Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

From The Nineteenth Century. “THE INTEGRITY OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE" AS A DIPLOMATIC FORMULA.

I.

Lord Salisbury's admirers, and they are to be found in both parties, have long been constrained to admit that, with all his great qualities, he suffers from one curious infirmity. It has pursued him from the very beginning of his distinguished public career, and it will apparently cling to him to his latest day. It is the infirmity which, nearly thirty years ago, was described by Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons with that biting sarcasm which he loved to employ against friends as well as foes. Stated in less severe language than Mr. Disraeli's, Lord Salisbury's weakness may be described as his habit of using rash and dangerous phrases. Its latest illustration was found in his astounding reply to Lord Kimberley two weeks ago, when he referred him to the statement of M. Hanotaux in the French Chamber as containing an exposition of the policy of her Majesty's government. It is very probable that when Lord Salisbury gave this unprecedented answer to a question addressed to him by his predecessor in the office of foreign secretary, he had not even read the full text of the speeches in the French Chamber, and based himself upon nothing more than the telegraphic summaries in the English newspapers. But even these summaries should have put Lord Salisbury on his guard against the indiscretion into which he fell. The principal statement which was made by M. Hanotaux and M. Méline was that the policy of France "rested upon the integrity of the Ottoman Empire;" and it was to this statement that Lord Salisbury committed himself by his answer to Lord Kimberley.

It is not surprising that many Liberals, including Lord Kimberly himself, should have been stirred by amazement and indignation when they received this explicit declaration as to the character of the policy of their country in eastern Europe. A reference to "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire" ought not in itself to have disturbed Lord Kimber

ley, or any other man acquainted with the history of the Eastern question; for, as I desire to show in these pages, "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire" is a phrase which has borne many different meanings, and which may fairly be used by an English statesman without giving just cause of offence to anybody. But it is one thing to use this phrase in the sense in which it is nowadays employed by most diplomatists, and quite another thing to refer to it as the principle upon which British policy rests, the very foundation-stone, as it were, of that policy, and of our duties and purposes in the East. British policy, in the belief of the great majority of the people of these islands, ought to rest, and does rest at this moment, upon the maintenance and advancement of human freedom throughout Europe; and, as everybody recognizes the fact that the rule of the sultan of Turkey is a standing menace to all freedom, it is difficult to reconcile Lord salisbury's acceptance of the statement of the French ministers with the popular conception of our national policy.

But did the prime minister really intend to convey the meaning which Lord Kimberley has read into his words, and is the phrase upon which the latter fastened, thoughtless and ill advised though it undoubtedly was, as mischievous as many of Lord Salisbury's critics profess to believe.

To both these questions the answer ought, I think, to be in the negative. No mistake can be greater than that which we shall make if we try to strain the language of the prime minister in order to find in it some excuse for faultfinding. Men are naturally of course prone to put the less rather than the more favorable interpretation upon the public utterances of their political opponents. But the temptation to do this is one that we are bound to resist with all our strength at moments like the present, when the prime minister stands not for a party only, but for the nation as a whole, and when he has it in his power, no matter what may be the wishes of his opponents, to commit the country to engagements of the most

serious and, it may be, of the most disastrous kind. At such times the duty of a patriotic opposition is not to imagine causes of offence on the part of the prime minister, but to make quite sure that real cause of offence exists To some before offence is taken. Liberals at all events (who are not less truly Liberals because they have not been able to join in the movement of similar "the Forward Party" and bodies) it seems that this sound doctrine has been forgotten by many of their friends during the present crisis. Lord Salisbury has been accused of following a "dishonoring policy," when no proof that he has done so has been forthcoming; and the government has been severely censured for its acts when we are still without any clear information respecting the nature of those acts. This, surely, is inconsistent alike with patriotism, common sense, and fair play. If Lord Salisbury really meant all that some persons assume by his references to "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire," it will no doubt be impossible to deny that the censures which have been heaped upon him by many Liberals are well deserved. But I contend that a reference to the facts and to the best authorities must suffice to show that when the English government uses this phrase it does so in a sense which is far from justifying the angry protests that have been raised in many of our Liberal newspapers, and on all our Liberal platforms.

