Publications, Newspaper Cuttings, Photographs and Correspondence about Persia and the Persian Gulf [‎321v] (645/879)

68
EGYPT.
[September, 1911.
THE SITUATION IN PERSIA.
By PROF. EDWARD G. BROWNE.
The courage and tenacity of purpose with which Persia
continues the struggle to maintain her independence,
reform her administration, and preserve the Constitution
she has so hardly won, entitle her to a much larger
measure of sympathy than she has received in this
country. We all like to believe that once upon a time
there existed in England a widely-spread and genuine
sympathy with nations, such as Greece and Italy,
struggling to free themselves from foreign bondage, at
any rate when that bondage was not of our own making;
and that what used to be called “ the English love of
fair play ” was sure to operate in this direction, unless
inhibited by some more powerful motive of self-interest.
Those days, if they ever existed, are past. The new
Imperialism, growing ever more Darwinian and more
logical, and at the same time more ugly and cruel,
admits that we cannot have a monopoly of " civilising
missions,” but must allow other great European Powers,
especially our “ friends ” Erance and Russia, to share
in this great evolutionary work. This doctrine, which
lays down that inferior races ” who do not fully
develop the lands they occupy have no right, however
inoffensive they may be, to occupy those lands, but may
with perfect propriety be dispossessed and subjugated
by any “civilised ” Power which has the strength and
the will to do so (always provided that it can “ square ”
the other “ civilised ” Powers), was set forth with
singular frankness and lucidity, by Sir Harry Johnston in
a letter which he contributed to the " Times” on the
Morocco question about a month ago. So catholic was
his Imperialism and so great his desire of distributing
the “White Man’s Burden ” as widely as possible, that
not only would he accord to our “friends” France and
Russia a free hand in Morocco and Persia respectively,
but also Italy, and even the dreaded bugbear of the
British Foreign Office, Germany (the fear of which, as
everyone knows, is the sole basis of the* Triple Entente
policy, and all the evil for which it is responsible), were
to be allowed their share in ” civilising ” the whole of
Asia, with the exception of Japan and, perhaps, China.
In this scheme of things what we used to understand by
justice and international morality have no place what-
ever, and it is, therefore, useless in this connection to
employ these words at all. It has been difficult to teach
this lesson to the Persians, who until quite lately
persisted in believing that if only they could make known
here the truth of what was passing in their country,
they could count on England’s sympathy and support.
Perhaps their belief had some ground, if the conditional
clause had been capable of fulfilment; but as a matter of
fact only three or four English newspapers of import
ance (amongst which the “Manchester Guardian”
deservedly ranks first) are willing to give publicity to
facts, no matter how well authenticated, which do not
tally with the “policy” which they have endorsed. The
“ Times,” in one of its periodical attacks on Persia’s
sympathisers in this country, declared with singular
frankness that the whole Persian question was a merely
sectional ” one, which ought to be subordinated to the
great aim of maintaining the Triple Entente as a barrier
to German ambitions. To this end Russia must be
bribed and flattered, and if this flattery involved a
complete ignoring of the facts then so much the worse
for the facts.
Apart from the possibility (now generally ignored) that
there is after all an eternal justice of some sort which
exacts retribution for wrong-doing, in the case of nations
as of men, no reflecting student of contemporary history
can believe that any amount of compliance on the part
of England with Russia’s designs on Persia can make
the Russians forget their grudges against us, especially
those connected with the Russo-Japanese war. The
incredible weakness of the British Foreign Office in its
spasmodic attempts to restrain Russia’s aggressive
actions in Persia within the limits of some semblance of
decency, has not only inspired both Persia and Turkey
with a profound sense of mistrust, but even in Russia
itself has induced contempt rather than gratitude. Nor
has the object for which so many moral and material
sacrifices were made, viz., to keep Germany from
extending her influence to regions adjacent to the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , been attained ; for, in spite of all semi-
official denials, and the paeans on Russia’s “loyalty ” to
the Entente which form the gist of the abject communi
cations transmitted to the “Times” by • its St.
Petersburg correspondent, it is quite certain that a
“deal” (enormously facilitated by the blundering
ultimatum addressed to the Persian by the British
Government on October 16th last) has been effected
between Russia and Germany, which, if it bodes ill for
Persia, carries also a most serious menace to England's
position in India.
There is a well-known Persian proverb “ Kaj dar u
ma-riz (“ Hold crooked and don’t upset ”) which has
received ample illustration in the dealings of Russia
and England with Persia. The British ultimatum of
October 16th last demanded that Persia should employ
Anglo-Indian officers to organise a gendarmerie to
guard the roads and ensure the security of caravans
and travellers. Persia resisted this demand at the
time, but rather more than a month ago, on the
termination of the appointment of Captain Stokes (an
officer of the Indian army, whose sympathy with the
Persians and knowledge of their language has won him
their full confidence) as military attache to the British
Legation, the Persian Government spontaneously
invited him to organise and command the Treasury
gendarmerie which it proposed to form for this very
purpose, and the contract was enthusiastically voted by
the Persian Parliament by 63 out of 72 members
present. The Persians naturally supposed that
England would be pleased at this spontaneous adoption
on their part of the essential feature of the scheme
which she had endeavoured to force upon them nine
months previously. They were soon undeceived.
Russia, which least of all things desires order or
security in Persia, at once objected, on the ground that
Captain Stokes would wield authority in her “ sphere."
