The Background of the Kellogg Proposal
(The writer of this article is the editor of the Christian Century, Chicago, and has played an active part in furthering the movement for ' the Renunciation of War " in the United States. Mr. Morrison is also the author of The Outlawry of War, described by Senator Borah as a comprehensive manual of the movement.—En. Spectator.] LIKE any other object or event, in nature or in history, the American proposal for the renunciation of war can be ade-
• quately understood only in the light of its origin. British public opinion is generally informed as to the immediate circumstances which occasioned the Kellogg offer, but its deeper background in American peace discussion is not so well known. The immediate circumstances were, of course, the suggestion by M. Briand in a speech delivered on April 6th, 1927, that France and the United States should renounce war as an instrument of national policy between themselves. In June of that year this suggestion was embodied in a Draft Treaty and presented to the State Department at Washington. To this proposal Mr. Kellogg replied in his now celebrated Note of December 28th, accepting the French offer in principle, but suggesting that it be widened to include four other Powers —Great Britain, Japan, Germany, and Italy—and that upon its effectuation by these six Powers, it should be open to the signatures of all nations. Mr. Kellogg retained for the substantive text of the multilateral treaty almost the . exact language of the draft of M. Briand's proposed bilateral pact.
The readiness of the United States to make so astounding an offer can be accounted for only as one understands that the concept of renouncing war had already become familiar to American thought through the growth of the Outlawry of War movement in that country during the past five or six years. In his April speech, M. Briand connected his proposal with this movement when he said that " France would be willing to subscribe publicly with the United States to any mutual agreement tending to outlaw war, to use an American expres- sion, as between these two countries." When American attention was first directed to M. Briand's speech, Senator Borah, who had long been advocating the Outlawry of War, gave an interview to the Press in which he indicated a favour- able attitude toward the French proposal provided it were • widened to include the Powers then operating in Chinese waters—that is, Great Britain, Japan, and Italy, as well as the Governments of France and the United States. The Kellogg proposal of December 28th thus carried out the suggestion made in April by Senator Borah, the only addition being the inclusion of Germany among the signatories.
In the short period between the Briand speech in April and the formulation of the Briand Draft Treaty in June, Mr.. S. O. Levinson, chairman of the American Committee for .the Outlawry of War, visited France and had numerous conversations with political leaders and particularly with the Quai d'Orsay. His purpose was to assure French peace leaders that there already existed in America a substantial body of informed opinion favourable to the Outlawry of War, and thus io encourage the Foreign Office to follow up the casual suggestion of M. Briand by actually drafting a Treaty and presenting it to the United States for consideration. Mr. Levinson strongly emphasized his conviction that such a treaty should be characterized by great simplicity, brevity, and uncompromising forthrightness in its dealing with war, avoiding particularly the futile distinction between so-called " aggressive war " and "defensive war." Only such a treaty, he contended, could hope for approval by American public opinion or ratification by the Senate. The French draft presented to Mr. Kellogg in June, 1927, admirably reflected
these desiderata.
The Outlawry of War movement in the United States was
prepared to support this bilateral pact on the faith, expressed by M. Briand himself, that such an achievement would " furnish a solemn example to other peoples." It was believed that both France and the United States, having renounced war between themselves, would gladly negotiate -similar treaties with any and all other like-minded nations. But Secretary of State Kellogg recast the proposal at once into the terms of a multilateral treaty. What was there in
American public opinion which prompted Mr. Kellogg and justified him in thus converting the French offer for a special arrangement with the United States into a proposal for universal peace ?
The question takes us back more than ten years. The idea of abolishing war by outlawing the institution of war took form in the mind of Mr. Salmon 0. Levinson, a dis- tinguished attorney of Chicago, nearly two years before the League of Nations came into existence. lie gave his new idea its first public expression in a magazine article on March 9th, 1918, practically a year before the advent of the Covenant. In the same month, the eminent philosopher, Professor John Dewey, published an article which was the first of many subsequent contributions in support of Mr. Levin- son's proposal. After the Covenant of the League was laid before the Senate and the country, disclosing the fact that the Peace Settlement had done nothing to change the legal and institutional status of war, Mr. Levinson, up to that time an ardent supporter of President Wilson's peace efforts, began the development of his own concept in terms which he regarded as not only congenial to the best American tradition, but also effective against war. In a number of pamphlets and articles published from 1918 to 1926, he set forth in considerable detail the essence and programme of the Outlawry of War. Mr. Levinson is not only the father of the idea, but he has been the incomparable intellectual leader of the movement.
Among Mr. Levinson's earliest converts were the late Senator Knox, formerly Secretary of State under President Taft, and Senator Borah. Colonel Raymond Robins, a social worker for many years in Chicago's slums, took the lyceum and chautauqua platform for the new idea and proclaimed it to innumerable audiences in every State of the Union. The Rev. John Haynes Holmes, of New York, early identified himself with the movement, bringing to its support the magazine, Unity, of which he is the brilliant editor. Justice Florence Allen, of Ohio, the first woman to sit on the bench of a supreme court in the United States, who, in addition to her legal eminence, is a public speaker of power, made the Out- lawry of War the theme of hundreds of addresses to women's organizations in all parts of the country. The Christian Century had its share in the advocacy and interpretation of the proposal.
The popular interest in the idea dates from the introduction of a resolution in the United States Senate by Senator Borah in February, 1923, in which was embodied the full-orbed Outlawry programme. Waiting upon the education of public opinion, Senator Borah reoffered this resolution in three successive sessions of the Senate. It exerted a silent but cumulative stimulus upon public opinion It is important that British and European statesmanship shall look beyond the Kellogg proposal to the Borah resolution. The proposal to renounce war is but half of the proposal to outlaw war. It is the first half, the harder half, and certainly the larger half, but it is not the whole proposal. Senator Borah's resolution begins with the renunciation of war and goes on to provide an adequate international organization for the maintenance of peace, en organization consistent with the basic fact that war has been outlawed. The generic concept of such world organization is juridical rather than political. Senator Borah proposes a world court equipped with a code of the international laws of peace and clothed with affirmative jurisdiction. This is the other half of the Outlawry of War. It gives ample room for such arbitration, conciliation, and diplomatic mechanisms as now exist, and embraces also the pacific functioning of the League of Nations. But beyond all it sets a real world court, completely independent of any political agency whatsoever, and functioning for international disputes somewhat after the manner of the Supreme Court of the United States in disputes between the States of the Union. When once the renunciation of war has been effected it is safe, therefore, to presume that the United States will desire to go still further along the path of international co-operation which Mr. Kellogg's proposal has so auspiciously opened up.
CHARLF-S CLAYTON MORRISON.
Previous page
