Hie League and Locarno admit the jtossil.il it-, of war in the last resort as a means of mam taming peace in uo sense .an these commitments be regarded as implying that the States undertaking them regard wai as a mea ns o f furthering their national aims. If .hat is admitted thev are not mcompatiole with acceptance of the American proposal, always provided that ceptance. while apparently enlarging the scope, does not actually woken the'effect . I S uch .,,? anous commitments as these ” lhe limes concludes by welcoming the P'ospcct of the great power of the United States being brought into service in such eepTioT’of th U T’ dS: “ The British of P ! O Inn?- T T en g”gement permits exncHv Y ? ack ’ a " d we musl know xactly to what we are committed. If therefore, we ask whether renunciation ot war covers purely defensive or police measures, whether it includes or excludes t..e League sanctions, whether the readi neas or the United States Government to sign such a treaty commits the American people in the same degree as the other tliTof 'th? r Committed b y Hie signa, we arc Gne X’ 6 ™.™ 1113 - jt is because ;ri S6 ar s e h o X e See a ed^ S the enter ’

BRITISH PRESS COMMENT.

PROPOSALS WARMLY" WELCOMED. Thn Ar i RUGBY, April 15. o i thA A T’ n - C ?a Ghardian > commenting the Xfl f Cd S , nteS N ° te ’ the need for a . clear definition of what the pledge is intended to imply. -‘To make the pledge effective, you must have at least tvyo things. You must define what war is, or at any rate d fferentiate between the kinds of war which you really mean to renounce and those which you do not, and you must establish effective machinery for the rcifie settlement of disputes, without whicn war would otherwise be probable or the only alternative. Without those two things the pledge becomes no more than a rather empty assertion of a peaceable disposition. It might have its uses, but it would also have its dangers. Nevertheless that the United States should, with little encouragement, have persisted in. this attempt to frame a treaty open for all the world to sign for the renunciation of way is altogether to be x-elcomed. It marks a real attempt to collaborate in the work which the League, from a different angle, is trying to do in the cause of peace.”

Thy Daily Telegraph, 'after pointing out similar difficulties and drawing attention to Mr Kellogg’s declaration that he does not consider that the treaty advocated would afford a certain guarantee against all wars, says: “The question now is whether the proposed treaty can

be so strengthened by textual amendments which the United States Government can be persuaded to recognise, not only as indispensable from the point of view of other Powers, but as admissible or even valuable from its own."

Other newspapers also ..irect attention to these points, but all agree in warmly welcoming the American proposals. The significance of the proposal is fully recognised, and the American Note is regarded as signalising at th very least the reentrance o. the United States into that international area which she quitted when she reftisei? association with the League of Nations. Her return is heartily welcomed, and it is taken for granted that the proposals will be examined and responded to with goodwill, particularly in Britain, where, as the Sunday Times points out, no Government suspected of aggressiveness or a desire for war could last for a week.

The Sunday Times adds that examina tion of the proposals must, however, be thorough, for, once given, Britain’s word will always be honoured for this reason —it cannot be given lightly. Discussing some of the considerations which the Note raises it examines the questions already put by the French Foreign Minister, M. Briand, as to whether the new proposals in any way conflict with the liabilities assumed under the covenant of the League of Nations and Locarno, which, while seeking to guard against war, envisage its possibility in certain circumstances. It recalls, too, that even in America, free from the tangle of European affairs, difficulties must be faced, including the apparent limitation now proposed to bt put on the rights of the Legislature to declare war. The Sunday Times concludes: “ On both sides of the Atlantic, therefore, there is need for deep consideration and ar ever-present sense of realitias if substance is to be given to Mr Kellogg’s inspiring conception.” The Observer admits the existence of difficulties, but declares that “ no difficulties can diminish the significance of the forward movement of the American policy. Locarno marked a stage, and the very limitation of its aims widened the scope of its effect. VVe see it now as an indispensable prelude to a renewal ol American interest in Old World affairs. Mr .Kellogg's Note completes the logic of LocaWo. The ideals which inspire it are implicit in every word of the two operative clauses of the draft Treaty, and are explicitly stated in its preamble. The co-operatiou for which the world has waited for so many years is at last forthcoming, and Britain, equipped as sht is historically and geographically to fuither its intentions, welcomes it with thankfulness.” THE BRITISH DECISION. LONDON, A nl 16. 'lhe diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph says that British official circles express the opinion that the British decision regarding Mr Kellogg’s plan for the abolition of war will be determined not on technicalitites but on a broad appraisement of the political and moral values involved after the fullest consultation between the Home and Domu7?r>ns’ Governments. The latter are bound to carry the greatest weight. It is a safe assumption that as most of the dominions were unwilling to sign even a Rhineland pact dominion opinion will be found in close agreement with Washing ton’s plea that the conclusion of a multilateral pact should not be obstructed or frustrated bv the claims of military alliances. The opinion is universal in British circles that renewed collaboration between America and Europe is worth generous concessions.

UNUSUAL PROCEDURE IN FRANCE. LONDON, April 17. The Morning Post says that M. Briand is reported to haverequested Britain, Italy, and Germany not to for ward their views on .he American draft treaty outlawing war until France had prepared counter-proposals. This is an unusual procedure, but M. Briand originated the plan to outlaw war. though he suggested only a Franco American pact. Mr Kellogg has now turned M. Briand’s gesture into a farreaching proposal analogous in simplicity to M. Litvinoff’s, but the United States draft treaty makes no provision whatever for action in the event of the contract being broken. This is specially important to the Empire. The dominions may or may not associate themselves with treaties undertaken bj Britain, but most treaties an some form or another are defensive alliances. The American proposals in this respect are negative or passive. The dominions are to all intents and purposes unarmed. What would happen if, after the signature of such a pact, Japan and, ay, Australia went to war, or Canada and ’America? Would Britain, by her solemn undertak ing, be asked to stand aside, or does, an infringement by one of the contracting parties nullify the pact? If so, it is useless. GERMAN REPLY DELAYED. LONDON, April 17. The Berlin correspondent of the Daily Telegraph says that the German acceptance of Mr Kellogg’s draft- treaty for the renunciation of war is only delayed out of courtesy to France, pending M. Briand’s intimation of his view. APPROVED BY MINISTERS. LONDON, April 20. A Paris message states that the Council of Ministers approved of the French draft of the treaty for outlawing war.

M. Poincare visited M. Briand, who is unwell, and secured his approval with slight modification, after which the draft WHu telegraphed to the French Ambassadors at London, Washington, Rome, Berlin, and Tokio, and it is expected that it will be published next week-end. The draft embodies the reservations upon. which M. Briand insisted in his negotiations with Mr Kellogg, dealing with legitimate defence and the observations of obligations under the Leagun covenant and existing treaties. The correspondent of the Daily Telegraph states that the French pact runs on lines fairly parallel with the American document, but th articles are longer, and the reservations, expressed in judicial language, appear to be more modest than M. Briand’s Note to Mr Kellogg. The Ministers dispensed with a covering letter, which it was felt would inevitably emphasise the divergencies between the French and American viewpoints. Instead they sent instructions through the Ambassadors. A MULTILATERAL TREATY. WASHINGTON, April 20The draft French multilateral treaty has now been published, and reveals that only wars of aggression would be definitely renounced by the pact proposed to the United States and the other great Powers. The term “ aggression ” is not contained in the draft, but the first article states specifically that the signatory countries agree not to attack one another or invade each others territory. The right to wage war “ to enforce peace,” under the League Covenant, the Locarno Agreement, and various neutrality treaties is definitely reserved.