Evening star., 1927-11-08
M. Brands Peace Plan.

In an interview with the Associated
Press last April. Aristide BRAND, the
French foreign minister, chose the
tenth anniversary of Americas en-
trance into the World War as fl
| occasion upon which to launch his
now celebrated proposal that France
and the United States enter into 6
treaty "outlawing war" between them
NJ. BRAND saw in such an instrument
the means whereby two great nations
might put themselves on record be-
| fore the world as solidifying their mu
tual and traditional friendship and
esteem. While the proposal evoked
much interest and wide comment on
this side of the water, it apparently
ended where it began. The sugges'
ton was not made through the Gus
tomary channels Of diplomacy. No
reply was called for and none was
expected. But last week President
Coolidge let it become known that
actual negotiations toward a treaty
as proposed by NJ. BRAND will begin
when Mr.. Herrick, the American Am
bassador. returns to his post in Paris.
Tentative interchanges on the subject
had begun when Mr.. Herrick was
forced to leave Paris because of an
illness from which he has not fully
recovered.
The mere act Of negotiation in no
way guarantees success, but that the
United States and France are even
willing to discuss a treaty embodying
remuneration of war as a national pol
icy is most encouraging. Many diff
culties may be foreseen to threaten
such treaty before it is born. Amer
lean history is full of attempts by the
executive branch of the Government
to enter into general arbitration agree
ments with other nations-attempts
which have been blocked by a SEN
ate always fearful of entangling ALI.
ances. Presidents Cleveland, McKin-
ley, Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding
and Coolidge have found in the Senate
an unsurmountable stumbling block
in their attempts to make of compul-
sorry arbitration a more certain and eff.
fective method of preventing war.
The Senate has never been willing to
extend the, principle of arbitration
generally, reserving to itself the au-
thority to decide what questions are
arbitrable. Bryan's treaties Of concil-
iation marked the greatest advance in
this direction, but the strength of
those treaties is left open to question.
For the United States to affirm by
treaty that it will not go to war ex-
cept as a defensive measure would be
a long step forward indeed.
But the world moves. What was
considered radical yesterday is reac-
tionary today. The United States has
seen the remuneration Of war as a
policy emerge from the filmy haze
Of a dream to an actuality which
exists in Europe today in the form
Of treaties between nations which a
decade ago were 1unging at each
others throats. Such treaties may
not hold water. They may be scraps
Of paper, to be torn and thrust into
the handiest waste basket as soon as
the first gun booms. But is any treaty
more? If nations are agreed that war
is a thing to be dreaded and a relic
of a past civilization, there should
be no great danger in putting such
sentiments down on paper. Taking
into account the traditional objections
which surely would be interposed, 1t
is difficult to see what the United
States would lose by fearlessly re.
nouncing war. But it Is not so diff
cult to estimate the moral loss to be
suffered by an unwillingness to extend
the principle OF arbitration-a prin.
ciple in which the United States once
led the world-to it's logical and de.
sirable end.