The Kellog Peace Treaty: Retrospect and Prospect

The Kellog Peace Treaty:

Retrospect and Prospect

Of the most outstanding events in recent times that have had anything to do with the ideal of guaranteeing and maintenance of the peace of the world, the Kellog-Pact ought certainly to be assigned a prominent place. The last world war was characterised by optimistic people as "a war which would end war" and it was confidently foretold that the world could satisfy itself that it had witnessed the end of all sanguinary conflicts. To embody this very highest aspiration of peace, the League of Nations was ushered into existence, the idea having been first conceived by America alone in the person of its President, Woodrow Wilson. But in spite of the brightest anticipations formed of it, the League has so far woefully failed to come up to them, owing, as everyone knows, to a combination of causes and circumstances. America left the League severely alone from the very beginning and the other Nations though they rendered lip-homage to it and to the ideal it represents, have, in practice, made it altogether impotent for good. Other efforts towards ensuring the peace of the world have been made from time to time; and at the termination of each effort, it was proclaimed with the loudest trumpeting, that the millennium had at last dawned. America had not participated in all these endeavors, nor could it be said that she was keeping absolutely quiet. She had been waiting for an opportunity when she could effectively and advantageously intervene: for America is not the country to allow itself to be relegated to an obscure ground and thus contribute towards its own political and moral degradation. The Disarmament Conference of 1921, held in Washington, was convened on her own initiative, a

Conference in which India had the honour of being represented by a delegate of Indian nationality and where the Nations agreed to the principle of Disarmament and the progressive reduction of armaments. But then, and even now, the world was too young in its philanthropic altruism and too much surcharged with reactionary suspicion and distrust, for the Washington proposals to be put into execution, even on a partial basis. Having waited again for a propitious opportunity, America has now come forward with a comprehensive scheme for world peace, formulated by Mr. Frank B. Kellog, United States of America Secretary of State, which has recently been signed.

II

The proposal of Mr. Kellog was in the air for a considerably long time before it was able to secure approbation at the hands of the Powers. There had been undisguised apprehension in the minds of the bigger European Powers that America did not mean what she declared, for the very simple and very good reason that America had in recent years appropriated quite enormous sums for the strengthening of the total tonnage of her Naval armaments. But then all the other Nations were doing the same, and England, France and Italy were equal, if not worse offenders in that respect. While every country was thus arming itself on a war basis, the talk of peace appeared a huge joke, which would not be worth taking seriously, were it not for the fact that sweet words and honeyed expressions were indulged in profusion on all sides and by everybody. It is seriously argued that the increase of armaments was only a safeguard against Possible wars, though it is hard for unsophisticated minds to reconcile the paradox that unlimited accumulation of war materials and effectual proscription of war could go together. When the magazine is well-stored, a spark will be sufficient to produce a conflagration; and when Nations are armed to the teeth, a conflict is sure to occur, because a spark will not be wanting. The League ideal of harmonious cooperation has not permeated the minds of Nations and effected a secure lodgment there; rather Europe is still groping in the Middle-Age darkness of maintaining a Balance of Power between contending parties by diplomatic maneuvers supported by the bayonets of a despicable militarism.

III

Very sanguine were the expectations aroused in the minds of people on the 28th August, regarding the future peace of the world. Nearly all the Big Powers put their seal of approval to the remarkably succinct and straightforward document submitted for their signature by Mr. Kellog. The event was marked by enthusiastic utterances of exuberant solicitude for the peace of the world, made by responsible Ministers and statesmen of Europe. But there is very grave ground for genuine doubt about the whole-heartedness and the unreservedness of the support accorded to it. England, even before the Pact was actually signed, enunciated a proposition, which considerably detracts from the honesty of her truthful intentions. Sir Austen Chamberlain, the British Foreign Secretary, declared in the House of Commons that Britain, while accepting the principle of the Kellog-Pact, does so with certain ‘reservations’ which concerned her responsibilities as an Imperial country; responsibilities which she could not legitimately afford to relinquish. Everyone then perfectly understood that those ‘reservations’ comprised within their fold the countries of India and Egypt; that they related to the relations between them and Great Britain; and that they implied the guarantee to Britain to maintain unimpaired her suzerainty over these two countries, and through them over the trade and commerce passing through the Suez Canal and the Singapore Base. It was, from this ‘imperial’ view-point, nothing extraordinary, therefore, that there was a huge flutter in the Foreign Office dovecotes, when it was announced that Mr. Kellog had extended a separate invitation to Egypt to sign the Peace Treaty and thus tacitly acknowledged her position as an Independent sovereign country. The uncertainties of the British attitude are further accentuated by the unequivocal speech of Sir William Joynson Hicks, the British Home Secretary, who, by the way, has a praiseworthy reputation for straightforward speaking, which was to the effect that, apart from facts and conventions, every country would and should safeguard the defense of its own shores and frontiers from possible encroachment or aggression on the part of outsiders. Where British intentions are so dubious, it is impossible to expect deliberate conviction on the side of other Nations, and it will not be far wrong to suppose that the latter also have had their own individual mental ‘reservations,’ as in fact they do, when they responded to the call of Mr. Kellog.

