MOSCOW AND MONGOLIA

Evening Star, Issue 22367, 17 June 1936, Page 8

MOSCOW AND MONGOLIA

TREATY OF ASSISTANCE The Soviet Government, in a note by Foreign Commissar Maxim Litvinoff, has rejected as ill-founded the protest of the Chinese Government against the protocol of mutual assistance signed by the Soviet and Mongolia on March 12, and declared it to bo in the interests of both the Mongolian and the Chinese people (writes Harold Denny, in the £ New York Times ’). “ Neither the fact of the signing of the protocol nor its individual articles in any degree infringes on the sovereignty of China, nor does it contain or” permit any territorial claims of the Soviet Government towards China or the Mongolian Republic,” wrote M. Litvinolf. “The signing of the protocol introduces no changes into the existing formal and practical relationship between the Soviet Union and the Mongolian Republic.” M. Litvinoff’s note emphasised, as have the diplomatic representations of the Soviet Government that were intended to counteract Japanese pressure on the Nanking Government, that the Soviet Union, by the Treaty of Peking in 1924, had specifically recognised Chinese sovereignty over Outer Mongolia. The mutual assistance agreement is based on this treaty provision, said M. Litvinoff’s note. Furthermore, it added, the Soviet Government now reaffirms the Peking agreement in _ so far as it relates to the Soviet Union, and that agreement will remain valid in the future. M. Litvinolf stressed that the mutual assistance protocol was not directed against the interests _of any third country, as it would go into effect only in case the Soviet Union or the Mongolian Republic became a victim of aggression and was compelled to defend its territories. M. Litvinoff’s note was handed 10 the Chinese Charge d’Affaircs, Ju M 11nan. Many points of the note were contained in greater detail in a sig-

nificanfc editorial in ‘ Izvestia,’ the chief Government organ. In addition, ‘ Izvestia ’ stressed the fact that the Nanking Government had been unable to prevent Japanese encroachments on Chinese territory. The report from Tokio that China and Russia had entered a secret military agreement aimed at Japan was categorically denied by tho Foreign Office. “ The Japanese spread that report regularly every three or four months, said an official. “It is absolutely false. There is no secret agreement. The ‘ Izvestia ’ editorial included a lengthy review of the Far Eastern situation and for the first time put in black and white what everybody has long known was the controlling reason for Soviet readiness to defend Outer Mongolia—namely, the stragetic military advantage Japan would enjoy for an attack on the Soviet it she succeeded in seizing Outer Mongolia. Recalling tho advance of B»roa Ungern, leader of the anti-Bolshevist forces, towards Lake Baikal after having occupied Outer Mongolia iu 1921, ‘lzvestia’ says:— “ Seizure of Outer Mongolia (by Japan) would be followed by an attack on tho Soviet traus-Bailkal region and an attempt to cut oft Eastern Siberia from Russia by blocking the Trans-Siberian railroad. That is why the Soviet Union is interested, for its own self-defence m preservation of the integrity of Mongolian Rcplubic.” ... ‘lzvestia’ stresses the provision of the Treaty of I’cking of 1924, in which the Soviet recognised Mongolia as a part of the Chinese Republic. Since then, it says, close Soviet-Mongolian relations have continued in a manner fullv maintaining the interest of p* imf }‘ After tracing Soviet-Mongolian friendship through the past year s border incidents to the present formal assistance pact, ‘ Izvestia ’ dwells on the Nanking Government’s “ acceptance of the seizure of Manchuria, Jeliol, and Inner Mongolia, and says Nanking docs not resist seizure of the northern provinces of China. . , , “ We know that the more headstrong and adventurous Japanese militarists' are trying to create a new puppet State in North China,” says * Izvestia,’ “ and

are negotiating witli individual Chines* generals for creation of a union similar to that between Japan and Manchukuo in order to be in a position to try again to seize Outer Mongolia. “It is perfectly evident, therefore* that the Soviet Government is acting in complete accord with all the dutie* assumed in regard to the Mongolian Republic and for the sake of poac« ana self-defence, and in no way interfering with the interests of the Chinese people. • “ The Japanese militarists who tried unsuccessfully to seize Outer Mongolia in 1921 now pose as the defenders or Chinese interests and demand that th< Nanking Government protest against the assistance protocol as contravening the Peking treaty. We are_ deeply con. vinced that only those Chinese _pohti. dans who have tied their fate to Japan, ese militarism and servd, or are ready to serve, its plans for the dismember* nient and crashing of China will davd speak against the pact.” A Chinese Foreign Office spokesman said that the Nanking Government, having placed its protest against the Soviet-Mongolian pact on record, did not intend to proceed further regarding the treaty.