Russia's faithful friend, the “Times,” attacked not
' only the Persians for endeavouring to undermine the
“ Entente,” but Captain Stokes himself for his share
in the transaction, and, while quoting with apparent
approval the violent language and unseemly threats of
the “ Novoe Vremya,” refused to insert a letter
addressed to the editor setting forth the other side of
the question; and Sir Edward Grey, as usual, has
apparently weakly submitted to the Russian demands,
though the final outcome of the negotiations is not yet
known.
Similar in character was the diplomatic campaign
organised by the Russian Minister at Teheran
(supported by his French, German, and Italian
colleagues) against Mr. Morgan Shuster and the other
American financial experts invited by the Persian
Government to undertake the reorganisation of the
finances. Soon after the deposition of Muhammad Ali
Mirza two years ago, the “ Times ” began to lecture
the Persians on their incompetence in financial matters,
and to urge on them the necessity of foreign advisers.
The Persians declined to employ Russian or English
advisers, lest under this specious name they should
grow into dictators, but showed their readiness to learn
all that the West had to teach them by employing
Americans, from whom, politically, they had nothing
to fear, and who, in fact, as stated by a French
journalist of high position now engaged in studying the
situation in Teheran, have “ inspired universal
confidence amongst Persians and assist British
commercial interests, as recognised by all English
residents.” Again, however, Russia objects, for the
same reason as she objected to the appointment of
Captain Stokes; and again the “ Times ” reproduces
with apparent sympathy the violent denunciations
hurled by the “ Novoe Vremya ” at the “ American
financial dictators.”
These are two only of the many, efforts made by
Russia to thwart all attempts made by the Persians in
the direction of reform, and, worst of all, as everyone
knows, she has, in defiance of her solemn undertakings
to the contrary (to which England also was a party),
permitted the degraded and unpatriotic ex-Shah to
monplace, chronicled by Mr. Stead, was one of loyalty
to the present regime. "I have always desired,” Mr.
Stead makes the Sultan say, “the establishment of the
Constitution of Turkey, and now that it is established
I shall maintain the Constitution.” Considering the
circumstances, therefore, it is very modest of Mr. Stead
to tell us that “it would not be right to publish a faithful
transcript of a conversation so intimate ...” Why,
after all, should the details of Mr. Stead’s little lecture
be thus withheld from a hungering world?
At the same time, we are given some clue to the nature
of the lecture. “ It was to me an interesting, and to the
Sultan an unprecedented, experience to hear the most
advanced doctrines of proper Imperialism discussed in
the Dolma Bagtche Palace.” “Proper” Imperialism, it
would appear, was that exemplified in the Imperial
Conference, when each adult State there represented
virtually decided to go its own way. Obviously we
have nothing to say against a system of loosely federated
nations, each dependent on its own public opinion for
its policy, and each free to take the course which it
conceives to be best in its own interest, without mis
chievous constraint or meddling from outside. Only
thus, indeed, can freedom grow. At the present moment
the bond between Canada and Great Britain is much less
tightly drawn than that between France and Great
Britain. If England, under certain conditions, plunged
into a European war to-morrow, it is very probable
France would feel much more obligation to join her than
Canada would. Indeed, whatever “loyal” protests it
may be considered politic to raise now in Australia or
Africa, it is none the less certain that if England, in a
fit of panic, or to maintain some chimerical “balance
of power” in Europe, involved herself in a Continental
war, the Colonies, which have nothing to do with these
European feuds, would take measures to protect them
selves by declaring their neutrality.
But why, in the name of honesty, call an assembly of
independent nations like this an “Empire,” whether
Kitchener would review the Boy Scouts next week, and the
something Territorials the week after. What more natural
than that indignant editors should ask whether our greatest
public servant was to be driven into exile, whether his
abilities were to be surrendered up to railway companies,
and his time wasted in promiscuous trivialities? No one
realises better than Lord Kitchener the effect that a Press
like this produces on the mind of a Ministry. Yet at the
last he probably owes his selection as much to those who
wish him away as to those who favour the choice on its
merits.
Far be it from us to question the “ Pioneer’s ” diag
nosis of the case. It is a truly Imperial organ, and
they know Lord Kitchener’s retiring disposition in
India.
* * *
Writing on the travesty of justice at the Lewis trial
in Buluwayo, on which we comment elsewhere, Mr.
Laurence Housman draws an interesting parallel in the
“Westminster Gazette.” “The report,” he writes, “in
your issue to-day of the trial of Mr. Sam Lewis, of
Buluwayo, suggests the question, What would the white
colony of Rhodesia have thought and done had a black
man picked out a white, taken him by the collar and
shot him, justifying his action with the remark, ‘ It’s
all right ! I shot him. He asked my daughter to com
mit an immoral act ’? That man would probably have
been lynched.” As to the “Black Peril,” Sir Harry
Johnston has an important remark : “This talk of the
Black Peril—believe me, I write from considerable
experience—is largely an attempt in certain countries
where the coloured people are badly treated by the
whites to distract attention from land-grabbing, sweated
labour, disguised slavery, wholesale vending of bad
alcohol, and other licentious practices.”
* * *
The Nationalist organ, “Al Alam,” published a
report on the 18th ult. that the Government were about
to expel Sheikh Abdul Aziz Shawish because of the
speeches which he delivers in the provinces. It would
appear, says “Al Alam,” that this exile is one of the
first-fruits of Lord Kitchener’s policy.