The first and greatest of the authorities who can be cited to dispose of the allegation that "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire" means the maintenance of the rule of the sultan wherever that integrity is respected, is Mr. Gladstone. Good service has been done in the present crisis by the untiring pertinacity with which the Daily News has presented its readers with copious extracts from the utterances of Mr. Gladstone in former years on the subject of the concert of Europe and the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Some of my

fellow-Liberals must have been more than a little surprised when they found that the leader whom they revere so

justly had ten years or twenty years
ago used language so absolutely op-
posed to that which is now adopted as
the shibboleth of the ardent spirits who
have been leading the present agitation
in favor of the Greeks. But even ten
years is a space of time sufficient to
justify a man in changing his opinions
on many questions; and considering
that ten years ago Mr. Gladstone was
the minister who used towards Greece
the very measures of coercion against
which he now declaims so eloquently, it
may be unwise to trust in the present
crisis to his utterances of 1886 on the
subject of the integrity of Turkey. It
will be simpler and more satisfactory
to cite his declarations in the letter to
the Duke of Westminster which deals
with the existing crisis anu is dated so
recently as the 13th of March, 1897.
Deploring the fact that what he calls
"the rent and ragged catchword of the
the Ottoman Empire'
integrity of
should still be flaunted before our eyes,"
he proceeds:-

was

Has it, then, a meaning? Yes, and it had a different meaning in almost every decade of the century now expiring. In the first quarter of that century it meant that Turkey, though her system poisoned and effete, still occupied in right of actual sovereignty the whole southeastern corner of Europe, appointed by the Almighty to be one of its choicest portions. In 1830 it meant that this baleful sovereignty had been abridged by the excision of Greece from Turkish territory. In 1860 it meant that the Danubian Principalities, now forming the kingdom of Roumania, had obtained an emancipation virtually (as it is now formally) complete. In 1878 it meant that Bosnia, with Herzegovina, had bid farewell to all active concern with Turkey, that Servia was enlarged, and that northern Bulgaria was free. In 1880 it meant that Montenegro had crowned its glorious battle of four hundred years by achieving the acknowledgment of its independence and obtainThessaly was added to free Greece. In ing a great accession of territory, and that 1886 it meant that southern Bulgaria had been permitted to associate itself with its northern sisters. What is the upshot of all this? That eighteen millions of human beings, who a century ago, peopling a large

part of the Turkish Empire, were subject facts mentioned above, innumerable to its once paralyzing and degrading yoke, are now as free from it as if they were inhabitants of these islands, and that Greece, Roumania, Servia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria stand before us as five living witnesses, that, even in this world, the reign of wrong is not eternal.

And all these triumphs for the great cause of freedom have been won under cover of the phrase “the integrity of the Ottoman Empire!" Surely it is made clear, upon no less an authority than that of Mr. Gladstone, that the use of this phrase does not by any means imply that the hateful rule of the sultan is to be maintained along with the "integrity" of the empire. But Mr. Gladstone might have gone further if he had been pleased to do so. In October, 1881, I myself heard the herald in the porch of the palace of the bey of Tunis proclaiming the fact that Tunis was and would forever remain a portion of the Ottoman Empire. Yet at that very moment a French army was occupying Tunis, and the bey was no better than a prisoner in the hands of M. Roustan. Tunis, as everybody knows, is now virtually a French province; yet it is quite possible that the old proclamation is still made at sunset from the marble steps of the palace, and that the faithful still believe that they are in some mysterious fashion connected with the caliph. "The integrity of the Ottoman Empire" has not prevented Cyprus from being administered by officials of the British crown, and did not enable the sultan to carry out his intrigues against British supremacy at Cairo. In short, the fact remains beyond dispute that whilst this phrase has been in the mouths of European statesmen and diplomatists during many decades, the work of reducing the power of the sultan and the geographical extent of his rule "consolidating" that rule it was called by the ingenious Lord Beaconsfield-has gone on almost without intermission, and certainly without any hindrance whatever from the employment of this formula.

