PEERS DISAGREE WITH RUSSIAN RECOGNITION

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7085, 6 December 1929, Page 7

PEERS DISAGREE WITH RUSSIAN RECOGNITION

Nothing to be Gained

CECIL AND PAKMOOR SPEAK FOR MINORITY “WORSE THAN WAR.” United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyrl glit. Received Thursday, 7.55 p.m. LONDON, Dec. 4. In tho House of Lords, Lord Birkenhead, in moving that diplomatic recognition of tho Soviet at present was undesirable, pointed out that he alone was responsible for the motion. Resumption would have been justified on tho ground of ,trade. The United States was in no wise indifferent to commercial advantage but it had resolutely declined to recognise the Soviet Government, which had not shown the slightest intention of doing what Mr. A. Henderson described as the condition precedent to full resumption. Nobody knew authoritatively whether the Soviet claimed to have power to control the Third International.

Instructions had been sent out with tho object of inflaming revolution nmong the South African natives months after the discussions with Mr. Henderson had opened. If the Soviet has no power to prevent these, where was the advantage' of resuming relations! If it had the power but refused to-exercise it, why fool ourselves into the belief that stable, honourable relations could be established with such people! These attempts to stir up revolution in a part of our own Empire would have been impossible without the assent or complicity of the Soviet. Ever since Mr. Henderson's conversations with M. Dovgalevsky, ■there had been an aggravation of all Russia’s anti-British activities, yet in tho face of this, he understood tho Government was continuing its resumption policy. L6rd Thomson, in replying, said that tho policy of the Government was to resume normal diplomatic relations with Russia with the least possible delay, and at the same time to safeguard British interests not only in this country, but' throughout the world. The Government hoped to contribute to tho maintenance of world peace and to-ex-pand British trade. It was the Government’s view that relations with the Soviet Government should never have been broken off. The policy of refusing relations because they could not accept the promises of the Soviet Government was a policy of despair. It would mean that the present state of affairs would continue indefinitely. The Ambassadors had not yet been exchanged and the pledge regarding propaganda had not yet been given. The Government had not renounced and would not -renounce its right to take any measure it might think necessary to check foreign subversive propaganda from whatever source it might emanate.

Lord Brentford asked whether in tho face of that declaration, if propaganda continued either in Britain or in the Empire, instigated by the' Russian Government, their Envoy would be sent out

again. Lord Thomson replied: “If it is instigated by tho Russian Government, most pertainly.” Lord Birkenhead: “Including Third International! ’ ’ Lord Thomson: “Yes.”

In. continuing, Lord Thomson said that he did not want to leave the impression that propaganda would cease as if by magic. It could not in the nature of things, with a hody like the Third International.

Regarding the argument that relations should not be resumed frith a country where 1 ■ atrocities and executions had taken place, he said that the Government did not condone atrocities and regretted the executions, but it believed. that the resumption of relations with Russia would tend to diminish the system of executions and atrocities which still prevailed there. “We believe that it is in the best interests of our country' to resume relations. We believe that! it is absolutely indispensable for the, general peace of the world and that is the reason why the Government is undertaking its present policy.” The Archbishop of Canterbury drew attention to the attitude of the Soviet Government towards Christianity and all forms of religion, but he had re ceived information that there was now a, cessation of the more flagrant violations of the elementary principles of justice. He believed that there would be a greater chance of securing some alleviation of the difficult position of religious people in Russia if representations could be made through ordinary diplomatic means to the Soviet Government.

Lord Brentford, following the Archbishop of Canterbury, took the view that the Soviet’s whole principles, political, moral and religious, were such that Britain could in nowise participate in them.

Lord Melchett said the Third Internationale was the master of the Moscow Government. It was carrying on a world war more deadly than if it were carried on with guns, shells and poison gas. British business people were capable of dealing with Russian trade without diplomatic recognition. Lord Cecil regarded recognition as an important step to world peace. He said it was a gross exaggeration to describe Bolshevik propaganda as more deadly than war. Its most striking feature was its', utter futility . Lord Melchett replied that Soviet propaganda was responsible for the troubles in China, India, Egypt and Palestine. Our own general strike was directly due to Bolshevik propaganda. Lord Glasgow: “What about Communist Sunday schools?” Lord Cecil: “They are on the verge of collapse.” Lord Parmoor, in replying, said though the United States had not recognised Russia diplomatically, there was an American, commercial mission in Moscow and a Russian mission in Washington. Soviet propaganda had failed absolutely throughout the Empire, not owing to the breaking off of relations but because of the commonsense of British democracy. Lord Birkenhead: “I am convinced by Lord Cecil’s and Lord Parmoor’s

speeches that my previous views must be entirely wrong—that Russian propaganda is either wholly innocuous, or positively benficial to Britain. I am not sure whether wo ought not to subsidise it.” Lord Birkenhead’s motion was carried by 43 to 21.

Dominions Agreeable To Government’s Policy

NO DISSENTIENT VOICE.

Received Thursday 7.0 p.m. LONDON, Dec. 4. On being asked in the House of Commons whether the Commonwealth had intimated the conditions on which it would agree to the Government’s policy towards Russia, Mr. W. Lunn, Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said that he had heard nothing of the Commonwealth’s attitude. In general, the Dominions had been kept fully informed of everything done and none had dissented,