PATH TO PEACE

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 607, 8 March 1929, Page 9

PATH TO PEACE

SIR AUSTEN EXPLAINS VALUE OF THE PACT British Official Wireless Reed. 12.5 p.m. LONDON, Thursday. As a sequel to publication in the American newspapers of the telegram from Geneva, which attributed to Sir Austen Chamberlain a remark reflecting on the value of the Kellogg Fact, Sir Austen to-day made the following striking pronouncement to Press representatives at Geneva: —

“Let me say quite definitely and explicitly that I said nothing to belittle the importance of the Kellogg Pact. If I .had done so it would have been in contradiction with every public utterance that I have made since the Pact was first proposed to us, and it would be directly contrary to the spirit in which both the British Government and the British people wel-

comed and supported Mr. Kellogg’s initiative.

“Since I spoke to the British Press I have had the opportunity, which I had not then had, of reading President Hoover’s inaugural speech, and though our thoughts are naturally expressed in different language, if I may be permitted to say so, 1 discovered no great difference between what the President said and what I said to you here.

“I have always regarded the Kellogg Pact as one more barrier erected by international co-operation against war. It goes to confirm and fortify the engagements already taken under other auspices by many nations. It is common ground to us all that these engagements, valuable as they are for the maintenance of peace, are not absolute guarantee against war. The President said, “Peace will become a reality only through self-restraint and active effort in friendliness and Helpfulness’. It is to such a change in international outlook, and in the standard of international relations, that I, like the President, look to make real and solid the improved conditions which already reign among us.

“The question put to me the other day was whether I expected the Kellogg Pact to have an immediate and large effect on the progress of disarmament. As to this it would be dangerous to be too sanguine. The President himself, in the passage from which I have already quoted, observes that ‘Peace can be contributed to by respect for our ability in defence. Peace can be promoted by limitation of arms and by the creation of instrumentalities for peaceful settlement of controversy.’ I agree with that statement. Each new affirmation of the sanctity of peace, and of the obligation of each of us to maintain it, helps forward the discussion of disarmament, but having regard to the difficulties which we have already experienced, despite the desire for disarmament which is common to us all, it would, I think, have been rash for anyone, in a position as responsible as my own, to pretend that a single act, however important, had brought us to a solution of all our troubles.

“I wish to emphasise and categorically to deny that I ever made any statement to the Press here, or to anyone else, of the character which lias apparently been attributed to me.”