It would be easy to cite in support of Mr. Gladstone's authority and of the

passages from the writings and speeches of eminent members of both political parties, living and dead, to show that the adoption of this phrase does not mean that the man using it thinks of bolstering up the blood-stained rule of the sultan, or has in his mind any intention, however remote, of keeping within the power of that tyrant a single human being who is able to escape from it. But, after all, Mr. Gladstone is most deservedly the one supreme authority on this question, and his description of the practical effect of the phrase "the integrity of the Ottoman Empire" ought to be conclusive. It ought certainly to prevent such a misconception of the use of the words by Lord Salisbury as that which unhappily seems to prevail at present in the minds of many of my fellow-Liberals.

"The integrity of the Ottoman Empire" is I take it, a formula which is accepted by the diplomatic world as a convenient fiction under cover of which deeds may be done that would hardly be possible if it were to be dispensed with. In itself it means no more than is meant by the Norman-French phrase, familiar to frequenters of the House of Lords, which converts acts of Parliament into the law of the realm, and which does so avowedly because "the queen wills it." We do not live under an autocratic government because this very autocratic phrase must be used beIore the decisions of Parliament can become law; and when men talk about the "integrity of the Ottoman Empire" they do not, by doing so, commit themselves to the maintenance of the sultan's rule.

But why use a formula which means nothing, and which is therefore calculated to mislead? I imagine that the a swer to this question is that when the Great Powers use it they seek to convey to each other their resolve not to enter upon a sudden scramble for the spoils of the Turkish Empire in which each will consider nothing beyond his own selfish interests. It is intended, in other words, to attest the existence of a self-denying ordinance. We have seen

how much has been done to reduce the sultan's empire in the past under cover of this phrase; and there is no reason why the phrase should not remain until that empire itself has vanished from the sight of men. But if it does remain, it will mean that the final destruction of this colossal iniquity has been accomplished under the sanction of European law, and with the aid of that concert of the Great Powers to which Mr. Gladstone alludes as "an instrument indescribably valuable where it can be made available for purposes of good." The petty formula which is despised by some, and to which others attach a grotesquely exaggerated significance, is after all the slender tie that holds together the concert of Europe, and pre vents, or at least delays, the dreaded struggle, not among the rightful heirs of the sick man, but among his jealous and covetous neighbors, for his inheritance. This being the case, it is surely a mistake to aggravate the suspicions with which this country is constantly regarded by her Continental rivals, by allowing the latter to suppose that we are trying to shake ourselves loose from the slight verbal restraint which diplomacy has imposed upon the selfish ambitions of the Great Powers. We shall not be less free to hate the blood-stained tyranny of the sultan, and to put forth every effort to save his victims, whether they are to be found in Crete or in Asia Minor, if we abide by this particular figment of diplomacy, than we should be if we were to cast it aside, and in doing so were to convert the sullen suspicions of our rivals into open hostility.

II.

WEMYSS REID.

It is not often that a public question arises on which there is so much need for the exercise of self-restraint as that with which we are at present confronted in the East. Our sentiment all points in one direction, but no sooner do we allow it to shape our policy than reason suggests practical difficulties which compel us to pause and reconsider our decision. Besides this, the

incidents of the hour, especially as they are presented to us in the public press, increase the excitement, and probably cause us to vacillate in our own judgment. In the midst of the hurly-burly produced by the highly colored rumors transmitted by correspondents who are probably themselves partisans, and who, under the influence of prejudice, often create impressions very far removed from the truth, and, to say the least, not diminished by the comments of rival editors or the heated and unsatisfactory discussions in Parliament, it is not easy for level-headed men to maintain a perfectly reasonable attitude.

