Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1929 THE SOVIET'S PERNICIOUS POLICIES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 31 July 1929, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 1929 THE SOVIET'S PERNICIOUS POLICIES

THE Russian Communists' desire to promote world-wide revolution finds its expression not only in the machinations of tlio Third International, but in the foreign policy of the Moscow Government. While the" Third International is fomenting trouble throughout Europe, with a view to promoting Communist risings in the Continent's principal cities, on Ist August, the Moscow Government is working sedulously to extend tho evolution of the "Eurasian" conception of the Soviet Union and policy which was outlined by Lenin, and is being put into practice by Stalin, with little success so far in Europe, but with considerable success in at least a part of Asia. That policy's object is to form in tho two Continents a largo number of Soviets which shall ultimately be linked up with tho great Soviet Republic which is ruled from Moscow. This explains the Chinese "Government's action in Manchuria, from which all the Soviet Government's agonts and officials have been expelled. It explains the promulgation by the Viceroy of India of an Act for dealing drastically with Russian agents in India, after the Assembly had refused to endorse that necessary and patriotic measure. In some measure it explains the recent and existing troubles in Afghanistan, since the Soviet's "Eurasian" policy has created a spirit of unrest in the countries of Central Asia, and the Near East which lie between Russia and India.

Since the Great War ended there have been three great political movements striving for supremacy in thoso countries, all of them Mohamedan. There has been the movement of the Soviet Government, which has been referred to; there has been the movement, 'begun by Mustapha Kemal Pasha in Turkey, for forming strong national governments by curtailing the power of the mullahs, and adopting much of the political and social systems of the Western nations; and there has been the movement to uphold and perpetuate the conservatism and orthodoxy of Islam. In Turkey westernisation triumphed because Mustapha Kemal Pasha's strong personality was able to defy opposition; in Afghanistan it failed, because King Amanullah was not as strong as the mullahs. In Persia the conservatism and orthodoxy of Islam have prevailed. Only in Turkestan and Central Asia has the Soviet izing process been successful, and then only after tho gravest defeat of Moscow's endeavour to impose its autocracy on nomadic Kirghiz and Turcoman peoples. To-day Turkestan and Central Asia are divided into several comparatively weak republics which are loosely linked up with the Russian Soviet Republic. Beyond that the Moscow Government has not achieved much success, so far, in corrupting to its purposes the nations which lie between its territory and India.

That is the point which we wanted to make clear; that the buffer nations which lie between India and Russia, with the exception of the comparatively unimportant Kirghiz and Turcoman peoples, have not yet adopted the political system of the Soviet, and it is still possible for the British and Indian Governments to create with them such a good understanding that they may become a bulwark against Sovietism. King Amanullah was anti-British in policy and sentiment. He has gone. Afghanistan is to-day under the rule of tho bandit ruler Bacha-i-Sakao, who, if he retains power, is hardly likely to bend the knee to the Russian Government, since he numbers many friends among the robber chiefs who have harried the Soviets of Central Asia. It should surely be possible for Britain and India to form friendly relations with Riza Khan of Persia, who must feel small security in his political isolation and the proximity of Russian territory. Iraq of course is under mandate granted to Britain. There remains Turkey. Is it possible to restore those relations with Turkey which were so assiduously fostered by Disraeli? That relationship was based on the menace of Russia against Constantinople and Turkey generally; and although to-day the Russian Government may appear to have abandoned all desire to control the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, yet when it feels strong enough it doubtless will revert to the policy of the Czars which brought them frequently into antagonism with Turkey. Russia's policy is to corrupt all Asia with Sovietisrn. Britain's policy and that of the Indian Government should be lo form friendly relations with those States which lie between India and Russia—the traditional policy of the great Victorian statesmen of Britain and India. It remains lo be seen what altitude (he new British Government will adept towards this exceedingly important matter.