THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1929 THE SOVIET AND THE PACT

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 301, 5 December 1929, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1929 THE SOVIET AND THE PACT

The reply—of which the substance is cabled us to-day—sent by the Soviet Government to -lie American Secretary of State’s note of protest against the use of armed force in the Russo-Chinese dispute over the Manchurian railway displays a lack of respect that savours a good deal of contempt. We have yet to hear what kind ofanswers Great Britain and France will receive to their notes, said to have been couched in terms almost identical with that from the United States. So far as the Washington, Government is concerned, that of Moscow seems to have assumed that, because diplomatic relations have never been established between them, Washington has no status from which to speak to Moscow. That is, of course, a mere evasion, since it was at Washington’s invitation that Moscow hastened to sign the Kellogg Paet which it has now so manifestly violated. The relation->-hin of cosignatories tlius in-

stituted surely gives America some standing for making remonstrance against the breach of a practically world-wide mutual undertaking specially fathered by the United States This pose will not, however, work with Great Britain and France, with both of whom diplomatic relations are now operating, and it is with some interest tiiat the replies to them, no doubt forthcoming very shortly, are awaited. As to Great Britain, we may be pretty sure that, as with the United States, special emphasis will be given to the “reservations” made when signing the Pact —in Britain’s case having particular regard to the protection of her interests in Egypt and the Near East. As to France, it has to be borne in mind that she has something more than a mere political interest in the settlement of the Russo-Chinese dispute. A very large proportion, considerably more than half, so it is said, of the mliny millions of capital of the company that built the railway was subscribed from Paris and is still held there. Though for years no dividend or interest has been paid on this capital, the French shareholders and bondholders have been pressing, through their Government, for recognition, but hitherto without success.

On the evidence which China has been able to adduce, there can be no doubt whatever as to the Russians having committed continuous and well organised breaches of the mutual undertaking . against subversive propaganda which was made an integral part of the existing Russo-Chinese Treaty relating to the railway. It was on the strength of these breaches that China claimed the right to eject the Russians from their agreed part in the management and to . assume complete control. It does not seem, however, to be quite so certain that the Chinese had themselves scrupulously observed the terms of the treaty. That is a moot point which the Russians have raised, and on which judgment has to be reserved. In any event, these were questions upon which a recourse to arbitration under the Pact would have been entirely appropriate, and the spirit of that undertaking demands that such resort should be taken. On the other hand, technically speaking, the contention may be advanced that these breaches took place before the Pact was signed and are therefore not governed by it. The Soviet Government is particularly resourceful in finding plausible pretexts for its actions, and its answers to Great Britain and France may be expected to show fresh examples of the exercise of this faculty.