RUSSIA'S PLEDGES.

Auckland Star, Volume LXXI, Issue 97, 24 April 1940, Page 19

RUSSIA'S PLEDGES.

UNSAVOURY RECORD.

BLUFF AND TREACHERY. AN AMERICAN ANALYSIS. The Moscow-published declaration by Earl Browdcr, general secretary of the Communist party in the United States, that liussia is the only country which has fulfilled its international pledges, prompts a most interesting inquiry, writes Robert W. Beckman in the Christian Science Monitor." tor two decades the Soviets have claimed to be an ardent champion of peace. At the same time they have placed the role of the unmistakable aggressor. Iu pacts and treaties, in newspapers like the "Izvestia" and 'Travda,'' which are the Comintern and the Government's own Press organs, in. the halls of the League of Nations and in broadcasts intended tur world consumption the Soviet 1 nion has endeavoured to appear HA the chief advocate of peace, the paramount defender of international unity, And while proclaiming "that «he desires lio further territory nor has the remotest intention of spreading Communism bv tlie use of force," Russia has applied Unit force and cunning in order to spread docttincs of world revolution. The present situation is to 1»» interpreted trout something more than the! fact that the Red Army marched on A\ arsaw in 1920; that the Russians played a dominant role in the organ isatioi of Soviet territories in China, a semi-warlke activity which lasted from 102S to 193.); that the Comintern participated in the Bulgarian revolutionary attempts in 192.); that Russia actively intervened in the Spanish civil war; anil now that the Soviets have occupied a part of Poland and invaded Finland. The Story of the Pacts. It- is rather, from details , f the "nonaggression and mutual assistance imcts" which played so large a part in the Soviet's peace campaign, that illumination of the Soviet's fulfilment of its engagements is to be found. iht; treaties involve relations with Turkey. Iran, Afghanistan, China, the Mongolian People's Republic, Lithuania, Poland. Latvia. Kstonia, France, Italy, Germany and Finland. The absence of Japan and the British Empire from the roll call speaks for itself. In an annex to one of the sion pact«% it i«> stated that "The Hi«»h Contracting Parties declare that no aggression can be justified" on either grounds of the international, political, social or economic structure of the State' or the "international conduct of the State . . And yet Soviet Russia is justifying its breach of the Finnish pact on" the ground that the Government of Finland has been hostile to the Union. Why the Finns signed this treaty is understandable enough. Finland already had many serious difficulties with the Soviet Union. Particularly trying were Russia's broken promises not to (suppress the racially Telated pcqpi| in Karelia, genetically close cousins td the Finns. Promises Believed. Moreover, there seemed some assurance in the section of the treaty—prolonged in 1934 to run until December 31, 1945 which outlawed acts of aggression and provided: "Any act of violence infringing the integrity and inviolability of the territory or the political independence of the other.High Contracting Party fthall be regarded as an act of aggression, even if it is committed without the declaration of war and avoids warlike manifestations." But the Soviets found it possible to commit an act and at the same time not commit it. A border incident oonveniently provided the Stalin regime with the .pretext it needed. How such incif dents can be utilised, or ignored, as high policy may require, is indicated in reports that Joseph Stalin brushed aside some of the Russo-Japanese border incidents with the humorous remark: "I wish those Japanese would play hide and seek in some other corner than oure:" Whdoh indicates that a border incident maiy be exactly what one wishes it to be. It now remains to be seen whether or not —at this late date—the Soviet Union intends to fulfil Article V. of the RussoFinnish Pact. It stipulates that the contracting parties must "submit any dispute, which it may not be possible to settle through the usual diplomatic channels within a reasonable time, to a joinit reconciliation commission . . Right of Denunciation. Khe prospect of this certainly does not look hopeful. For Soviet Russia knows only too well that if any of the two signatories had the right to break the pact that party was Finland. Article 11., Section 2, states: "Should either High Contracting Parties resort to aggression ajrainst a Third Power, the other High Contracting Party may denounce the present Treaty without notice." Tlie Third Power was the now occupied Poland. The party with the right to nullify the pact was Finland. The aggressor, as the League has recorded in no uncertain terms, was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.