View source for The ABC Proposal for British Foreign Policy

<p align="right">
[[Main_Page | WWI Document Archive ]] > [[Pre - 1914 Documents]] > '''The ABC Proposal for British Foreign Policy'''
</p><hr>

<h2><b>November, 1901<br>British Foreign Policy by A.B.C., etc.</b></h2>
Source: <i>National Review</i>, November, 1901.
For an explanation of the background and genesis of the A.B.C. Memorandum, '''[[The Genesis of the "A.B.C." Memorandum of 1901|click here.]]'''
<hr>

The events which have occurred in South Africa during the last
few years cannot fail to produce consequences deeper and more
far-reaching than the most penetrating observer of contemporary
politics could have contemplated at the moment a too famous
Raid provoked a no less famous telegram. The effect of these 
events upon British methods of conducting the national business,
and upon our political system, are purely domestic questions
which need not be discussed here. Suffice it to say that one of
the obvious lessons of the crisis is the necessity of revising the
relations of various Departments of Government to one another,
with the object of obtaining greater efficiency and of abolishing
the fatal influence of the Treasury, which, by its illegitimate
interference with naval and military projects, leads to wasteful,
because untimely, outlay. It is patent to every thinking Englishman that the financial affairs of our Empire must be worked on
more methodical lines; but if we spend our money more wisely
than under the present anti-efficient and anti-economical <i>r&eacute;gime</i>,
it is by no means certain that the taxpayer will be called upon
to spend more, either upon our Army or even our Navy; he will
undoubtedly be ready and willing and able to spend whatever
the national necessity may demand. Great Britain does not
require an immense army of the approved Continental type, but
she does require a splendidly equipped and highly trained force,
ready for transportation at short notice to any part of her
over-sea Empire which may be menaced. The British Navy
should be increased so as to enable us to meet an three
Powers at sea in superior numbers. The naval policy and
avowed hostility of Germany, to which even the British
official world can no longer remain blind, will force us to
keep on a war-footing in the North Sea a fleet as powerful
and efficient as the Mediterranean or Channel Squadrons.
Here, again, the money required will be forthcoming; but while
some of us believe that our present annual expenditure of
sixty millions sterling on national defence would, in provident 
and efficient hands, supply us not only with the Army, but also 
with the Navy we need  --  others are certain of it.<br><br>

The lesson which foreign countries may learn from our war
in South Africa is one that in their own interest each of them
would do well to take to heart. We desire to avoid swagger,
which is sald to be a British characteristic, and is probably in
varying forms a characteristic of every great nation which believes
in itself and its future; but to all interested in understanding the
real strength of this nation the Boer War should serve as a
useful warning. The prolonged and exasperating struggle has
once more exhibited in an impressive manner the political stability of British institutions and the steadfast character of the
British race. Reflecting men can see that the living generation
of Englishmen have in no way degenerated from their forbears of
a hundred years ago. In the earlier period there were two men
who appreciated the inherent strength of this country: one was
William Pitt, while the other was Napoleon Bonaparte. Pitt
knew the meaning of Trafalgar. The conversation which he had
in his last days with the young general who was rapidly rising to
fame and who was destined to become the great Duke of Wellington, shows that his prescient inteilect grasped the fact that,
in spite of Austerlitz, if England were only true to herself,
Nelson's victory must inevitably drive Napoleon to a policy which
would so exasperate other nations that they would ultimately 
turn upon him  --  Spain giving the signal. His vision was fulfilled;
England remained true to herself, and the steadfastness of her
people extorted a remarkable tribute from Napoleon to his victorious enemies before the close of his life at St. Helena: "Had I been in 1815 the choice of the English as I was of the French,
I might have lost the battle of Waterloo without losing a vote in
the Legislature or a soldier from my ranks." During the last
two years it has been abundantly demonstrated that the Englishmen of to-day have the same grit as their grandfathers, and the
quiet, self-possessed manner in which they have faced the ignorant
execration,and the political animosity of the civilised world is calculated to cause unfriendly communities to pause. They have with quiet resolution supported the Ministry -- whose half-hearted measures have not always made support easy -- simply because it was
carrying on a war, and thousands and tens of thousands of men in
England} who have all their lives been bitter opponents of the
political party now in power, have acted with the single object of
strengthening the hands of the Government. There have been
hours of difficulty, and even of danger, when more than one foreign
Power desired, and tentatively sought, to form a coalition against
this country. It was the temper of the people of the British Empire backed by the Navy that stunned into sobriety the zealous malignity of those who were willing to wound, but afraid to
strike. The details of these sinister intrigues are not only familiar
to the Britlsh Foreign Office, but their existence is known to the
intelligent public; and we must adrnit at the outset that such shortsighted and fatuous cabals have not rendered easier the task of
those who believe that the interests of England lie in the direction of improved relations with certain foreign Powers with whom
at present British relations are only "friendly" in the strictly
diplomatic sense.<br><br>

