Triumph of Kellogg

A twelvemonth of international negotiation was triumphantly concluded, last week, by Frank Billings Kellogg, Secretary of State of the U. S.

The small, wiry man with the careworn face was happy. He had lived down his onetime nickname, "Nervous Nelly." Now the whole world knew him as the author of The Multilateral Treaty to Renounce War as an Instrument of National Policy. He has just received, last week, the unanimous promises to sign his treaty of the following nations: Great Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Canada, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, India, Rumania, South Africa, Czechoslovakia, Irish Free State.* Never before had so many nations bound themselves with the U. S. to take a momentous step.

Whither? The direction of the Treaty step is what interests keen-minded U. S. citizens. Will it lead Europe away from the League of Nations and into a new world harmony? Will it assist Candidate Hoover to lead his and Mr. Kellogg's party on to Victory? Why are many European statesmen confident that the new Treaty will entice the U. S. straight into the fold of the League of Nations? Finally, what has one done when one has outlawed war as an instrument of national policy?

Such questions, vital, cannot be answered without a preliminary brisk reading of the short treaty text, followed by a stimulating mental rubdown with the treaty reservations.

Full Treaty Text/- is : 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 The present treaty shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties named in the Preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at This treaty shall when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding para graph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other Powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a Power shall be deposited at and the treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the Power thus adhering and the other Powers parties hereto.

It shall be the duty of the Government of....... to furnish each

Government named in the Preamble and every Government subsequently adhering to this treaty with a certified copy of the treaty and of every instrument of ratification of adherence. It shall also be the

duty of the Government of

telegraphically to notify such Governments immediately upon the deposit with it of each instrument of ratification or adherence.

In faith whereof the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed this treaty in the French and English languages, both texts having equal force, and hereunto affix their seals.

Done at the

day of in the year of

our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty

Reservations. Objections to certain implications of the Treaty have been made by various nations, notably France and Great Britain. The objections were finally met by Secretary Kellogg with the procedure of transmitting along with the treaty text an explanation (six times as long as the Treaty) setting forth the construction placed upon it by the Government of the U. S. These explanations were accepted by other nations in lieu of and as equivalent to specific reservations by themselves against the Treaty. Thus the Kellogg Explanations are of equal importance with the Treaty itself. No nation except disarmed Germany agreed to sign until the explanations (i. e. reservations) had been made.

Self-Defense. Secretary Kellogg explained :

"There is nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defense. That right is inherent in every sovereign State and is implicit in every treaty. Every nation is free at all times and regardless of treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defense. If it has a good case, the world will applaud and not condemn its action. . . ."

Thus it explicitly appears that the phrase "renouncing war as an instrument of national policy" has no reference whatsoever to defensive warfare--an important fact, when one recalls that whenever two armies fight at least one is on the defensive.

To make explicitness doubly explicit British Foreign Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain wrote to Secretary of State Kellogg, saying:

"... I should remind your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a 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 has comparable interests. . . ." Thus the term "self defense" is broadened to include any action whatsoever by a Great Power in respect to a Minor Nation--such as the action of the U. S. in Nicaragua or that of Great Britain in Egypt (see EGYPT).

Into League Fold? Secretary Kellogg explained:

". . . The League Covenant. The covenant imposes no affirmative primary obligation to go to war. The obligation, if any, is secondary and attaches only when deliberately accepted by a State. . . .

There is, in my opinion, no necessary inconsistency between the covenant and the idea of an unqualified renunciation of war. The covenant can, it is true, be construed as authorizing war in certain circumstances, but it is an authorization and not a positive requirement. . . ."

Thus a Republican Secretary of State explodes the chief objection of the Republican Party to U. S. entrance into the League of Nations--namely that, if the U. S. entered, the League might, under famed Article Ten of the Covenant, compel U. S. males to fight punitive actions abroad.

Such compulsion is now declared by Secretary Kellogg to be impossible.

No Enforcement Provided. Secretary Kellogg explained: "As I have already pointed out, there can be no question as a matter of law that violation of a multilateral anti-war treaty through resort to war by one party thereto would automatically release the other parties from their obligations to the treaty-breaking State. . . ."

Thus no provision whatsoever is made in the Treaty for enforcing Peace.

Master Stroke. Politically the Kellogg Treaty is an undoubted master stroke. Its existence will enable Candidate Hoover and other campaigning Republicans to point with pride to a resounding international achievement:

RENUNCIATION OF WAR

Those three words have been explained until their meaning in international law is perilously close to nil, but they are still three words, three resounding words. They will be understood by many U. S. voters as meaning NO MORE WAR. If they should ever come to have that meaning to all the peoples of the World, the explanations, reservations and quibbles of statesmen will fall away like husks and Frank Billings Kellogg will have triumphed indeed.

