Scrapbook of newspaper cuttings about Afghanistan [‎150r] (308/312)

PALL
An
M/
Evening
No. 4263.— V ol. XXVIII.
SATU.
INDEPENDENCE AND ITS AD VERS
There are several signs that the feebler Liber;
and the feebler school of Liberal politicians an
make much of the position that international law p
pendent'' princes to refuse embassies, and that S
Cabul, being an independent prince, is only exerci
national right in declining to receive Sir Nevili
lain. The argument shows an amusing confu
refusals to admit particular envoys and refusals
diplomatic intercourse whatever. It is true that
national law the chief of a State may decline to
ticular person as Minister ; this right was quite
force by Russia, when she declined to permit th(
of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to the embassy
burg. In older times the larger right has bee
keep out diplomatic representatives who claimed to
more than diplomatists; and on this ground State
times refused to receive the Nuncios of the Pope.
Chamberlain, however, was expressly selected fc
mission as a personal acquaintance of the Ameei
the smallest pretext for saying that he was intendc
with the domestic affairs of Afghanistan. He has
because Shere Ali refuses to have any diploma!
with the British Indian Empire except on terms to
himself; and it so happens that this is one of the
of the barbarism which disentitles a State to the
international recognition. It was precisely on the gi
refusal to receive ambassadors, or of their refusal
ambassadorial rights and immunities, that the Tur
-held to be beyond the pale of international la
circumstance of some interest, and one not a
discredit of the Russians, that they were the fir«
the Turks to give up their fierce isolation. Russ
wholly barbarous country when a predecessor of the
insisted that, if the Turks wished for peace with hir
not only receive his ambassador, but send an ambas
And the Porte, though possiblyJt was at the time th
Power in the world, gave way to the Russian den
was still occasionally sending the Ministers of ot
States to the Seven Towers or threatening them w
It may, meanwhile, have been observed that the 1
adopted by the British Government for establis
relations with China have consisted in stipulating
representation at Pekin, and for the mission o
Minister who with his suite is now conspicuous in 01
It would be time wasted to give all the reasor
be assigned for denying the status called " indeper
publicists to the Ameer of Afghanistan. One is
itself. It is now matter of common knowledge th
faction with the Indian Government has mainly ari
rejection or equivocal reception of certain of his
has perseveringly asked for two things—for a Br
of his dynasty, and for a British guarantee of
Jimits of his dominions. We say nothing at p
point whether it was wise or unwise to decline
guarantees ; but the request amounted to a disci
pendence. Nothing was insisted upon more stro
by Liberal writers during the late discussions on
1856. The framers of that treaty, as is well
duced into it that unhappy guarantee of the ir
Sultan's dominions which melted away in the
European dispute; but they were well aware of t
which their provision pointed, and therefore the
express language that the sovereignty and indep*
Sultan were to remain unimpaired. But it beca
commonplace with Liberal speakers and writers to
declaration was of no effect, and that a Power •
the protection of its neighbours had no claim to
independent.
But the argument from the sacredness of ii
laughably misplaced in the mouths of the sam^
scoured the whole range of casuistry to find ji
the Russian attack on Turkey. The strongest
Liberal partisanship of Russian policy, or tend
EPITOMET OF OPINION IN THE
ENGLAND, RUSSIA, AND J
The Morning Post observes that the 1
plaint at the lack of information on the
is, however, one grievance in this respect, ar
tion of the Foreign Office. It is not a little
have learned from unofficial sources the fd
made to the present Government, the latt^
out their undertaking given to Parliament
and let the world know in what respect t|
Ministers have been broken. The more
the actions and policy of the Russian Gcj
greater the encouragement which our (■
receive in the energetic course upon which
Supremacy cannot be gained by permitting
as within the sphere of her influence, or 1
Russian envoys. Nor can it be obtaine*
Residents at the Cabul Court and at otl
istan, like Balk, Herat, and Candahar. Th
which can secure what Mr. Cross declari
policy. Should the Ameer's answer fall shd
a temporising spirit in order to gain time
securing the indirect assistance which Rus^
Indian Government will be justified in com;
The Daily Nercs, discussing a letter w
Havelock upon the danger of Russia's ■
the necessity to England of an offensive
the Ameer, says it fails to see the 1
forced upon Afghanistan by threats or
influence of Russia, which now is c
all-pervading, could surely not be exorci
with Shere Ali. Apparently the Ameer
friendly intentions even now. A little 1
him to yield, but would hardly buy his conl
If it be found necessary to have a treaty
but let no statesman or soldier be weak
by virtue of that mere engagement secur
an impassable barrier in the way of hostilj
plan, if not the only plan, of winning an
population like that of Afghanistan is by pre
that we are not selfish; that we will not x
force us into being unjust and unscrupulo
bours. However we are to get out of oui
does not beliere that extension of frontier'
do any thing more for us than to help us in? -
AUSTRIA AND THE
The Standard finds it rather startling t
of Vienna has received and answered th
concerning the Austrian occupation of
relations of Austria and Turkey are greatly!
