BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Otago Witness, Issue 3808, 8 March 1927, Page 30

BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

BRITISH NOTE OF PROTEST.

GOVERNMENT’S ACTION DEFENDED. RUGBY, March 3. In the debate on the Anglo-Russian relations in the House of Commons, Mr Ramsay MacDonald contended that the diplomatic relations between Brjtain and Russia from the year 1921 to the present had never given the trade agreement a proper chance. He was glad that the Foreign Secretary had sent a Note to Russia. Since he himself had left office he had been repeatedly asked what he •would do. He had no hesitation in saying that if he had been in office it would have been sent a good long time before it was sent, and he thought it would have been stiffer in substance. Nevertheless, he hoped that the Government J.ad at present no intention either of abrogating the trade agreement or of severing relations. He suggested that the specific points made against the Soviet Government should first be argued, reasoned, and negotiated upon. Sir Austen Chamberlain said he took note with satisfaction and gratitude of the repetition by Mr MacDonald of those principles of international relations which he had inserted into the Note, which he had sent to the Soviet Government as one of his last executive acts when he was Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. He noted also that Mr MacDonald directly approved of the action of the present Government in sending a Note now. Referring to the daily propaganda of the Soviet Government, which, he said, had singled out the British Empire as the particular mark and object of its animosity and illwill, Sir Austen Chamberlain said: “If we had had to consider nothing but our own domestic situation and our own interests as they are affected by the trade agreement or by the exchange of diplomatic relations, I do not think I should have waited so long before asking my colleagues to take the action which Mr MacDonald clearly indicated he was prepared to take, and would take, if these provocations were continued.” The Government had had to take a wide view.

It felt that if a breach had occurred with Russia it would have had its reaction on other countries. If action had been ttken before the world had been shown what was the provocation it would have had a very disturbing effect upon the European situation. The Soviet Government had sought to convince other countries that the policy of his Majesty’s Government was to stir up troubles and to use them as an instruippnt of anti-Soviet policy. Nothing could be further removed from the truth. Whenever he had spoken to the representatives of any foreign country upon this subject he had always told them that good relations between themselves and their neighbours would be welcome to the British Government, for any improvement in their relations served the policy of the British Government, which was a policy of peace. Everybody knew that Soviet Russia had done her best to prevent the Treaty of Locarno from being Signed, to persuade Germany not to resume friendly relations with her western or eastern neighbours, and that

the Soviet had done its utmost to persuade Germany not to come into the League of Nations; but to remain outside with Soviet Russia.

“You cannot have on whatever provocation a sudden breach between this. country and Russia without a repercussion on the whole European situation, ’ said Sir Austen Chamberlain, “and it was for that reason that I urged upon the Government patience and forbearance under circumstances of continued provocation, such as wc have never endured at the hands of any other nation; but I have always felt and know that there are limits beyond •which forbearance cannot be carried. We have no desire, and we make no attempt, to interfere with the Soviet Government within its own boundaries. We have carried on no diplomatic campaign against it in any part of the world. We have lived up to not merely the letter, but to the fullest spirit of the mutual engagement which we undertook with it.. What we ask of the Soviet is not that it shall change its domestic institutions, not that it shall refrain from preaching to its own people that its own institutions are superior to those which are preferred by the rest of the world ; but that it should make its policy conform to the ordinary comity of nations and abstain from efforts to promote world revolution, and from all interference in our internal affairs.”

VIEWS OF VISCOUNT GREY. LONDON, March 3. In the House of Lords, Lord Newton ’drew attention to the Soviet’s reply to the British Note. He expressed the opinion that the breaking off of diplomatic relations and the cancellation of the trade agreement had been justified over and over again. Lord Reading said he saw no advantage in either course. He doubted •whether any country would follow our' example. Our hands should be left free for further action, if and when it became necessary. The Marquis of Salisbury said the peace and prosperity of the world depended on Britain’s proper conduct of foreign affairs. She must not, through pique, injured dignity, or some triviality, take action capr able of great harm. Viscount Grey of Falloderi said that every line of Britain’s Note was justifiable,- but he doubted the-expediency of Mending it.' The' Soviet was only using -t«r Note to imbue the Red army with

the idea that Britain purposes an attack on Russia. “Our prestige aud reputation would have been better served by silence,” said Viscount Grey. “The only way to meet propaganda is with counterpropaganda. Our Government could not undertake this, but constitutionallyminded Labourites and trade unionists, who were the people immediately attacked by the Soviet, ought to do so.” The House then rose. RIVALRY IN THE FAR EAST. LONDON, March 5. The support given by the British Opposition leaders to Sir Austen Chamberlain’S Note to the Soviet has created a deep impression. Several rtfewspapers declare that the crux of the question is the old Anglo-Rus-sian rivalry in the Far East, which is described by one writer as a struggle between a whale and an elephant, but the elephant has at present become an army of ants, burrowing everywhere secretly, while the whale is no longer able to summon the assistance of the Japanese dragon owing to Britain’s abandonment of her Japanese alliance in order to please the United States, though the necessity for an Anglo-Japanese alliance is becoming daily more plain. The press does not expect that Britain will break off her relations with Russia till the other European Powers are prepared to follow her example. The impudent tone of the Soviet’s reply is considered to be due to the Bolshevist leaders’ desire to distract attention from the unsatisfactory economic position of Russia.

“Pertinax,” in an article in the Echo de Paris, points out that the Japanese ports are only 48 hours from Shanghai, and adds that'if, as formerly, British and Japanese politics had been united the scenes at Hankow would never have occurred."