The efforts of certain European Powers  --  because neither
Japan nor the United States has at any time been remotely
implicated in these intrigues, which, in passing, we may say have
never received the slightest encouragement from either the
Austrian Sovereign or the Italian Government -- have forced the
conviction upon the British people that their national policy
demands more serious attention than it has yet received.
Englishmen are fully aware that the real origin of the war in
South Africa was the want of a clear and definite policy in that
part of the world; and our main difficulties in other places are
due to the same cause. The indefiniteness of our Colonial policy
in past years was due to the deplorable fact that during a great
part of the reign of Queen Victoria a powerful school existed
among us which desired to divorce the Colonies from the Mother
Country. In the year I863 Mr. Goldwin Smith, then Regius
Professor of History in the University of Oxford -- to which
<i>mirabile dictu,</i> he had been appointed on the advice of Lord
Derby, the brilliant leader of the Conservative party -- published
a work called <i>The Empire.</i> This year (I863), as Monsieur Ollivier, <i>au
coeur l&eacute;ger,</i>  aptly observes, happens to mark the prominent appearance of Bismarck on the stage of history. Such was the moment
chosen by the Oxford Professor to produce a book -- which was
received at the time with no little approval -- not only advocating
the disruption of the British Empire, but actually advising the
surrender of important military positions. It is yet profitable to
read the obsolete language of the learned Professor, if only to
note how cruelly events hastened to stultify his prophecies and
to derive entertainment from the self-opinionated insistence with
which he announced the decline of conquering tendencies
among nations. Within ten years of his startling discovery there
followed in quick succession the annexation by Prussia of the
Elbe duchies, Bismarck's assault upon Austria, and the tearing 
of Alsace and Lorraine from France: a series of events which
not only transformed the peace-loving Continent of which the
Professor dreamed into something very like a military cantonment, but created a united Germany which, having exhausted her
military ambition, is now seeking new worlds to conquer on the
ocean.<br><br>

The gradual decay in England of the shallow and pusillanimous
doctrines preached by the Manchester School, and by Professors
who profess, without understanding, English history, has not
been the work of English politicians. It is largely due to
Colonial influence. The truer and more manly creed of
national responsibility and imperial duty upheld by statesmen of
sense and action like the late Sir John Macdonald, Queen Victoria's Prime Minister in Canada, made steady way throughout
the Empire. Its acceptance was followed by the growth of self-consciousness amongst those free nations which, for want of a
better name, we still call self-governing colonies. Our leading
thinkers and public men, with the conspicuous and honourable
exceptions of Lord Rosebery, Mr. W. E. Forster, and Sir John
Seeley, did little or nothing to bring these communities into
closer touch with one another or with the Mother Country until
the day Mr. Chamberlain accepted the office of Colonial Minister. 
Incredible as it now seems, some of our most eminent statesmen
positively desired to sever the ties between the Colonies and the
Mother Country. In I873, <i>e.g.</i>, Mr. Gladstone told one of the
writers of this article that he considered it would be a grand thing
for England if she could get rid of the colonies, and he quoted
Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who passed for a sagacious man,
as being of the same opinion. Justice compels us to recognise
that the Liberals were not peculiar in their blindness and perversity on colonial affairs. There remains on record the amazing
sentence which Mr. Disraeli wrote to Lord Malmesbury during
this benighted period: "These wretched Colonies will all be
independent in a few years, and are a millstone round our necks."
Even Mr. Goschen was once a Little Englander, while Professor
Parkin affirms that Lord Thring (Parliamentary counsel to successive Cabinets) at one time actually prepared a Separation
Bill. But in spite of all political discouragement the Colonies
clung closer to the Mother Country, and the idea of severing a
sacred tie became more and more distasteful to their piety. With
the spread of education and the growth of wider knowledge of
English literature and English history, our kinsmen beyond the
seas took increasing pride in the association of their new land
with tbe old country and in their own identity with the stock of
the barons of Runnymede, the yeomen of Cressy and Agincourt, the sailors 
of Trafalgar, and the enlightened and patrlobc stateslen to whom the 
Anglo-Saxon world owes the writ of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of 
Rights. Their imagination was no less fired and their deepest feelings of reverence were stirred when they saw the noble example of unswerving public duty which was given to the world by 
the Sovereign to whom they owed allegiance; and when during the royal 
progress through London on June 22, I897, the representatives of these 
splendid young nations sere seen in attendance on their revered ruler, 
the British Empire and, so to speak, found itself. From that moment the 
little Englander, who had been an anxiety, ceased to be a serious factor 
in English public affairs. We could therefore afford to be amused at the 
announcement of the <i>Berliner Post</i> (which is not professedly a comic paper), at the opening of the present war (October I3, I899), that in the British colonies ' a pronounced movement in favour of separation from the Mother Country is noticeable " !<br><br>
The conduct of these daughter nations during our South African 
struggle has driven home and clenched the object-lesson of Queen 
Victoria's Jubilee, and the people of England most thoroughly realise that 
the attention of their statesmen can no longer be exclusively devoted to 
the domestic affairs of two little islands, but that henceforward in all 
questions of policy we must give a close and sympathetic consideration, 
not only to the interests, but also to the feelings of the people of Greater 
Britain.<br><br>