the East are so fertile in paradoxes that it
the semblance of a better understanding
recriminations. Nevertheless, Austria and T
ether; and one of them at any rate has th
other with suspicion. What is Austria aimij
debated in Austria itself, and still more earj
seems able to find a definite and certain anj
statesmen flatter themselves that Count Anl
tionally assisting them to erect a barrier]
upon the Turkish Empire, and against the^
Austria is itself a Slav Power; and the ari
Bosnia has met with in Croatia is a significaj
Bosnia is a step towards the completion of i i
whence Austria could either co-operate M
aggrandisement in the direction of Constant
strategical compensation for tolerating that
limits. This circumstance it is, doubtless,
The tendency of the moment at Constan
with cheerful resignation what has be
dissuade Austria from carrying the operatil
Berlin conferred on that Power larger right!
under it. And there are those who think
finally cease until it finds for itself a natura
MR. CROSS IN LANcI
The Times, commenting upon Mr. C
that on the question of finance he seer
courage. He has, so to say, taken th
has been a good deal of uneasiness felt
has been going on in our public expen
the weak point of the present Governmer
freely, and this at a time when trade is
ceased to be elastic. Mr. Cross on thi
in choosing his line of defence. But
Mr. Cross has to say, the fact remains tl
increase in our expenditure, and that this
spending increase in our burdens. It is;
case as this, that the country ought to I
which will be thrown upon it. The wei
felt, yet there is already a good deal of
prospect of next January, and there is no 1
will happen in the course of next April t
is the "Ordinarilv - knowledge of Russian mSrcn
ahead of the Ministry in any direction, it
'
THE
PALL MALL GAZETTE
An Evening Newspaper
No. 4263.—V ol . XXVI11.
SATURDAY, OCTO 19, 1878.
Price Twopence,
INDEPENDENCE AND ITS ADVERSARIES.
T here are several signs that the feebler Liberal newspapers
and the feebler school of Liberal politicians are disposed to
make much of the position that international law permits " inde
pendent" princes to refuse embassies, and that S here A li, of
Cabul, being an independent prince, is only exercising an inter
national right in declining to receive Sir N eville C hamber
lain. The argument shows an amusing confusion between
refusals to admit particular envoys and refusals to allow any
diplomatic intercourse whatever. It is true that under inter
national law the chief of a State may decline to receive a par
ticular person as Minister ; this right was quite lately put in
force by Russia, when she declined to permit the appointment
of Lord S tratford de R edcliffe to the embassy at St. Peters
burg. In older times the larger right has been asserted to
keep out diplomatic representatives who claimed to be something
more than diplomatists; and on this ground States have some
times refused to receive the Nuncios of the Pope. Sir N eville
C hamberlain, however, was expressly selected for the Afghan
mission as a personal acquaintance of the Ameer, nor is there
the smallest pretext for saying that he was intended to interfere
with the domestic affairs of Afghanistan. He has been declined
because S here A li refuses to have any diplomatic intercourse
with the British Indian Empire except on terms to be settled by
himself; and it so happens that this is one of the surest marks
of the barbarism which disentitles a State to the advantages of
international recognition. It was precisely on the ground of their
refusal to receive ambassadors, or of their refusal to recognize
ambassadorial rights and immunities, that the Turks were long
-held to be beyond the pale of international law. It is a
circumstance of some interest, and one not at all to the
discredit of the Russians, that they were the first to compel
the Turks to give up their fierce isolation. Russia was still a
wholly barbarous country when a predecessor of the present Czar
insisted that, if the Turks wished for peace with him, they should
not only receive his ambassador, but send an ambassador to him.
And the Porte, though possibly.it was at the time the first military
Power in the world, gave way to the Russian demand, while it
was still occasionally sending the Ministers of other Christian
States to the Seven Towers or threatening them with execution.
It may, meanwhile, have been observed that the last expedients
adopted by the British Government for establishing civilized
relations with China have consisted in stipulating for diplomatic
representation at Pekin, and for the mission of the Chinese
Minister who with his suite is now conspicuous in our streets.
