ment appreciate the scruples which have prompted these suggestions by the French Government. The exact fulfillment of treaty engagements is a matter which affects the national honor; precision as to the scope of such engagements is, therefore, of importance. Each of the suggestions made by the French Government has been carefully considered from this point of view. 4. After studying the wording of article 1 of the United States draft, His Majesty's Government do not think that its terms exclude action which a state may be forced to take in self-defense. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech to which I have referred above that he regards the right of self-defense as inalienable, and His Majesty's Government are disposed to think that on this question no addition to the text is necessary. 5. As regards the text of article 2, no appreciable difference is found between the American and the French proposals. His Majesty's Government are therefore content to accept the former if, as they understand to be the case, a dispute 'among the high contracting parties' is a phrase wide enough to cover a dispute between any two of them. 6. The French note suggests the addition of an article providing that violation of the treaty by one of the parties should release the remainder from their obligations under the treaty towards that party. His Majesty's Government are not satisfied that, if the treaty stood alone, the addition of some such provision would not be necessary. Mr. Kellogg's speech, however, shows that he put forward for acceptance the text of the proposed treaty upon the understanding that violation of the undertaking by one party would free the remaining parties from the obligation to observe its terms in respect of the treaty-breaking state. 7. If it is agreed that this is the principle which will apply in the case of this particular treaty, His Majesty's Government are satisfied and will not ask for the insertion of any amendment. Means can no doubt be found without difficulty of placing this understanding on record in some appropriate manner so that it may have equal value with the terms of the treaty itself. 8. The point is one of importance because of its bearing on the treaty engagements by which His Majesty's Government are already bound. The preservation of peace has been the chief concern of His Majesty's Government and the prime object of all their endeavors. It is the reason why they have given ungrudging support to the League of Nations and why they have undertaken the burden of the guarantee embodied in the Locarno treaty. The sole object of all these engagements is the elimination of war as an instrument of national policy, just as it is the purpose of the peace pact now proposed. It is because the object of both is the same that there is no real antagonism between the treaty engagements which His Majesty's Government have already accepted and the pact which is now proposed. The machinery of the Covenant and of the Treaty of Locarno, however, go somewhat further than a renunciation of war as a policy, in that they provide certain sanctions for a breach of their obligations. A clash might thus conceivably arise between the existing treaties and the proposed pact unless it is understood that the obligations of the new engagement will cease to operate in respect of a party which breaks its pledges and adopts hostile measures against one of its co-contractants. 9. For the Government of this country respect for the obligations arising out of the Covenant of the League of Nations and out of the Locarno treaties is fundamental. Our position in this regard is identical with that of the German Government as indicated in their note of the 27th April. His Majesty's Government could not agree to any new treaty which would weaken or undermine these engagements on which the peace of Europe rests. Indeed, public interest in this country in the scrupulous fulfillment of these engagements is so great that His Majesty's Government would for their part prefer to see some such provision as article 4 of the French draft embodied in the text of the treaty. To this we understand there will be no objection. Mr. Kellogg has made it clear in the speech to which I have drawn attention that he had no intention by the terms of the new treaty of preventing the parties to the Covenant of the League or to the Locarno treaty from fulfilling their obligations. 10. The language of article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute the special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's Government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their protection against attack is to the British Empire a measure of self-defense. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The Government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty's Government believe, therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States Government. 11. As regards the measure of participation in the new treaty before it would come into force, His Majesty's Government agree that it is not necessary to wait until all the nations of the world have signified their willingness to become parties. On the other hand, it would be embarrassing if certain states in Europe with whom the proposed participants are already in close treaty relations were not included among the parties. His Majesty's Government see no reason, however, to doubt that these states will gladly accept its terms. Universality would, in any case, be difficult of attainment, and might even be inconvenient, for there are some states whose governments have not yet been universally recognized, and some which are scarcely in a position to ensure the maintenance of good order and security within their territories. The conditions for the inclusion of such states among the parties to the new treaty is a question to which further attention may perhaps be devoted with advantage. It is, however, a minor question as compared with the attainment of the more important purpose in view. 12. After this examination of the terms of the proposed treaty and of the points to which it gives rise, Your Excellency will realize that His Majesty's Government find nothing in their existing commitments which prevents their hearty cooperation in this new movement for strengthening the foundations of peace. They will gladly cooperate in the conclusion of such a pact as is proposed and are ready to engage with the interested Governments in the negotiations which are necessary for the purpose. 13. Your Excellency will observe that the detailed arguments in the foregoing paragraphs are expressed on behalf of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain. It will, however, be appreciated that the proposed treaty, from its very nature, is not one which concerns His Majesty's Government in Great Britain alone, but is one in which they could not undertake to participate otherwise than jointly and simultaneously with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India. They have, therefore, been in communication with those Governments, and I am happy to be able to inform Your Excellency that, as a result of the communications which have passed, it has been ascertained that they are all in cordial agreement with the general principle of the proposed treaty. I feel confident, therefore, that, on receipt of an invitation to participate in the conclusion of such a treaty, they, no less than His Majesty's Government in Great Britain, will be prepared to accept the invitation. