Relations with Russia.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16854, 7 June 1920, Page 6

Relations with Russia.

It is obvious from the long cable mes-s-age which we printed 011 Saturday that the opponents of a. settlement with Russia do not intend to go down without a bitter struggle. The campaign against a settlement, which is desired by the Governments of Britain, Italy, and America, is in Britain, led by "The Times," which has maintained an extremely violent hostility to everything] that can be construed into a suggestion j that possibly Russia might- be allowed j to settle her own internal troubles and ; to trade v.ith the rest r,f the world, j Exactly what "The Times" has in mind as a good practical policy is not quite clear, but it appears to bo convinced that Britain's duty is to wage war oil Russia and encourage everyone else to do so. Experience has demonstrated very plainly that there is nothing now to bo gained by war with the Soviet Government. "War on the full scale is i out of the question,, and war on any smaller scale merely costs lives and money, creates new dangers, and achieves positively nothing at all. Nothing did more to strengthen the Moscow 'Government than the support given by the Allies to the "patriotic" Russian movements, as they have been called. Official French opinion has been as intransigent as "The TiAics,'' but otherwise it is almost generally agreed that- Russia should be left to work outfits own problems. And there is very little doubt that even if the Soviet Government docs not altogether disappear in the process, Bolshevism will survive only in a very greatly modified form. A settlement with Moscow is advocated not only by Socialists and Radicals of all hinds, but by men and newspapers whose opinions are diametrically opposed to Bolshevism. The mission of M. Ivrassin to London brings Britain definitely face to face with the task of coming to a final decision regarding. RusSia. This - member of the Soviet Government—he is Commissar of Transport —is undoubtedly a very able man, and has done a great deal to repair the .decay into which Russian transport had fallen. In the course of an interview given to a ( correspondent of the "Manchester '• " Guardian' 1 in March last, he said that J his visit to England was necessitated by the crushing of Germany, which ] could no longer supply Russia with the ' { machinery necessary for development. At the present time Russia has great < stocks of raw materials, hut is without • the means of transporting them to her 1 own factories, much less abroad. He 1 explained the situation in the following words:— |

"We want locomotives first, but we also want railways, rail-making factories, and so oik For building these things we arc willing to pay in further concessions. _ Thus, we are willing to pay for building coal mines in the Kuznetsk district by giving the right to take for export the coal of that district, we to receive a definite proportion of that coal. We want graphite. Very good. Let some Englishman establish a graphite factory in a district where there is-raw. material and pay us for the construction of the railways. Wfc shall pay by handing over for exploitation tho forest areas through which the railway passes. Similarly with fish and other factories. We also have concessions to offer, the products of which could be exported by river and so through the Kara Sea.. These conoes-' sions would be given on condition that Russian laws for tho protection of labour and for the protection of fisheries and forests from destructive exploitation are observed by the concessionaires as bv ourselves."

When he was asked to consider the possibility that Britain and America might bo unable or univilling to give the assistance required, lie replied: "So "much the worse for them, for it will " mean further postponement of the day " when Russian raw material again bo- " comes available for Europe." He admitted tlie dire need of his country, j Without outside aid, ho said, Russia [•would be able to but it would bo a case of "crawling out of the abyss "011 all fours." According to "The "Times," doubts exist as to the expediency and the morality of dealings with the Soviet Government-. On the point of expediency, we should have thought there is little room for doubt. As to the morality of selling machinery to M. Ivrassiu, the case is not so clear. Britain cannot, however, go on for ever treating Russia as a leper, and in any case a policy of boycott will only prolong the Soviet regime, " for Russia's chance of escape from that regime depends upon the restoration of her economic health. Nor need Britain fear that she will be receiving ''stolen goods" or stolen gold in payment for her supplies. She can insist upon an adjustment by Russia of her foreign debts as a condition of trade, and with the internal finances of Russia she has naturally nothing to do. The only practical question is the question of safeguards.