RUSSIA’S REPLY.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 May 1922, Page 5

RUSSIA’S REPLY.

RECEIVED AT GENOA. I A BASIS FOR PEACE. PACT CAN PROCEED. DIFFICULT ASPECTS. By Telegraph.—Preas Assn—Copyright. Received May 12, 5.5 p.m. London, May 11. The Australian Press Association’s Genoa correspondent states that Tchitcherin (delegate of Russia) has handed Russia’s reply to the secretary of the Conference. On first reading it cannot be regarded as an entirely satisfactory document; but nevertheless it affords a reasonable basis for further negotiation. Its character is aueh that a discussion on a peace pact can be undertaken forthwith. There are two sides to it—the question of economics and the establishment of peace. The reply contains lengthy argument on the subject of private property and the Russian economic requirements. It is doubtful whether this can be discussed without necessitating delay, but the Russians are extremely desirous of securing peace, and in the British view this aide can be gone on with. PROBLEM OF DEBTS. The summary of the Russian reply confirms the preamble already cabled. It adds that the delegation cannot accept prohibition regarding propaganda unless forbidden by the law of the land. Russia will discuss with the Powers interested the request to refrain from disturbing the territorial or political status quo. Russia cannot be compelled to assume responsibilities to nationals of foreign Powers for the annulment of her public debts and the nationalisation of private property. A revolution is force majeure, and there is no obligation to compensate;./ but in a spirit of conciliation the principle of the Cannes resolution is accepted, and Russia accepts liability for public—but not war—debts, on condition that the losses caused by foreign war blockades are recognised. An Empire delegation has been summoned to analyse the Russian reply, which consists of about eight thousand words. The major portion is taken up with empty polemics, which make negotiations almost impossible. Most of the pages are about as valuable as paper roubles. Towards the end the Russ ans get to business, and with some claim to reason declare that the Allies’ memorandum asks Russia to take up serious obligations without receiving any return except some vague promises. What the Russians want to know is just what these credits actually amount to, and how they will rehabilitate Russian industrial life.

PEACE PACT DESIRED. The most satisfactory feature of the reply is an earnest desire to enter a peace pact, and even if the document is not sound as a basis of negotiation it is one which demands a reply. Although the economic side is most important for Russia if the Soviet can stand an inevitable delay in arriving at a solution it is entirely a matter for them. The peace pact will undoubtedly produce a real struggle, because the reply refers to the position of France during the revolution, and the confiscation of property on that occasion. The Russians drew an analogy between their revolution and the struggle in France.

It is stated—but the statement must be accepted with some reserve—that France will refuse to accept the reply under any circumstances, and that she does not wish to see her present prominent position in Europe frittered away by a peace pact. The statement also suggests her siding with Belgium over the private property question, merely as a protest on which she will maintain resistance to a pact of non-aggression. The correspondent learns that the Italian view entirely coincides with that held by the British. Both nations are firmly determined to pursue the conference to a successful conclusion. It will take a day or two for the various delegations to assimilate the document, which will probably not come before the sub-commission before Saturday or early next week. DIFFICULTY EXPECTED. While it is generally believed the conference will nominate an expert committee as suggested in the Russian reply, the delegates are almost unanimous in regarding the document as unnegotiable, the French freely declaring it as impudent. If the expert committee is formed it is believed if will be instructed to negotiate further with Russia on a basis of the Cannes resolutions and the convening Powers’ memorandum. When the committees work is completed the Powers will possibly convene a new conference.

M. Barthou (France) and Mr. Lloyd George had a lengthy conference and discussed the reply. The latter is reported to have admitted that it was useless to continue to negotiate with Russia on the lines of their reply. Neutrals more or less agree with Mr. Lloyd George. The reply considers the reference to an arbitral tribunal of the questions of war debts, a moratorium and pre-war debts makes the sovereignty of the Soviet the sport of fortune. It agrees that the former owners of property enjov preferential rights. It contends Russia’s claims and counter-claims, past and present, should be entrusted to a mixed committee of experts nominated by the conference.—Aus.JLZ, Cable A«n. THE VATICAN. AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA. Rome, May 11. The newspaper Tribuna states that the Vatican has concluded an agreement with M. Tchitcherin. whereby Russia accepts the Pontifical clauses regarding liberty of conscience and the protection of the Catholic Jfiasions in Russia. The Vatican withdrew the clause concerning the transference of church property, in consequence of M. Jfchjtcherin’s refusal to agree thereto.