of the principal Powers, are making the organization and strengthening of peace the object of common efforts carried on within the framework of the League of Nations. They are already bound to one another by a covenant placing them under reciprocal obligations, as well as by agreements such as those signed at Locarno in October 1925, or by international conventions relative to guarantees of neutrality, all of which engagements impose upon them duties which they cannot contravene. In particular, your Excellency knows that all States members of the League of Nations represented at Geneva in the month of September last, adopted, in a joint resolution tending to the condemnation of war, certain principles based on the respect for the reciprocal rights and duties of each. In that resolution the Powers were led to specify that the action to be condemned as an international crime is aggressive war and that all peaceful means must be employed for the settlement of differences, of any nature whatsoever, which might arise between the several States. This is a condition of affairs which the United States, while a stranger thereto, cannot decline to take into consideration, just as must any other State called upon to take part in the negotiation. Furthermore, the United States would not in any way be bound thereby to the provisions of the covenant of the League of Nations. The French proposal of June last looking to the conclusion of a bi-lateral compact, had been drawn up in the light of the century old relations between France and the United States; the French Government still stands ready to negotiate with the American Government on the same conditions and on the same basis. It has never altered its attitude in that respect. But when confronted by the initiative of the United States in proposing a multipartite covenant, it had to take into consideration the relations existing among the various Powers which would be called upon to participate therein. This it has done, with the object of assuring the success of the treaty contemplated by the United States. Its suggestions of January 5 as to the terms of the multipartite treaty are inspired by the formula which has already gained the unanimous adherence of all of the States members of the League of Nations, and which for that very reason might be accepted by them with regard to the United States, just as it has already been accepted among themselves. This is the explanation of our proposal of January 5. The Government of the Republic has always, under all circumstances, very clearly and without mental reservation declared its readiness to join in any declaration tending to denounce war as a 'League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. LIV, pp. 289–359. League of Nations, Official Journal, October 1927, p. 1444. crime and to set up international sanctions susceptible of preventing or repressing it. There has been no change in its sentiments in that respect: its position remains the same. Your Excellency may therefore be assured of its sincere desire to respond to the idea of the American Government and to second its efforts to the full extent compatible with the situation of fact created by its international obligations. It is this preoccupation which inspired the formula proposed on January 5, a formula which does indeed seem to be the most apt at this time to assure the accomplishment of the American project. The Government of the Republic accordingly cannot but hope that the American Government will share this view. Subject to these observations, the Government of the Republic would, moreover, very gladly welcome any suggestions offered by the American Government which would make it possible to reconcile an absolute condemnation of war with the engagements and obligations assumed by the several nations and the legitimate concern for their respective security. Pray accept [etc.] 711.5112France/169 CLAUDEL The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in France (Herrick) No. 2632 WASHINGTON, February 14, 1928. SIR: There is transmitted below the substance of a conversation which took place on February 2, 1928, between the Secretary and the French Ambassador with regard to the so-called Briand proposal for the outlawry of war. The Secretary asked the Ambassador whether M. Briand's reply to his proposition was to be construed as a definite rejection of the latter to which the Ambassador answered emphatically in the negative. Mr. Kellogg had put this question to M. Claudel merely for his own information in replying to M. Briand although, of course, he would not make use of the Ambassador's statement in replying to the French Government. The Ambassador thereupon stated that the answer which he had given came from M. Briand personally; that the Foreign Minister had telegraphed the Ambassador that he did not wish the Secretary to construe his answer as being a definite refusal to make the treaty which Mr. Kellogg proposed but merely as a suggestion that other French obligations be taken into consideration. In thanking the Ambassador for this message the Secretary assured him that he would answer the note as soon as possible. I am [etc.] For the Secretary of State: 711.5112France/179 The Secretary of State to the French Ambassador (Claudel) WASHINGTON, February 27, 1928. EXCELLENCY: Our recent discussions of the question whether the United States and France could join in suggesting to the other principal Powers of the world the conclusion of a treaty proscribing war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations have been brought by your note of January 21, 1928, to a point where it seems necessary, if success is to be achieved, to examine the problem from a practical point of view. It is evident from our previous correspondence that the Governments of France and the United States are of one mind in their earnest desire to initiate and promote a new international movement for effective world peace, and that they are in agreement as to the essential principles of the procedure to be followed in the accomplishment of their common purpose. As I understand your note of January 21, 1928, the only substantial obstacle in the way of the unqualified acceptance by France of the proposals which I submitted in my notes of December 28, 1927, and January 11, 1928, is your Government's doubt whether as a member of the League of Nations and a party to the treaties of Locarno and other treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France can agree with the United States and the other principal world Powers not to resort to war in their mutual relations, without ipso facto violating her present international obligations under those treaties. In Your Excellency's last note this question was