Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern QuestionInagaki, Manjiro
History
Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Inagaki, Manjiro
Eastern question (Balkan); Europe -- History -- 1871-1918; Japan -- Politics and government
Therefore it seems to me the best policy to let this important island
remain in a neutral state by an agreement between the Great Powers, and
the sooner it is agreed to the better it would be for the peace of
Europe generally.
In my opinion it would have been better to have placed it under Grecian
rule for the following reasons:—
(1) Because Greece herself was a neutral nation. (2) They were a
commercial people, and peaceful, which would have a beneficial effect
upon the island. (3) More than half of the Cretan population are of
Grecian extraction.
There is no doubt that if any one[87] of the Great Powers had proposed
the cession of Crete to Greece it would have met with the general
approbation of the Congress. This would not have met with Turkish
opposition, particularly as England had before the Berlin Congress
mentioned it in the Anglo-Turkish agreement; and to show that Turkey did
not attach much importance to Crete, it is related in Turkish history
that it was offered to Mehemet Ali as a reward for his help in the Greek
insurrection; besides, the national force of Turkey was not large enough
to utilize the strong natural position of the island.
Austria,[88] unless she had been influenced by her national vanity,
would have agreed to such a proposal owing to the great value as a
national defence that she received from the Balkan States. Again,
Germany, France, and Italy could find no reasonable argument for
opposing this plan.
The policy of England with regard to a neutral state has always been to
strengthen its national power, and that to such a degree as to properly
maintain its fixed neutrality.
In 1815 England ceded the Java Islands to the Dutch on the formation of
the Netherlands at the Congress of Vienna. Why did she do this? For this
reason: because by doing this the new States would be rendered neutral
in case of a French or German invasion, and by this cession of Java the
Dutch national power was increased in every way, and their power of
maintaining a strict neutrality rendered stronger.
Another instance may strengthen my statement. Corfu, an important
military and naval post, was put under English protection at the Vienna
Congress, 1815. Lord Palmerston at one time saw that it would be
impolitic to hand over Corfu to Austria, and declared that the islands
ought never to be abandoned by England.
However, when the new kingdom of Greece was formed England cordially
agreed to hand over Corfu and several other islands to Greece, on the
condition that the Greeks should choose a king subject to the approval
of England. The fortifications of Corfu were demolished, and the
neutrality of the islands was declared by the Great Powers.
These circumstances, then, tend to show us that England was distinctly
favourable[89] to the cession of Crete to Greece, and they were
considerably strengthened by the fact that Greece was an ally of
England, and the commercial relations between the two were very free.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account