RUSSIAN REPLY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 49, 28 February 1927, Page 7

RUSSIAN REPLY.

DISCOURTESY ALLEGED Impudent and Unfounded Demands. INDIGNANT WITH BRITAIN. (By Cable.—Copyright.—Press Association.) (Received 11 a.m.) LONDON, February 27. | The Soviet reply to the British I Note refers to the unquestionable fact I of the unsatisfactory character of the relations between the Soviet and ' Britain.

It cites the agreement signed by the Soviet in 19*23, whereby the Soviet undertook not to support with funds or any other way, persons, bodies or agencies, whose aim is to spread discontent or foment rebellion in any jart of the British Empire. The reply declares that during the three-and-a-half years since the signing of the agreement the British Government has repeatedly reproached the Soviet for alleged infringements of the agreement and violating the agreement signed by Lord Curzon in 1923, whereby Britain undertook immediately to inform the Soviet of any supposed infringement of the obligations and not !to allow cases to accumulate without making charges. The British Government has preferred to make general, wholesale reproaches, save in the instance of the so-called Zinovieff letter during the general election in Britain in 1924. But the Zinovieff letter was subsequently proved to be a forged document. Thus the only definite charge was based on a forged document. None of those who misinformed the British Government were punished, though the letter at one time strained Anglo-Russian relations to the uttermost. The fact that Britain declined to accept the Russian proposals to submit to arbitration on the question of responsibility regarding the international Communist organisations, could only be taken as a withdrawal of the accusations against the Soviet. The reply points out that there have been no agreements limiting freedom of speech and Press within the borders of either country, and to bring the published verbal utterances made within Soviet Russia into scope of the 1923 agreement is an arbitrary extension of the limits of the agreement. The Note characterises as delusions the constant references by politicians and members of the British Government to the alleged omnipresence and omnipotence of the so-called Soviet agents. It deplores the unsatisfactory conditions of Anglo-Soviet relations but expresses the belief that explanations cannot be made by means of mutual accusations in the Press. The Note further refers to the attacks on Soviet representatives in London, saving that British representatives in Moscow are never subjected to insults on the part of the Soviet Press. After tracing the various phases in the relations between the two countries, the reply alleges that in its communications to the Soviet the British Government has consciously infringed the usual international forms of courtesy and even of elemental decency.

The Note says the British Government avoids the settlement of mutual claims and talks to the Soviet in a threatening tone. In conclusion, the reply says the Soviet will continue to follow its peaceloving policy, which excludes all eggressiveness toward other countries. It will sincerely welcome the British Government if it will come to meet it on that path. Dispatches from Riga say meetings under the auspices of the Soviet are being held in Russia, Siberia and Turkestan, especially among factory workers, to protest against the British Note. The Soviet is endeavouring to sound a note of national indignation. Resolutions are being carried insisting upon a worthy reply being sent to Britain's '•impudent and unfounded demands."

PRESS COMMENT. LABOUR AGAINST BREACH. (Received 12.30 p.m.) LONDON, February 27. Most of the newspapers comment on the Soviet's reply to the British Note. The "Daily Express"' says the reply contains much that is hypocritical and impudent. Attempts to foment rebellion in Britain have been supported by funds from Russia, and there has been direct and indirect anti-British propaganda in Britain and elsewhere, but there is no need for Britain to tear up documents and lose business in hysterical anger. A formal, open rupture may ultimate! v be inevitable, but the ment rightly believes that the moment therefore, lias not yet arrived. The "Daily Herald" says Labour will fight vigorously against a breach with Russia, "not only because it would be ■ bad. for trade and dangerous to peace, 'but because the chief cause of the Tory agitation is hatred of the Soviet simplv and solely because it is based on anticapitalist philosophy.