CHAPTER LXXVI.

1891-1900, THE NEW PROBLEMS

 

THE year of Bismarck’s fall saw the Franco-Russian Alliance inaugurated, and the isolation of France, to effect which he had devoted so much labour, finally ended. But the fears of Bismarck have now no reason for their exist­ence.¹The Dual, no less than the Triple Alliance, makes for peace. France has for the time acquiesced in the loss of Alsace and Lorraine, and is straining every nerve to secure colonial possessions; while Russia has recognized the futility of attempting to drive the Turks out of Constantinople, and is busy in extending her empire to the shores of the Pacific. The Great Powers no longer aim at acquisitions in Europe; the object of each is to develop, as far as possible, a colonial Empire. The failure, however, of Turkey to carry out its promised reforms, and its war with Greece, checked for a time the general tendency towards world empires, and forced the Powers of Europe into temporary union in order to establish peace in the East of Europe.

The years 1891-1900 have indeed witnessed a general upheaval in Eastern Europe, where the Christian populations resented the continual refusal of the Porte to grant reforms, and were deeply moved by the massacres in Armenia. Taking advantage of the widespread dissatisfaction at the conduct of the Porte, Greece plunged into a war which had the result of freeing Crete from Turkish misrule. Simultaneously with the existence of an unsatisfactory state of things in the East of Europe, which has now become chronic, the commercial and colonial expansion of Russia, Germany, England and France went on apace; while America, in consequence of her war with Spain over Cuba, suddenly appeared as one of the great Powers of the world. This almost unanimous desire on the part of so many nations to share in the unoccupied portions of the globe has naturally led to considerable friction, and often brought the Powers to the verge of war. But so far peace has been preserved among the leading States, and, by a continuance of mutual forbearance, it is to be hoped that no great war will break out.

During the years succeeding the fall of Bismark the peace of Europe has only been broken in the East. Terrible massacres of Armenians took place in 1894 and 1895, and a wave of horror passed over the whole civilized world. Both Lord Rosebery and Lord Salisbury, on his accession to office in 1895, were resolved to force Abdul Hamid the Sultan to accept the advice of the European Powers and to carry out the long promised reforms. Lord Kimberley had brought about the Concert of the Six Powers, the immediate object of which was to compel the Porte to execute Article XLI. of the Treaty of Berlin, viz., “to carry into effect, without delay, the improvements and reforms required by local wants in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians.” The difficulties before the Ambassadors of the Powers were immense. They had to obtain from the Porte guarantees for the execution of the reforms, and they had to remain united. Unfortunately cordial union was impossible. England alone was anxious for drastic measures, Germany and Austria were lukewarm, Russia and France were opposed to bringing force to bear on Abdul Hamid. With infinite difficulty Lord Salisbury obtained from the Porte an Imperial Irade, ordering the execution of a list of reforms which had the approval of the Powers. But though no one expected a loyal execution of his promises, few anticipated that further massacres would take place in 1896. Thousands of Armenians were slaughtered in the provinces, and in August a general massacre of Armenians in Constantinople illustrated the real weakness of the Concert.

The rising in Crete, 1896.

