RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1929, Page 8

RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

MR MACDONALD’S STATEMENT. LONDON, July 18. In reply to a question in the House of Commons, Mr A. Henderson, the Foreign 'Secretary, said that the Soviet Government had not approached his Majesty’s Government through any channel, but an invitation for a responsible representative of the -Soviet. Government to , visit London in order to discuss the most expeditious procedure for reaching a settlement of outstanding questions had been sent to the Soviet Government through tiie Norwegian Government. Sir A. Chamberlain (Birmingham, W., U.) asked the Prime Minister whether, as papers were laid and an opportunity afforded to the House to express its opinion before diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government were broken off, he would afford the House a like opportunity of expressing its opinion before they were resumed.

A similar question was put by Commander 0. Locker-Lampson (Birmingham, Handsworth, U.). Mr MacDonald (Prime Minister): I have personally examined the procedure of 1927.' Certain papers were laid before the debate of May 28, 1927, on the Arcos raid, but not before the late Government bad taken action and carried out the raid. His Majesty’s Government would certainly propose, to lay papers on the subject of the resumption of diplomatic relations with, the Soviet Government as soon as possible, and' the appropriate time will, presumably, be when the correspondence has reached some issue. It will be within the recollection of the right hon. gentleman that in 1927 the debate was asked for, and granted after the decision of the Government had becto taken. If the right hon. gentleman has in mind that we should follow precisely what was done by our piedeccssors in 1927, that is exactly what I have in my mind also. MR BALDWIN’S PRECEDENT. Sir A. Chamberlain: Do wo understand that the right hon. gentleman 1 will complete his negotiations, make , his decision, and lay papers, but vill ! not take the final step until this ' Hou.se has been given an opportunity of expressing an opinion? Is it not a fact that Mr Baldwin told the House of our intention to break off diplomatic, relations and announced that that would be done if the House 1 did not express a contrary opinion 'on a day lately in the week which was named? , ■ Mr MacDonald: The 1927 situation was practically,' I think, as the right hon. gentleman has stated ’t. The Government pursued .its equities and came l;o its conclusions, and then the Prime, Minister stated to the House that) after a certain date, the decision would lie effective unless the House decided otherwise. lliat is exactly what I propose to do.— (Opposition cheers.) Commander ~ 'O. • Locker-Lampson . Are we likely to have a debate before the House breaks up? Mr MacDonald: No; it is not at all likely. Commander 0. Locker-Lampson: Then they will come in without any discussion at all?—(Cries of ‘No. ) Mr Lloyd George (Carnarvon Boroughs, L.): Does than mean that, if the negotiations, between his Majesty’s Government and the Soviet Government are not concluded before wo separate], the representatives of the Soviet Government will not be admitted to this country until October or November? I do not suggest it. Mr MacDonald: it means that any conclusion that his Majesty’s Government may come to cannot become effective until it lias been debated in this House. —(Opposition cheers.) SOVIET UNDERTAKINGS. Commander O. Locker-Lampson asked whether that meant that the Prime Minister wished to dodge.— (Ministerial cries of “Order.”) Mr Smithers asked the Prime Minister whether he still adhered to the statement of principles which he laid down in his Note ,on the Zinovieff letter; and, before making an agreement as to .the resumption of diplomatic relations with the Soviet Government, would he take steps to satisfy the House that, in accordance with his statement of principle, those undertakings could bo carried out both in the letter and in the spirit, and that the Soviet Government had the power to carry’ out any such agreement. Mr MacDonald: The circumstances in which the Note of October 24, 1924, was sent to the Russian representative in London have previously been explained to the House, and I do not propose again to refer to that point. As regards the principle laid down in that Note, I have not.li•nig. to add to the statement which 1 made during the course of the debate on July 2, 1929. With regard to the Tuture, the position was explained by my right lion, friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on July 5, 1929, and I have nothing to add to that explanation.