by Oui
Mon Apr 4th, 2022 at 10:28:41 AM EST
... United States Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French foreign minister Aristide Briand. The pact was concluded outside the League of Nations and remains in effect.
h/t fjallstrom
Love that statement ☹
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
A PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS a Treaty between the President of the United States Of America, the President of the German Reich, His Majesty the King of the Belgians, the President of the French Republic, His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, His Majesty the King of Italy, His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, the President of the Republic of Poland, and the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, providing for the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, was concluded and signed by their respective Plenipotontiaries at Paris on the twenty-seventh day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, the original of which Treaty, being in the English and
the French languages, is word for word as follows:
THE PRESIDENT OF THE GERMAN REICH, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF THE BELGIANS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF GREAT BRITAIN IRELAND AND THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, EMPEROR OF INDIA, HIS MAJESTY THE KING OF ITALY, HIS MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF JAPAN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND THE PRESIDENT OF THE CZECHOSLOVAK REPUBLIC,
Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind;
Persuaded that the time has, come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;
Convinced 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, and that any signatory Power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war a should be denied the benefits furnished by this Treaty;
Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavor and by adhering to the present Treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;
Have decided to conclude a Treaty and for that purpose have appointed as their respective
Plenipotentiaries:
...
The true earlier efforts for peace came from women organizations sick and tired of their husbands going off to war, even before the outbreak of World War I. Women's suffragettes was a beneficial result just as during World War II in America women entered the workplace and never could be banished to return to the kitchen and a strict role of housewife. The revolutions wars made happen ...
Social Justice Feminists in the United States and Germany: A Dialogue in Documents, 1885-1933
Women's Suffrage Archive Film Clip May 1915
Meet Miss Jane Addams from Chicago in Berlin with Von Hindenburg's army at the front.
Addams, along with Aletta Jacobs and Alice Hamilton, walk in Berlin with the Brandenburg Gate in the background. Addams briefly shakes hands with filmmaker Wilbur H. Durborough and continues towards the camera. The silent film is a 12-second excerpt from Durborough's documentary On the Firing Line with the Germans, released in 1916.
Many documents are available in the archive of the Carnegie Peace Palace in The Hague ... or National Archives in Washington DC.
The Breakthrough that never was: German Plans for an Offensive on the Western Front - 1915
Publications League of Nations
Russia: Expect No Showdowns At G8 Summit | RFERL – July 14, 2006 |
Not long ago it looked like the G8 summit might become a Cold War-style showdown, with Washington accusing Moscow of bullying its neighbors, backsliding on democracy, and using energy as a weapon. But as the St. Petersburg summit approaches, a confrontation looks less likely.
Not long ago prominent U.S. politicians were calling on President George W. Bush to confront Russia on these issues at the G8, or to boycott the summit altogether.
Cheney Goes On The Offensive
Speaking at a conference in Vilnius in May, U.S. President Dick Cheney was uncompromising in his criticism of President Vladimir Putin's Russia.
"In Russia today, opponents of reform are seeking to reverse the gains of the last decade," Cheney said. "In many areas of civil society, from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties, the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive and could begin to affect relations with other countries."
It looked like a harbinger of a new era of confrontation between the United States and Russia. U.S. legislators, including Arizona Senator and one-time presidential hopeful John McCain, called on Bush to at the very least get tough with Putin at the St. Petersburg summit -- or to boycott the event altogether.
But in the weeks since, such tough talk seems to have receded.
Carlos Pascual, a scholar with the Brookings Institution [panel discussion preview G8 in Russia – C-Span] and a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, says that Cheney's speech was designed to send a message to Russia that Washington was concerned about Moscow's backsliding on democracy and its manipulation of separatist conflicts in Abkhazia, North Ossetia, and Transdnistri.
But at the same time the United States needs Russia's help on a series of other major issues like the escalating nuclear crises in Iran and North Korea -- and this limits Washington's ability to pressure Moscow.
What's Important And What's On The Back Burner
"A higher level of priority is nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, the energy agenda with Europe and Ukraine, how Russia uses its energy policy toward its neighbors, what kind of agreement we might be able to get on Iran and if Russia is going to play a constructive role on that," Pascual said. "Those are the No. 1 issues. The frozen conflicts are important, but they are not at the top of anyone's agenda within the administration."
At the same time, Pascual said soaring energy prices have given Russia flexibility and confidence that it has not had since the breakup of the Soviet Union. This has limited the United States' ability to influence Russia's behavior.
"The real issue becomes once you have had experience working with Russia on these kinds of issues and have been trying to achieve a positive agenda, what are the most effective tools to be able to get there," he said. "In the real environment we live in today, Russia has a tremendous tool at its disposal: oil and gas with oil at $70 a barrel."
Today's confident Russia bears little resemblance to the pliant and financially strapped counterpart the United States grew accustomed to dealing with in the 1990s.
