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
By the Berlin Treaty the Russian Emperor declared that it was his
_intention_ to constitute Batoum a free port essentially commercial.
Lord Salisbury interpreted this remark that the port of Batoum was to be
_only_ a commercial port. The Russian Emperor has, however, _changed his
intention_, and Batoum is essentially a fortress, and is connected with
Poti by a railway through Kutais.
Why cannot, therefore, Russia have an idea of breaking the Berlin Treaty
with equal freedom as England did with regard to the Treaties of 1856
and 1871 by concluding the Anglo-Turkish Convention single-handed? It
seems to me that Russia has a great opportunity of advancing to
Erzeroum, and from there proceeding to Alexandretta; and from there to
Constantinople. At any rate she has ample opportunities of reaching the
Persian Gulf by piercing the northern frontiers and western part of
Persia, and thus completing the far-seeing policies of Peter the Great,
Nicholas, and Alexander.
How can England withstand this? When Cyprus was placed under English
administration both France and Italy were opposed to this, France
especially so, because she had a special interest with regard to Syria.
However, she concluded a secret agreement with England, that the latter
would consent to a French Protectorate over Tunis, which was done in
1881, a protectorate which is now extending to Tripoli. Many regard this
action of France as an indirect third offer of Egypt to England, the
first having been made by Nicholas I., and the second by Louis Philippe.
Whatever the French occupation of Tunis might be, England occupied Egypt
in 1885, thus fulfilling Lord Palmerston’s prophecy of a quarter of a
century before, when he said that “if a practicable waterway were
created between the Gulf of Pelusium and the Red Sea England would be
compelled sooner or later to annex Egypt, and that he opposed M. de
Lessep’s scheme because he considered it undesirable that England should
annex territory in that part of the world.”[90]
The Suez Canal was opened in 1869, and Lord Palmerston’s prophecy was
fulfilled. In 1875 the English Government purchased the Khedive’s shares
(£4,000,000) in the Suez Canal, and this was followed by the bombardment
of Alexandria by the British fleet in 1885. The chief aim of the English
occupation of Egypt was “to possess the inns on the north road.”[91]
It will be impossible to avoid the conflict of English and French
interests as long as there is only one route through the Suez Canal to
India, and an Anglo-French alliance on the subject seems to be far
distant, particularly as England has three-fourths of the traffic
through the canal.
It is also a matter of great importance that England should keep Egypt
orderly and peaceful. Lord Salisbury, in an excellent speech on Lord
Mayor’s Day, 1889, said:
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