RUSSIAN RELATIONS

Hokitika Guardian, 25 February 1927, Page 2

RUSSIAN RELATIONS

BRITAIN’S THREAT

[Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.]

LONDON, February 23.

The “ Daily News ” says that diplomatic and political circles interpret the note to Russia as a final warning from Britain that any fresh offence will he instantly seized upon as an excuse for a complete rupture. Ihe truth, it says, is that the Government’s continued resistance to Parliamentary pressure has become impossible, anti it is generally assumed that the Aloscow Government will not tail to provide the incident which the Government are now awaiting. LONDON. February 23. Opinions on Fir Austen Chamberlain’ note to Russia are curiously mixed. The “.Morning Post” favours stronger measures against the Soviet, but significantly says that it does not join in the crusade against Sir Austen Chamberlain, the Foreign Office and the Government. This, it says, is partly because the agitation in question covers rather a transparent and altogether unworthy political intrigue,• and partly because it is advisable to support the Government in the time of a crisis, hut chiefly because we believe that the Foreign Office is not lukewarm, but that it is resolved to take its own time.”

The “ Daily Telegraph,’’ ill a Mailing article commends the note. Its Parliamentary correspondent: says: “ The view of the Foreign Office has been that the Bolshevists should have another chance, but there is comment in the Parliamentary Lobby that the language of the Note is not so definite as could he desired.”

The “ Daily Chronicle's ” political correspondent similarly records that the “diehards” are disappointed with the feebleness of the Note. Nevertheless. it says, this warning to the Soviet is final and it indicates that Air Baldwin. Sir Austen Chamberlain. Lord Salisbury. Lord Robert Cecil and Lord Balfour have been beaten by Air Churchill, Lord Birkenhead, Sir AY. Jovnson flicks and Air Amery.”

The “ Daily Chronicle ” says editoriallv : “Those who preac-li breaking oft relations and expelling the Reds should he asked seriously whether they want another great war! Britain should counter Russian propaganda in China and in Asia generally by better propaganda of her own.” The “Daily Herald” says: “The relations between Britain and the Soviet have been a history, not of diplomacy, hut of hack chat, at which Air Churchill. Lord Birkenhead and Sir AY. Jovsoii Hicks are equal to any.” The " Times” says: " The note is a strong document, hut it is too much to expect,that it will produce the impression desired. The only effective answer would he a revolutionary change in the whole policy of the Soviet Government towards Britain.”

The “Daily Alail ”■ describes the Note as “ a display of feebleness and funk, which will make the blood of every self-respecting Briton tingle in his veins.”

Tlie “Westminster Gazette ” savts: “ AYe do not want to drift alone into something more serious than a diplomatic breach.”

REASON FOR NOTE. LONDON. February 23

The note from the British Government to Russia says that the relation between J-lis Alnjesty's Government and the Soviet Government continue notoriously to he of an unsatisfactory nature. Jt recalls that the Soviet on June -Ith, 1923, solemnly signed an agreement not to support persons or institutions aiming at spreading discontent or fomenting rebellion in any part of the British Empire, and it further recalls Air Ramsay AlacDonald’s note to AL Rakovsky of October 2-tth, 1924, warning the Soviet that no Government could tolerate an arrangement by which a propagandist body, organically connected with a foreign Government with which Britain was in formal, correct diplomatic relations, encouraged, and even ordered, the subjects of that foreign Government to plot and plan revolutions for the overthrow of Britain. However, despite Air AlacDonald’s warning it has been necessary for Sir Austen Chamberlain, on more than one occasion, to draw the attention of the Soviet representatives in England to a continuous breach of this solemn engagement. So long as the present rulers of the Union of Soviet Republics—be they technically members of the Government or members of the Political Bureau which is the real dominating authority of the Union, or be its ambassadors abroad — persist in making public utterances m defamation of Great Britain, or in advocacy of world revolution, then no improvement is possible. The British Government must, therefore, again call attention to Mr AlacDonald’s warning.

The note points out that this public attitude of men m high positions in Russia if. totally inconsistent with the profession of goodwill given privately by the representatives of the Soviet Government in England. THE CHARGES MADE.

The British note to Russia, quotes inter alia, extracts from the speeches of the Soviet leadeer, Al. Bukharin,-at-tacking the British Empire, with special reference to China, which the note says, had recehcd the direct approval of the Soviet Government in a speech by Al. Bykov (President of the Soviet

People’s Commissars) on November 3

last. 11 is remarks and quotations are declared to illustrate the futility of the

pretence that the attacks on British interests in China are not instigated and not directed hy the Soviet Union. The note says His Majesty's Government has persistently striven for the promotion of world peace. The foregoing account of grievous outrages and injuries to British interests, committed hy. or through .the agency of the Union of Soviet Republics, shows what patience and forbearance in the face of repeated and almost unendur-

able provocation lias been shown by 11 is .Majesty’s Government in its desire to avoid any action which might still further embitter the public feeling on either side or might add to the

anxieties of other nations. The British Government, says the note, is not concerned in the domestic affairs of Russia, nor in its form of Government. All the British GovernI ment requires is that the Russian Government refrain from interference in purely British concerns, and shall abstain from hostile action or propaganda against British subjects; but the British Government consider it necessary to warn the Union of Soviet Republics, in the gravest terms, that there are limits beyond which it would he dangerous to drive the public opinion of the country, and that a continuance of such acts as are in this note complained of must, sooner or later, render, inevitable the abrogation of the trade agreements, the stipulations of which have been so flagrantly violated, and even a severance of the ordinary diplomatic relations. His Majesty’s Government trusts that this protest and warning will he received hy the Union of Soviet Republics. and that no further cause for complaint will be given. A PLAIN STATEAIENT.

The note to Russia cites instances, including Krnssin’s assurances, of the Soviet’s desire to remove the causes of the difficulty and establish friendly

relations, blit simultaneously a regular campaign of public slander and anti-British misrepresentation is proreeding in which not even a Commissai of Foreign Affairs could refrain from

anticipating. The note declares the British Government is aware of the delusion of Chichorin and his colleagues that Britain is continually plotting against the Soviets, and consequently lias not ceased to guide a policy of countries like Poland, Baltic States, and Persia into orientality directed against the Soviet and not a dispassionate examination of the facts. No assurances front Britain availed to dispel the obsession which is as illogical as it is unfounded. The note declares Chichorin himself in a particularly hostile speech at Berlin on December Oth openly displayed a preference for had over good sources of information, notably a misquotation from a. British periodical. The same; _ credulity and hostility was shown by'J the AA'ar Commissar Yorashilof, in a speech to the Soviet army on September 17th.

The note quotes a statement attributed to Ketneneff to the effect that the Communist Party were unduly paying attention to internal welfare instead ,of concentrating on revolution in foreign countries and finally even the more aggressive hostility of Bukharin addressing the party executive at Aloscow in October last year, expressing the opinion that a victorious Chinese revolution would find immediate echo in India. The English miners’ strike and national, revolution in China seem the chief spots for the Soviet to apply its efforts. Other citations relate to the speech of Karakhan, Ambassador at- Peking, and several Russian newspapers. All the complaints are given in the course of several pages of appendices.

The note declares Britain does not intend embarking on a controversy regarding these incontrovertible facts.