PROPERTY IN RUSSIA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18089, 13 May 1922, Page 8

PROPERTY IN RUSSIA

The "points of contact between the Russian delegates' reply and the, memorandum presented by the Allied Governments last week are not fully revealed by the cabled summary, though the, reports indicate that the Russian attitude is favourable for further negotiations. The Allies offered financial assistance to Russia on certain conditions, of which the chief are the recognition of pre-war [ debts, and payment within her capacity, compensation for injury to foreigners and restitution of confiscated property. It is understood that acceptance of these proposals, with approved guarantees, would be followed by de jure recognition, but the Soviet delegation is evidently still endeavouring to avoid the real issues by dexterity of argument. The reference to the confiscation of private property during the French revolution, which may be intended merely as a mischievous provocation of France, the largest creditor, points to an historical precedent, but it is not analogous to the questions in discussion. Apart from the fact that private property rights were restored immediately after the French revolution, whereas the Soviet's present intention is to maintain the policy of nationalisation, the Allies challenge the acts of confiscation only in respect of the properties of foreigners. By the first of the six pointß defined at Cannes the Russian claim of sovereign rights was conceded. " Nations can claim no right to dictate to each other regarding the principles on which they are to regulate their system of ownership, internal economy and government. It is for every nation to choose for itself the system which it prefers in this respect." The corollary was expounded in the second and third clauses, which stated that foreign investors must be assured by effective security that their property and rights would bo respected. The principle is that while Russia, as a sovereign State, would owe no responsibility to other States for acts done within her own territories, she violates the rules which govern international commerce and finance at her peril. Of these the most fundamental is the inviolability of contract. International credit is a delicate and extensive structure which rests upon a foundation of mutual confidence. Nothing is more calculated to destroy it than repudiation of agreements, and nothing is more necessary to its stability than the scrupulous honouring of bargains and arrangements. A nation against whom default is made in respect of its Government or its nationals is morally entitled to secure its rights by force. There is, fortunately, no question of war on Russia, but the Allies have made it abundantly clear that they will not risk further capital in Russia or even enter into trading relations until Russia recognises her debts to foreign governments and citizens. The Allies are not pressing for their pound of flesh, but they do demand that Russia should acknowledge her liabilities and pay what she can. Russia still hesitates to admit her full obligations and vitiates her partial admission by impossible conditions, but she must yield in the end. Her need of Western capital is so great and the principles enunciated by the Allies are so sound that the controvers3' can have only one conclusion.