ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Evening Star, Issue 18280, 21 May 1923, Page 4

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—ln dealing with the above subject in to-night’s issue it seems to me that you have come to tho conclusion that Russia is wholly at fault and ought to accede to the several requests contained in tho British Note unreservedly. Like Mr Asquith, you agree with every word Mr Lloyd George gave utterance to, for is he not the best political talker in England? But, unlike Mr Asquith, you also agree with everything the British Government lias said, and conveniently ignore the several statements of the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition! and as for the statements of Mr Walton New bold, they are anathema. Evidently, in your opinion there is only one side to any question where England is concerned—viz., the English side. Like the Jews of old, you seem to claim for the English people the prerogative of being the chosen race of God.

History teaches that there never existed a nation that had all the right on its side, nor one that was guilty of all evil. The English and Russians are no exception to this unalterable rule. He is the truest of all patriots who recognises this fact, and examines international questions by sifting the pros and cons of the parties concerned, makes allowances for human nature, apportions the blame proportionately, and refuses to accept at face value all the statements made by interested and biased politicians. Having said so much, allow me to review briefly the point of contention between Britain and Russia.

The questions in dispute, placing the least important first, are; The rights of British citizens in the Russian Soviet Republic, the fishing rights in Russian waters outside the three-mile limit, the withdrawal of the terse Russian reply to the British Note of protest against the sentences passed on certain of the Russian clergy and apology for same, and the stopping of “ Bolshevik ” propaganda in the Asiatic portion of the British Empire. I maintain that all these points are possible of settlement by discussion and agreement; therefore the demand for unconditional compliance with the wishes of the British Government was, to say the least, a huge diplomatic blunder, A similar request made by a British Minister during the Napoleonic wars led to war with Den* mark and the bombardment of Copenhagen, which history now condemns as a huge and unjustifiable blunder. Dealing with the rights of British citizens in Russia, I admit that some have suffered innocently; but, on the other handj many have abused the hro of boa-

fpitality. Whilst pretending to bo friends, 1 they did their utmost to undermine the 1 revolution. Is it not a. fact that one Englishman (one out of many) so successfully impeded the establishment of peace in (Russia, and did his utmost to undermine ] the revolution in tho interests of capitalist I Europe, that, after he escaped from Rusj sia, ho was presented with a knighthood ; by the British Government for his “magImflcent” service? It has been proved ! that many British citizens wees implicated in plots of destruction. Is it to bo won- | dered at that the Russian Government, : through fear for the safety of tho revolu- ‘ tion, arrested all suspects and made the innocent suffer with the guilty? How did suspected Russian citizens faro in England? Many were arrested, held In prison .without trial, then deported, and their (women and children left to starve. Litvinoff, who is at present in London as one of the Russian delegation, was arrested, placed on board ship, and deported; for several days Ins English wife did not know what had become of him. Finally, with the help of friends, she was able to join him in Russia The Russian Government did not demand compensation for the victims, for, like reasonable men, they recognised that England, like Russia, was acting in self-defence, and injuries to innocent people were inevitable.

Russia’s interference with British trawlers on the Murmansk coast, on the face of it, seems.strange, and it is stranger .still that only British trawlers have been interfered with. We have only been given ono side of this question, and have not •been told why tho Spviet Government should adopt a policy of twisting tho lion’s tail, especially seeing that she is in need of the lion’s economic and financial help. When w T e receive fuller details wo shall probably find there is more behind this question than we have been told. Tho British Note on the trial and sentence of certain members of tho Russian clergy and the Soviet’s reply thereto were diplomatic errors. One can understand the Soviet’s anger at receiving tho British Note. It looked upon'this as a direct interference with tho internal administration of justice and) law, which I venture to suggest it is, though,the British Government may not have intended it as such. What would our New Zealand Government say if Russia, sent a Note protesting against the sentences passed 1 on -young Communists for selling Communist literature? If I judge Mr Massey rightly, our reply would l be oven stronger than the Soviet’s reply was to tho English protest. Tiro internal administrations of law of selfgoverning and autonomous States is purely a question for the people concerned, provided it is nob opposed to international law.

Th© question of propaganda is the most serious of all. The British Government and tire Press have created l an impression in tho minds of tho people that the Soviet Government has an army of agents spread over tho British Empire preaching revolution. If this be the actual position, then it is a clear violation of the trade agreement, and should be slopped. But is this tho case? That the Communist Party of Russia, as a political party, _ carries on propaganda in foreign counti'ies is quite possible. In that case, what can the Soviet Government do? It cannot be suggested! that tho Government should interfere with tho rights and activities of legi-timately-organised groups of citizens. _ If tho Liberal Party of Now Zealand decided to send its advocates to Russia or China to advocate their political views, would it bo right for the Government to interfere? Could it legally interfere under the present law? But Russia maintains propaganda schools in Moscow, say the cables. These schools have an imaginary C/£fedenco. What is actually tho ease is this: In order to extend the facilities of education to the large Asiatic population of _ the Russian Republic an Asiatic university has been established in Moscow, especially for Asiatics. Tho secular training is the same as that given in Oxford, Cambridge, or Otago University; but tho phi’tf.ophical and economictraining is based on Communistic lines, just as the philosophical training in our universities is based on, capitalistic lines of thought. The Moscow University is free to all Asiatic students, whether Russian or foreign subjects, just ns onr University is. Will it be suspected that the Russian Government shall close ils colleges to foreign students? If not, why call Oxford and Cambridge temples of learning and Moscow «i school of propaganda? From my study of the international situation I am satisfied that the Russian Government lias not violated tho Irado agreement, and a settlement will bo arrived at in the present dispute. A rupture would be disastrous for both nations, and might prove a world calamity. I think the settlement will be somewhat along these lines. Both nations will agree to let tho dead past bury its dead and compensate as far as possible those who have suffered innocently. A solution will bo found of the fisheries question by defining the limits. The British Government will explain more fully what was really meant bv its clergy sentence Note, and Russia will withdraw her reply. 'Die question of propaganda, will bo nettled by tho Russian Government using its influence with tho Communist Party to restrict its activities in British Asia. I am, however, convinced' that fall political recognition of the Soviet Republic will solve the question onco for Ml. This is the wish of yours, etc., M-S. May 18.