The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1923. THE RECOGNITION OF RUSSIA.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 174, 24 July 1923, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 1923. THE RECOGNITION OF RUSSIA.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that neede reeietanee. For the future in the distance, Ant the good that «w eon da.

The statement that the American' (Secretary of State lias made to Mr. Samuel Gompers of the attitude of the United States Government towards | Russia, which is summarised in onr news .to-day, is similar to that given by Mr. i Hughes to a .deputation in March. He was asked by the deputation to recognise I the Soviet Government; he had stated, bo the deputation said, that the basis of recognition was safety of life, regard \ for property, rights, the sanctity of contracts, and the rights of free labour, and these conditions had been largely fulfilled. Mr. Hughes' reply was a lengthy and impressive re-statement of the American attitude. He did not require that the Government of Russia should be changed,. although he says now that the United States "must be I assured that such a Government has J popular support." He disclaimed any! idea of interfering in the internal affairs of Russia, and recognised the right of, Russians to develop' their own institu- j tions. The fundamental question in the i recognition of a Government was whether it showed "ability and a disposition to \ discharge international obligations." j The Soviet Government stood for, repudiation and confiscation. It had annulled loans made to Russia by the American Government, and it had seized the property of Americans, individuals and corporations, without paying any compensation. The United States was not a harsh creditor; it did not seek to press debtors to pay beyond their means. But "indulgence and proper arrangements" were one thing, and repudiation another. Mr. Hughes' second reason for refusing recognition was the persistent attempts made in Russia to overthrow Governments in other [countries. His quotations from Soviet ; leaders are important. Zinoviev has | said that "the eternal in the Russian: revolution is the fact that it is the I beginning of the world revolution.'*! Lenin has said that "the revolutionists i of all countries must learn the organisation, the planning, the method and the ' substance of revolutionary work." Trotsky, addressing young Russian Communists, has declared that "revolution is coming in»Europe as well as in America, systematically, step by step,! stubbornly and with gnashing of teeth I in both camps. It will be long, pro- j tracted, cruel,,and sanguinary."

All this ie important, not only because! it is the attitude of the world's greatest Republic towards the Soviet, but be-' cause Britain refuses recognition tor much the same reasons. In the recent negotiations between London and Moscow over the trade agreement. Lord Curzon demanded that the Soviet should pledge itself to refrain "from conduct-; ing outside its borders, any official pro-! paganda, direct or indirect, against the institutions of the British Empire." M. Tchitcherin gave the pledge on condition' that Britain reciprocated. M. Tchitcherin nay be personally quite sincere in this matter, but what of the real rulers of Russia? Mr. Hughes' statement in' March ni replied to in the Moscow Press. Hie quotations from Berlin and! Trotsky as evidence of Russian interfer-j ence in other countries, were termed ridiculous. "Lenin and Trotsky are Com- \ munists, and at party meetings express themselves like Communists.- What is the wonder about this?" Another Soviet rejoinder referred to "the usual foreign confusion between the Soviet Government and individual statements. by members of the Communist Inter-! national, which is a body quite apart from the Soviet Government." The Communist International was in * sense the church of the Russian Communists State, just as the English Church was the State Church in Britain, and had most British statesmen among its mem-. bers. This ie ingenious, but entirely unconvincing/ Lenin and Trotsky' are!

among the supreme rulers of Russia, and you cannot distinguish between the statesman and the Communist. They are one and the same. You would have a parallel in England if the Archbishop of Canterbury were a member of the Cabinet, and the Church preached the duty of proselytising in foreign lands with fire and sword. How could the Government then be justified by saying that the Archbishop interfered in the affairs of other countries only when he addressed church congresses! The Communist International cannot be set apart from the Soviet Government; and so long as the International preaches the destruction of civilisation, so long will other Governments be justified (not to mention other grounds) in refusing to recognise the Soviet.