IV

The Peace Pact signed on the 28th August 1928 in the magnificently decorated palace at Versailles by fifteen Nations, including the Dominions and Dependencies of the British Empire, can be conveniently considered in three parts; the Preamble, the Articles of Agreement, and the hopes and aspirations of the signatory Powers and methods of ratification. The signatories express their avowed and deliberate intention to renounce war as ‘an instrument of aggression’ and ‘national policy’ and declare their conviction "that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pacific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process." The Parties solemnly agree "that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be," shall be settled only by ‘pacific means.’ They hold that any signatory Power which hereafter proceeds to aggrandizement over its neighbors by resorting to war, shall automatically place itself beyond the pale of the Treaty or, in the words of the Treaty itself, "should be denied the benefits furnished by the Treaty," and shall in consequence impliedly render itself liable to be treated as an inimical Nation by all the other signatories. The document expresses the "deep sense of the solemn duty" of the high contracting parties "to promote the welfare of mankind", and their persuasion "that the time has come for the frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy," So that in the end the "friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated," and they hope that "encouraged by their example, all the other Nations of the world will join in the humane endeavour" by bringing their people "within the scope of its beneficent provisions" and thus unite in a common endeavour to banish war in perpetuity. As is quite easily discernible, from its provisions summarised above, the Kellog-Pact is a merely voluntary document, comprising pious platitudes about honest intentions and does not exhibit any marked or sincere conviction as animating those Nations who agreed to it. International morality is a thing which will hold good only so far and so long as every nation is free to carry on its own unhampered aggression, and which will evaporate the moment a clash Occurs between antagonistic national interests. Real internationalism is a matter of the heart, of mutual concession and compromise, and cannot be injected into the body-politic of a country by the assiduous endeavors of well-meaning individuals and well-drafted Pacts; and internationalism has not yet become a factor capable of coping with and eliminating from existence the intense nationalism, which is so outstanding a feature of the Powers now-a-days. If, apart from this obvious absence of conviction, the Pact had enforced on them compulsory Disarmament as an essential preliminary and as an earnest of their desire for peace, it would certainly have been of much benefit. An absence or lack of courage to face the stern realities of the situation is writ large on the efforts of Mr. Kellog and a virtual charter of ‘laissez-faire’ has been allowed to the Nations–though this is the fundamental obstruction in the way of world peace-in this respect of Disarmament. Again, another deficiency noticeable in the provisions of the Pact is the absence of any international sanction for the enforcement of the obligations agreed to. As it is, such sanction is conspicuous by its absence in the present case, a fact which renders it liable to the gibe that it is but an endeavour, at second hand, to imitate the work of the League of Nations, and if possible, to supercede it by subterranean means. What the League, primarily established for the purpose of inaugurating an era of peace and international harmony, has not been able to do all these years, this new-fangled scheme from across the Atlantic, cannot be expected to accomplish in the short space of an hour, with all that may be said in favour of its excellence.

