Annotated Copy of Persia and the Persian Question by George Curzon, with Inserted Papers [‎771v] (1559/1814)

14
EGYPT.
[April, 1911.
NOTES OF THE MONTH.
The most notable event of the month is, without doubt,
Sir Edward Grey’s pronouncement about an Arbitra
tion Treaty of Alliance with America. We should be
glad to look at this idea with the enthusiasm displayed
by those who listened to his words, an enthusiasm
repeated by the press and in the pulpit as an earnest
of universal peace and the general brotherhood of man.
But how can we believe it to be even a first step to
such an ideal?
To us it seems far more probable that such an
alliance, if it was seriously proposed, between the two
great sections of the English speaking world, however
desirable in itself the thing might seem here, would
have the effect of bringing Europe together against us
in jealousy of what would be regarded as a bid by the
Anglo-Saxon race for the hegemony of the world.
England and America between them already dominate
half the globe, and their alliance would make it a
necessity with Europe to unite against them, and to
see to it that the British Isles, which are an integral
part of Europe, should not be usable as a foothold
at their doors for the countless trans-Atlantic millions
of the near future to their hurt.
This is one thing to be considered. Another is the
ruin to their independence which would certainly await
the weaker races of mankind were the ,strong to
combine against them in separate leagues of peace.
There is a good old proverb which says, “When
thieves fall out honest men come by their own,” and
the converse is as strictly true. We agree with Mr.
John Dillon in all he said on this head in the Navy
debate, and we reprint his words below.
A third point is Sir Edward Grey’s record as a
champion arbitrator. We would ask some questions
about this. When President Kruger proposed to sub
mit the Transvaal quarrel to arbitration, was Sir
Edward among those who urged such a settlement?
No. He was, on the contrary, one of the strongest
Liberals for war. Sir Edward has been five years in
office; has he ever proposed to submit the case of
England’s position in Egypt to a Court of Law?
Did he so submit the case of Akaba in his quarrel with
the Sultan? No. He mobilised the British fleet.
Did he ever say a word suggesting his readiness to
refer his quarrel with the Egyptian nation to European
decision at a Conference or at the Hague? No. He
has declared the continuance of the Occupation of
Egypt to be a British necessity, a duty of honour, and
has proposed to increase the English garrison at Cairo
and rule, if necessary, by martial law. Did he settle
his difficulties with Russia in the East by arbitration?
No. He concluded a secret treaty with her for the
partition of Persia, of a most war-inviting kind.
Here is from Mr. Dillon’s speech, given in Hansard,
the passage that most concerns us. It is eloquent of
the underlying wrong certain to be done to weak nations
by these imperial peace combinations of the strong :—
“ This (arbitration) proposal, as I heard the Foreign
Secretary lay it before the House, had reference only to
mighty Empires, whose position in the world has been
established and secured. They were invited by the
Foreign Secretary to enter into treaties offensive and
defensive to coerce other countries who would not sub
mit to arbitration. But what about the struggling
nationalities who are now crushed under the hoof and
in the power of these great Empires? Are they to be
admitted to arbitration? What if Egypt asks for arbi
tration against the British occupation? What if Persia
asks for arbitration against the Anglo-Russian agree
ment which has condemned her to partition? Does the
right honourable gentleman propose that these should
be allowed to ask for arbitration? I should like to hear
that side of the question, belonging as I do to a con
quered nation. I should like to hear that side of the
proposal worked out before I could give my adhesion to
It, or before I looked upon it with any hope and en
thusiasm, with regard to its effect on the future of
mankind. ”
In connection with this important question we are
glad to see that the Universal Races Congress is
announced to be held at the London University, July 26
to 29 next, under the presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. of Lord Weardale, an
excellent man for the position, as his sympathies with
the weaker races is of life-long standing, and we may
be sure that their interests will have fair play under his
chairmanship. There are good names, too, on the Exe
cutive Committee—notably those of Mr. Swinny and
Mr. Ratcliffe, of the Sociological Society—who have
proved themselves to be good friends to Nationalism.
We are glad that the Congress has dropped the word
Subject Races ” from its title, which would have
made it difficult to include the Egyptian question in its
programme, as Egypt is hardly yet a subject nation,
though suffering wrong at foreign hands. Papers are
to be read, the object of which, it is announced, will be
“to discuss in the light of modern knowledge and
modern science the general relations subsisting be
tween the peoples of the West and those of the East,
between so-called white and so-called coloured people,
with a view to encouraging between them a fuller under
standing, the most friendly feelings and a heartier co
operation.” It is added that ” Political issues of the
hour will be subordinated to this comprehensive end ” ;
but it is difficult to see how these can in some cases be
avoided. We notice that Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P.,
will read a paper on the opening day on ” National
Autonomy and Civic Responsibility.” We shall be
curious to hear how he treats in it the autonomy of
Egypt.
