Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎159v] (318/442)

1997
Supply (Committee). HOUSE OF
[Mr. N. Buxton.]
There are certain opportunities. An
opportunity arose over Morocco. Where
else is the Colonial question likely to even
tuate? There are questions discussd as to
Portuguese Colonies and Zanzibar; there
are even talks about South America, and
there is the question of the Dutch Colonies
and Java, and possibly a question in
China. In some of those our own Govern
ment has a very large share of influence;
in fact, the chief control. The greatest
item on the list was the Moroccan ques
tion, and it is supposed by a great many
people that more advantage might have
been taken of the Moroccan question to
meet in some degree those Colonial aspira
tions to which the Prime Minister referred.
I mean in this way. Compensation, it is
generally admitted, was due upon the
solution of the old Moroccan tangle. The
question of the degree and extent of the
compensation was vital. In the end the
compensation derived from the American
solution was not very large. It did not
amount to any very great acquisition to
the German Colonial claim. From the
German point of view the whole history
of those negotiations from 1904 to 1911
amounted to an apparent attempt to iso
late Germany, and I think it may fairly be
said, to deprive her of the compensation
which was naturally due from an arrange
ment affecting Morocco and Egypt by
which those two countries went respec
tively to two other Powers. The Prime
Minister’s declaration also implied that
we should regard in a broad view Ger
many’s claim to consideration as one of the
Cabinet of great Powers which, by the
way, was a phrase in the notorious speech
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the
Cabinet of Nations, of which we
claim to be one. To take a broad
view of Germany’s claim to an equal
position in that Cabinet many people
think would have led to a rather different
attitude towards Germany’s claims.
It is one of the great traditions of British
foreign action to stand for legality in the
sight of the world. But nobody doubts
that last year we condoned on the part
of the French Government action in
Morocco which was not strictly in accord
ance with the Algeciras Treaty. We were
not by any means upholding legality when
we overlooked the march to Fez. No
doubt we deprecated it, but once it was
an accomplished fact our policy might
almost be described as “ The French,
right or wrong.” We did not, at all events,
in the sight of disinterested Powers, ap
COMMONS Foreign Office. 1998
pear to be standing for legality as we have
traditionally done in the past.
All that is not exactly in accord with
the view implied in the Prime Minister’s
statement. I know the answer given by
the Foreign Secretary in his speech on
27th November last was that there was a
danger in the end of France being thrown
into the orbit of German diplomacy. But
that comes strangely from one who has
been the most notorious apostle of the
idea of peace, the present Foreign Secre
tary. It was hardly the way to
hasten the better time of the cos
mopolitan police which he sketched
out in his famous arbitration speech. It
was hardly consonant with that view to
curtail a Power’s claim to equal treat
ment, because she might attempt to create
what is called an orbit—in other words,
might conspire to isolate us, as undoubt
edly to the German mind it appears that
we have done in past years to isolate her.
I only point to the fact that we have not
removed the friction. We have not been
successful in convincing the German mind
that our action was strictly in accord with
legality and with loyalty to treaty obliga
tions. I think no apology is needed for
raising this question, because we want to
think that the whole matter is over. But,
unhappily, it is not over so long as fric
tion remains in the minds of responsible
and important people in Germany. The
excuse for the whole of this action of ours
was that for a period of seventeen days
we did not receive an answer from the
German Government, and that the claim
made by the German Government upon
the French Government was, as the
Foreign Secretary described it, obviously
impossible to grant. On these two points
steps have not been taken to convince
German opinion. Many of us on both
sides held that the publication of the
correspondence would be very valuable,
and might do a great deal to remove these
misunderstandings. Because such, no
doubt, they are. But we are not in a
position to say so, and certainly we can
not expect the German people to under
stand that it is so. These misunderstand
ings might be removed.
One other generally admitted aim of our
diplomacy is to strengthen the Anglo-
French entente and to assuage the rivalry
which certainly exists between France and
Germany. We have often heard that
nothing would please us better than that
rivalry should be diminished. There are
utterances on the part of responsible