• David, how to you think the United States should remember the Kellogg-Briand Pact?

  • David, when the U.S. and other powers wage war, they regularly invoke the right of self-defense as the justification. Didn’t this concept figure in the process of ratifying the Kellogg-Briand Pact? Has it been the “exception that swallows the rule” ever since?

  • David, you portray a number of fascinating figures in your book. Are there any of them you think could serve as a positive role for politicians and antiwar advocates today?

  • There are actually a small, but respectable number of voices in both the Senate and House who have raised questions, Jane. Think of Congressman Walter Jones from North Carolina, for instance, a very conservative Republican, and a half dozen Democrats. But I was focusing on the candidates for president, because they seem to “command the stage” in the media these days.

  • Among international law scholars there has been a tendency to cite Kellogg-Briand’s band on war as a means of accomplishing national policy as merely hortatory or aspirational because no enforcement mechanism was provided in the treaty, and even after World War II, when the opportunity was clearly present, there was enormous reluctance on the party of the victorious powers to pursue “wars of aggression” charges at Nuremberg and at the Tokyo Tribunal. How do peace advocates use the Kellogg-Briand precedent in light of this?

  • David,

    Here’s an opener for you.

    It’s amazing that last year with the U.S. enmeshed in a record three (or at least two and a half) wars–Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya–hardly a voice on the national political stage could be heard questioning war, and, indeed, in the presidential campaign only a single voice: that of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. He now routinely opens his campaign stump speech excoriating G.O.P. foreign policy dogma from the last two decades, calling the wars a tragic mistake, and pleading with his listeners to view the whole situation from the perspective of the average Iraqi or Afghan. Yet Ron Paul is widely attacked in the mainstream media as “unelectable” and as a “nutter” precisely because of his views about war-making. To what extent do you see echos of the Republicans of the Coolidge era–like Kellogg and Borah–in Ron Paul’s rhetoric? To what extent do you think this sort of reticence about the use of military force–usually derided as “isolationism” in the U.S. media–might be making a comeback among Republicans?