Closely connected with the subject of inter-imperial relations is the 
policy which the British Empire should pursue as regards other nations 
and empires. We shall have to re-consider our postion with regard to them one 
by one; for it must be owned that some of our Ministers seem to be living 
under the spell of a diplomacy which the wisest of them has declared to 
be  "antiquated."  We wish to see this wisdom translated into action. We believe it to be the desire of the nation that these old-time prejudices and superstitions should be abandoned. The condition of the world has greatly changed during the past century. At the time when the " pilot who weathered the storm " was laid in his grave at the foot of his father's statue in 
Westminster Abbey, France was ahead of all European countries as 
regards population, for she numbered twenty-five million souls. When 
England entered upon her Titanic struggle with Napoleon, the whole 
European population of the British Empire did not exceed fifteen 
millions, while the population of the United States was
not much larger than that of Australia at the present moment. To-day we are 
living in an entirely new world, the development and progress of which is 
the topic of almost every leading article, so we need not descant upon it 
here. Perhaps the main fact which should impress itself upon Englishmen 
in considering the actual international outlook is not merely the 
extraordinary growth of Germany -- who has achieved greatness by trampling
on her neighbours -- but the fact that this formidable community is 
becoming increasingly dependent on a foreign food supply, as well as on 
foreign supplies of raw and partially manufactured
articles. This necessarily involves the development of Germany
as a Sea Power, and it is a matter for every European State to ponder over. 
She is already stronger at sea than either France or Russia. It therefore 
affects them as well as England, though up to a certain point they may 
welcome it, because it is the cause of German hostility to England. No 
one has brought this hostility so graphically before the British nation as 
the present Chancellor of the German Empire, Count von Bulow. He 
loses few opportunities in his highly flavoured discourses in the 
Reichstag of displaying his contempt for Great Britain, though both before and 
after more than one of these public demonstrations,
private assurances have been conveyed to the British Government that the speaker need 
not be taken seriously as he was merely "conciliating" German 
Anglophobes -- usually of the Agrarian class to which he belongs. One of 
these utterances, however, stands by itself, and as it is quite incapable of 
being explained away, Count von Bulow has not attempted any 
explanation. In reply to an interpellation, he informed the Reichstag that 
the telegram sent by Kaiser Wilhelm to President Kruger in I896 was not, 
as had been represented in this country, the offspring of an 
unpremeditated impulse of  resentment against the Jameson Raid, but it was a deliberate effort to ascertain  how far Germany could reckon on the support of France and Russia in 
forming an anti-British combination. The Chancellor owned that the effort had 
failed, presumably because our supposed enemies were unwilling to play into the hands of Germany; he explained that, in consequence, Germah foreign 
policy had necessarily to take another tack, since " isolation " had been 
demonstrated. We doubt whether history records in the relations between 
great Powers a more impudent avowal of a more unfriendly act. It is 
galling to Englishmen to reflect that Germany was rewarded for failing to 
raise Europe against us by an Anglo-German.agreement securing to her the reversion to spacious 
territories to which she has no sort of claim, though 
they may have been in the Kaiser's capacious mind when he despatched 
his telegram.<br><br>

