Britain Ready to Sign War Outlawry Pact.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18468, 21 May 1928, Page 5

Britain Ready to Sign War Outlawry Pact.

REPLY TO MR KELLOGG’S PROPOSAL SENT TO UNITED STATES; SOME OF FRENCH AMENDMENTS FAVOURED. (United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph.-—Copyright.) (Received May 21, 12.30 p.m.) 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 their power. After making a careful study of the text contained in your Excellency's Note and of the amended text suggested in the French Note his Majesty's Government feel convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed bv study of the text of the speech by the Secretarj* of State of the United States on April 28 that the aim of the United States Government is to embody in the treaty a broad statement of the principle and to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim his Majesty’s Government are wholly in accord. The French proposals are equally imbued with the same purpose and have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which violation of that principle by one party may oblige others to take action, seeming at first sight to be inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty’s Government appreciate the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by the French Government. The exact fulfilment of Treaty engagements is a matter which affects the national honour, 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. “ After studying the wording of Article 1 of the United States draft his Majesty's Government do not think that its terms exclude the action which a State may be forced to take in selfdefence. 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 are disposed to think that on this question no addition to the text is necessary. “ As regards the text of Article 11. no appreciable difference is found between the American and French pro-, posals. His Majesty’s Government are therefore content to accept the former if, as they understand 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 violation of the Treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder from their obligations under the Treaty towards that party. His Majesty’s Government are 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 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 his Majestjr’s Government are satisfied and will not • ask for the insertion of any amendment. . Means can no doubt be found without difficulty cf placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner so that it may have an equal value with the terms of the Treaty itself. The point is one of impontancc, because of its bearing on the Treaty engagements by which his Majesty’s Government are already bound. “Preservation of peace has been the chief concern of his Majesty’s Government and prime object of all their endeavours. It is the reason why they have given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why they have undertaken the burden of guarantees embodied in the Locarno Treaty. 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 his Majesty’s Government have already accepted, and the pact which is now proposed. 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 certain sanctions for a breach of their obligations. A clash might thus conceivably arise between, the existing treaties and the proposed Pact, unless it is understood that the obligations of the new engagement will cease to operate in respect of the party which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile means

against one of its co-contractants. For the British Government respect for 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 their Note of April 27. His Majesty’s Government could not agree to any new treaty which -would weaken, or undermine. these engagements, on which the peace of Europe rests. Indeed, public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great that his Majesty’s Government would for their part prefer, to see some such provision as Article IV. of the French 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 obligatiohs. “The language of Article I. 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 have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their 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 have comparable interests, any disregard of which by a foreign Power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly’ act. His Majesty’s Government believe, therefore, that in defining the(r position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government.”

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 see no reason to doubt that these States will gladly accept it. The British Government find nothing in their existing commitments which prevents their hearty ,co-operation in the new moyement for strengthening the foundations of peace. They will gladly co-operate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed and are ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for ,that purpose.” The replv concludes by pointing out that “the detailed arguments in the foregoing are expressed on behalf of his Majesty’s Government in Great Britain and that the proposed Treaty is one in which they could not participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously 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 the invitation -would doubtless be prepared to participate in its conclusion.” —British Official Wireless.

DISTINCT ADVANCE, DECLARES “ TIMES.” (United Press Asan. —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) (Received Mav 21. 2 p.m.) LONDON, May 20. “The Times,” in a leading article on the British reply to Mr Kellogg, says: “ft implies much more than mere acquiescence and suggests a display of initiative. The British Note clearly aims at advancing the movement, and goes far t;o remove the difficulties that might have impeded the accomplishment of the purpose proclaimed by the United States. “The Note marks a distinct advance, particularly because it represents the renewal of active co-operation between the British Empire and the United States, directly useful to the world at large. Moreover, its value and importance is enhanced because in this new international enterprise, the whole Empire speaks with one voice. A conference may now be necessary. Undoubtedly it must be within the United States.—Australian Press Association.