V

The prohibition under the Kellog-Pact of all wars which have an aggressive intention and the implicit countenance given to all wars waged by Nations in self-defense are propositions, which, if taken together, show how large a loophole is left for would-be belligerents to indulge in the brutal pastime of provoking and fighting wars. It is, as has been so eminently reasonably pointed out, difficult to distinguish, should such a situation arise, which are aggressive wars and which are wars fought for self-defense, especially in the case of Imperial Countries like England, France and Japan, etc., with all their now famous ‘reservations.’ It is also more than doubtful if in a war of aggression by a big Power against a smaller or a weaker opponent, considerations of justice will induce the other Powers to interpret the former's action as an ‘aggression,’ and whether they will be ready to decide upon conjoint action to safeguard the integrity and independence of the weaker party from encroachment and infringement. The League of Nations has, as one of its most outstanding objects, the protection of the national interest of small countries, but there has been precious little that it could do in that direction, while it was constrained to look on with an impotent non-chalance and ineffective unconcern and disinterestedness, in all cases of such interference when they happened. An institution will become what its constituents make it, and the League cannot be blamed, if those who have the strength believe in elbowing it into a corner in times of real crisis and take matters into their own hands.

VI

If there is one thing more intimately bound up with the question of maintaining unbroken the peace of the world than the others, it is that of effective Disarmament; and ‘renunciation’ of war which the Kellog-Pact seeks to ensure, can be fulfilled in practice only where and when there is absolute or partial diminution of the Agents which bring on war. Unless, therefore, the big Powers are prepared to disarm to a considerable extent and give a practical demonstration of their desire to maintain peace, there can be no hope, no possibility of the outbreak of war becoming a thing of the past. As has already been said above, it is a serious deficiency in the Kellog-Pact that it has not made it necessary for the signatory parties to effect a cut in their military, naval and air-force expenditures. It is a matter for much gratification that the League of Nations has taken upon itself the work of formulating a scheme of disarmament, by instituting a preparatory Disarmament Committee to work out the details. But it is regrettable that, so far, the Committee has not been capable of producing tangible consequences, owing mainly to the diplomatic game of playing off and procrastination which the Powers indulge in, when they come to tackle the question. The Disarmament Committee as an annexe of the League can be expected to be productive of precious little good, as any beneficial recommendations that it might think proper to make will be successfully scotched by the faint recognition that will be paid to them by those concerned. With the experience that we have had of the scant consideration given by the Committee to the Soviet proposals for ‘complete’ Disarmament presented to it sometime , and with the knowledge of the secret understandings that are being entered into between the European Powers, the above conclusion becomes irresistible. If, however, something concrete emanates from the recent conversations and confabulations in Geneva, as optimists declare it will, it will be something on which humanity can profoundly congratulate itself. There was much jubilation at the time of the opening of the latest session of the Assembly of the League of Nations, because the Kellog-Pact had been signed, but the subsequent gloom that supervened owing to the intelligence of the ‘secret’ Naval Accord between France and England does not warrant the impression of there being any substantial easing of the tension.