The official advocates of  the Naval Bills which have been introduced 
into the "Reichstag" during the last three years have made no concealment 
as to the objective of the modern German navy,
and that portion of the German press which takes its cue from the 
Government has told us in language impossible to misunderstand that 
Germany aspires to deprive us of our position on the ocean. "Unsere 
Zukunft liegt auf dem Wasser"; such is the
swelling phrase of the Kaiser; but, like all his rhetoric, there is serious 
purpose behind it. At the present time it is estimated that a substantial 
proportion of the food of the entire population of Germany is sea-borne. 
She is becoming transformed from an agricultural into an industrial 
community, and if the process continues for another quarter of a century, 
while remaining secured against actual starvation by her land frontiers, she 
will become no less dependent on the ocean highways for her prosperity than we are. 
Great Britain is therefore confronted with the development of a new sea 
power founded on the same economic basis as herself, and impelled by a 
desire to be supreme. But <i>l'ocean ne comporte qu'un seul ma&icirc;tre</i>. We 
have secured in the past the sovereignty of the seas, and our sceptre cannot 
be wrested from us without a desperate and bloody struggle. Germany will 
not be so insane as to attempt this task single-handed, at any rate for many years 
to come; and it is for other Powers to consider in the interval whether it is for their
advantage to support her in a joint attack on England, in which, as is evident from recent revelations, 
President Faure clearly foresaw that the brunt of battle would fall upon 
others, while the lion's share of any plunder would fall to Germany. It is 
by no means improbable that such a coalition might be worsted. We have 
before now successfully faced the world in arms on the ocean; but on the 
unlikely hypothesis of our fleet being crushed, it may be as well for other 
nations to make up their minds what they might expect to gain if the 
German eagle replaced the Union Jacls as the symbol of sea power.<br><br>

We approach the delicate question of our relations with Russia with considerable diffidence, as the ommscient German press has declared at any 
time during the last twenty years that thc interests of England and Russia 
are as irreconcilable as their hatred is hereditary. It can hardly be denied that 
the "honest broker" in Berlin has exploited this assumed antagonism
with much skill and no little profit to himself, but it has yet to be pointed out what bnefit has accrued to either of the traditional antagonists. There are grounds for asserting that this question has 
lately been asked in responsible quarters in Russia, and that
to-day the Russian Government is less ready " to pull the chestnuts out of the fire," to use a favourite Teutonic metaphor, for Count von Bulow than she used to be for his illustrious predecessor, Prince Bismarck. On the other hand, the failure of the Russian 
Emperor to act on the amiable exhortations of the leading German 
journals by taking advantage of our preoccupations in South Africa has 
made an unmistakable impression on the public opinion of this country. The <i>National Zeitung</i>, one of  Prince Bismarck's favoured organs, kindly informed us on October 1, I899: 
"If England gets into military difficulties in South Africa, if the war is 
protracted, or if it takes an unfavourable turn, Russia would not remain 
idle. The opportunity for Russian aggrandisement in Asia would be too 
tempting." Of all countries in the world the Power which would have most 
reason to rue  the substitution of Germany for Great Britain as the mistress
of the seas would be Russia.  When Kaiser Wilhelm came on his fruitful visit to England in the autumn of I899, which produced the "graceful concession " on our part of Samoa, prominent Englishmen, who were inquisitive as to the significance of the great naval movement then 
under way in Germany, received the comforting assurance that German naval armaments were exclusively directed against Russia, being intended for co-operation with England in the Far East and for the maintenance of German interests in the Near East. In a sense, the latter suggestion expresses a substantially accurate fact. If once the sea power of England were overthrown, Germany would be free to execute her hostile policy towards Russia, who is not less in her way than we are. There is an idea growing steadily amongst Germans that Germany should expand into an empire branching 
from the Bosphorus to the Persian Gulf; thus would territories be secured enjoying an excellent 
climate, to which the surplus stream of German population, which now 
flows to the United States and to the British Empire, might be diverted, 
without being lost to the German flag. This is by no means a new idea; it is the revival of an old idea, 
and it means of course the supremacy of Germany in the Near East and the supersession of the Slav by the Teuton. Such is the objective of those ambitious dreamers known as the Pan-Germanic League, a body most tenderly regarded by the German Government, and it embodies a policy as antagonistic to Russia  as the German naval programme is hostile to England.<br><br>

