NO REPETITION OF 1914

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 360, 22 May 1928, Page 9

NO REPETITION OF 1914

Effect of Kellogg Pact “EINVIABLE PLACE IN HISTORY” THE American Secretary of State, Mr. F. B Kellogu. ' receiving the plaudits of the British press, for engineer ing an important step toward peace. "lie is likely,” says ‘"The Observer,” “to leave an on viable mark in history F It is thought that this treaty, if signed by the six great powers, would prevent a recurrence of the 1914 catastrophe.

British Offu Reed. 9.5 a.m. RUGBY, Saturday. Commenting on Sir Austen Chamberlain’s reply to the American suggestion of a multilateral pact, renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, the ‘Observer” states: “The movement initiated by Mr. F. B. Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State, had been virtually suspended till the British attitude was disclosed. The British Government and the British Dominions have now given their full support. “The practical purpose of the British answer issued yesterday was to endorse Mr. Kellogg’s principle, and to suggest prompt negotiation of the details. The British Government, sup- : ported by the British Dominions, has j now committed itself fully To proclaim without restriction or qualifica- ! tion that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy.’ “The only specific reservation made in the British acceptance agrees with Article 4 of the French Note, that the Kellogg pledge should not conflict with any existing treaty obligation. The Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty are regarded by his Majesty’s Government as fundamental. Mr. Kellogg, on April 28, speaking before the American Society of International Law, expressed the view that the two sets of instruments should strengthen each other. No difficulty, therefore, arises on that score. “Both the French and the British Governments made the point that violation of the Kellogg pledge by one party should -release the others from their pledge toward the defaulting party. Mr. Kellogg had already adopted that view on April 28. “Mr. Kellogg has said that signature of the pact by the six great Powers would prevent a recurrence of a great war on the 1914 pat- J tern. It seems now reasonably certain that the pact will be signed by those Powers. Mr. Kellogg, therefore, is likely to leave an enviable mark in history. “SUPREME COMPLIMENT” The “Sunday Times” says: “In a Note of this kind, dispatched in the name of the British Government, every word counts. Nothing would have been easier for Sir Austen than to have emitted a loud cheer of unthinking approval in support of the American proposals; but that is not the way we in Britain like to have our Foreign Secretaries behave. If we put our name to a treaty, it is with the intention of carrying it out. If we make a | promise, we mean to redeem it. If we commit ourselves to a principle, it is not. until we have done our best to forecast what it may portend in the way of action. “Sir Austen Chamberlain has paid Mr. Kellogg’s approaches the supreme compliment of taking them to be serious and practical, and deserving of detailed examination. When. therefore. the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the British nation, declares that ‘his Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of its power,* his words may be accepted as indicative. not of an opinion or hope, but of policy. Again, when he talks of the British Government’s ‘hearty co-opera-tion in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed.’ he means neither more nor less than he says. “Such declarations, coming at the end of a series of politely-moved amendments to the original text

trial Wireless of the draft treaty, carry a fai greater weight of conviction ai?c significance for those who know our people than if he had merely endorsed Mr. Kellogg's general principle without waiting to inquire oi reflect how it might work out in practice. Happily, in this case the Foreigr Office, after a realistic examination oi Mr. Kellogg’s scheme. and of the French criticisms upon it, tinds nothing vitally antagonistic between them and nothing to which Great Britair cannot willingly subscribe. All Sii Austen’s suggestions are. in fact iirected toward giving greater definiteness. and therefore greater strength and practicality to the Amaricjji Secretary of State's original idea They amount to l.ttle more than a rt quest that Mr Kellogg’s verbal interpretations oi should be incorporated in the _reaiy itself. “The Foreign Secretary', for instance is anxious (and rightly so) that there should be no appearance and no possibility of a clash between our obligations under the Covenant of the 1.-eaguc of Nations and under the Locarnc agreement, and the declarations tc which we commit ourselves by T signing the new pact. Similarly, in regard tc those regions of the world, ‘the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peac*. and safety.’ so long as it is recognised and explic #.y stated that the projected treaty' would regard the protection oi these regions against attack as a measure of self-defence on Great Britain’s part, just as America’s active guardian - ship of the Monroe Doctrine would be regarded as a measure of self-defence | on her part, then acceptance of the pac is feasible.” DISTINCT ADVANCE OPINION OF “THE TIMES” Times Cable. LONDON, Sunday. “The Times” in a leader on the British reply' to the United States Secretary of State, Mr. F. B. Kellogg, say’s that it implies much more than mer< acquiescence, and suggests a display' o initiative in response. “The British Note clearly aims at advancing the movement,” the article says, “and goes far to remove the diffi culties that might have impeded th< accomplishment of the purpose pro , claimed by the United States, j The Note marks a distinct advance particularly because it represents a re newal of active co-operation betweei the Empire and the United States directly' useful to the world at large. “Moreover the value and important is enhanced because in the new inter national enterprise the whole Empin speaks with one voice. A conferenc* may now be necessary. Undoubted!: it must be within the United States.’ QUESTIONS IN COMMONS NEW ARBITRATION PACT British Official Wireless Reed. 10.50 a.m. RUGBY, Monday. Sir Austen Chamberlain was asked in the House of Commons, whethei the United States Government had submitted any proposals for the conclusion of conciliation and arbitrator treaties between America and Greal Britain, on similar lines to the treaty which had just been signed betweer America and Germany'. H© said the United States Government had made proposals for a new arbitration treaty to replace the Anglo-American Arbitration Treaty oi 1908, which would expire on June 4 These proposals were receiving careful consideration at the hands of tin British Government. No proposal hac been made by the United States Government for a conciliation treaty, because there was already such a treaty in force between the United States and Great Britain, namely', the AngloAmerican Treaty regarding the establishment of the Peace Commission signed at Washington on Decembei 14, 1914. H© saw no reason why this treaty or the conciliation treaty nov being negotiated between th© Unitec States and a number of foreign countries should be abrogated, if, as h« hoped would be the case, the proposed treaty for the renunciation of. war became an accomplished fact.