RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE W E are not in the least surprised that
public opinion has been deeply moved at the attempts, often openly avowed, on the part of certain Russian politicians and officials to interfere in our domestic concerns. No people with any sense of national dignity and independ- ence can but resent deliberate attempts by foreigners to dictate to them on home policy. But, though we not only understand, but approve of, and share in, the indignation, it does not at all follow that we can carry into operation the proposals for meeting interference, which have been suggested by those who, however well meaning, let their anger get in front of their judgment. Because a man may deserve to be thrashed. to be sent to Coventry, or to be expelled froth one's house and garden because of his misconduct, it does not follow that it is wise to take such measures against him. What has got to be considered is, " How can the general aim of putting an 'end to the nuisance of interference be best achieved ?" When all has been said, it is no good to threaten a man with punishment for walking across your garden if you know that the result of driving him off the lawn will be to send him round in the dark to the back door there to fulfil the very intention to which you object. It is necessary to use judgment and discretion in enforcing even the best of rules. However sound a rule may be in the abStract its enforcement often deinands an art.
Take the situation created by the sending of Russian money here with the avowed purpose of helping the cause of Communism and injuring the cause of Freedom and Democracy, Though the Russian money that has been coming in " for the miners " may be meant to throw our industrial, political, and social life into con- fusion and produce conditions under which the Com- munistic seed may flourish, and though it may be accom- panied by fantastic declarations, we have sufficient assurance that the money actually received by the miners will be spent, not on Communistic propaganda, but on helping their wives and children—that is, upon an object which is approved of by all humane men in practice, whatever may be their theories. Englishmen have no desire to follow the example set by the Soviet Governnient during the height of its tyranniCal action. Unless the Soviet rulers are greatly maligned, they were. in the habit of seizing, imprisoning, and even executing the wives and families of men who were opposing the Soviet. We not only refuse to treat wives and children as hostagei in Order to prevent hostile or revolutionary action on the part of any miners, but mean to do whatever we can to mitigate the sufferings of those dependants. Therefore,- when Money is sent which will be applied for this purpose, it would be political pedantry to stand on -a punctilio and say that there was an evil:intention behind the donation. " Non olet" is here a thoroughly sound comment. A meal provided for children by Russian gold will do them no harm, though it would do us a great deal of harm to prevent their getting such a meal. There- fore we are in entire agreement with the Government in judging the case on its merits and not on any logical generalization. To put it in another way, the Govern= ment are quite right to allow money to come in when there is a trade dispute within the meaning of the Trade Disputes Act, but not to allow money to come in for revolutionary purposes or—we do not want to beg the question—for the political but non-industrial purposes involved in a general strike.
" But," it may be said, " we grant all that, and we do not want to stop the money in regard to which we have got an assurance that it will be spent on food. But how can we tolerate the malignant interference with our political and social system which is openly advocated in Russia ? The Soviet would not—rightly, as many of us think—tolerate our backing up of any attempts at counter-revolution by the White Party in Russia. It treated such intervention and the reception of English- help and English money as the unforgivable sin." The next step in the argument we are sketching is to say " What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Therefore we ought to tell the Soviet Government that, unless they put a stop to the policy of interfering in our home politics, we must sever all connexions with them; diplomatic and commercial."
There is obviously much to be said in support of such a plan, dialectically and in the abstract. In the concrete, we believe that there is nothing whatever to be said for it. It has been tried again and again in the course of -European history, and it has always failed. The breaking-1 off of intercourse with a foreign Power and sending it commercially to Coventry always ends in a few years, and oftener in a few months, in semi-secret and unavowed diplomatic intercourse and in trading and other forms of intercourse through intermediaries. When the Jacobins cut off the head of the King of France, Britain was so angry and so determined that she would not allow what Grattan called " the Gallic plant whOse taste is death " to be grown on our soil that she put France under a ban. Yet in a very short time Pitt was compelled, or found it in the interests of the country, to reopen relations with the Republic. The only result of what was regarded. in France as our " interference " was the strengthening of Jacobinism. Men who were not 'Jacobin in opinion rallied at once to the National cause. " We hate the extremists," they said, " but we will deal with them ourselves. We cannot admit the right of any other' State to meddle with our domestic affairs." Of course the Patriots enormously exaggerated Pitt's so-called interference. For example " the gold of Monsieur Pitt " was largely a legend. Nevertheless this silly legend had repercussions which have lasted 'even to our own times. For example, M. Clemenceau was accused of taking " the gold of the Cobden Club," though that excellent Institution, even if it had possessed free gold; which it 'did not, would never have spent it in the way. alleged. From such follies we must do our best to keep free.
When we are annoyed by the threat of. Soviet gold, we must remember the myth of Pitt's guineas ! We do not want to go out of our way to be friendly with Soviet 'Russia, but we do not believe, in putting our- selves to inconvenience and abandoning trade in order to punish somebody else. Contact with the world rathei than isolation is the condition most likely to tame and humaniZe Russian fanatics:
Previous page
