PLEDGES AND DEEDS

Evening Post, Volume CXXIX, Issue 75, 29 March 1940, Page 6

PLEDGES AND DEEDS

THE RUSSIAN RECORD

BLUFFING THE WORLD

The Moscow-published declaration by Earl Browder, general secretary of the Communist Party' in the United States, that Russia is the only country which has fulfilled its international pledges, prompts a most interesting inquiry, writes Robert W. Beckman in the, "Christian Science Monitor." For two decades the Soviets have claimed to be an ardent champion of peace. At the same time they have played the role of the unmistakable aggressor. In pacts and treaties, in newspapers like the "Izvestia" and "Pravda," which are the Comintern and the Government's own Press organs, in the halls of the League of Nations and in broadcasts intended for world consumption the Soviet Union has endeavoured to appear as the chief advocate of peace, the paramount defender of international unity. And while proclaiming "that she desires no further territory nor has the remotest intention of spreading Communism by the use of force," Russia has applied both force and cunning in order to spread doctrines of world revolution. ' The present situation is to be interpreted from something more than the fact that the Red Army marched on Warsaw in 1920; that the Russians played a dominant role in the organisation of Soviet territories in China, a semiwarlike activity which lasted from 1928 to 1935; that the Comintern participated in the Bulgarian revolutionary attempts in 1925; that Russia actively intervened in the Spanish civil war; and now that the Soviets have occupied a part of Poland and invaded Finland. THE STORY OF THE PACTS. It is rather, from details of the "non-aggression and mutual assistance pacts" which played so large a part j in the Soviet's peace campaign, that illumination of the Soviet's fulfilment of its engagements is to be found. The treaties involve relations with Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, China, the Mongolian People's .Republic,' Lithuania, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, 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 non-ag-gression pacts it is stated that "The High 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 tthe Finns signed this treaty is, understandable enough, Finland j already had many serious difficulties with the Soviet Union. Particularly trying were Russia's broken promises not to suppress the racially . related people, in Karelia, genetically close cousins to 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 shall 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 conveniently provided the Stalin regime with the pretext it r°eriled. How such incidents can be utilised, or ignored, j as high policy may require, is indicated in reports that Joseph Stalin brushed aside some of the BusspJapanese border incidents with . the humorous remark: "I wish those Japanese would play hide and seek in some other corner than ours!" Which indicates that a border incident may 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 Russo-Finnish 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 joint reconciliation commission. ..." RIGHT OF DENUNCIATION. The 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 against a Third- Power, the other -High Contracting Party may denounce'the present Treaty without notice." ■ ; ■ ■ The 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.