Whatever the effect of recent developments may have been
upon Russia, the attitude of the German nation and the suspicious
policy of the German Government has led a continually increasing'
number of Englishmen to inquire whether it wotlld not be worth
while for England and Russia to discuss their differences with the
object of arriving at a working understanding, and, if possible, a
comprehensive settlement?  Very distinguished Russians have
frequently expressed an earnest desire that their country should
seek an <i>entente</i> with England. The late Emperor Alexander openly 
avowed his desire for such a settlement. The present Emperor
is credited with the same disposition as his father, and has more
than once, though in an unostentatious manner, manifested his
beneficent intentions towards this country. Had Sir Robert
Morier lived, it is almost certain that an understanding would
have been arrived at, but after his death the Emperor Alexander III. became convinced that it was hopeless to try and do business with this country, owing to the influence of a certain school of English politicians whose unreasoning antagonism to
Russia almost amounts to a monomania. We hasten to say, however, that the fault does not lie exclusively with England. A main difficulty which confronts us whenever the subject is
broached is that the central Government of St. Petersburg appears
to be unable or unwilling to control the action of its more distant
agents. We have had several conspicuous examples recently in
China, <i>e.g</i>., where Russian officers have treated the property of, or
pledged to, British subjects in a most high-handed and intolerable
manner, in defiance of repeated assurances given to our Ambastsador at St. Petersburg. In fact, these cases were so bad that we do not care to dwell upon them. Again, a letter which appeared
in the <i>Times</i> of September 14, signed " K.," narrated an episode
in Persia illustrating the difficulty of overcoming the obsession of
certain Russian officials, who appear to think that their whole duty consists in playing into the hands of the Germans by making decent diplomatic relations between England and Russia impossible. It appears that while Sir Henry Drummond Wolff  was British Minister at Teheran, he endeavoured to come to an arrangement with Russia on certain Persian questions. He drew
up a memorandum, which he showed confidentially to his Russian colleague, indicating how the vast material interests of Persia might be developed to the advantage of all three Powers if they
worked together. The only use which the Russian Minister made of this memorandum was to ruin the British Minister's influence in Persia by giving a false account of the whole transaction to the Shah, with the object of convincing his Majesty that Great Britain desired the partition of Persia. At
the same time, we in England must remember, when we complain
of such conduct on the part of Russian agents, that, bad as it is,
it is not more perfidious than actions which our Government 
lappears willing to tolerate when Germany is the culprit. We
doubt whether in the whole range of diplomatic intercourse it
would be possible to point to the behaviour of one great Power
to another more audaciously cynical in its disloyalty than the
conduct of  Germany to England over what Count von Bulow has been pleased to christen the "Yangtse Agreement " -- except perhaps the treason of Prussia to her allies on the occasion of the
Peace of Basel.<br><br>

The chief potitical obstacle to an Anglo-Russian understanding
is, no doubt, due to the desire of Russia to come down to the
Persian Gulf.  If we are able to recognise and tolerate her ambition in that quarter our antagonism would come to an end,
at least for a generation.  This admittedly is a subject of great
difficulty, and one not to be settled off-hand; but that is no
reason, as the <i>Times</i> has lately pointed out, why statesmen should
not be prepared to face it. It is clearly our interest, as it is our
intention, to preserve intact the <i>status quo</i> in the Gulf unless we
can come to an arrangement with Russia by which we get a <i>quid
pro quo.</i>> That status has been lately threatened by the Sultan of
Turkey at Koweit, the port at the head of the Gulf which the
Germans are believed to have marked as their future naval base,
and which is to be the southern terminus of the great trunk line
which will cross Constantinople. The Sultan of
Turkey lately made use of certain local disturbances between
Mubarak, the Sheikh of Koweit and the Emir of Najd in order to
assert his sovereignty over the independent sheikhs of the coast,
and he counted on vindicating his pretensions over the ruler of
Koweit, after that personage had been defeated by his enemies.
Accordingly, the Sultan sent a corvette-full of troops to Koweit.
Mubarak immediately applied for British protection, and when
the Turks appeared they found one of our gunboats in the port,
and the British officer informed the Turkish commander of the
expedition that his troops would not be allowed to land. There
the matter stands for the present, but the whole incident is 
illustrative of the handiwork of Germany, who was undoubtedly egging on the Sultan. The attempt was mainly directed against
the British policy of upholding the present situation in the Persian
Gulf, but, if successful, it might have a very considerable bearing on
the future interests of Russia.  ls it not idle to argue that Germany
has "claims" to a port on the Persian Gulf, while we are to regard
the appearance of Russia in that part of the world as a <i>casus belli?</i>
Some acknowledged authoritics have held that the manifest aruxiety
of Russia to penetrate into Southern Persia and to secure a seaport is a subject to be carefully considered by England. In this
connection a thoughtful paper by Sir Richard Temple, in the
July number of the <i>Royal United Services Journal</i>, deserves the
attention of the statesmen of both countries; and it may also be
remarked that the policy of endeavouring to close our controversy with Russia by an accord on the Persian Gulf was advocated at the close of his career by no less a person than
Sir Henry Rawlinson.  But it cannot be too often repeated that
the condition precedent of such an agreement is the active goodwill of the powers that be in St. Petersburg. It is for them to reflect as to whether the co-operation of England might not be
of enormous use in promoting Russian trade in the Far East.
At present Russia has already a road from the Caspian to the
Persian capital, which is a source of great profit to her; but she
can only transport goods to and from the Persian Gulf on the
backs of camels or of mules; and the cost of carriage between
the Caspian and the sea-coast, even at the most favourable time
of the year, is not less than twenty pounds a ton.<br><br>