What, however, the great Powers feared to do was done by Crete. In that island the Christians held their own against the Turks, though the latter succeeded in 1895 in suppressing temporarily the rising. It was, however, obvious that Turkey, if allowed, could stamp out the resistance of the Christians by force of numbers. Lord Salisbury, though hampered in Armenia, saw an opportunity of checking the Turks in Crete, and through his endeavours the Porte agreed to a Convention in 1896. But disorders immediately followed, and a new situation was created when Colonel Vassos, aide-de-camp to the King of Greece, and with the aid of Prince George, landed in Crete with 1,500 men and some artillery, in February, 1897. The Cretans had already demanded union with Greece, and it was clear that the Greek Government was anxious to bring this about. War between Greece and Turkey at once followed, while the Concert of the Powers declared for the autonomy of Crete under Turkish suzerainty, and an international fleet was sent to watch the island. In the war the Turks, under Edhem Pasha, were almost consistently victorious, and after the first battle, on April 17, the main Turkish army advanced into the Plain of Thessaly. After a succession of disasters, the Crown Prince, on May 20, obtained a fifteen days’ truce. The Ministry of Delyannis fell, Ralli, the head of the new Government, agreed to withdraw all Greek troops from Crete, and after some delay promised to accept autonomy for the island. The Concert of Powers thereupon took charge of Greek interests, and mediated a peace with Turkey. No increase of territory was allowed to the Porte, which had to content itself with a large money indemnity. On November 23, 1897, peace was signed at Constantinople, and Great Britain, Russia, and France, took upon themselves to arrange for the payment of the indemnity. The question of Crete still remained. The pro­posal of Russia that Prince George of Greece should be appointed Governor of the island, was followed first by a deadlock, and, early in 1898, by the withdrawal of Germany and Austria from the Concert. In September an attack of the Turks upon British troops led to energetic measures by Admiral Noel, who was supported by the English Government, and Lord Salisbury declared that England was prepared, if necessary, to act alone. All Turkish troops were to be at once removed from Crete. France, Russia, and Italy agreed, and the respective admirals of the four Powers insisted on the deporta­tion of the Turks, while the candidature of Prince George was revived. On December 31, 1898, he landed in Crete as Governor, and took over the administration. The firmness of Lord Salisbury had restored England’s prestige, which the Armenian “ affair ” had dimmed, and the possibility of good emanating from a Concert of Powers was vindicated. The Graeco-Turkish war, moreover, had illustrated the growing friendship of Germany with the Porte. German officers had, by their advice, done much to ensure the reorganisation of the Turkish army after the Treaty of Berlin, and the results of their advice were patent in the whole conduct of the war. In any future uprising against the Porte, the interest taken by Germany in its welfare will be a powerful factor in the development of events. The episodes of the years 1894-1898 showed, too, that Russia is determined not to allow Armenia to become a second Bulgaria. Throughout those years Russia manifested an anxiety with regard to the future of Asia Minor, which portends a Muscovite expansion in that direc­tion. Batoum is no longer a free port, the Black Sea is a Russian lake, and the steady advance of the Tsar’s influence in Asia Minor seems assured.

While these events were proceeding in the East of Europe, Germany, France, England and Italy, were endeavouring to strengthen their hold upon parts of Africa. In Uganda, on the Gold Coast, in Nigeria, in South West and South Africa, great activity has prevailed, and the contending interests of the Great Powers have often brought them to the verge of conflict. In 1884 Germany had occupied Angra Pequena, on the South-West coast of Africa, and from that time German colonization advanced. In the same year a Conference of all the leading Powers, including America, met at Berlin (November 15, 1884—February 26, 1885). The Conference decided that occupation of territory must be effective. It required the suppression of the slave trade and slavery; it established a free-trade zone, and it placed the Congo Free State under the sovereignty of Leopold II of Belgium. From that time rapid progress has been made towards a partition of Africa, and the Brussels Conference (November 18, 1889—July 2, 1890) took further steps to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors and firearms to the natives, and to suppress the slave trade.

With Germany England had no serious causes of complaint. Bismarck had found that encouragement of colonial expansion occupied the attention of England and France, and was popular with a certain section of politicians in Berlin. Before his fall Germany had made considerable progress in East Africa. In 1889 an Imperial Commissioner was placed over the German territory, which extended from the river Wami to Cape Delgado. In 1890 (July 1) an Anglo-German agreement was made, by which England gave up her possession of Heligoland, and received the Protectorate over Zanzibar and Pemba. The spheres of influence of England and Germany in East and South-West Africa were also settled, and though France refused to recognize the agreement so far as it defined the British sphere of influence in the country from the lakes to Wady Haifa, the arrangement has not been disturbed.