VII

As if to spite the enthusiasm of the Ambassador of Peace from across the Atlantic, the Naval Agreement between France and England was concluded between the Powers even before the ink on the Kellog-Pact had not fully dried up and in fact just before it was solemnly signed. In the absence of an authoritative statement on the actual provisions of the Agreement, it is not possible to pronounce any definite opinion on its possible effects, but it is not less than certain that it was a compact between the two Powers to counteract the influence and power of the United States of America. The United States Government has taken strong exception to the Naval Accord, though the Anglo-French diplomats and pressmen are trying to make out that it is a purely defensive alliance, with no aggressive intent behind it. But that the impression sought to be produced does not contain the truth and the whole truth is testified to by the undisguised apprehension and suspicion with which the document is construed in the German press, wherein it is likened to a similar agreement concluded between the same two Powers just before the outbreak of the great world war, with equally loud protestations of remoteness from bellicose intentions. The mail-fist attitude maintained by the French Government towards the question of the evacuation of the Rhineland in Germany, and the notoriously mealy-mouthed declarations of the Acting British Foreign Secretary only strengthen the suspicion. The Agreement between France and England, so far as it is known, refers to the limitation of the construction of the 10,000-ton cruisers of 8 inch base guns, which programme the two countries had wished to follow, while at the same time it does not set any limit to the construction of smaller tonnage vessels, which can be easily converted into war-ships in times of emergency by the mounting of 6 inch base guns. This programme is objectionable from the American point of view on two grounds, the first being that such a secret understanding,–for it is a secret understanding in spite of protestations to the contrary–which is declared by Mr. Hearst, the American press Napolean, as a sure precursor of another European war, which the European countries are trying to precipitate. It is in direct contravention of the fundamental principles of the Kellog Peace Treaty and in direct violation of the Washington Agreement; and secondly, it is a silent, but nevertheless a deliberate blow aimed against American Naval supremacy, as it attempts to secure the limitation of that description of war craft, which America intends to add to its Navy. It is also objectionable from the German point of view, because it is considered a threat to the rapidly rehabilitating German commercial prosperity and as an attempt at overawing her by a show of superior strength and curb her possible competition and rivalry. The Agreement has been on the one hand approved and supported in principle by Japan and Italy, though with minor modifications in detail; while on the other, it has been distrusted and feared by Germany, America and the Soviet, the latter of whom has so far given practical testimony of its peaceful intentions in the international sphere by its Disarmament proposals, though its political and economic doctrines and activities are of a dubious, doubtful and compromising character. There is no knowing at present what further developments will arise out of the signing of the Naval Agreement, but much is bound to be heard of it in the near future, which will disclose an interminable tangle of naval preparations providing an illuminating commentary on the honesty of the peaceful intentions of the Nations agreeing to renounce war. Indeed, a Soviet newspaper has published a detailed Summary of the outstanding provisions of the Naval Agreement, which is reported to contain seven separate clauses, binding the two contracting parties in a close co-operation to maintain their Naval supremacy in the European Seas and the Pacific Ocean, as well as to a unity of action between the Air Forces of the two countries, in times of danger; in short, to secure the Allied predominance in all matters international both in war and peace. Since writing the above, the British Government have issued a white paper setting forth the course of the negotiations between the two friendly Powers culminating in the signing of the Naval Accord, but this fact, accompanied as it is by the feverish assertion by the British and French statesmen that there was nothing secret or inimical to peace in it, has not in any way improved matters or allayed misunderstandings. The correspondence has not disproved the contention that the Agreement was aimed against America; neither does the circular note, issued by Lord Cushendon to the British representatives at Foreign capitals immediately after the publication of the correspondence, which says that the Naval Agreement represents only another link in the long chain of negotiations for affecting the Disarmament of the Nations consistent with national security and is intended to implement the decisions of the Washington Agreement of 1921, contain the whole truth and reality about British intentions. There is something suspicious also in the apologetic pronouncement of British Cabinet Ministers preceding and following the publication of the white paper, as well as something significant in the cautious indignation of the British press which suggests that it looks upon the management of the whole affair by Britain with a feeling that her diplomats irretrievably blundered and bungled in it. The Agreement is bound to have undesirable repercussions in the United States, which are sure to become estranged and alienated instead of being drawn closer to the European Powers by the speech of Mr. Baldwin, at the time of the celebration of the 10th Anniversary of the League of Nations in London, in which he vented forth his righteous indignation at America's incapacity to appreciate the genuineness of the British pretensions to peaceful predilections.

VIII

The attitude of the British and the French Governments towards the problems of German Reparations, is one which is fraught with grave menace to the growth of international goodwill and harmony; especially when it is remembered that the German view is one of reasonable hostility to the continued occupation of the Rhineland Zone by the Allied armies. France cannot get over its vindictive disposition aroused by memories of the Franco-German War of 1870, and dejected Germany is made to feel the humiliation of its situation, though a ruffled conscience has been soothed by the outward recognition of an international status and uncertain exculpation from the ‘war-guilt.’ The industrial rehabilitation of Germany has been proceeding apace, a phenomenon which is looked upon with zealous concern by England and France, whose position in the commercial sphere has become appreciably depressed by German competition. It is, therefore, not difficult to understand why the two Powers desired so eagerly to ensure to themselves the unabated prolongation of the Rhineland occupation, which would act as a check upon the free and unhampered progress of German national prosperity. German national self-respect has been much wounded on account of the cussedness on the part of the two Powers, and this feeling of suppressed discontent is finding vent in the gradual rapprochement which is marking the German attitude towards the Soviet and theUnited States of America. A half-hearted and not a wholly sincere attempt is being made to arrive at a settlement of this disputable question and find out a means of emerging out of the impasse by referring it to a special Committee of