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, Your Excellency's obedient servant, Austen Chamberlain." HOUGHTON 711.4112Anti-War/87: Telegram The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) WASHINGTON, May 21, 1928-4 p. m. 130. Your 115, May 19, 3 p. m.66 On Friday afternoon when the British Ambassador handed me a copy of Chamberlain's note of May 19, he dictated the following extract from separate instructions which Chamberlain had sent him regarding the participation in the treaty by the Dominions and India: "As regards the procedure respecting the Dominion Governments and the Government of India, His Majesty's Government wishes to stress the obvious necessity for the whole empire signing the treaty simultaneously. His Majesty's Government in Great Britain feels confident that the United States Government will approve participation of the Dominions and India and will gladly extend to them the necessary invitations. They would much prefer separate invitations being sent to each of the Dominion Governments and there would be no objection to the invitations to Canada and the Irish Free State being extended through the United States Legations in Ottawa and Dublin and the invitations to His Majesty's Governments in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Government of India through the United States Ambassador in London." I am today telegraphing to our Legations at Ottawa and Dublin the text of a note to be dated and delivered tomorrow inviting participation "Not printed. 237576-42- -13 67 in the treaty by Canada and the Irish Free State, respectively. In view of the procedure suggested by Chamberlain through Howard, I desire to have a corresponding invitation extended by you tomorrow to His Majesty's Governments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and to the Government of India. According to information furnished by the British Embassy, your note of invitation should be addressed to Chamberlain. Unless a different procedure is requisite, particularly with reference to whether there should be four separate notes, in which case make the necessary changes, you should therefore date and deliver tomorrow to Chamberlain the following note which mutatis mutandis is identical with those to be delivered in Ottawa and Dublin: "In the note which you addressed to me on May 19, 1928, you were good enough to inform my Government that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain had been in communication with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and with the Government of India, and had ascertained that they were all in cordial agreement with the general principle of the multilateral treaty for the renunciation of war which the Government of the United States proposed on April 13, 1928. You added that you felt confident, therefore, that His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India were prepared to accept an invitation to participate in the conclusion of such a treaty as that proposed by the Government of the United States. I have been instructed to state to Your Excellency that my Government has received this information with the keenest satisfaction. My Government has hoped from the outset of the present negotiations that the Governments of the Dominions and the Government of India would feel disposed to become parties to the suggested anti-war treaty. It is, moreover, most gratifying to the Government of the United States to learn that His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Government of India are so favorably inclined towards the treaty for the renunciation of war which my Government proposed on April 13, 1928, as to wish to participate therein individually and as original signatories, and my Government, for its part, is most happy to accede to the suggestion contained in your note to me of May 19, 1928. Accordingly I have been instructed to extend through you to His Majesty's Governments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and to the Government of India a cordial invitation in the name of the Government of the United States to become original parties to the treaty for the renunciation of war which is now under consideration. Pursuant to my instructions, I also have the honor to inform you that the Government of the United States will address through you to His Majesty's Governments in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and to the Government of India at the same time and in the same manner as to the other Governments whose participation in the proposed treaty in the first instance is contemplated, any further communications which it may make on the subject of the treaty after it has been acquainted with the views of all the Governments to which its note of April 13, 1928, was addressed." OT Telegrams No. 62 to Canada and No. 7 to the Irish Free State not printed. Please inform the Foreign Office that the Government of the United States proposes to release the text of its invitations to the Dominions and India for publication simultaneously in the United States and abroad in Friday morning's newspapers, May 25. You should make appropriate arrangements for publication in the local press. Please telegraph as soon as you have delivered the foregoing note. KELLOGG 711.4112Anti-War/86: Telegram The Ambassador in France (Herrick) to the Secretary of State [Paraphrase] PARIS, May 21, 1928-4 p. m. 127. The British reply on the Peace Pact has been relatively very pleasing to French public opinion. The terms in which Chamberlain and Cushendun 68 had voiced the approval of the British Government on our proposal had already pleased certain elements here, but the apprehension had been general that the British answer would approach an unconditional acceptance. The initial reaction here, consequently, is one of relief, and the British reply is taken as recognizing validity of France's position and as taking her reservations into consideration. A great interest is being taken in the passage in the British reply on freedom of action in regions the welfare and integrity of which are of special interest to the British Empire; this is characterized as British "Monroe Doctrine." HERRICK 711.5112France/323 The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) No. 2774 WASHINGTON, May 25, 1928. SIR: The Department refers to your despatch No. 8494, dated April 3, 1928, in which is reported the existence of confusion with respect to the two Resolutions, approved at the Sixth International Conference of American States, relative to the condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy, and aggression. You request the Department's instructions in the premises definitely clearing up this confusion. In reply you are informed for such informal use as may seem necessary that the confusion to which you refer, and which is described in the clipping from the Journal des Debats that accompanied your "Lord Cushendun, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. |