abandoned.[1]
Lord Palmerston, in the meantime, was busily opposing the Suez Canal
project. De Lesseps was handicapped by the obstructionist policies of
British diplomacy as well as by the unwillingness of British financiers
to invest in his enterprise. Palmerston frankly informed the great
French engineer that in the opinion of the British Government the
construction of the Canal was a physical impossibility; that if it
were constructed it would injure British maritime supremacy; and that,
after all, it was not so much a financial and commercial venture as a
political conspiracy to provide the occasion for French interference in
the East![2]
Nevertheless the Suez Canal was completed in 1869, and immediately
thereafter the question of a Mesopotamian railway was again brought to
the fore in England. The advance of the Russians in the Near East and
the control by the French of a short all-water route to the Indies gave
rise to serious concern regarding the maintenance of communication with
British India. In 1870 a British promoter proposed the construction of
a railway from Alexandretta _via_ Aleppo and Mosul to Bagdad and Basra.
Such a railway, as Sir William Andrew had pointed out, would assure
the undisturbed possession of India, for the “advancing standard of
the barbarian Cossack would recoil before those emblems of power and
progress, the electric wire and the steam engine, and his ominous tread
would be restrained behind the icy barrier of the Caucasus.”[3] Also
it would render Great Britain independent of the French-owned Suez
Canal by providing an alternative route to the East, making possible
more rapid transportation of passengers, mails, and troops to India.
This plan seemed desirable of execution from so many points of view
that a special committee of the House of Commons, presided over by
Sir Stafford Northcote, was appointed “to examine and report upon the
whole subject of railway communication between the Mediterranean, the
Black Sea, and the Persian Gulf.” This committee reported that the
construction of a trans-Mesopotamian railway was a matter of urgent
imperial concern and recommended a plan which would have involved
the investment of some £10,000,000. The necessity of providing an
alternative route to India was obviated, however, by Disraeli’s
purchase, in 1875, of a controlling interest in the Suez Canal at a
cost of less than half that sum.[4]
For the forty years during which, at intervals, these projects were
under discussion Germany was not even an interested spectator in Near
Eastern affairs. Domestic problems of economic development and national
unification were all-absorbing, and capitalistic imperialism was quite
outside the scope of German policies. France and Russia, not Germany,
were the disturbers of British tranquillity in the Orient.
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