the League of Nations. The Committee has set to work and it is to be hoped that it will recommend the evacuation of the occupied territory and thus demonstrate to Germany the willingness of the allies to repose trust in her sincerity and honesty of purpose. It may, in this connection, be stated that Germany has so far faithfully fulfilled all the obligations imposed upon her by the Dawes Plan, which has reduced her Reparation payments from 6650 million sterling at which they were fixed by the Versailles Treaty to 2500 millions, and manifests a scrupulous intention of meeting all further obligations also in the same spirit, and that she insists on the evacuation of the Rhineland Zone on the ground that America may be willing to consider the war-debt payments due to her from England and France in a liberal and broadminded spirit actuated by a desire to lessen the pressure on Germany from these two creditors. Britain and France have at first repudiated all talk of American intervention and wished to negotiate demobilization of the Rhineland Army quite independently of what America may wish to do. That is the thin end of the wedge, which exposes in a thorough manner the unconciliatory attitude of the West European Powers. But it is gratifying to note that what the diplomats have failed to achieve, because diplomacy always runs a tortuous course, the financiers have accomplished; and a satisfactory compromise on this question between the till-lately-irreconcilable views of German, British and French Governments seems to be in sight.

IX

Among the Powers of Europe that make no secret of their real in ward feeling and that do not indulge in diplomatic rodomontade, but which speak straight and clear, the most prominent one is Italy, dominated by Signor Mussolini. He is the ‘strong man’ of Europe now, one who does not mince his words and who will not say what he does not intend to do. Italy has signed the Kellog-Pact "for what it was worth", and not because she is under any illusions about its potentialities for peace in the present temper of the Nations. There are notorious differences of opinion between France and Italy in their Central European policy and each of them has been trying to overreach the other. From the published views of Signor Mussolini, it is permissible to conclude that he is out for a policy of extending Italian Colonial possessions to provide outlets for her growing population; and he cannot, by any understanding, national or international, be expected to abandon his plans of aggrandizement. No more strong condemnation of the attitude of the European Powers towards peace, and no more unequivocal declaration of the Italian position in regard to the Kellog-Pact, can be secured than that contained in a speech of Signor Arnoldo Mussolini, brother and right-hand man of the Italian Dictator, who is reported to have said that "if we want to be honest, we must say, that, in this Kellog-Pact, there is transparent insincerity. For Italy, therefore, a strong, well-armed force, which must be morally and technically re-organised, as the hand of destiny might come very suddenly, remains the best protection in the future as it was in the past." It may be recollected in this connection that Italy has since approved of the principle of the Naval Agreement between England and France, though she stipulated certain modifications in the document, which require the limitation of the total tonnage of vessels rather than the limitation of particular descriptions of war-craft. Italy has still to find her appropriate place in the sun, and a policy of peace, such as the Kellog-Pact postulates, cannot in the nature of circumstances commend itself to her acceptance. She has to fight it out, with her neighbors, and her adversaries, and she has been arming herself for that purpose both on land and on sea, Kellog-Pact or no Kellog-Pact.

X

Lastly, looked at from the point of view of India, there is absolutely no cause for us in this country to feel exultant over the signature of the Kellog Peace Treaty. For one thing, while all the other Dominions of the British Empire were represented at the ceremony of solemnizing the conclusion of the Pact by the respective Prime-Ministers or accredited plenipotentiaries, the great ‘Dependency’ of India alone was relegated to a second-rate position and was represented by Lord Cushendon, the Acting British Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It cannot be construed in any other spirit than as a calculated insult hurled at India, for her to be represented by a British Minister, and for her High Commissioner in London to be left uninvited to sign the Pact on her behalf. India is being lulled into a false somnolence on the one hand by pious pronouncements of her ‘equality’ of status and bamboozled on the other into accepting a subordinate position in matters and on occasions that really count. For another thing, India in her internal administration is too heavily saddled with Military expenditure to advance any pretence of a desire for Disarmament, while there is every indication that her Military burdens will aggravate instead of being curtailed in the near future. With an increasing Military budget, designed in the interests of Imperialism and with no Naval armaments to boast of, India is in a very false and unreal position, even though the people are all for world Disarmament and renunciation of war for all times. Even without the Kellog-Pact, India and her people can be reckoned as valuable assets on the side of international peace and concord; and the Pact is to them only a practical, concrete manifestation of her inward feelings and sentiments. The signing of the Peace Treaty by Lord Cushendon on India's behalf is however an insult and an injury which has roused India to a pitch of resentment, which it will take a long time to appease.

