BRITAIN’S REPLY

Hokitika Guardian, 23 May 1928, Page 1

BRITAIN’S REPLY

TEXT OF THE NOTE. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) RUGBY, -May 19. The text of Sir Austen ChamberNote says:— “The suggestion for the. conclusion of a iron tv for the renunciation of war

as an instrument of national policy has evoked wide-spread interest in this country, and his .Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of its power. After making a careful study of the text contained in jour 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 continued by .study of the text of the speech by the Secretary of State of the United States on April 2Sth. that the aim of the United Slates 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 Govenunen is wholly in accord. The French proposals are equally imbued with the same purpose ami 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 ho inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty's Government appreciates the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by the French Government.. The exact fulfilment of treaty engagements is a matter which affects the naionai 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 weirding of Article 1 of the United States draft his Majesty’s Government does not think that its terms exclude the action which a State may he forced to take in self-defence. Mr Kellogg has made it clear in the -speech referred to above that he regards the right of self-de-fence as inalienable and 1 1 is Majesty’s Government is disposed to think that cm this question no addition to the text is necessary.

VIOLATION OF TREATY. “As regards the text of Article 1 f. no appreciable difference is found between the American and French proposals. Ilis Majesty's Government is therefore content to accept the former, if, as it understands to lie the ease, 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 b.v olio of the paries should release the remainder from their obligations under the treaty towards that party. His Majesty’s Government is not satisfied that if the treaty .stood alone the addition of some such provision would not he necessary. Hr Kellogg’s speech, however. shows that he has put forward for acceptance the text of the projosed 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 trealvbroaking State. If it is agreed that this is the principle which will apply in the ease of this particular treaty, his Majesty's Government is satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Menus can no doubt he found without difficulty of placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner, so that it may have an equal value with the terms of the eronty itself. The point is one of importance, because of its hearing on the treaty engagements by which his Majesty’s Government is always hound.

“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 lta.s given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why it has undertaken the burden of guarantees oinIxxlied in the Locarno Treaty. The .sole object of tlie.se engagements is the- elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, just as it is the purpose of the pence pact now proposed. OTHER OBLIGATIONS.

“Tt is because tlie object of both is the same that there is no real antaganism between the treaty engagements which his Majesty’# Government has already accepted, and the pact which is now proposed. The machinery of Hie Covenant and oif the Treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further titan the renunciation of war as a policy, in that they provide certain sanctions for a breach of thenobligations. 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 adepts hostile means against one of its cc-contract-ants. For the British Government respect for obligations arising out of the League Covenant and of the Locarno Treaty is fundamental. Its position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government, as indicated in its Note of April 27th. 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 its part prefer to see some such provision a.s Article IV. of the French draft embodied in the text of the Treaty. To this, it is understood, there will he no objection. Mr Kellogg has made it clear that he has no intention by the terras of the now treaty of preventing the parties to he League Covenant, or to the Locarno treaties, from fulfilling their obligations. SPECIAL INTERESTS OF BRITAIN.

“The language of Article I. as to the reuuciation 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 Majtesty’s Government- lias 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, he clearly understood that His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain accepts the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice its freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States has . comparable interests, any disregard of

which by 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 it is expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government.” READY CO-OPERATION.

The reply agrees Hint it is unnecessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties. “It would he embarrassing if certain States in Europe, with whom the proposed participants arc already in close treaty, relations; were not included among the parties, hut the British Government .sees no reason to doubt that tlie.se States will gladly accept it. The British Government finds nothing in its existing commitments which prevents its hearty co-operation in the new movement for strengthening the inundations of peace. Tt will gladly cooperate in the conclusion of such a pact as it proposed and is ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for that purpose.” The ronly concludes by pointing out that “the detailed arguments in the foregoing are expressed on behalf of Ids 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 Go-, vernnient in Iho Dominions and the Government of India. As a result of co-niniuii ieation with these Governments it has been ascertained that they are all in cordial agreement with the general principles ot the proposed treaty and on receipt of the invitation would doubtless ho prepared to participate in its conclusion.”

IT. S. A. HOPES WASHINGTON, -May 21. The State Department has announced that “in the British note, Sir Austen Chamberlain informs this Government that His Majesty’s Government hs,s been in communication with the Domini'.,ns and India, and has ascertained that they aro all in cordial agreement on tile general principal cl multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war. Sir Austen added that he felt confident the Dominions and the Government in India wore prepared to accept an invitation to participate in 'the conclusion of such a treaty. The United States has received this information with the keenest satisfaction. Telegraphic instructions was to-day sent to the American Ministers at Ottawa and Dublin, and to the American Ambassador at Loudon, to deliver to-mor-row, Notes inviting the Dominion Governments and the Gvernnicnt ol India to become original parties to a multi-lateral treaty for. the renunciation of war. The United •States Government has proposed the simultaneous publication of tiro text ol the invitations next Friday morning.” All of the invitations, it is understood. will be identical, and will conlain statements of what has occurred, in accordance with Sir Austen Chamberlain's i ceommendations.

A forecast indipales that the -State Department’s next step may consist merely of the rcsulnuittal of the original telegraphed Treaty. The hope is that all that will be newssary can be set forth in an additional Article, or perhaps in a. preamble confirming tile understanding and the interpretations that have been reached through the diplomatic exchanges which ltavo occurred. It is not known whether an invitation to other Nations to adhere may Ih) sent before any treaty is signed. Mr Kellogg, however, has made it clear that all the Governments would be encouraged to adhere to the Pact. A further study of the British Note to-day by the State Department has confirmed the first impressions, and led to optimism that was increased by a Paris press report, that the I reach Government will lie substantially, it not completely, in accord with Sir Aiuten Chamberlain's views. There is, however, no diminution in American opposition to the fourth Article of the French Draft Treat, specifying that the contemplated Convention shall not abridge the structure of all the existing treaties.

Tile hope here is that the British note will stand eventually as an unqualified acceptance of the Kellogg Draft.

Article Ten of Sir A. Chamberlain's note, it is now felt, may be iuund to lx.-, only a specific declaration of Britain’s intention to detcud all its lines of communication, in which case it would amount merely to a definition of .self-defence, rather titan a reservation. ft is pointed out that: Mr Kellogg has already declared that the right of self-defence was inherent in anv treaty.

The officials to-day oppose the suggestions that an international conference might he the host means of adjusting all the differences. They felt that the exchange of diplomatic communications constituted in themselves complete definitions of the understanding upon which the Powers are acting. •It was submitted, however, that R these same understanding# wee contained briefly and comprehensibly, P»sihly in the preamble of the 'I icafy. they would through the Senate and Parliamentary ratification, take on tic force not contained in their pri.'C-nt form.