RENOUNCING WAR

Wairarapa Age, 22 May 1928, Page 3

RENOUNCING WAR

TEXT OF THE BRITISH REPLY TO AMERICA. UTMOST SUPPORT PROMISED. INTERESTS OF DOMINIONS. United Press Association. —By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. RUGBY, May 19. I 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 its power.' ’ The reply proceeds:— "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 feels convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of a speech by the Secretary of State of the United States on April 28. The aim of the United States Government js to embody in a treaty a broad statement of principle, to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim His Majesty’s Government is wholly in accord. The French proposals, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which a 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 appreciates the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by ho French Government. The exact fulfilment of Treaty engagements is a matter which ■ affects national honour and precision as to the scope of sueh engagements is, therefore, of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view. RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE. "After studying the wording of Article I of the United States draft, His Majesty’s Government does not think that its terms exclude any action which a State may be forced to take in self-defence. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech referred to above that ho regards the right of self-de-fence as inalienable, and His Majesty’s Government is disposed to think that on this question no addition of the text is necessary. “As regards the text of Article 2 no appreciable difference is found between the American and French proposals. His Majesty’s Government is therefore 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 Noto suggests the addition, of any article providing that a violation of the Treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder from their obligations under tho Treaty towards that party. His Majesty's Government is not satisfied that, if the Treaty stood alone, the addition of some such provision would uol be necessary, Mr. Kellogg’s speech, however, shows that he put forward for acceptance the text of tho proposed treaty on the undeiXanding that violation of the undertaking by one party would free remaining parties from 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 tho case of this particular Treaty, His Majesty’s Government is satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can, no doubt, be found without difficulty for placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner, so that it may have equal value with tho terms of tho Treaty itself. ’

LEAGUE AND LOCARNO. “the point is one of importance, because of its bearing on treaty engagements by which His Majesty’s Government is already bound. Tho preservation of peace has been the chief concern of His Majesty’s Government'and the prime object of all its endeavours It is the reason why it has given ungrudging support to the League o f Nations and why it has undertaken the burden of guarantees embodied in the Locarno Treaty. Tho sale object of all these engagements is the elimination of war as an instrument of national pohey, just as it is tho purpose of tho peace pact now proposed-It is because tho object of both is tho same that there is no real antagonism between tfie Treaty engagements which His Majesty’s Government has already accepted and the pact which is now pr >- posed. 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 for certain sanctions for a breach of their obligations. A dash might thus conceivably arise between! tho existing treaties and the proposed I pact, unless it is understood that the obligation of the new engagement will cease to operate in respect of tho party which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile means against one of its co-con-tractants.

For the British Government respect for the 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 its Noto 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, the public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfilment of these engagements is so great that His Majesty’s Government would for its part, prefer to see some such provision as Article 4 of the French draft embodied in ti e text of the Treaty. To this we understand there will bo no objection., Kellogg has made it clear that he has no intention by the terms of tho new Treaty of preventing tho parties to the Locarno Covenant or to the Locarno Treaties from fulfilling their bligations. BRITAIN’S PROTECTORATES. "The language of Article 1 as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there arc certain regions of the

world, tho welfare and integrity of which constitute special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty’s Government has been at pains to make it clear in tho 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 Bntain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respegt. Tho Government of tho United States has comparable interests, any disregard of which b,v a foreign Power it has declared that it would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty’s Government believes therefore, that in defining its position that it is expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government.’’ The reply agrees that it is unnecessary to wait until all tho nations of tho 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 sees no reason to doubt that these States will gladly accept it. The British Government finds nothing in their existing commitments which prevents their hearty co-operation in this new movement for strengthening the foundations of peace. They will gladly co-operate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed, and is ready to engage with tho interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for the purpose.’ DOMINIONS AND INDIA. Tho reply 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 it could not participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously with His Majesty’s Gov-'rn-ments in the Dominions and tho Government of India. As a result of communication with these Governments it has been ascertained that they are all in cordial agreement with tho general principles of tho proposed Treaty, and on receipt of an invitation would doubtless be prepared to participate in its conclusion.’’—(British Official Wireless.)