Yet there seldom has been a crisis at which this was more necessary. It is appalling to think of the consequences which might result from one false step on either side. The tendency is to look too exclusively at the possibilities of some unguarded word or deed lighting the flames of war and involving all the peoples of Europe lu untold misery. This danger cannot easily be exaggerated, but it would be folly to allow it to blind us to the peril which is probably more remote, but certainly ought not to be left out of account, of purchasing present immunity at the cost of even more widespread and even more terrible evil in the future.

The Turkish power is a curse to humanity which must sooner or later be removed. If it be possible, it must surely be much wiser, in view especially of the many vexed and thorny questions which must be raised by its overthrow, to bring that removal about by a process of sapping and mining rather than by a direct and violent attack. But in the adoption of this indirect method there is need for constant watchfulness and care, lest something be done which may serve to strengthen the system whose ultimate destruction is demanded in the interests of humanity and progress.

It is reassuring to think that the responsible leaders of political parties in this country are agreed as to the true objective of British policy. Lord Salis

remarkable

bury's not very dignified but extremely the 'blazing indiscretions' with which satisfactory confession that he had put he may be reproached, his criticism on his money on the wrong horse has done Lord Kimberley's speech at Norwich very much to clear the ground. He must hold a conspicuous place. I have may make mistakes in his method, but no desire to undertake the defence of there can be little doubt now that he the strong utterances of the Liberal is as sensible of the impossibility of leaders at the recent gatherings of the maintaining the effete despotism at Federation, for any verdict upon them Constantinople and of the folly of Great would need to be qualified, and to be Britain making any effort with that preceeded by a more lengthened examview as, say, Mr. George Russell him- ination than is possible in the space of self. How far he carries his entire time at my command. But, regarding party with him may be doubtful, but, them with tolerable impartiality (for, at all events, there is no reasonable though a Liberal, I do not profess to be ground for uncertainty as to his actual a follower of Sir William Harcourt, I position on this question. It is not to cannot see why these speeches should be denied, however, that in some quar- have awakened such indignation in the ters there is considerable doubt, and it ministerial leaders in both Houses. must be added that some of his own Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour alike subordinates, especially his under-sec- showed that some arrow had pierced retary, are mainly to thank for it. It their armor. But it was unfortunate, is unfortunate that at a time like this in the very last degree, that anything Mr. Curzon should be the representa- should have been done to accentuate tive at the Foreign Office in the House the difference between the two classes of Commons. He is clever, some think of statesmen, and to throw the subject extremely clever, and his cleverness is into the cauldron of party strife. his snare. A conciliatory deportment is peculiarly necessary under the conditions, but it often seems as though his chief desire was to make all his questioners understand the impertinence of their conduct in seeking to pry into things too high for them. Possibly he suffers, like some of his colleagues, from the intoxication of power. With the great majority behind him, he fancies that he can afford to despise the party opposed to him. He can evade a question and he can snub the questioner, but he is unwilling to give a straightforward answer, which would in many cases remove all difficulties. Of course this is partly the result of the inconvenient arrangement by which the responsible minister has no opportunity of meeting the responsible branch of the legislature. Lord Salisbury has certainly suffered from it. Sometimes the ministry have seemed to speak with two voices even on the same day, and more frequently there has been an appearance of mystery which, in its turn. has engendered suspicion.

Nor has Lord Salisbury himself been free from blame in this matter. Among

Mr. Gladstone in that letter to the Duke of Westminster which shows, as has seldom been shown before, how possible it is to combine the mellowness of age with the fervid enthusiasm of youth as to develop more of the power of each, says that "to infuse into this discussion the spirit or the language of party would be to give a cover and apology to every sluggish and unmanly mind for refusing to offer its tribute to the common cause." It is the very opposite course to that which is here suggested that Lord Salisbury pursued when he brought a speech which had been made out of doors into the House of Lords, and arraigned the speaker at the tribunal of that august assembly. There was surely nothing in it which called for such hasty criticism or justified such imperious denunciation. Or course, an opposition will oppose, and it is pretty certain that its leaders will look at the ministerial policy from an entirely different standpoint from that of the ministers themselves. But surely there is room for independent criticism even from statesmen who have a cer

« VorigeDoorgaan »