BRITAIN AND RUSSIA

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 72, Issue 290, 6 December 1929, Page 9

BRITAIN AND RUSSIA

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF LORDS PERTINENT QUESTIONS ASKED [By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright] [ British Official Wireless. ] RUGBY, Dec. 4. The resumption of diplomatic relations with Russia was the subject of a debate - the House of Lords, initiated by Lord Birkenhead, who called attention to recent Soviet revolutionary propaganda and invited a statement of policy of the Government, and moved a resolution that the resumption of relations at present was undesirable. Lord Thomson, in replying, said that the 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 the maintenance of world peace and to expand British trade. It was the Government ’s view that relations with tlie 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 the 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, their right t»o take any measure they might think necessary to check foreign subversive propaganda from whatever source it might emanate. A Firm Attitude. Lord Brentford asked whether, in fa_e of that declaration, if propaganda continued either in Britain or in the Empire, instigated by the Russian Government, their envoy would not be sent out again. Lord Thomson replied: “If it is instigated by the Russian Government, most certainly.” Lord Birkenhead: Including the Third International’ Lord Thomson: Yes. Continuing, Lord Thomson said that he did not want to leave the impression that propaganda would cease as if by magic. Lt could not in the nature of things with a body like the Third International. Regarding the argument that relations should not be resumed with the country where atrocities and executions had taken place, he said that the Government did not condone the atrocities, and regretted the executions, but they 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 are undertaking their present policy.” Lord Reading (Liberal) approved the Government’s policy as sound and wise and in the interests of real security for universal peace. He would have preferred to see an agreement definitely setting down the terms of relations that were to exist before the exchange of Ambassadors, but he hoped that when the conditions were laid down they would be as definite and precise as possible. Crusade Against Religion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury drew attention to the attitude of the Soviet Government towards Christianity and all forms of religion, but he had received 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 the religious people in Russia if representations could be made through ordinary diplomatic means to the Soviet Government.

AUSTRALIA’S ATTITUDE QUESTION IN COMMONS. LONDON, Dec. 4. In the House of Commons, asked whether the Commonwealth had intimated the conditions on which it would agree to the Government’s policy towards Russia, Mr Lunn said that he had heard nothing of the Commonwealth’s attitude. In general the Do minions had been kept fully informed of everything done and none had dissented. DISCUSSION BY LORDS. BOLSHEVIK PROPAGANDA. CONFLICTING VIEWS EXPRESSED Received Dec. 5, 10 p.m. LONDON, Dec. 4. In the House of Lords, Lord Birkenhead, moving that diplomatic recognition of the Soviet, at present, was undesirable, pointed out that he alone was responsible for the motion. Resumption of relations would have been justified on the grounds of trt.de. The United States, which country was in nowise indifferent to commercial advantage, had resolutely declined to recognise th c Soviet Government, which had not shown the slightest intention of doing what Mr Henderson described as the conditions precedent to full resump tioi*. Nobody knew ' uthoritively whethei the Soviet claimed t have the power to control the Third Internationale. Instructions had been sent out with the object of inflaming revolutions among South African natives months after the Soviet had opened discussions with Mr Henderson, if the Soviet had no power to prevent this, where was the advantage of resuming relations therewith? If it had power '. but refused to exercise it, why fool | ourselve. into the belief that stable, honourable relations could be established with such people? These attempts made to stir up revolutions in parts of the Empire would have been impossible without t sent or complicity of the Soviet. Ever since Mr Henderson’s conversations with Dovgalovsky, there had been an aggravation of all Russia’s antiI British activities, ye., in the face {thereof, it was understood that the , Government were continuing their resumption policy. Lord Brentford, following th 0 Arch-

bishop of Canterbury, took the view that the Soviet’s whole principles of political, moral and religious actions were such that Britain would in nowise participate therein. Lord Melchett said that Soviet proInternationale was master of the Moscow Government. It was carrying on a world war more deadly than if it were carried on by 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 gross exaggeration to describe Bolshevik propaganda as more deadly than war. Its most striking feature was its utter futility. Loord Melchett said that Soviet propaganda was responsible for the troubles in China, India, Egypt, and Palestine. Our own genera] strike was directly due to Bolshevik propaganda. Lord Glasgow: What about the Communist Sunday Schools? Lord Cecil: They are on the verge of collapse. Lord Parmoor, replying, said that though th e United States had not recognised Russia diplomatically, there wag 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 common sense of the British democracy. Lord Birkenhead: I am convinced by Lord Cecil’s and Lord Parmoor’s speeches. My previous views must be entirely wrong. Russian propaganda is either wholly innocuous or positively beneficial to Britain. I am not sure whether we ought not to subsidise it. Lord Birkenhead’s motion was carried by 43 votes to 21.