The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, MAY 16, 1927. TREACHERY OF THE SOVIET

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19841, 16 May 1927, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, MAY 16, 1927. TREACHERY OF THE SOVIET

As everybody knows, 'diplomatic premises the world over are places where political intrigue goes on to a greater or lesser extent. But most diplomats, whatever nation they may represent, are decent enough to observe certain limits in this respect. Probably the representatives of Soviet Russia are about the only ones in the world low enough to plead diplomatic immunity as an excuse for stirring up revolution in the very country on whose soil one of their embassies stands.

Knowing the utter lack of scruple which characterises the Soviet and its agents, one is scarcely surprised that it should thus take advantage of British forbearance. But perhaps few were prepared for certain happenings which followed the recent raid on the Russian Trade Delegation’s premises in London, a raid undertaken in consequence of the mischief-making propensities alluded to above.

Following on the raid, the Soviet Charge d’Affaires entered, a protest against it on the ground of diplomatic immunity, quoting the Anglo-Soviet trade agreement of 1921 in support. That would have been perfectly proper had the agreement provided for such immunity. But it transpires that all it provided in this respect was that only the Delegation’s official agent himself should enjoy the privilege referred to, and that it did not extend to his subordinates or his premises. e

If M. Rosengolz did not know the terms of the agreement under which the Delegation’s presence in London was permitted, then he is palpably either too ignorant or too careless a man to be entrusted with so important a mission. On the other hand, if he did know, he has not only shown colossal impudence in nialdng his protest, but has taken a principal part in an act of treachery which the veriest cad would be ashamed of. Of course the Soviet goes into hysterics about the affair and talks of forged documents and pogroms. These ravings can be taken for what they are worth, which is nothing. As for its complaint that, the British Government is endangering Anglo-Russian amity, it need only be said that it would be better for the Soviet to refrain from its own hostility and show some real genuine friendliness to Britain before grumbling about the retaliation it has brought upon itself by its own acts. Considered in conjunction with the recent seizure of revolutionary Soviet documents in Peking, the raid in London affords another proof, if proof be needed, that it would be an advantage to the world in general if the Soviet and all its works were confined to its own country, where it could without hindrance try out its own peculiar ideas of ill-will and revolution which are such an impediment to peace and human progress MR. HENDERSON AND MOSCOW There is one matter connected with the raid on the Russian Trade Delegation’s premises which deserves special emphasis. As mentioned above, a protest was entered against it. The usual and proper course in such circumstances is to lodge the protest with the Foreign Office direct. But what did the Soviet Charge d’Affaires do? Before waiting on the Foreign Office, he called on Mr Arthur Henderson, one of the most prominent members of the British Labour Party, and had a consultation with him.

The effect of this was seen at the next sitting of the Commons when, as soon as the Speaker had taken the ehair, Mr Henderson popped up in his place to ask on whose authority the raid was made, and why. Later on, when a query was put to him point-blank, Mr Henderson had to admit that he had conferred with M. Rosengolz before the latter proceeded to the Foreign Office.

When one of the leaders of a great political party so far forgets his duty to his country, his colleagues and his constituents, to say nothing of his own self-respect, as to give countenance and support to his country’s enemies, it is time decided notice was taken of the fact. That M. Rosengolz should go straight to Mr Henderson in so serious a matter indicates that there has been collusion between them before.

Unfortunately for the British Labour Party, there is reason to suspect that A(r Henderson is not the only one of its membership who is in the Soviet boat. The party has always suffered from the poor quality of its leadership. In fact, a very sharp line must be drawn between its leaders and its constituents. The latter, taken in the mass, are emphatically British, whatever their grievances. The leaders, on the other hand, have shown themselves more concerned with their own personal ambitions and their own personal prejudices than with the real interests of the people they represent. Mr Henderson’s is a case in point. When he thus shows himself hand in glove with people whose avowed aim is to stir up revolution in Britain, it is time his party jettisoned him. Otherwise, it must stand accused of similar disloyalty, not only to its own country, but to its own class. It will be interesting to note what view Mr Henderson’s colleagues will take. In their own interests, they should disavow him. If, on the other hand, they decide to approve his connection with Moscow, they will assuredly find that they have mistaken the temper of the British people.