THE SOVIET WARNED

Wairarapa Age, 25 February 1927, Page 5

THE SOVIET WARNED

BRITISH NOTE OF PROTEST.

RUSSIAN BAD FAITH.

CONDUCT THAT CANNOT BE TOLERATED. -

(deceived Thursday. 10.40 p.m.)

LONDON. February 23.

A Note from the British Government to Russia says that relations between His Majesty’s Government and the Soviet Government continue notoriously to be of an unsatisfactory nature. It recalls that the Soviet on June 4, 1923, solemnly signed an agr-vment not to support persons or institutions aiming at spreading discontent or fomenting rebellion in any part of the British Empire, and further recalls Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s Note to M. Rakovsky, of October 24, 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.—(A. and ,NZ)

VARIED OPINIONS. PRESS COMMENT ON THE NOTE. CURIOUS DIFFERENCES. (Received Thursday, 8 p.m.) LONDON, February 24. Opinions on Sir A. Chamberlain’s Note to Russia are curiously mixed. The ‘ ’ Morning Post ’ ’ favours stronger measures against the Soviet, but significantly says it does not join in the crusade against Sir Austen Chamberlain and the Foreign Office and Government, “partly because the agitation covers a rather transparent and altogether unworthy political intrigue, partly because it is advisable to support the Government in a time of crisis, but chiefly because we believe the Foreign Office is not lukewarm, but. is resolved to take its own time.”

The “Daily Telegraph,” in a leader, 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 lobby that the language of the Noto is not so definite as eould be desired.

The “Daily Chronicle’s” political correspondent similarly records that the “Die-hards” are disappointed with the feebleness of the Note. Nevertheless, the? warning to the .Soviet is final, and indicates that Mr. Baldwin, Sir A. Chamberlain, Lord Salisbury, Lord Robert Cecil and Earl Balfour have been beaten by Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead, Sir W. Jovnson-Hieks and Mr. Amery. The “Daily Chronicle” says editorially that those who preach breaking off relations and expelling the Reds should be asked seriously whether they want another Groat War. Britain should counter Russian propaganda in China and in Asia generally by a better propaganda of her own.

The Daily Herald” says relations between Britain and the Soviet have been a history, not of diplomacy, but of “back-chat,” at which Mr. Churchill, Lord Birkenhead and Sir W. Joyn-son-Hicks are equal to any. “The Times” says the Note is a strong document, blit it is too much to expect that it will produce the impression desired. The only effective answer would be a revolutionary change in the whoie policy of the Soviet Government towards Britain.

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

The “Westminster Gazette” says: “We do not want to drift alone into something more serious than a diplomatic breach.”—(A. and N.Z.) A FINAL WARNING. FURTHER OFFENCE MEANS RUPTURE. (Received Thursday, 7 p.m.). LONDON, February 23. The “Daily News” says that diplomatie and political circles interpret the. Russian Note as a final warning that any fresh offence will be instantly seized upon as excuse for a complete rupture. The truth is that the Government’s continued resistance to Parliamentary pressure has become, impossible, and it is generally assumed that Moscow will not. fail to provide the incident which the Government is now awaiting.—(A. and N. Z.).