LONDON PRESS PLEASED WITH PEACE MOVE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18469, 22 May 1928, Page 10

LONDON PRESS PLEASED WITH PEACE MOVE.

BRITAIN COMMITTED TO OUTLAWING OF WAR. (United Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) RUGBY, May 20. Commenting on the British Note the “Observer” states: "The movement initiated by Mr Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State, had been virtually suspended till the British attitude was disclosed. The British Government and the British dominions have now given it their full support. The practical purpose of the British answer issued yesterday was to endorse Mr Kellogg’s principle and to suggest prompt negotiation of details. The British Government, supported by the British dominions, has now committed itself fully ‘to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy.’ “The only specific reservation made in the British acceptance agrees with Article IV. of the French Note, that the Kellogg pledge should not conflict with any existing treaty obligation. The Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty are regarded by his Majesty’s Government as fundamental. Mr Kellogg on April 28, speaking before the American Society of International Law, expressed the view that the two sets of instruments should strengthen each other. No difficulty therefore arises on that score. Both the French and British Governments made the point that violation of the Kellogg pledge by one party should release the others from their pledge towards the defaulting party. Mr Kellogg had already adopted that view on April 28.

“Mr Kellogg has'said that signature of the Pact by the six Great Powers would prevent a recurrence of a great war on the 1914 pattern. It seems now to be reasonably certain that the Pact will be signed by those Powers. Mr Kellogg therefore is likely to leave an enviable mark in history.” The “Sunday Times says: "In a Note of this kind, dispatched in the name of the British Government, every word counts. Nothing would have £>een easier for Sir Austen Chamberlain than to have emitted a loud cheer of unthinking approval in support of the American proposals, but that is not the way we in Britain like to have our Foreign Secretaries behave. If we put our name to a treaty it is with the intention of carrying it out. If we make a promise we mean to redeem it. If we commit ourselves io a principle it is not until we have done our best to forecast what it may portend in the way of action. Sir Austen .Chamberlain has paid Mr Kellogg’s approaches the supreme compliment of taking them to be serious, practical and deserving of detailed examination. When, therefore, the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the British Nation, declares that ‘his Majesty's Government will support the movement to the utmost of its power’ his words may be accepted as indicative not of an opinion or a hope, but of a policy. Again, when he talks of the Brit.'sh Government’s * hearty co-opera-tion in the conclusion of such a Pact as is proposed’ he means neither more ror less than he says. Such declarations, coming at the end of a series of politely moved amendments to the original text of the draft, carry a far greater weight of conviction and significance for those who know our people than if he had merely endorsed Mr general principle without waiting to inquire or reflect how it might work out in practice. Happily, in this case, the Foreign Office, after a realistic examination of Mr Kellogg’s scheme and of French criticisms upon it, finds nothing vitally antagonistic between them and nothing to which Great Britain cannot willingly subscribe. "All of Sir Austen’s suggestions are in fact directed towards giving greater definiteness and therefore greater strength and practicality to the American Secretary of State’s original idea. They amount to little more than a request that Mr Kellogg’s verbal interpretations of his intentions should be incorporated in the Treaty itself. The Foreign Secretary, for instance, is anxicus, and rightly so, ‘that there should be no appearance and no possibility of a clash between our obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations and under the Locarno agreement and the declarations to which we commit ourselves by the signing of the new Pact. “Similarly, in regard to those regions of the world ‘the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety,’ so long as it is recognised and explicitly stated that the projected Treaty would regard the protection of these regions against attack as a measure of self-defence on Great Britain s part, just as America’s active guardianship of the Monroe Doctrine would be regarded as a measure of self-defence on her part, then acceptance of the Pact is feasible.”—British Official Wireless. LABOUR criticises LIMITATIONS PLACED ON PROPOSED PACT. LONDON, May 21. The diplomatic correspondent of the ‘ Daily Telegraph ” regrets that Britain did not send Washington a brief Note whole-heartedly accepting Mr Kellogg’s proposal without reservations, adding a memorandum to which British legal experts would have placed their reading of the American draft. Thus the Note would have avoided the chilliness of legal arguments, which tend to obscure the cordiality with which the British Government welcomes Washington’s initiative and promises to support it to the utmost of its power. “ What is Mr Austen Chamberlain's definition of Britain’s Monroe Doctrine concerning Egypt?” asks the corresponden t. The “Daily Herald” describes the Note as a deeply disturbing document, inasmuch as Sir Austen Chamberlain lays down a drastic series of limitations and reservations, following the lead set by Paris. The Note is not likely to satisfy America or the growing opinion in Britain which demands more than lip service to vague ideals of peace and disarmament. “ The Times ” says:—“ The British reply, is at once cordial and reflective. The aim of the British Note is clearly to advance the movement Its serious and reflective character greatly adds to the force of the declaration of cordial acceptance. The importance of the occasion is enhanced by the fact

that the whole British Empire speaks with one voice. This is a new international enterprise.”—Australian Press Association.