Evening star., 1928-03-16

also important because IL lnuOrSeS Tie
principle of compulsory arbitration fol
justiciable disputes and provides for the
calling Of conference in Washington
treaties Of arbitration and conciliation
have discussed at some length the
provisions of the new arbitration treaty
with France. have also outlined the
scope and purpose of the many con-
Citation treaties which the United
States has concluded with other goN
ernments. I know Of but one other
form Of treaty which can be concluded
for the purpose of preventing war and
that is q treaty in which the parties
specifically bind themselves not to re-
sort to war. It Is this kind of treaty
which people have in mind when they
discuss treaties for outlawing war. and
1t is a novel idea in modern inter-
national relations.
AS you are all aware, In a communi-
cation dated June 20. 1927. M. Brianc
proposed to the United States the con-
clusion of a bilateral treaty under the
terms of which France and the United
States would agree to renolnce war rs
an instrument of their national policy
toward each other. This treaty pro.
vided, first, that
The high contracting powers solemn
ly declare. in the name Of the French
people and the people OF the United
States of America, that they condemn
recourse to war and renounce 1t re-
spectively es an instrument OF theil
national policy toward each other;
And, secondly. that
The settlement or the solution OF al
disputes or conflicts. of whatever nature
or of whatever origin they may be
| which may arise between France anC
the United States of America, shall
never be sought by either side except
by pacific means.
Called Inspiring Proposal.
This important and inspiring propose
was carefully and Sympathetlcall9
studied by the Government OF the
United States. While we might well
have hesitated to take the initiative II
proposing such q treaty to Europe. the
invitation from France afforded us ar
opportunity to examine anew the Wnole
question of world peace and 10 de-
termine in what practical manner W.
could best cooperate. We maze tlla'
examination. and, in my note OF De-
cember %. 1927. after expressing the
sincere appreciation of the Unitec
so impressibly submitted. / warmly
seconded M. Brands proposition that
war be formally renounced as an instru.
ment of national policy, but suggested
that instead of giving effect thereto II
a bilateral treaty between France anc
the United States, an equivalent multi
lateral treaty be concluded among tnl
principal powers of the world, open tc
adherence by any and all nations. thus
extending throughout the world the
benefits of covenant originally sug'
gested as between France and the
United States alone The powers which
I suggested be invited in the first In
stance to join with France and the
United States in such treaty were
Great Britain, Germany, Italy anc
Japan.
france. I am happy to say, promptly
agreed in principle to the idea OF 9
multi-lateral treaty. France suggested
however, that the treaty provide only
for the remuneration Of wars OF ag-
gression. explaining that while France
could conclude a bilateral treaty with
the United States providing for the
unqualified renunciation OF war. the
conclusion of a similar multi-lateral
treaty presented certain difficulties ir
view Of the obligations of France under
the Covenant of the League OF Nations
treaties such as those signed at Lo'
carno In October, 1925, and other inter.
national conventions relating to guar
antics Of neutrality.
Aggression Becomes Issue.
The French government also pointed
out that In September, 1927, the mem
bers of the League of Nations adopted :
| resolution condemning aggressive wal
| as an international crime. In these
circumstances France expressed thu
| opinion that the common object OF tht
| two governments could best be attained
| by framing the proposed anti-war treat!
so as to cover wars OF aggression only
| have not been able to agree to thai
| reservation.
My object to limiting the scope o.
| an anti-war treaty to mere wars o.
aggression is based partly upon a very
| real disinclination to see the ideal O
world peace qualified In any way. ant
| partly upon the absence Of any salts
| factory definition Of the word "aggres
| sor" or the phrase wars OF aggression.
1t is difficult for me to see how .
definition could be agreed upon which
would not be open to abuse. The danger
inherent In any definition Is recognized
| by the British government which in {
| memorandum recently submitted to tn,
| subcommittee on security OF the pre-
paratory committee on disarmament o.
the League Of Nations discussed at.
tempted definitions of this character
| and quoted from speech by the Brit
| ish foreign secretary In which ST.
| Austen said:
II therefore remain opposed to thi:
| attempt to define the aggressor because
| ! believe that 1t will be trap for tn,
innocent and signpost for the guilty.
agree with Sir Austen on this
point
II seems to me that any attempt Il
define the word "aggressor" and bv ex