Foreign Relations of the United States Diplomatic Papers, 1933, The American Republics, Volume IV

710.1012 Anti-War/11

The Secretary of State to the Argentine Ambassador (Espil)

Washington, March 3, 1933.

Excellency: With reference to Your Excellency’s note of September 21, 1932,² enclosing a copy of a proposed Anti-War Treaty drawn up by the Argentine Government, I have the honor to state that this document has been given the most careful and sympathetic study by the Government of the United States, which appreciates the lofty aims that have impelled the Argentine authorities to devote themselves so earnestly to the cause of peace on the American continent.

It is noted that in your communication of September 21, 1932, under acknowledgment, Your Excellency states that “the principal purpose” of the proposed Anti-War Treaty “is to give a character of permanency to and establish in organic form the agreement of wills which that noble international act (declaration of August 3, 1932)³ signified which has come to establish the bonds which unite the countries of America”. The first paragraph of the preamble of the draft treaty also sets forth the purpose of the nations to “endeavor to contribute to the consolidation of peace” and “to express their adherence to the efforts that all civilized nations have made to further the spirit of universal harmony”. The “Statement of Reasons” of the Treaty contained in the pamphlet enclosed in your note under acknowledgment states that “the Argentine Government wishes thus to contribute to the uniform acceptance of the Kellogg-Briand Pact⁴ and, what is of greater importance, to its effective application through the conclusion among the South American Republics of a similar and coinciding agreement, intended to cooperate in the attainment of the same lofty aims.”

The American Government in pursuance of its study of the draft Treaty submitted by Your Excellency has reached the conclusion that there are serious drawbacks to concluding at the present moment a treaty of the type referred to. There are two principal reasons which have contributed to this decision.

In the first place the American Government believes that the peace structure of the world, toward which so many efforts have been devoted during the past decade, has tended to grow unduly cumbersome. Not only is there an overlapping between treaties now in existence but as a number of existing instruments have not yet entered into force the anomalous situation is found where nations are bound toward certain other nations by one set of ties and toward another group by completely different bonds. The result is a certain lack of clarity on the part of world public opinion as to the exact nature of the obligations taken which might apply in any given dispute. The American Government feels that before taking a further step it would be well to conserve and strengthen the advances which have already been made through international agreements for the pacific solution of international controversies.

The second reason which has motivated the American Government in deciding that it would be inadvisable to conclude a treaty along the basis of Your Excellency’s draft is that while to a certain extent it attempts to parallel the undertakings of the Kellogg-Briand Pact and while Your Excellency refers to it “as a similar and coinciding agreement” the language used is sufficiently different to raise the question of whether or not the obligations undertaken in the Kellogg-Briand Pact had need of being either modified or re-interpreted. For instance, the second paragraph of the Preamble and also Article I speak of “wars of aggression”. The language of Article I of the Pact of Paris, whereby the Contracting Parties condemn “recourse to war” was most carefully considered by this Government when it was first proposed, and the use of the word “aggression” was purposely avoided. The objection to the use of the word “aggression” was stated by Secretary of State Kellogg in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City on March 15, 1928, as follows:⁵

“My objection to limiting the scope of an anti-war treaty to mere wars of aggression is based partly upon a very real disinclination to see the ideal of world peace qualified in any way, and partly upon the absence of any satisfactory definition of the word ‘aggressor’ or the phrase ‘wars of aggression’. It is difficult for me to see how a definition could be agreed upon which would not be open to abuse. The danger inherent in any definition is recognized by the British Government which in a memorandum recently submitted to the Sub-committee on Security of the Preparatory Committee on Disarmament of the League of Nations discussed attempted definitions of this character, and quoted from a speech by the British Foreign Secretary in which Sir Austen (Chamberlain) said: ‘I therefore remain opposed to this attempt to define the aggressor because I believe that it will be a trap for the innocent and a signpost for the guilty.’”

As I had occasion to state in an address on August 8, 1932,⁶ before the Council on Foreign Relations at New York City, Mr. Kellogg in drafting the Treaty, which later became known as the Pact of Paris, rightly fought for a clear, terse prohibition of war free from any detailed definitions or reservations. In his own words he sought—

“a treaty so simple and unconditional that the people of all nations could understand it, a declaration which could be a rallying point for world sentiment, a foundation on which to build a world peace.”

Any other course would have opened the door to technicalities and destructive limitations. Again, in the words of Mr. Kellogg:

“As it stands, the only limitation to the broad covenant against war is the right of self-defense. This right is so inherent and universal that it was deemed unnecessary even to insert it expressly in the Treaty.”

As the Government of Your Excellency is aware, the Kellogg-Briand Pact is in force today as between sixty-two nations of the world. This Government regards that Treaty as a great effort towards peace made by the nations of the world who had suffered so much from the World War as to make a recurrence of such a disaster impossible. This Government has read with pleasure the comment appended to the draft of the Anti-War Treaty proposed by Your Excellency’s Government, which states:

“It has been said that the Kellogg-Briand Pact represents for the nations of America, as it does for those of the world at large, the exclusion of force and a prohibition to resort to war, in a final summing up of many efforts to bring about respect for international standards. For the Republics of South America it translates their best doctrines and the purpose back of their valuable juridical conceptions.”

The Government of the United States most earnestly hopes that the Government of the Argentine Republic, in its devotion to the ideals of peace, may see fit to adhere to the already existing Treaty for the Renunciation of War.

The Kellogg-Briand Pact is the cornerstone on which this Government has rested its foreign policy and there can be no reason for doubt, either from its declarations or from its attitude throughout the recent controversies which have been troubling the world, as to its interpretation of the obligations agreed to under the Pact. Public opinion in the United States is slow in accepting any new departure in foreign relations; yet this same public opinion has now fully accepted the Pact as a prime tenet of American policy and the response to its invocation in recent foreign disputes has been gratifying. Slowly there is being built up as an outgrowth of the meaning of the Pact a tradition of cooperation, which, while founded on the exercise of the independent judgment of this country, is none the less real. Should this Government re-affirm the principles of the Pact in other terms, or more particularly should this Government accept new contractual undertakings on a parallel or slightly divergent course, it would not only confuse public opinion but it would inevitably weaken the prestige of the Kellogg-Briand Pact.

These two considerations although of a general nature have proved so compelling that I have not commented in detail on the other features of the draft submitted by Your Excellency. With many this Government is in full accord; in all it recognizes the lofty aims which have inspired them. If in the present instance this Government sees certain objections to advancing further along the particular lines suggested by Your Excellency it none the less continues to hope that the two countries may advance together toward the common goal of assuring international peace.

Accept [etc.]

Henry L. Stimson

2. Ibid., p. 261.
3. Ibid., p. 159.
4. Treaty for the Renunciation of War, signed at Paris, August 27, 1928, ibid., 1923, vol. i, p. 153.
5. For full text of speech, see The War Prevention Policy of the United States, an Address by the Honorable Frank B. Kellogg (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1928).
6. Foreign Relations, 1932, vol. i, p. 575.