The Sun THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1928. OUTLAWRY OF WAR

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 244, 5 January 1928, Page 8

The Sun THURSDAY, JANUARY 5, 1928. OUTLAWRY OF WAR

IT is probable that the American Note to France on the pro- * posal to outlaw war will be interpreted throughout the greater part of Europe as “another black eye for the League of Nations.” For such an interpretation there is ample reason. The League exists as the fruit of American idealism at the Peace Conference of Paris, but for some perverse reason appreciated and understood only by the Government and people of the United States, the fruit of the Geneva tree is as bitter and unacceptable as Dead Sea apples. Hence the international irritation over the contradictory attitude of America on the questions of disarmament and the outlawry of war. Of course, the proposal to renounce war is not an American ideal. It is a political product of France. The proposal was first made by M. Briand on April 6 of last year, the tenth anniversary of the entry of the United States into the World War. No details were then specified, other than the pleasant suggestion that France and the United States should enter into a treaty by which neither nation would engage in war against the other. Thus the scope of the proposed outlawry of war was to be very narrow and characteristically selfish. Since the proposal was not submitted through the customary diplomatic channels, no reply was given and nothing definite was done. The suggestion, however, intrigued American public opinion, and comment, as usual, was free and varied. Though the official mind of the United States was wholly in sympathy with the ideal of eternal peace between France and America, it was necessary to point out that the United States could not very well make a definite treaty with France on the outlawry of war without making similar treaties with other Powers. This still is the official policy of the United States. Any other policy would be illogical and, in practice, embarrassing and even absurd. In the Note from Washington to the Quai d’Orsay the Secretary of State, Mr. A. B. Kellogg, reiterates the desire of the United States Government for peace and for every opportunity of joining the other governments of the world in condemning war and pledging anew the faith in arbitration. But he goes farther than eloquent idealism and suggests, on practical lines, a more signal contribution to the peace of the world by joining in an effort to obtain the adherence of all the principal Powers to a declaration renouncing war as an instrument of national policy. There is more to be gained from a multilateral treaty than from a bilateral agreement on the outlawry of war, but surely the better course would be to give complete, active and honest support to the League of Nations whose main purpose is to secure and maintain everything that France and the United States desire. As things are to-day, the position is anything but encouraging. Everywhere big Powers and little Powers are waving one hand in a hail of peace and goodwill to their neighbours, while the other is actively employed on equipping armies and fleets and air forces, all for the glorious cause of defence as the best security for peace. If outlawry of war is to be the objective of the great nations, they are at least taking care to equip the outlaw for a long siege. Nobody wants -war, but everybody is paying heavily for warlike peace. As an English commentator satirically phrases it, peace as we know it to-day is “pax bellicosa.” What is wanted is not so much another peace treaty, bilateral or multilateral, but a practical plan of limiting armaments and honest international support for the League of Nations. Unfortunately, the moral factor is thin and hesitant.