WORLD AFFAIRS.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 128, 2 June 1927, Page 6

WORLD AFFAIRS.

A WEEKLY REVIEW.

(By BYSTANDER.)

So faras British affaire are concerned there i« no doubt that the raid on Soviet House eclipsed all other, events of the past week, not only in dramatic interest, but in political importance. I can hardly imagine that anybody takes seriously the protestations of innocence which the Soviet Government bas issued. Not only is the evidence of conspiracy and seditious intrigue overwhelmingly, strong, but everything that has been done through Soviet House is entirely in accord with the declared policy of the Bolsheviks and the countless threats and warnings that they have sent forth during the past ten years to the world at large. Those who still hold that the Soviet envoys in Britain, along with "Arcos, Ltd.," were simply engaged in the peaceful performance of legitimate diplomatic or commercial business seem to me beyond the reach of argument, and it is simply waste of time to reason with them. Party Capital. One of the most unfortunate features of the episode is the extent to which the different sections or the Opposition have endeavoured to make political capital oat of the raid. The Labour "leftwingers" practically assert that the Bolsheviks as usual, are telling the trnth and that the Conservatives, as usual, are lying; and the farewell luncheon that they tendered the Soviet envoys at the House of, Commons enables us to estimate accurately enough the tone and temper of tnejr contributions to the debate, and the mearsure of their public spirit. Mr. Rarosav Mac Donald and the Labour moderates, though they themselves had solemnly warned the Bolsheviks that they must abstain from propagandism under penalty of expulsion, can sec nothing but stupidity and Injustice combined in the Sovtet House raid. As for the sunivin" relics of the Liberal party, if Mr. Lloyd George is to be accepted as their Spokesman, they too can find in the whole incident only a good opportunity to embarrass and misrepresent their political opponents. What Doe* Britain Lose? The.outcome of it all is Uiat Britain has severed not only commercial but diplomatic relations with Russia. So far as diplomacy is concerned, there is certainly nothing to be gained by maintaining professedly amicable intercourse with a Government which systematically breaks ite most solemn pledges a'nd deals freely in treachery, corruption and revolutionary propn ganda.under the mask of friendship. As to the commercial loss that Britain may sustain through the closing down of the Soviet Trade Commission, there are several sides to this question. Mr. (J. Terrill (president of the National Uniou of Manufacturers) has pointed out that Britain was selling to Russia only £1 worth of goods for every £3 worth that she bought from Russia, m> that the balance was heavily on Russia's side. Further, the British Creditors' Association has recently drawn attention to the fact that "British owners of Nubian property have Wen seeing their product* *.old in England under the Anglo-Russian trade agreement and they have bad no redre«s." Britain'* industrial anil commercial investments j M Hussia in 1917 amounted to £.>o.ou<i,oOo: ami ils practically all this property ha* bei-n conn" coated by the Soviet Government, which lms also repudiated Russia's war debt to Britain to the amount of about £7«O,6OO,OOO. the advantage of dealing with people obsessed with such entirely original notions about honesty and commercial mornlity secms to me more apparent thnn real. A Wild Mao in Politics. The latest escapade of Mr. Lanp. the eccentric and adventurous Labour Premier of New South Wales, must surely mark the .Umax of political extravagance on this side.of. the world. Mr. Lan ? has always been "obsequious and subservient" to the extremists on the left wing of the Australimi labour party, but as he is not a courageous man, unless he thinks that he is sure to win, he hamanaged to keep out of serious trouble hitherto. Last Easter some disgruntled left-wingers decided to defy the governing body of the A.L.P. and call a conference of their own. Mr. Lai.j; attended this conference, but when his own followers remonstrated he promptly repudiated the rebels and swore allegiance anew to the A.L.P. But Mr. Lang's chosen guide, philosopher and friend, Mr. M C Willis, was working behind the scenes with Mr. Scale and tho Communist malcontents, and when they offered Mr. Lang what amounted to absolute control of their new party, he seems to have lost his head altogether. By* a smart piece of political trickery he has got rid of all hi* colleagues but Mr. Willis, he has got a new Cabinet, to his liking, and he proposes to go to the country shortly, flying the "pink" flag of the Seale faction in opposition to the A.L.P. banner. The most interesting outcome of all this so far has been the formal denunciation of Mr. Lang and his action* in the first place by all his late colleagues but Mr. Willis, and in the second place by the A.L.P. . I think that most people will agree that. Mr. Lang has been guilty of deliberate and coldblooded treachery of a peculiarly revolting kind. But if Labour puts such men in power it has .only iUclf to blame.

A Fascist Decalogue. Here is an interesting piece of information about the Fascists and their faith. Everv member of the Fascist militia receives a card on which is printed "the decalopue of the perfect Fascist militia-man." and same "ten commandments" hold conspicuous positions on all barrackroom walls. I have no space to analyse them all but two or three are worthy of commemoration! "A Fascist must not believe in perpetual peace." "Yonr rifle and your uniform arc given Jo yon not to spoil them in idleness, but to keep them in wadineee for war." Yet Italy is still a meml*r of the League of Nations! But the most illuminating of these "commandments" is the followin""Mussolini is always right." What is the sta'te of mind of the man who can gravely and solemnly enjoin this maxim upon his fellowcreatures, along with the assurance that they "can plead no extenuating circumstance for disobedience!"

Votes for Women. There eecms to be no doubt now that M* Baldwin mesns to bring in a Bill giving votes to women as well as men at the age of 21. The promise was made in the fi/st place after the genera! election of 19-23, and it has been confirmed since by Sir W. Joynson-Hicks and bv Mr. Baldwin himself. Speaking at the Albert Hall last week, the Prime Minister sucgested that if the franchise had to lie introduced now for the first time it might be well to fix 2T> rears as the age qualficiatibn for both sexes. But now that men of 21 years have become accustomed to the franchise, the gift cannot be withdrawn. Very few people would refuse to admit that it is unjust to discriminate in this matter, as the law now does, between men and women. The trouble Iβ that the four or five million women now to be enfranchised will give the feminine votes « preponderance of quite one million over the masculines. Mrs. Fawcett, one of the protagonists of the "Votes for Women" movement, has discussed this aspect of the case at some length, and •he can sec no reason for anxiety or apprehension her*. She hopes and believes that the British Cabinet will soon incioCe more than one woman Minister. This is easy to understand, but it is a little more difficult to see why Mr. Baldwin should profess the same airy unconcern about the possible consequences of an experiment to which Disraeli's "leap in the dark ,, was mere child's play.