In another part of the world it is for the Russians to consider
whether the goodwill of England might not be worth cultivating.
The question of Manchuria naturally rankles in the mind of the
Japanese, who can clearly see that if a Japanese <i>pied &agrave; terre</i> constituted a menace to the integrity of the Chinese Empire, which
was the pretext on which she was ordered out of Port Arthur,
then the establishment of Russia in Manchuria may become a
very formidable menace to Japan. That conviction is coming
home with increasing force the closer Japan views the situation; that Russia is aware of it is shown by her studied conciliation to the first-class naval and military Power lying off her most
exposed flank. She feels constrained to go out of her way to
the Japanese Government, to which she ostentatiously
communicates the movements of her troops in Manchuria; but
these courtesies do not conciliate; the burning indignation which
the Russian appropriation of Manchuria raises in the breast of
Japan may be concealed for a while, but she is merely biding
her time and awaiting an opportunity for displaying her real
sentiments. The lreystone to British policy in the Far East is
a friendly understanding and co-operation with Japan but,
that being recognised, there is nothing to prevent this country
from supporting a settlement of the Manchurian and Corean
questions on lines which would be regarded as fairly satisfactory
both in St. Petersburg and in Tokio. If the Corean question
were regularised, Japan would have considerably less reason
than at present to apprehend Russian schemes, and Russia; on
her. part, might devote herself to developing her far eastern
dominions without risk of interruption from Japan.<br><br>

Russian statesmen have to make up their minds whether, in the
present condition of Russian industries, Russian agriculture, and
Russian finance, a friendly understanding with England, which
would relieve her anxieties in. the Far East, and which might
result in her being able to continue her. Trans-Caucasian and
Siberian railways to the .shores of the Persian Gulf, and which,
last but not least, might enable her to arry out her historic
mission in the Balkans, is.not worth a high price.<br><br>

Whether our readers agree with the view propounded in this
paper or not we do not think that those who adopt a purely
negative attitude by denying the existence of any basis for an
<i>entente</i> between the Russian and British Empires are entitled to
be heard. If others have a positive policy opposed to that which
we are setting forth, by all means let them produce it, and induce
or compel the British Government to adopt it and execute it.
But in the interval we venture to sketch in outline some suggestions for a comprehensive settlement between the two Powers with the object of demonstrating to the sceptics that at any rate the
raw.material for an Anglo-Russian agreement abounds -- whatever
may be the case as regards the goodwill and statesmanship
requisite to evolve the finished article. We would invite the
reader to note that these suggestions are calculated to compromise neither the relations between Russia and France nor those between Great Britain and Japan.<br><br>
<b>

PROPOSED ANGLO-RUSSIAN UNDERSTANDING</b>.<BR>
The understanding would naturally fall under three different heads:

<b>I. THE NEAR EAST.</b><br>

With regard to the Near East the basis would be that whilst
Russia abstained from any attempt to interfere with the <i>status quo</i>
in Egypt, we should frankly recognise that the fulfilment of what Russia regards as her historic mission in the Balkan peninsula conflicts with no vital British interests, and that in AsiaticTurkey
we should abstain from favouring the development of German
schemes.of expansion.<br><br>

<b>II. PERSIA AND CENTRAL ASIA. </b>
<br>

With regard to Persia and Central Asia, we might offer Russia
our cooperation in the development of railway communication
between the Caspian and. the Persian Gulf; and in securing for
her a commercial outlet on the Gulf in return for an undertaking
on the part of Russia to respect the political <i>status quo</i> along the
shores of the Gulf.<br><br>

