The Dominion FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1929. BRITISH RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 139, 8 March 1929, Page 10

The Dominion FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1929. BRITISH RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA

For some time past an influential movement has been in progress in the United Kingdom for reviving trade between Great Britain and Russia. The movement has culminated in a resolution, reported in to-day’s Press cablegrams, to send a delegation to Russia this month, and heartily supporting the efforts being made to promote trade by direct contact with the Russian Government. The resolution, it is stated, was adopted by a meeting representative of over 150 British firms and associations, and capital “totalling millions sterling.” ■ . . , Largely for business reasons, the British Government has been ■ pressed from time to time to reopen official trade relationships with Russia. In December last Mr. Guy Boothby, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, delivered a public address, in the course of which he advocated another trade agreement. Although he was careful to explain that he was expressing his own personal opinion, political observers deduced from the incident that he was flying a kite on behalf of his Ministerial-chief (Mr. Churchill), and suggested that if it could do so without’ loss of dignity, the Government would take the advice offered. In reply to questions in the House, about the same time, the Foreign Secretary made it clear, however, that the Government’s attitude to Russia had not changed. • “There is no false pride in the attitude of His Majesty’s Government.” Xhe said. “It is severely practical. We established relations with Russia, first trade relations and, later, diplomatic relations. It was a condition of the trade relations, as it was of the diplomatic relations, that they should desist from propaganda, either in this country or outside of it, directed against the British Government. Each Government in turn found that that engagement was consistently broken by the Soviet authorities. It is not false pride that prevents our renewing those relations; it Is the conviction that nothing has happened to cause us even to think it probable that if we renewed the relations the same abuses would not begin again.” Two different statements in regard, to the trade figures between the two countries may be quoted. The first.was given by the { President of the Board of Trade, in reply to a question in the House of Commons. “The value of imports, consigned from Russia to the United Kingdom,” he said, “was £19,774,000 in 1924, and £21,052,000 in 1927, and to the United States £1,849,000 in 1924 and £2,649,000 in 1927. The exports consigned to Russia from the United Kingdom were valued in 1924 at £3,860,000 and in 1927 at £4,509,000, and from the United States to Russia at £9,532,000 in 1924' and £13,356,000 in 1927. In addition, there were re-exports from the United Kingdom tp Russia of the value of £7,212,000 in 1924 and of £6,781,000 in 1927.” . . The second statement is; a survey of the statistics of Soviet purchases in Great Britain during the period October 1, 1927, to September 30, .1928, “the first complete financial year after the break of relations,” published in the Bank of Russia Trade Review. According to this journal, purchases by the Soviet trading organisations on the British market declined sharply in comparison, with the period preceding the rupture. “Orders placed in Great Britain in 1927-28 amounted to £5,816,406, while the corresponding figures for 1926-27 were £14,113,648, and for 1925-26 £20,205,405.” Mr. Ernest Remnant, whose name is mentioned in the cablegram published to-day, is editor of the English Review. In a statement published’in the Manchester Guardian he said that the Russian Government had informed him that it would welcome a delegation representative of British industry and finance to examine the economic . situation generally, a large number of impending constructive enterprises, and acceptable bases of finance. He had satisfied . himself after interviews, with the official, Soviet representative in Paris, of the importance of the offer to British industry, and accordingly had undertaken to organise the mission. It is evident that he is the moving spirit of the Anglo-Russian Trade Committee, under whose auspices the resolution above-mentioned was carried. The position as it stands at present, therefore, is that there is ■ nothing to prevent British commercial and financial interests from dealing with Russia at their own risk. Their own Government is not yet prepared to protect them either by formal trade agreements or diplomatic treaties, unless and until the Russian Government isprepared, to give substantial guarantees that the Soviet-protected Communist organisation at Moscow, the Third Internationale, will desist from, its attempts to disrupt sbeial conditions and institutions in British communities. ' ’ "