Clearly that is his hope, his vision--and in a very real sense the so-called Hope of the World.

Cruel is the possibility that the Kellogg Treaty may perhaps never be so much as ratified by the U. S. Senate--not to mention other skittish Senates.

Opinions. When the Peace of the World is in doubt, the opinions of Great men are rightly sought as oracles:

Marquess of Reading, onetime Viceroy of India (1921-26): "The comparative failure of other agreements to give Europe the sense of security essential to disarmament and permanent peace I lay to the fact that America refused to be a party to those covenants and conventions. . . . That is why I call the proposal of the United States the greatest forward movement that has yet been made toward World Peace. . . . America is coming in."

Sir William Joynson-Hicks, British Home Secretary: "Unless the nations of the world follow the example of Great Britain and show a real desire to curtail their armaments, the compact will be nothing but a hollow sham.

"We desire to appeal to the great United States when our signature in the course of a few weeks is placed alongside those of other nations of Europe and say to them:

:' 'We are signing this compact at your request, a compact to end war, and yet we understand that you are increasing your navy.'

"I think we are entitled to comment quite respectfully and in quite a friendly way to say to America and the whole world that deeds speak louder than words."

Senator William Edgar Borah, Chairman of the U. S. Senate's Foreign Relations Committee was an early proponent of the concept of a treaty "outlawing war." Having lectured on the topic years before Secretary Kellogg took it up, he recently approved the present draft, saying: "The Multilateral anti-war Treaty, if signed this summer, will have right of way in the Senate next winter. ... I look for no serious fight against its ratification."

Raymond Poincare, French Prime Minister: "France, while remaining faithful to the League of Nations and to individual treaties which she already has signed, will never let pass an opportunity solemnly to condemn offensive wars."

Boris Stein, Soviet Observer to the League of Nations: "In my opinion the Government of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics will sign the American treaty if invited to do so." (Invitation withheld up to last week)

Guglielmo Ferrero, foremost living Italian historian: "To put war outside the law is a noble and grand idea. It will give great glory to America to have made this immense revolution in history, if she succeeds.

"Secretary Kellogg is perfectly right, and we ought to be astonished that we had to wait ten years for an expression of such simple, common sense truth in an official document. But Secretary Kellogg's proposal is only a generic beginning."

Paris Party. During the week it was understood that Secretary Kellogg will sail next month on the S. S. George Washington--the ship that carried President Woodrow Wilson--and participate at Paris in multilateral signing of his Treaty.

By journeying to Paris, Mr. Kellogg would conciliate French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, who originally proposed the two power pact forever outlawing war between the U. S. and France (TIME, July 4, 1927) which Secretary Kellogg has expanded into his multi-power Treaty.

Tribune v. Kellogg. Many a Paris news organ prominently quoted with alarm, last week, a truly amazing editorial in the usually 100% Republican New York Herald Tribune, famed Wilson-baiter:

"The treaty will probably be signed but we hope that the Senate will refuse to ratify it. ...

"We greatly admire the record of the Coolidge administration and we strongly approve its many sound and beneficent accomplishments; but the Kellogg treaty ... is certainly not one of them. ...

"The conception of renouncing war by governmental fiat is inherently absurd. . . .

"The treaty negotiations, thanks to Secretary Kellogg's inaction, were used as a pretext by the pacifist lobby in Washington, last winter, to prevent action on the Cruiser bill. . . .

"It is a fair guess that after this treaty is ratified the United States--which scrapped its ships and has constantly tried to reduce armaments--will be told by Great Britain--the nation having the world's greatest navy, and refusing to reduce at Geneva last summer--that because of this treaty we should make ourselves navally impotent. . . .

"This treaty leaves us holding the bag in future European squabbles; and that is the one and only reason why Europe wants it."

Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg thus savagely lashed upon the raw by the chief Administration news organ, remained silent for 48 hours, then allowed Washington correspondents to quote him indirectly as saying that the Treaty will not draw the U. S. into European affairs any more than have the various arbitration treaties existing between the U. S. and European states.

At these developments, not a few statesmen were astounded, nonplussed.

Parsons. But recent Sabbaths have brought comfort to Mr. Kellogg, for many a spiritual shepherd has told many a flock that the Treaty is something superlative.

*The Irish Free State is the smallest British Dom-'nion, but is technically a "nation," just as are the larrer "dominions."

/-Blank spaces to be filled in with name of individual signatory nation, together with places, dates, etc.