<b>III.. THE FAR EAST.</b><br>

With regard to the Far East the question is necessarily more
complicated, as Japan would have to be taken into the counsels of
the two Empires and a basis of agreement arrived at which would
satisfy her as well as Russia and Great Britain.<br><br>

As far as Japan is concerned, such a basis might be found in
the recognition by Russia and England of the Japanese claim to
an exclusive sphere of influence in Corea.<br><br>

Japan would presumably, in return for this concession, have no
objection to a formal agreement under which Great Britain would
recognise Russia's claim to regulate her political and commercial
position in Manchuria and Mongolia by direct negotiation with
China, and Russia would in like manner recognise Great Britain's
claim to regulate in the same wav her political and commercial
position in the Yangtsze Valley, each Power binding itself to
give no support in those regions to the enterprise of any other
Power. With regard to all other questions in China, Great
Britain, Russia, and Japan would agree to take no steps without
mutual consultation.<br><br>

The fact of Russia being a party to such an agreement would
give France a guarantee that her interests would be taken into
due consideration, while our participation would afford a natural
safeguard to the commercial interests of the United States.<br><br>

The effect of such an agreement, accompanied by the customary
demonstrations in such cases, public declarations by the Sovereigns
and their official representatives, and an exchange of visits by
their respective fleets, would at once remove the danger of a
sudden explosion, which must continue to hang over the whole
world so long as the Far East remains the powder-magazine of
international rivalries and conflicting interests which it is at present.<br><br>

The natural consequence of this understanding would be that
in the event of war between Germany and Russia, Great Britain
would remain neutral, and in the event of war between Great
Britain arld Germany, Russia would remain neutral.  Russia
would no longer give cause for suspicion that she was instigating
France to make war against us, as Count Muravieff did during
the Fashoda crisis, and Great Britain would cease to be suspected
in St. Petersburg of encouraging Japanese hostility to Russia.
Japan, on her side, would be relieved of the menace of a possible
rival against her of the Triple Alliance of I895.<br><br>

We need not enlarge upon other points in the European
relations of Great Britain. Lord Salisbury's Government deserves
credit for having strengthened the bonds between this nation;
her oldest ally, Portugal, a country we should stand by on all
occasions. On the other hand, have not his Majesty's Ministers
shown some remissness in their dealings with Italy? At any rate, there is high authority for saying that this is the feeling  at the Quirinal. Any obstacle to Anglo-ltalian friendship, whatever it may be, should be speedily removed. Italy is a country specially dear to the English people; it is the land that Byron loved and to which Palmerston was devoted. Nothing in this 
latter's brilliant career does him more credit than his persistent, wise, and courageous efforts to liberate Italy from thraldom. Apart from all sentiment, Italy is one of the natural allies of England, and we have not so many that we can afford to trifle with her. Italian statesmen have one and all proclaimed their desire to maintain the <i>status quo</i> in the Mediterranean, and any attempt
to impair the supremacy of England in that sea must be looked
askance at in Italy, for if we were overthrown, France -- the friend of the Vatican -- would take our place. And just as Russia has nothing to gain but everything to lose from the substitution of
German for British supremacy,  so Italy would have bitter cause to rue the disappearance of the White Ensign from the Mediterranean. On her side, Italy has a right to expect the material
as well as the moral support of England under certain circumstances easier to conceive than to discuss. For instance, should the nightmare which haunts European statesmanship materialise
and the Austrian Empire be plunged into the melting-pot, England should exert herself to secure for Italy that portion of the <i>disjecta membra</i> which is Italian in sympathy and feeling. Under
no circumstances should we tolerate that the German flag should float over the Italian city of Trieste.<br><br>

If we are to revert, as some of us desire, to the policy of
Canning and Palmerston, and energetically support the cause of
civil and religious liberty and popular rights in Europe, the time
may not be remote when we should lift up our voices on behalf
of the Czechs of Bohemia.  In so doing we shall be promoting
the real interests of the Austrian Empire; The question has
been so persistently misrepresented that Englishmen are only
beginning to realise that the Slavs of Austria are not the disintegrating force within that country. But it is the German element enrolled under the banner of the Pan-Germanic League
which threatens the existence of an empire which a great Czech
writer has told us would have to be created if it did not exist.<br><br>

