Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1928, Volume I

711.4112Anti-War/75: Telegram

The Ambassador in Great Britain (Houghton) to the Secretary of State

London, May 19, 1928—1 p.m.
[Received 1:05 p.m.⁶⁵]

114. Following is text of British reply, dated May 19:

“Your Excellency: Your note of the 13th April containing the text of a draft treaty for the renunciation of war, together with copies of the correspondence between the United States and French Governments on the subject of this treaty, has been receiving sympathetic consideration at the hands of His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain. A note has also been received from the French Government containing certain suggestions for discussion in connection with the proposed treaty, and the German Government were good enough to send me a copy of the reply which has been made by them to the proposals of the United States Government.

2. The suggestion for the conclusion of a treaty for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy has evoked widespread interest in this country and His Majesty’s Government will support the movement to the utmost of their power,

3. After making a careful study of the text contained in Your Excellency’s note and of the amended text suggested in the French note, His Majesty’s Government feel convinced that there is no serious divergence between the effect of these two drafts. This impression is confirmed by a study of the text of the speech by the Secretary of State of the United States to which Your Excellency drew my attention and which he delivered before the American Society of International Law on the 28th April. The aim of the United States Government, as I understand it, is to embody in a treaty a broad statement of principle, to proclaim without restriction or qualification that war shall not be used as an instrument of policy. With this aim His Majesty’s Government are wholly in accord. The French proposals, equally imbued with the same purpose, have merely added an indication of certain exceptional circumstances in which the violation of that principle by one party may oblige the others to take action seeming at first sight to be inconsistent with the terms of the proposed pact. His Majesty’s Government 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

65. Telegram In two sections.