The Treaty with Russia.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18185, 23 September 1924, Page 8

The Treaty with Russia.

The condemnation of the Bussian Treatv by Mr Asquith means that it has no friends now but Labour friends; for the Unionists are hostile, and Mr Lloyd George denounced it before it was published, and again when the full text was available, and Lord Grey's condemnation was published a fc\v days ago. And a hostilo Liberal Party means, or should mean, that Labour will have to abandon its guns or appeal to the country. At present it is engaged in a publicity campaign for ratification, and since it has declared that if its opponents want an election on tho Treaty they will get it, there should be some tension when Parliament meets nest month. It may happen, of course, as it has happened before, that Mr Asquith will find a reason for staying his hand: he may decide, for example, that because the Treaty is a "fake," and never likely therefore to becme effective, he is under no obligation to precipitate an election. Or Labour itself may decide to let the Russian Treaty go in order not to jeopardise its agreements with Germany and France. It is impossible, with such an unholy alliance to reckon with aa that between Labour and the Liberals, to say that what ehotajd happen will happen; but it is equally necessary to remember that a good deal of what goes by the name of criticism of the Treaty is criticism of the Party responsible for the Treaty,} and an attempt to get rid of it.

We can hardly form any opinion m tho Dominion of the merits of tho agreement, since we have had nothing like a full report of such discussions on it as have taken place already, and aro still without the full text. But it is interesting to take three such diverse papers as the Conservative " Sp.ec- " tator," the Liberal "Manchester " Guardian," and the Radical "New " Statesman," and place their opinions side by side. The "Spectator's" viow is interesting, first because it is so very much less hostile than the "Morning " Post," and in the second place because it is far more sympathetic than the normally friendly "New Stateß- " man," It "cannot feel much " enthusiasm" for the Treaty, but on the other hand it "fails to find those " terrible and hidden dangers" of which there has been so much talk in the daily newspapers." Its view, briefly, is that it is worth, taking a gambler's chance, The essential provisions of the Treaty may never come into operation; but if they do, it will' bo becauso the, moderates in Russia have pre* vailed over the extremists, and if they do not, no harm will have been done. The "Manchester Guardian" is wholly but not exuberantly sympathetic. It /would, it argues, have been "ridiculous " if the Conference, after getting over "so many obstacles, had collapsed " over one that was abstract rather " than practical." It points out that the loan comes at the end and not at the beginning of the series of agree* meats, and argues that this should satisfy the most jmspieioue. The "New Statesman," however, is sharply critical. Its view is as unexpected as the "Spectator's," and its reasoning, we are bound to say, clearer and more courageous, If the "Treasury guaran* " tee adumbrated in the Treaty" haa any value, it turns the loan into a gift: the greater part will go into the pockets of the bond-holders at the expense of the British tax-payer, whom the Government is therefore asking to pay Bussia's debts for her. And if the guarantee has no value—if the whole Treaty is merely window-dress-ing, Russia having signed without any intention of offering security, and Britain without any belief that security would bo offered —then, the "States- " man" says, " the Bussian and " British delegates did not reach an " agreement; they merely pretended "to in order to save their faces, " signing a document which they " knew would not commit anybody to " anything," and it poems quite right to add that this is not going to improve our reputation for honest dealing. Tho "Statesman" thinks with the "Spectator" and the "Guardian" that the financial risks are small; if Britain gets nothing she offers little, and it "does not matter much there? ' fore" [it means so far as immediate practical results are concerned] ' ' whether the Treaty is ratified or " not." But it does matter to British credit if the Foreign Office contracts "fake" agreements, and a charge of "faking" by the '.'New Statesman" is a different matter altogether from the game charge by Mr Lloyd George.