BRITISH POLITICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 24 November 1924, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

/IXHVIKKrS I.KTTKI!

BRITISH CABINET VERDICT. [Reuters Telegrams.] LONDON. Nov. 82. The Foreign Secretary, in a note to M. Rakovsky. regarding the Zinovielf letter, states that ho (Rakovsky) had undertaken to declare, apparently upon internal evidence alone, and without allowing time for reference to Moscow that the Zinovielf letter was a gross forgery, in support of which ho (Rakovsky) had alleged that the Communist International was never described in its “own circulars” as “the Third Communist International,” also that Zinovielf never signs as “President Presidium. Executive Committee, of the Communist International.” ■ 110 had further alleged that the whole contents arc a tissue of absurdities. Continuing, the Foreign Secretary Mr Austen Chamberlain says: “His Majesty’s Hovernment cannot accept these assertions, which are disproved by reference to official publications and to the Soviet press.”

The note continues: “But it is 1111liecesse.iy to enter into details. because tlie inforiiuitiou in imssessi.ni oi His Ma jesty’s < lovernment leaves no doubt in their minds of authenticity of the Zinovielf letter. Therefore they are not prepared to discuss the matter. Von misanpreiietid the elm meter of the representations of mv predecessors, if you sU|ij)"sed that tle-v dealt with M. Zinovicir’s letter only. Ihe activities of which His Majesty’s Hovernment complain are not confin 'd to that particular letter, but extend to tile whole body of revolutionary propaganda of which this letter K a fair six-eimen, which sometimes is conducted secretly, and sometimes as you rightly remark, is imeoneealed. The pronouncements of the Zinovielf broadcast throughout the world are. in themselves sufficient evidence of the propaganda in which the Third International, with the knowledge of the Soviet Hovernment, has continually indulged, and this system, in the view of His Majesty’s (Jovcrnmeiit. is inconsist-mt with the solemn undertakings of your Hovernment in ' (lie note of October 21 til. to Mr MacDonald.” Mr Chamberlain observes that nobodv who understands the constitution and the relationships of the Communists’ International will doubt its intimate connection and contact with the Soviet Hoverineent.

lie further observes that “no Hovernment can ever tolerate an arrangement with a foreign Hovernment whereby the latter is in formal displomatie relations at the same time a propagandist body which is organically connected with that Foreign Hovernment, encourages, and even orders the sulrjects of the former to plot and plan revolutions for its overthrow. This is true, and the Soviet Hovernment will do well to weigh carol ally the consequences of ignoring this pronouncement.