Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

U.S. PROPOSALS

(Australian & N.Z. Cable Association. FRENCH REPLY WASHINGTON, Jan. G. M. Briand’.s reply to Air Kellogg’s note changes the proposal to deal with ‘Avars of aggression,’’ and immediate official reaction here was unfavourable. Contrary to Parisian Press despatches that AI. Briand had accepted Air Kellogg’s proposal in prinepal, officii Is saw in the reply a rejection to AL Kellogg’s plan, and the abandonment by AI. Briand of his own original proposal. It is stated that, whatever the ultimate reaction will lie on the new Briand offer, it "ill require time to decide*.

One decision was reached to-day however. namely to reject the suggestion of Af. Briand that a treaty for renouncing aggressive war lx* forthwith signed by France and the United States. Such a bilateral treaty is held tantamount to a defensive alliance, and the French Ambassador, Af. Claudel, was planly informed to-day that the United States will enter no such arrangement. It is understood that Air Kellogg will continue conversations with AL Claudel, and if sufficient encouragement is felt, efforts may he made to sound the other Powers on the question of a multilateral declaration renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. The word aggressor is used quite incidentally, hut most effectively in AI. Briand’s note .It constitutes the chief stumbling block, and at the same time is the source of amazement to American officials. There is an intimation here that AL Briand avowedly admits that the League of Nations is not exclusively the instrument of peace, but though Articles ten to sixteen rely upon war as one of the keystones of its structure, the question is asked if Air Kellogg’s proposal for a multilateral treaty might conflict with the Covenant of the League, would not a bi-la-teral treaty between France and the United States, outlawing aggressive war, be equally conflicting? The American position is that it is impossible to define in advance what constitute!) an aggfessjye nfiti O P*

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HOG19280109.2.21

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1928, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
323

U.S. PROPOSALS Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1928, Page 2

U.S. PROPOSALS Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1928, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert