KELLOGG PACT CANNOT WORK WITHOUT LEAGUE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18468, 21 May 1928, Page 10

KELLOGG PACT CANNOT WORK WITHOUT LEAGUE.

GENERAL SMUTS MAKES SUGGESTION. (United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) CAPE TOWN, May 19 General Smuts, the former Prime Minister, has made an important suggestion on Mr Kellogg’s outlawry of war proposal. He regards it as reinforcing the League Covenant, and believes that it will only function successfully in conjunction with the Covenant. To be reasonably reliable, it ought to be followed up by an additional undertaking, more or less on the lines of Article 16 of the Covenant, or ought to be looked upon as a supplement to the League Covenant based on the economic sanction of that article.

He said that with the support of the Unified States behind this economic sanction the prospect of future peace on the double basis of the Covenant and Mr Kellogg’s declaration becomes far brighter and more stable. The complementary declaration, with the enthusiastic backing of America, may well mean the rescue of the League from becoming the special concern and almost private property of any particular group of Powers.

General Smuts points out that special defensive groups have arisen in Europe, not harmonising with the spirit of the League and involving war obligations. The Locarno system might in the last resort mean war, and war obligation's on its members, and it was against these pacts and this system that the outlawry of war under the declaration bumped violently. The way out of this position would be to make all the signatories, not only of the Locarno Pact, but also of other defensive pacts, parties to the Kellogg declaration. The Locarno and other pacts must necessarily stand, but they would ail be covered with the umbrella of the declaration. The effect then would be that if the declaration were violated by an arbitrary aggressor the defenders would still be able to fall back on the Locarno Pact and other pacts as their second line of defence. It was quite possible that the “ umbrella ” might prove effective against the storm, safeguarding the peace of Central Europe even more effectively than the patched-up arrangements of the last ten years. In that way Locarno would also prove to be but a step towards ultimate peace.

General Smuts urges that it is vain to organise for woitld peace and leave out Russia. With all Central and Eastern Europe and Russia in the League or declaration, or both, the disarmament movement would enter an entire Iy new and most promising phase. He adds that if diplomatic correspondence fails to bring about unanimity America should call a conference of the Powers concerned. —United Service.

NATIONS MAKING THEIR REPLIES.

WASHINGTON, May 19. The British reply to Mr Kellogg’s proposal for a treaty renouncing war will be published on Sunday. There will be no authoritative intimation as to its contents, but expectation is that it will be favourable to the terms. Of the five Governments with which the United States has taken up the project, Germany has given complete approval: Italy has avoided a definite stand, but has signified her approval of the general idea; France has countered with a draft treaty against war that is regarded here as emasculating the Kellogg proposal to the point of complete ineffectiveness; and Japan will submit a reply soon which is expected to indicate at least general acceptance of the Kellogg formula. —Australian Press Association.

BRITISH ANSWER MAKES RESERVATIONS.

NEW YORK, May 19. The Washington correspondent of the “ New York Times ” states that the reservations contained in the British Note replying to Mr Kellogg’s proposal will necessitate further negotiations in order to reach mutual accommodations. There is some disappointment felt here that the Note did not contain a more sweeping endorsement of Mr Kellogg’s proposal, or a simple unqualified declaration against war. The State Department declined to make any formal comment to-day, but Mr Kellogg maintained his optimism, asserting that he was much encouraged, and real progress was being made. British support of Article 4 of the French counter draft, nullifying obligations consequent upon previous treaties, has been opposed from the first here as something that would vitiate the entire treaty, and the hope was held out to-day that by siding with France on this question Britain had gone only to the extent of stating a preference, from which she might be induced to recede.

Article 10 of the British reply is held here to refer to Egypt and the Suez Canal. Both are recognised as vital to the defence of the Empire, yet fears are entertained that the in corporation in the proposed treaty oT any such reservation might go far to sap the treaty's vitality. The first reaction was that possibly this point might be taken care of by a unilateral declaration by Britain when the treat> is signed. Concerning the reservations earlier proposed by France and subsequently declared unnecessary by Mr Kellogg, the indications were that Britain was inclined towards a joint Note setting forth interpretations. It was felt that, to meet the wishes of Britain, however, this formal declaration shall have equal value with the treaty itself, and that such a Note would really be a supplementary treaty, requiring ratification by the American Senate, and therefore a useless expedient, in that the interpretations might be included within the treaty itself. There were indications, although officials declined to predict what course would be adopted, that an effort would be made to amend the Kellogg draft in some simple form, through a broad statement. in the treaty or by a. protocol covering a common interpretation without in effect vitiating the compact. One important aspect, of the Note, from the standpoint of the British Empire, was not only the announcement. that the dominions and India favoured the outlawry of war project, but a request to have them, as governments, sign the multi-lateral treaty. Mr Kellogg immediately made it known that invitations would be sent to them. He did not know definitely whether a separate arbitration treaty would be negotiated with Canada at the time

the pending one is signed with Britain —Australian Press Association.

British Reply paves WAY FOR NEGOTIATION.

(United Pres* Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, May 19. First impressions of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s reply to Mr Kellogg on the outlawry of war proposals are favourable. It is believed that by a frank acceptance of the principle, combined with a. tactful recognition of French difficulties, the way is paved for negotiating the treaty. Attention naturally centred round the submission that the Monroe principle is to apply to Britain as well as to the United States, with respect to the' exclusion of certain diplomatic fields from the operation of the pact. What is meant is well understood, though Egypt is not specifically mentioned. Mr J. L. Garvin, in the “ Observer,” approves of the reply and stresses the fact that while it is possible to harmonise the pact with the League Covenant and the Locarno Pact, not for a moment could Britain or the domirvions assume any sort of responsibility for France's arrangements with the Little Entente and Poland, which seem to imply armed resistance to any revision of the Versailles Treaty' frontiers in Central and Eastern Europe. Mr Garvin, concludes by hoping that we will now leave France to conduct, her own case, and not risk slipping info a position where America and Germany will be on one side of the diplomatic table and Britain and France on the other. The '‘Sunday Times” opines that some may regard the reply as veering towards frigidity, but feels that that would be a wrong impression. Sir Austen Chamberlain’s suggestion amounts to not more than a request that Mr Kellogg’s verbal interpretations of his intentions should be incorporated in the treaty itself.—Australian Press Association.