711.4112Anti-War/144
The British Ambassador (Howard) to the Secretary of State
My Dear Mr. Secretary: During our conversation of yesterday you asked me to let you have privately a short statement of the objections of His Majesty’s Government to a provision being incorporated in the Multilateral Treaty renouncing War by which provision any contracting Parties should be liberated from their obligations towards one of their number that might become “involved in war”.
His Majesty’s Government inform me that they would not consider this formula acceptable because it is too wide.
It does not seem logical that the obligations of the other Parties towards one of them should be terminated unless that one has broken the Treaty and a State may well become “involved in war” without having broken the Treaty.
His Majesty’s Government feel that if the suggested provision were adopted the Treaty might easily be destroyed, for instance in the case of a Contractant being attacked by a non-Signatory State. It would not greatly advance the cause of peace or disarmament if the Contracting Powers are to be informed that in case of attack by one of their co-contractants they would also be liable to attack by the others. This would appear however to be the logical sequence of the adoption of the provision relating to signatories who become “involved in war”.
I remain [etc.]