KOWEIT.
BY EX-DIPLOMATICUS.
(Specially written for “ Egypt." )
Sir Edward Grey’s concession of what is practically
the whole Bagdad Railway case to Germany, in the
recent debate, was as dignified a performance as such
feats of climbing down are capable of being made.
The pcsition he and his predecessor Mr. Balfour had
taken up was an untenable one, and he abandoned it
with such honours of war as a frank avowal of impo
tence can give. Sir Edward’s is an impressive
personality, and his attitude in the debate seemed to
realise Mr. Wells’s ideal of British statesmanship, ready
when confronted with something beyond its strength
“proudly and very firmly to take a second place.”
As such it has been joyously received at Constanti
nople and Berlin, and there is good prospect now of
an amicable settlement on reasonable terms; nor,
while negotiation is proceeding, would I say a word
more than I ventured last month, were it not for the
flourish about the “status quo in the Persian Gulf” and
England’s ” treaty obligations to the Skeykh of
Koweit ” with which Sir Edward consoled the dis
appointment of his Tory friends at the end of his
speech. His words in the debate need emphasizing,
because, since they were uttered, he has climbed yet a
little lower with regard to them in an answer given to
Mr. Dillon. His original words were these : “We are
not anxious to have a forward policy in the Persian
Gulf to acquire new territory or disturb the status quo y
but if the status quo is going to be disturbed by others
then we must undoubtedly use our resources to main
tain the position we have in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . Part
of the status quo is that we have entered into treaty
obligations with the Sheykh of Koweit, and in any
negotiations which there may be or in any changes
which may take place it is an obligation upon us to
see our treaty obligations towards the Sheykh of
Koweit in maintaining his position are fulfilled.” Mr.
Dillon very legitimately asked what these “treaty
obligations ” were, whereupon, in refusing information,
Sir Edward Grey quietly shifted the word “treaty ”
into “agreement,” a change worthy of attention, as it
indicates to the Diplomatic eye a new abandonment of
yet another impossible position.
What the status quo in the Gulf in its connection
with Koweit really is is worth examining, for it is
abundantly evident from the subsequent debate in the
Lords that the Foreign Office has no intention of
giving us the text of any authoritative document which
could make it clear, and I will endeavour to supply the
nave trie enecc 01 onn^ing i^uiupe Lugctn^t
in jealousy of what would be regarded as a bid by the
Anglo-Saxon race for the hegemony of the world.
England and America between them already dominate
half the globe, and their alliance would make it a
necessity with Europe to unite against them, and to
see to it that the British Isles, which are an integral
part of Europe, should not be usable as a foothold
at their doors for the countless trans-Atlantic millions
of the near future to their hurt.
This is one thing to be considered. Another is the
ruin to their independence which would certainly await
the weaker races of mankind were the ,strong to
combine against them in separate leagues of peace.
There is a good old proverb which says, “When
thieves fall out honest men come by their own,” and
the converse is as strictly true. We agree with Mr.
John Dillon in all he said on this head in the Navy
debate, and we reprint his words below.
A third point is Sir Edward Grey’s record as a
champion arbitrator. We would ask some questions
about this. When President Kruger proposed to sub
mit the Transvaal quarrel to arbitration, was Sir
Edward among those who urged such a settlement?
No. He was, on the contrary, one of the strongest
LG) ill LilC llgliL IHWVJLV^I ijl a^xaw vv ca. a a va
modern science the general relations subsisting be
tween the peoples of the West and those of the East,
between so-called white and so-called coloured people,
with a view to encouraging between them a fuller under
standing, the most friendly feelings and a heartier co
operation.” It is added that “ Political issues of the
hour will be subordinated to this comprehensive end ” ;
but it is difficult to see how these can in some cases be
avoided. We notice that Mr. J. M. Robertson, M.P.,
will read a paper on the opening day on “ National
Autonomy and Civic Responsibility.” We shall be
curious to hear how he treats in it the autonomy of
Egypt.
KOWEIT.
BY EX-DIPLOMATICUS.
(Specially written for “ Egypt.” )
Sir Edward Grey’s concession of what is practically
the whole Bagdad Railway case to Germany, in the
recent debate, was as dignified a performance as such
feats of climbing down are capable of being made.
The position he and his predecessor Mr. Balfour had