It would be time wasted to give all the reasons which might
be assigned for denying the status called " independence " by the
publicists to the Ameer of Afghanistan. One is sufficient by
itself. It is now matter of common knowledge that his dissatis
faction with the Indian Government has mainly arisen from their
rejection or equivocal reception of certain of his demands. He
has perseveringly asked for two things—for a British guarantee
of his dynasty, and for a British guarantee of the territorial
.limits of his dominions. We say nothing at present on the
point whether it was wise or unwise to decline to give such
guarantees ; but the request amounted to a disclaimer of inde
pendence. Nothing was insisted upon more strongly than this
by Liberal writers during the late discussions on the treaty of
1856. The framers of that treaty, as is well known, intro
duced into it that unhappy guarantee of the integrity of the
Sultan's dominions which melted away in the first heat of
European dispute ; but they were well aware of the inference to
which their provision pointed, and therefore they declared in
express language that the sovereignty and independence of the
Sultan were to remain unimpaired. But it became wellnigh a
commonplace with Liberal speakers and writers to assert that the
declaration was of no effect, and that a Power which required
the protection of its neighbours had no claim to be considered
independent.
But the argument from the sacredness of independence is
laughably misplaced in the mouths of the same persons who
scoured the whole range of casuistry to find justifications for
the Russian attack on Turkey. The strongest feature of the
Liberal partisanship of Russian policy, or tenderness towards
is the -ordinarilv - knowledge of Russian -history
on which it proceeds. For if Russian foreign policy were to
be shortly described by the international lawyer as it has
shown itself throughout the whole course of Russian history,
it would be described as consistently founded on contempt
for the international doctrine of the independence of all
foreign States, whether they be great or small. We are not
now contending that the Russian policy was good or bad,
morally justifiable or immoral. We merely assert that it has'
been one long and continuous denial of the international rights
founded on independence. It would be in itself a suspictous
circumstance that there is not a single neighbour of Russia which
has not had to surrender to her great masses of territory in
the course of a comparatively short history. She has Swedish,
German, Turkish, Roumanian, Persian, Tartar, and Chinese pro
vinces ; but still it is just conceivable that each one of these
might have been the accidental fruit of success after a casual
quarrel with each of the dispossessed States. As a matter of
fact, however, we know on the best evidence that the greatest
part of these conquests are the spoils of wars begun in the asser
tion of one single principle. The international lawyers reckon
among the clearest and most elementary rights of independent
States the right to govern as the authorities of the State may
choose. Russia has always denied this right. She has substi
tuted for it a doctrine which became famous in the United
States during the furious controversies which preceded the War
of Secession—the doctrine of a " higher law." Slavery was lawful
under the positive law of the American Union ; but the Abolition
ists declared that there was a " higher law" which superseded
and annulled it. The publicists deny to one State the right of
supervising the domestic concerns of another State; but the
Russian Government has always been able to discover some
higher principle extinguishing the right in its neighbours. Unfor
tunately for its credit, the particular nature of the higher law which
it affected to vindicate has been subject to astounding variations.
When Russia devoured Poland in two mouthfuls, she asserted
that a State which had so disorderly a Government had no right
to exist. The international lawyers might lay down that the
disorders of Poland were the sole affair of the Poles, but Russia
discovered a higher law in the necessity of maintaining European
order. Not many years after the final partition of Poland,
the Russian Emperor P aul allied himself with the French
Government, which from the first establishment of the Republic
had waged a series of victorious wars in assertion of the exactly
opposite principle to that which the Empress C atherine had
applied to Poland. The French had fought not for order, but for
something very like its contrary: for the right of every State
which desired liberty, equality, and fraternity to overthrow its
existing institutions at the cost of any imaginable disorders ; and
the Russian Emperor became their enthusiastic admirer. P aul's
murder put an end to the French alliance for a while; but soon
the Peace of Tilsit showed the Russian Emperor employing all
his strength in assertion of a new principle, which this time was
the baseness and ambition of England. N apoleon had placed
this country under the ban of Europe for its audacity in resisting
the establishment of a universal despotism; and A lexander
joined in the proscription without reserve. The precious confede
rates shortly quarrelled ; but all through his later life A lexander
was the devotee of a principle equally fatal to the independence
of States. He was notoriously the author and patron of the
Holy Alliance, which used the armies of France as its instrument
to stifle the infant liberties of Spain.
The accession of N icholas brings us close to our own times
and our own experiences. This Emperor strongly held with the
Holy Alliance that all liberty was wicked and should be suppressed;
and this opinion led him to employ his troops in the subjugation of
Hungary. But the great principles for which he contended through
life and on which he wrecked his fortunes were the inherent bad
ness of Mahommedan Governments, and the natural right of
Christian Governments to attack and overthrow them. They have
been fully adopted and carried to extremity by his son. We say
nothing of their moral and political defensibility. We merely
say that they temporarily take the place of other principles of
equal amplitude asserted in the course of Russian history; that
they are absolutely unknown to international law ; and that^ in
particular, they are fatal t to the doctrine of " independence," which
they contradict diametrically.