THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1923. AT ODDS WITH RUSSIA

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18396, 11 May 1923, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, MAY 11, 1923. AT ODDS WITH RUSSIA

' Relations between ' Britain and | Soviet Russia have been strained ito the breaking point. Policy in that direction has for some time been in the nature of drift. The extent of the provocation received at the hands of the Soviet Government is indicated by the terms of the Note just published. It, however, is not all-inclusive, because, apart from the general allusion to hostile acts and propaganda in the East, it contains no reference to the openly hostile and inimical attitude adopted by the Russian delegates at the first Lausanne Conference. The result of non-compliance with the demands, it is stated, will be the complete severance of all relations. This may not amount to much, for the relations that have existed have been ill-defined, and uncertain in their exact implications. They have a . bearing on the present situation, however, as a condition of their establishment was that Russia should refrain from those things which she is now accused of doing. The cessation of propaganda, especially in the East, was an undertaking made by the Soviet Government when the trade agreement between Britain and Russia was signed in ' March, 1921. Britain now threatens to end that agreement. It may not have had very much value in the reestablishment of Russian commerce, but it did at least embody some recognition of the Soviet regime as the de facto Government of Russia. Whether it is valued sufficiently to bring about compliance with the demands now made, time alone will show. The recent actions and utterances of the Soviet leaders prove, however, that either they do not value the relations implied by it, or they see no limits to the patience of the British Government. \ With some of the demands in this Note, history goes back further than the trade agreement. There is mention of a murder in January, 1920. The imprisonment of Mrs. Stan Harding occurred, in the same year. This second case 'has received a great amount of publicity. Mrs. Harding, a British subject, gained admittance to • Russia as the accredited correspondent of an American paper. She admits she went there inclined to be . sympathetic toward the Bolshevik regime. Hor experiences effected in her a complete conversion. She was detained, without trial, in some of the most noisome prisons in Moscow. She was informed of her condemnation to death for "espionage in war time," the only alternative being release on condition that she disclosed the secrets of an alleged British intelligence system in Russia. Knowing nothing of any such system, she was detained a matter of months, sometimes in solitary confinement, sometimes, as the fruits of hunger striking, in company with other prisoners guilty of real or fancied crimes. Her release was one of the conditions precedent to Britain signing the trade agreement. The story of her experiences is not given at second-hand, but in her own words with full detail. .All this happened to an Englishwoman who entered Soviet territory with a special safe conduct. The agreement, however, contained no undertaking that Russia would compensate her, or any other British subject. This matter was to be deferred until the signing of a general treaty of peace —which has not yet been signed. The cases of the British trawlers will be fresh in mind, because of the seizure of the James Johnson. This vessel was operating outside I the three-mile limit, but the Soviet Government claimed that its jurisdiction extended to 12 miles from the shore. No demands for .compensation in any of these instances has met with any success. The Russian Government, perhaps, is still waiting for the general treaty of peace.

In the stipulation for the cessation of propaganda and hostile acts, the British Note is based on an undertaking with which the trade agreement of 1021 does deal specifically. The preamble to the document required that the Soviet authorities should cease from propaganda, especially in the East, with special mention of Afghanistan and India. Simultaneously with its signature, Sir Robert Home handed to the Russian representative a letter in which there was described with great particularity the manner in which Soviet agents—all of whom were named —had been endeavouring to stir up disaffection among the frontier tribes of India. Emphasis was given to a demand to Afghanistan for a free passage for arms and munitions for India. These were the activities which, it was insisted, must cease. It is evident there has been no cessation. Since the British Government was then fully in possession of facts covering the operations of the Soviet emissaries, it may be concluded that it is equally ! well informed now. The Note, doubt- '■ less, is inspired by more than the plain indications of what Russia has done in Turkey. The paper pledge of the Soviet in 1921 has not been kept. That is the only inference , to be drawn. The offensive Note

by which Russia replied to British protests against the execution of church dignitaries is a very recent incident. The tone of this Note was.deliberately insulting, and since its publication a few weeks back, there have been many public demands that the insults should not be brooked in silence. There is abundant proof that Britain is not acting without provocation. If, after a long period of patience, the limit has been reached, Russia cannot maintain that she has not deserved this threat to break off relations. .