Grotesque Pact

The peoples of five Great Powers* received a clear though diplomatic warning, last week, that the French Republic has no intention of subscribing to the simple multilateral treaty "renouncing war" which was submitted to the Powers, last fortnight, by U. S. Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg (TIME, April 23). The French warning went to the Powers, in the form of an alternative treaty draft, proposed to take the place of the Kellogg Treaty. Inspection showed that Foreign Minister Briand of France had felt obliged to so qualify the expression "renouncing war" as to emasculate it of all meaning. The Briand Treaty is in six elaborately weasled articles, whereas the Kellogg Treaty contains but three which are explicit, lucid. The first sentence of Article I of the Briand Treaty runs to 112 words, is typical, may be instructively quoted: "The high contracting parties, without any intention to infringe upon the exercise of their rights of legitimate self-defense within the framework of existing treaties, particularly when the violation of certain of the provisions of such treaties constitutes a hostile act, solemnly declare that they condemn recourse to war and renounce it as an instrument of national policy; that is to say, as an instrument of individual, spontaneous and independent political action taken on their own initiative, and not action in respect of which they might become involved through the obligation of a treaty such as the covenant of the League of Nations or any other treaty registered with the League of Nations."

Further the Briand Treaty provides that violation of the pact by one of the signatories releases the others from their obligations; and that the Treaty shall not come into effect when signed but await the decision of the signatories at a special conference called to determine when it shall become operative.

Such a document is wholly grotesque, a Pact of Qualifications, not a Pact of Peace. Yet Aristide Briand has won the Nobel Peace Prize (TIME, Dec. 20, 1926), and his policies are the epitome of pacifism. Only in unprecedented circumstances would he send forth such a monstrosity as the Treaty of last week.

The circumstances are that Frank Billings Kellogg has rather cleverly out-maneuvred Aristide Briand at a game of diplomatic chess which has been going on for nine months. M. Briand made the first move in good faith when he proposed to sign a treaty outlawing war simply between France and the U. S. (TIME, July 4, et seq.).

Such a pact would not have conflicted with the numerous European alliances and commitments of France. But Mr. Kellogg countered with a proposal to make the treaty a multi-power affair. By insisting upon that point he has gradually forced

M. Briand to admit, in effect, that France is bound by commitment, which obligates her to go to war under certain circumstances. Therefore she cannot sign the simple, blanket Kellogg Peace Pact. Doubtless most other foreign Powers are similarly circumstanced, and possibly even the U. S. Congress would refuse to bind the U. S. by the Kellogg formula. But meanwhile the U. S. Republican Party should reap political profit by forcing from as many foreign states as possible the admission that they must refuse for the present to sign a treaty "renouncing war."

*The U. S., Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Japan.