Return of the Bear? The Extent of Russian Revisionism as Applied to Oil and Gas Machinations | May 2009 |
See my post The Meteoric Rise of Servant of the People
New diary: Zelensky A Leader Failed to Rise from the Ashes
A follow-up diary from the presidential election of 2019 …
Ukraine MP election: Removing Oligarchs ... Some | Jul 21st, 2019 |
Inside Macron’s Russia Initiative | Project Syndicate – Oct. 2019 |
French President Emmanuel Macron is one of those leaders who wants to bend the arc of history. Having upended French politics, he has secured positions for his preferred candidates at the head of the European Commission and the European Central Bank, and is now trying to improve Europe’s relationship with Russia.
French officials are comparing Macron’s Russia strategy to US President Richard Nixon’s opening of China in 1972. But Macron’s diplomatic overture is more like Nixon in reverse. Rather than wooing China in order to contain the Soviets, Macron wants to “ease and clarify [Europe’s] relations with Russia” in order to prevent Russia from cozying up to China. In so doing, he hopes to secure Europe’s control over its own future.
Macron launched his bid for a new security architecture in a typically grandiose fashion, mirroring the urban planner Georges-Eugène Haussmann’s project to redesign Paris in the nineteenth century. His first move was to hold talks with Putin in France’s Fort de Brégançon before the August G7 summit in Biarritz. But the French ministers charged with implementing the plan have since turned it on its head.
Now, rather than starting with a top-down agenda, they are trying to build European security from the bottom up, while pursuing improved relations with Russia one brick at a time. The French roadmap focuses on five key areas: disarmament, security dialogue, crisis management, values, and common projects.
Dialogue was torpedoed by war hawks in Washington DC with their allies of Eastern Europe. The alliance preferred confrontation … they got there war and the common man is paying the price. Not for our “freedom” BS, but for a new round or armaments.
French intelligence was faulty, yet Macron was the single leader in the Western Atlantic alliance to pursue talks and a diplomatic route to prevent war.
Something just doesn’t add up …
What Went Wrong with Macron’s Diplomacy vis à vis Russia?
Will Russia Be Driven From the West? | The Nation - Sep 18, 2019
American opponents of readmitting Moscow to the former G8 fail to understand the consequences. By Stephen F. Cohen
Two years ago, I asked, “Will Russia Leave the West?”
The world’s largest territorial country—sprawling from its major European city St. Petersburg to its vast Far Eastern territories and long border with China—Russia cannot, of course, depart the West geographically. But it can do so politically, economically, and strategically. Indeed, where Russia belongs, where it should seek its identity, security, and future—in the East or in the West—has divided the nation’s policy-makers and intellectual elites for centuries.
In our times, as I also pointed out two years ago, a Russia departed, or driven, from the West would likely mean “a Russia—with its vast territories, immense natural resources, world-class sciences, formidable military and nuclear power, and UN Security Council veto—allied solidly with all the other emerging powers that are not part the US-NATO Western ‘world order’ and even opposed to it. And, of course, it would drive Russia increasingly afar from the West’s liberalizing influences, back toward its more authoritarian traditions.”
That’s why the controversy provoked by President Trump (and French President Emmanuel Macron) in seeking that Russia be readmitted to the G7/8, from which it was in effect expelled in 2014 for its annexation of Crimea, is so important—and so uninformed. Purportedly, the (now) G7 is the elite club of prosperous functioning democracies. In reality, Russia under President Boris Yeltsin was neither when it was admitted in 1997. The decision was political—to assure Moscow that Russia was welcome in the West and indeed part of it, potentially including its security arrangements.
Expelling Russia sent the opposite message, as did moving the metaphorical “Iron Curtain” from Berlin to Russia’s border through a myriad of other exclusions and sanctions. And as did, above all, expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, the exceedingly unwise policy begun by President Bill Clinton and continued under President Obama. The result has already been two wars, in Georgia in 2008 and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and a Russian-Chinese relationship so close and expansive that its current leaders refer to each other as “best friends.” (Having come to power in 2000 as a pro-Western modernizer, Putin’s own evolution in response to these developments should be clear to any fair-minded observer.)
Underpinning these Washington follies was the notion, also promoted by President Obama and apparently still widespread in the sanction-happy US Congress, that Russia could and should be “isolated” in world affairs. Suffice it to point out that today it is said that the United States is being isolated in international relations. Meanwhile, Russia’s seemingly tireless foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, may be busier diplomatically than any of his counterparts around the world, certainly among the major powers.
Little if any of this seems to be understood by the US political-media establishment. Astonishingly, though perhaps not, US-Russian relations, still Washington’s single most important bilateral relationship, not only because of their nuclear arsenals, was not an issue in the recent Democratic presidential debates.
Slavic Studies Scholars Condemn Putin’s Ukraine Invasion | Feb. 26, 2022 |
Lastly, I cannot help but mention here the work of the late Stephen F. Cohen, whose controversial views on US policy toward Ukraine led him to be unfairly targeted as “Putin’s lackey” and provoked a disturbing controversy in the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies that long-time readers of this blog may recall (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). When it came out I found Cohen’s final book, War with Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, a collection of his political commentary over the preceding decade, eye-opening, but surely unduly alarmist. Maybe I should read it again.