XI

The lesson of all the indications and tendencies enumerated above is quite plain. It is neither wise nor prudent to construct extensive expectations on the signature of the Peace- Pact. The document is undoubtedly a notable one and the signing of it may be considered a great event, and it may perhaps have something like a profound effect, even upon those Nations, whose activities are not altogether favourable for world-peace. The people of the United States and especially Mr. Kellog, deserve commendation for the initiative and enthusiasm with which they have set about the business of securing acceptance for a document of the character of the Pact, though it has, of course, to run the gauntlet of the United States of America Senate still. The United States is a fast growing colonising and commercial Power with far-reaching interests in the securing of a favourable atmosphere for her policy of prospective exploitation of her undeveloped neighbors, and for that end, for bringing about a new orientation of her Monroe Doctrine. It is, therefore, a matter of the utmost necessity for her to cultivate the friendship of other big Powers, who may be expected to sympathise with her in her aspirations by reason of the similarity of aims and objective between them; and what more natural or profitable course could she adopt than the appearance before the world as a messenger of peace, good-will and concord? The message of peace is to the war-weary world, what a cooling shower is to the scorched soil of a desert–a very welcome and joyful thing. Peace had been talked about for the last ten years, but real peace has not been possible of attainment; and it is only an armed truce, one that is based upon the superior strength of other Nations, that has subsisted up till now. The United States of America has seized the opportunity with consummate adroitness and has turned it to its own advantage by pushing itself again into the limelight. Almost every country that counts in international politics has assented to the principles of the Pact and has solemnly sworn to abjure war. If they are not sincere in their asseverations, or if it is more than evident that they are simply hobnobbing with the idea of peace, the blame or the discredit rests on them alone and not upon America. It may be that the European Nations are silently arming themselves to the teeth; it may be that they are concluding clandestine agreements to perpetuate a condition of mutual distrust among themselves; it may be that the bigger Nations look upon the smaller ones with the utmost condescension and that they utilize them, whenever it suits them, as pawns in the chess-board in international rivalry; it may be that they do not stop to enter into a subtle argument on the ethics of aggressive and defensive wars, when it comes to a question of their own national safety–it may be all this, but at the same time it may also be that the moral effect producible by the signing of the Peace-Treaty will be so considerable, that Nations would think twice before plunging into a conflict and involving the world in a disastrous welter. This is the correct perspective from which the Pact has got to be viewed; it is an instrument of peace only so far, and to the extent to which, such Pacts can serve as instruments of peace–that is to say, it becomes what the signatories make it. The peace situation today, to all intents and purposes, is possibly worse than what it was ten years ago, and the next war to which probably we are precipitately heading will, in the view of competent experts be a war, which will prove the destruction of civilization. The aerial demonstrations that recently took place in England and France in the course of which it was shown what a tremendous annihilating power is possessed by the Air Fleets of European Nations, is a certain indication of what we are for, if war breaks out. One wonders how, in the face of all these indubitable signs, the Nations who signed the Kellog-Pact could conscientiously say that they are all ‘convinced’ that they were all engaged in the ‘humane endeavour’ of banishing war as a contingent instrument of their national policy for the future. The only hope for humanity is of course in the realisation of the ideals of the Kellog-Pact; and humanity can only pray that it be given to the statesmen and rulers of the world to undertake a thoroughly honest and sincere attempt at peace, lasting peace, and belie the strongly grounded suspicion of their peaceful intents. There is nothing that cannot be accomplished by an inflexible determination; and if, therefore, there is a real determination on the part of Nations to renounce war, it can be affirmed that there is not a question, the question of Disarmament included, which cannot be satisfactorily tackled by arbitration and mutual adjustment. We look in vain for this ‘change of heart,’ a change which can alone be capable of dissipating humanity's fears. The Kellog-Pact aims at effectuating this moral metamorphosis, and its success, which depends upon such uncertain and flimsy foundations as the world-situation presents today, looks very precarious indeed.