OUTLAWRY OF WAR.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17407, 21 May 1928, Page 7

OUTLAWRY OF WAR.

MR KELLOGG'S PROPOSAL.

BRITAIN'S REPLY

DISAPPOINTMENT IN WASHINGTON

(By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian Press Association).

NEW YORK, May 10

The Washington corre.sponde.nt of the New York Times says the text of Britain's Note in reply to the proposal of the United Stales for a treaty to outlaw w.ar has been published there. He says it contains reservations which will necessitate further negotiations in an effort to reach a.'stage of mutual accopimodation.

Some disappointment, is expressed in Washington Miat the Note did not contain a more sweeping endorsement of the proposal of the United States Secretary of State, Mr F. B. Kellogg, who sought a sample, unqualified declaration against, war. Mr Kellogg is still optimistic. He said to-day he was much encouraged, and felt that progress was being made. Britain's suppttrt of Article 4 of the French counter-riraft (providing that the proposed treaty shall in no way nullify obligations 'consequent upon previous treaties) has been opposed from the first in Washington as something that would vitiate the entire treaty, and the hope was held out today that by siding with France on this question Britain had only gone to the extent of stating a preference from which she might be induced to recede. Article 10 of the British reply is held to refer to Egypt and the Suez Canal. Both arc recognised as vital to the defence of the Empire, but fears are entertained that the incorporation in the proposed treaty of any such reservation might go far to sap the treaty's vitality. ■ The first reaction was that pos • sibly this point might be taken care of by a unilateral declaration by Britain when the treaty is signed. Concerning the reservations earlier proposed by France, and subsequently declared to be unnecessary by Mr Kellogg, the indications are that Britain is inclined toward a joint Note setting forth interpretations. It is felt, however, that, to meet the wishes of Britain that this formal declaration should have an equal value to that of the treaty itself, such a Note would j really be a supplementary treaty j which would require to be ratified by the American Senate. Therefore it would be a useless expedient in that j the interpretations might be included within the treaty iself. There are indications, although officials decline to predict what course will be adopted, that an effort may be made to amend Mr Kellogg's draft in some simple form, through a broad statement in the treaty, or by a protocol, in such a way as to cover a common interpretation without in effect vitiating the compact. One important aspect of the British Note from the standpoint of the British Empire is not only the announcement that the Dominions and India favour the project for the outlawry of war, but request to allow them, as Governments, to sign a multilateral treaty. Mr Kellogg immediately made it known that invitations would be sent to the Dominions. \

Germany has given her complete approval of the proposal. Italy has avoided taking a definite stand, but has signified her aproval of the general idea. France has countered the proposal with a draft treaty against war which is regarded in Washington as emasculating Mr Kellogg's proposal to the point of making it completely ineffective. Japan will submit her reply soon. This is expected to indicate at least her general acceplance of Mr Kellogg's formula.

ACCEPTANCE OF PRINCIPLE.

SPECIFIC RESERVATIONS

WAY OPENED FOR NEGOTIATIONS

(By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) (Australian Press Association.)

LONDON, May IP

The diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph says the Briiish reply to Mr Kellogg's proposals has been despatched. It is believed that it constitutes an acceptance of the plan with new and specific reservations formulated in London or in the Dominions.

First impressions of Sir Austen Chamberlain's reply to America in regard to the proposed outlawry of war pact are favourable, it is believed that by his frank acceptance of the principle, combined with his tactful recognition of France's difficulties, the way has been paved to negotiations for a treaty. Attention is naturally centred on Britain's submission that the Monroe principle should apply to her as well as to the United States in 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.

The editor of the Observer, Mr J. L. Garvin, in an article in that journal, says he approves the reply. He lays stress on the point that while it is possible to harmonise the proposed pact with the covenant of the League and the Treaty of Locarno, not for one moment could Britain and the Dominions 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 frontiers fixed by the Versailles Treaty in Central and Eastern Europe. The writer says he hopes Britain will now leave, France to conduct her own case ami not risk slipping info a position where America and Germany would be on one side of Ihe diplomatic table and Britain and France on the other.

The Sunday Times says some may regard the reply as veering Inward frigidity, but if feels sure that would be n wrong impression. Mr Chamberlain's suggestion dues not amount In more than a request that .Mr Kellogg's verbal interpretations of bis intentions should be incorporated in the proposed treaty itself.

OPINION IN SOUTH AFRICA. PROSPECTS OF PEACE. MORE BRIGHT AND STABLE. (Jiy Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright.) l’ress Assn.—L'niieO Service.) CAPETOWN, May I'J. The Leader of the Opposition in the Union Parliament. General Smuts, today made an important suggestion in connection with the American pro'.Coziiiijed in a.Nt column, i

posal for a treaty to outlaw war. He said he regarded it as reinforcing the covenant of the League of Nations. However, to be reasonably reliable it ought, he said, to be followed up by an additional undertaking, more or less on lines of Article 10 of the covenant, or it ought to be looked upon as a supplement to the League, which was based on the economic sanction of that article.

With the support of th 3 . United States behind this economic sanction the prospect of future peace on the double basis of the covenant and the proposed treaty, had become far more bright and more stable. A complementary declaration against war, with the enthusiastic support of America, might well mean the rescue of the League from becoming a special concern, and almost the private property of any particular group of Powers*. Special defensive groups had arisen in Europe which did not harmonise with the spirit of the League and wh.cli involved war obligations. The Locarno system might, in the last resort, mean war, and war obligations on its members, and it was against, these pacts and this system that the outlawry of war under the proposed declaration bumped violently. The. way out of this would lie to make all the signatories not only of the Locarno pact, but of oilier defensive pacts, parties to the declaration. The Locarno and oilier pads must ne-

cessarily stand, bill they would all lie covered bv the "umbrella" of the proposed declaration. The effect then would be that if the proposed declaration were violated by an arbitrary aggressor the defenders would still bo able to fall back on the Locarno and other pacts as their second line of defence.

But if was quite possible thai the "umbrella" might prove effective against the storm, and that il might safeguard the peace of Central Europe even more effectively than the patch-ed-up arrangements of the last to years. In that way the Locarno pact Would also prove In have been but a Step toward ultimate peace. General Smuts urged that iL was vain to organise for world peace and In leave out Russia. Willi all Central and Eastern Europe and Russia in the League, or in the proposed treaty, or in both, 'the disarmament movemcnl would enter upon an entirely new and most promising phase. If diplomatic correspondence failed to bring about unanimity, let America call a conference of the Powers concerned-