suggested for consideration. Without, of course, undertaking formally to construe the present treaty obligations of France, I desire to point out that if those obligations can be interpreted so as to permit France to conclude a treaty with the United States such as that offered to me last June by M. Briand and offered again in your note of January 21, 1928, it is not unreasonable to suppose that they can be interpreted with equal justice so as to permit France to join with the United States in offering to conclude an equivalent multilateral treaty with the other principal Powers of the world. The difference between the bilateral and multilateral form of treaty having for its object the unqualified renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, seems to me to be one of degree and not of substance. A Government free to conclude such a bilateral treaty should be no less able to become a party to an identical multilateral treaty since it is hardly to be presumed that members of the League of Nations are in a position to do separately something they cannot do together. I earnestly hope, therefore, that The text of this note was also communicated through the respective American Embassies to the French, British, German, Italian, and Japanese Foreign Offices. your Government, which admittedly perceives no bar to the conclu sion of an unqualified anti-war treaty with the United States alone, will be able to satisfy itself that an equivalent treaty among the principal world Powers would be equally consistent with membership in the League of Nations. If, however, members of the League of Nations cannot, without violating the terms of the Covenant of the League, agree among themselves and with the Government of the United States to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy, it seems idle to discuss either bilateral or multilateral treaties unreservedly renouncing war. I am reluctant to believe, however, that the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations really stand in the way of the cooperation of the United States and members of the League of Nations in a common effort to abolish the institution of war. Of no little interest in this connection is the recent adoption of a resolution by the Sixth International Conference of American States expressing in the name of the American Republics unqualified condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations.10 It is significant to note that of the twenty-one States represented at the Conference, seventeen are members of the League of Nations. I trust, therefore, that neither France nor any other member of the League of Nations will finally decide that an unequivocal and unqualified renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy either violates the specific obligations imposed by the Covenant or conflicts with the fundamental idea and purpose of the League of Nations. On the contrary, is it not entirely reasonable to conclude that a formal engagement of this character entered into by all of the principal Powers, and ultimately, I trust, by the entire family of Nations, would be a most effective instrument for promoting the great ideal of peace which the League itself has so closely at heart? If, however, such a declaration were accompanied by definitions of the word "aggressor" and by exceptions and qualifications stipulating when nations would be justified in going to war, its effect would be very greatly weakened and its positive value as a guaranty of peace virtually destroyed. The ideal which inspires the effort so sincerely and so hopefully put forward by your Government and mine is arresting and appealing just because of its purity and simplicity; and I cannot avoid the feeling that if Governments should publicly acknowledge that they can only deal with this ideal in a technical spirit and must insist upon the adoption of reservations impairing, if not utterly destroying the true significance of their common endeavors, they would be in effect only recording their impotence, to the keen disappointment of mankind in general. 10 See circular telegram of Mar. 1, 4 p. m. p. 12. From the broad standpoint of humanity and civilization, all war is an assault upon the stability of human society, and should be suppressed in the common interest. The Government of the United States desires to see the institution of war abolished, and stands ready to conclude with the French, British, Italian, German and Japanese Governments a single multilateral treaty open to subsequent adherence by any and all other Governments, binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another. The precise language to be employed in such a treaty is a matter of indifference to the United States so long as it clearly and unmistakably sets forth the determination of the parties to abolish war among themselves. I therefore renew the suggestion contained in my note of January 11, 1928, that the Government of France join with the Government of the United States in transmitting to the British, Italian, German and Japanese Governments for their consideration and comment the text of M. Briand's original proposal, together with copies of the subsequent correspondence between France and the United States as a basis for preliminary discussions looking to the conclusion of an appropriate multilateral treaty proscribing recourse to war. Accept [etc.] 711.5112France/183 FRANK B. KELLOGG Memorandum by Mr. Spencer Phenix, Assistant to the Under Secretary of State, of a Conversation Between the Secretary of State and the French Ambassador (Claudel), February 27, 1928 The Secretary handed to the French Ambassador at 2:30 this afternoon a note replying to the Ambassador's note of January 21, 1928, with further reference to the so-called Briand proposal. The Ambassador read the note and said he wanted to ask one question, namely, whether the Secretary agreed with the view expressed by Senator Borah in a recent newspaper article (the New York Times of February 5, 1928) to the effect that the breach by one party of a general multilateral treaty renouncing war would release the other parties from their obligations thereunder. The Ambassador said that if a treaty could be drawn along such lines or be interpreted in the manner indicated by Senator Borah, he thought that an agreement might readily be reached. After a brief discussion of the Locarno treaties and reference to Senator Borah's article, the Secretary replied that while he had not given particular attention to that point since it seemed to him to be more a question of drafting than anything else, he saw no objection in principle and that he would be glad to consider the question and discuss it with Senator Borah with a view to ascertaining whether |