Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-01-13
Secretary Kellogg's Reply.

oetitNAis neIIueg reply 10 lnE
| BRAND proposal that the multilate,a
treaty for perpetual peace, now being
discussed. shall outlaw only aggressive
wars" has gone forward TO the French
foreign minister. The text, which he
just made public reveals that its suave
diplomatic phraseo!ocy boils down to an
adamant insistence that it is war and
not merely aggressive war" that the
proposed treaty shall renounce
This IS the only answer which could
be made. The United States canno,
enter into n blateral treaty with
France. as originally proposed by
Brand. rcnouncing all war as between
the two nations, for such a course
would preclude the possibility of en-
forcing our neutral rights against
France should that nation ever go 10
war with another power. The United
States cannot. on the other hand agree
to the outlaw.ng of only aggressive
warfare. owing TO the impossibility OF
satisfactorily defining what shall con :
stitute aggression, and the complement
airy connotation that warfare OF anv
type other than aggressive is legiti-
mate and desirable weapon.
What the United States can do
what the State Department is ST length
seeking 70 achieves a combining OF
the world powers in a mutual agree
ment that war can no longer be reso-tcd
TO by civilized nations as a means OF
settling international differences. any
thing short OF such an agreement is
properly recognized by this Govern
ment as worthless
Critics OF this proposal. at home ana
abroad. point out the following facts:
That while We are no; members OF the
League of Nations almost all of the
great powers OF the world are. Tha:
the League conception OF how war may
best be outlawcd is general guarantee
on the part Of its members to maze
war upon any nation which attacks the
status quo by force. And that Our State
Department, in its hope to substitute
fo- this theory one which would involve
International subscription TO the abso-
lutte abandonment OF war for any cause
whatsoever. is biting of more than it
can chew.
The picture as drawn. up to the final
conclusion. is true in so far as it goes.
II does not. however, go the whole road.
II does not. for instance. bring into
that high Ign. which ii deserves the
fact that the original 'outlawing OF
war" treaties, which refer all disputes,
whatever their causcs or nature. TO
arbitration. are Of foreign rather than
of American origin: that they are ex-
trefneiy popular IN South America and
Scandinavia: and that Italy is q party
10 ten such treaties and France TO fiyc.
II does not develop the line OF reason
ing which would question why group
Of nations committed IN the name Of
peace to make war upon any one OF
that group which should be pronounced
by the others 70 be an "asgressor" could
not properly augment that agreement
by q mutual undertaking 10 submit
70 arbitration differences Of any nature
whatsoever which might arise betwee..
them Il does not make quite clear
why. il il is indeed fact that the
League will fight only 10 maintain
peace. II should not take all possible
steps 10 preclude the possibility OF its
having 10 fight.
4, These factors are some OF those
which need confederation II it be
found that. after such consideration,
the American proposal must be re-
jectef. the situation will have 10 b. &C
copied This country will ct least have
mace an honest effort 20 an end d.
youtiy 10 be desired and the NEXT war.
fought on the part Of the yictors at
"defenssye" and o! the losers as "a1-
greEgiye." will be the responsibility CT
those whose vision Of enduring peace
went no further than the reaching %.
an agreement as 10 wnen they woulG
next fight.
q ~