Pacts of Peace

The signatures of three presidents, two emperors and a king were modestly but insistently besought, last week, by U. S. Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg.

The Secretary is not selfishly collecting autographs. He wants to see the six potent signatures affixed to a multilateral treaty "renouncing war" among the U. S., France, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Italy. Last week he transmitted his concept of what such a treaty should be to the foreign Powers named, and asked whether they would be willing to sign it, perhaps with modifications.

By so doing Mr. Kellogg at last gave a definite and constructive turn to the tedious correspondence which he has kept up on the subject of such a treaty with French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand (TIME, July 4, et seq,). Copies of the Briand-Kellogg correspondence were tactfully enclosed as background material by Secretary Kellogg in his notes to the Powers of last week. The whole point of the notes, however, was to submit to the Powers a tentative multilateral treaty text which is essentially Mr. Kellogg's own conception. Brief, this treaty text contains only three articles:

Article I

"The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

Article II

"The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

Article III

". . . This treaty shall, when it has come into effect . . . remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other powers of the world. . . ."

The remainder of Article III is of a routine character, providing for the depositing of ratifications, etc.

Significance. In essence the Kellogg treaty text is simply a joint pledge of faith and honor. It does not state what, if anything, is to be done if one of the parties breaks faith. But it would prove useful in mobilizing public opinion against a faithless Power.

Quite ostentatiously the Kellogg text ignores the recent observation of M. Briand (TIME, April 9) that France will find it difficult if not impossible to sign a treaty which might conflict with her "previous obligations contained in international instruments, such as the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Locarno agreements or treaties guaranteeing neutrality." Mr. Kellogg now rather cleverly asks other powers whether they hold this view. Any reply which tends to indicate that the Powers are already committed to warlike sanctions in certain instances will be a feather in the Kellogg peace cap.

That France will have a great deal to say in defense of her position was made clear, last week, when Foreign Minister Briand announced that he too will shortly submit a tentative multilateral treaty text to the Powers concerned. Should the fashion for drafting and bandying such texts spread to a third power, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth, the ensuing negotiations may well become a diplomatic cross word puzzle, titanic and inextricable. In an effort to scotch such confusion, Secretary Kellogg said in all his notes, last week:

"The Government of the United States would be pleased to be informed as promptly as may be convenient whether your . . . Government is in a position to give favorable consideration to the conclusion of a treaty such as that transmitted herewith, and if not, what specific modifications in the text thereof would make it acceptable."