To sum up, then, the general conclusions of this paper: we
should do everything in our power to promote the interests of Italy and 
the expansion of Italian power, while we need not conceal our sympathies for the Bohemian
Slavs and the ideas they represent, and we should adhere firmly to our old 
policy of alliance with Portugal. We are the only great European Power 
which covets no European territory, and it ought not to be beyond the 
resources of our statesmanship to profit by this unique feature in
our position. In the Far East the keystone of our policy will be the 
maintenance of our <i>entente</i> with Japan. It is our earnest desire to meet, 
if possible, the wlshes of Russia, particularly on the Persian Gulf; but this 
policy is only practicable if Russia realises that our co-operation is at 
least as valuable to her as hers is to us. We may, perhaps, be allowed to 
interject in passing that the different methods and systems of government 
and political institutions in the two empires need not interfere with their cordial 
relations, as some Russians seem inclined to apprehend.
His Excellency Constantin Pobiedonostseff, Procurator of the Holy 
Synod, has recently published an article in the <i>North American Review </i>
expressing his unmitigated contempt for the parliamentary machinery of 
France, Austria, Germany, and Italy. We cannot but suspect that he is 
equally hostile to the spread of  English theories of government, and fears 
they might conceivably creep into Russia in the wake of an 
Anglo-Russian <i>entente.</i>  His Excellency should be reassured on 
that point.  Englishmen
are beginning to realise that their institutions, however suitable
to tilis country, are quite unsuitable even to nations whose
historical development is much more similar to that of England
than is the history of  Russia. The Empire of the Tsars, on its
side, possesses interesting and characteristic institutions which it
would be disastrous to impair, but which could not be transferred
to other soils.<br><br>

In seeking to close our prolonged contest with Russia, we are
desirous of doing something which would be for the advantage of 
civilisation, and, should it be effected, it would not be less welcome 
becausc it brought us back into friendly relations with France -- a country 
whose history is closely interwoven with our
own, and with which we share so many political sentiments. The French 
are perhaps the only nation which will make sacrifices and run risks for 
the sake of those who enjoy their friendship. They are capable of 
sentimental attachment as well as sentimental hatred.
<br><br>

To those forcign statesmen who say, or are supposed to say, that " It 
is impossible to do business with England, seeing that one Government 
is apt to reverse the foreign policy of its predecessor," we would reply that of late years there have been various influences at work to steady public opinion in this country on questions 
of foreign politics, and that the break on a change of Government is 
practically imperceptible. The credit of this continuity is principally due to 
Lord Rosebery and his adherents in Parliament and the Press. No one 
familiar with the <i>personnel</i> of our politics can seriously suggest that if Lord 
Salisbury and Lord Lansdowne were to pursue the policy set forth in this 
paper their successors would fail to keep the engagements they might inherit.<br><br>

But earnestly as we advocate a particular policy there should be no 
misunderstanding as to our motives. We are not touting for alliances. We 
are prepared to entertain friendly overtures, and to enter alliances on suitable 
terms and for practical purposes; and for the realisation of ideals beneficial 
to the worid at large we think Great Britain should be prepared to make 
considerable though reasonable sacrifices. But  the people of this country will no 
longer tolerate a policy of  "graceful concessions,"  and will not permit any 
Ministry or any personage however exalted to adopt towards any Power the 
attitude which has been too long followed as regards Germany. If Russia wishes to come to us, we 
shall meet her cordially and at least half way. If, on the other hand, Russia 
and France, one or both of them, elect to
combine with Germany  in an attempt to wrest from us the sceptre of the seas and to replace 
our sovereignty by that of Germany, England will know how to meet them. 
The Navy Bill in Germany was carried through with the avowed object of 
creating a navy which "would be able to keep the North Sea clear." We have 
no intention of clearing out of the North Sea or out of any other sea. We 
seek no quarrel with any Power but if Germany thinks it her interest to 
force one upon us, we shall not shrink from the ordeal, even should she 
appear in the lists with France and Russia as her allies. Germans would however, do well to 
realise that if England is driven to it, England will strike home. Close to the 
foundations of the German Empire, which has hardly emerged from its 
artificial stage, there exists a powder magazine such as is to be found in no 
other country viz, Social Democracy. In the case of a conflict with Great 
Britain, misery would be caused to large classes of the German population, 
produced by the total collapse of subsidised industries; far-reaching 
commercial depression, financial collapse, and a defective food-supply 
might easily make that magazine explode.
A.B.C. etc.
<hr>
<p align="right">
[[Main_Page | WWI Document Archive ]] > [[Pre - 1914 Documents]] > '''The ABC Proposal for British Foreign Policy'''
</p><hr>
<center>
</center>