The task of delimitation in a country like Africa must necessarily be difficult, and it was especially so in West Africa, where the French asserted claims to the hinterland at variance with treaties, and of a character likely to interfere with the policy of the English Government of allowing “trade to pursue its unchecked and unhindered courses upon the Niger, the Nile, and the Zambesi.” In 1897 the invasion by the French of British territory rendered it necessary to come to some clear understanding, and an Anglo-French Convention signed in June, 1898, but not ratified till 1899, settled the boundaries of the British possessions.

The task of making a satisfactory arrangement with regard to the Upper Nile and Central Soudan proved a less easy task, and there seems little doubt that the French proposed to establish a line of forts across the Nile Valley, so as to bar the advance of the English southwards. In view of some such action on the part of France, the British Government in 1895 had clearly defined its policy. “The British sphere of influence,” said Sir Edward Grey, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on March 28th, 1895, “ covered the whole of the Nile Waterway.” In 1896 the recon quest of the Soudan was begun, simultaneously with a great disaster to the Italians at the battle of Adowa. Italy had in 1888 founded the Protectorate of Erythrea on the coast of the Red Sea, and during 1895 had attempted to extend the area of the settlement. In attacking Menelik, King of Abyssinia, at Adowa, the Italians suffered a severe defeat, and Kassala was threatened by the Dervishes. The advance of the British and Egyptian forces under Sir Herbert Kitchener saved Kassala and was accompanied by the defeat of the Dervishes at Ferkeh and the occupation of Dongola. In 1898 a general advance was made; victories were won at Atbara and Omdurman, and Khartoum recovered. With the death of the Khalifa in an engagement at Kordofan, the recon quest of the Soudan was accomplished. But before that event England and France had been brought to the verge of war.

The battle of Omdurman and the recovery of Khartoum had been preceded by the arrival of a French force under Major Marchand at Fashoda on the White Nile. The English Declaration of 1895 and the colonial policy of France were thus brought into diametrical opposition. Lord Salisbury was resolved not to recognize “a title to possession on behalf of France or Abyssinia to any portion of the Nile Valley.” M. Delcasse, the French Foreign Minister, and Sir E. Monson negotiated in Paris, and the French Ambassador, Baron de Courcel, had interviews with Lord Salisbury in London. The situation became serious, though the French claims were absolutely untenable. On November 4th the French Government decided to withdraw Major Marchand’s expedition, and the danger of war passed away.

The Eastern Soudan and a large portion of Central Africa have now been opened to civilisation, the Dervish power has been destroyed, and the excellence of the British administration has been fully vindicated. A great step, too, has been taken in uniting by means of the telegraph and the railway Cape Town and Cairo. The consummation of this aim has, however, been somewhat retarded by the war between England and the Transvaal and the Orange Free State Republics. Ever since the Convention of Pretoria in 1881, following the British defeat of Majuba Hill, the Boers have aimed at complete independence. By that convention, supplemented by the London convention of 1884, the Transvaal was given autonomy for internal purposes, but was never given independence. A firm determination on the part of the Transvaal Government to shake off British suzerainty led to continual quarrels with England, while the Jameson raid and its failure in 1895-6, intensified the feeling of opposition to outside con­trol. In the confident expectation of direct or indirect assist­ance from one or more European countries, the Transvaal and Orange Free State Republics united, sent England an ultimatum, and war began in October, 1899. The corrupt Hollander Government of Pretoria fell before the advance of Lord Roberts, the Boer armies have been broken up, and in spite of the continuance of guerilla warfare the British sovereignty over both the Republics is assured, and the union of South Africa will shortly be an accomplished fact.

The close of the year 1895 had not only witnessed the Jameson Raid, it also found England engaged in a dispute with America over a question of the Guiana-Venezuela boundary. On December 18th, England awoke to find that America had threatened her with war. The question was a complicated one, but no action on the part of the English Government warranted such messages to Congress and such despatches as were drawn up by President Cleveland, and Richard Olney, the State Secretary. For a time a deadlock ensued, and it was not till a panic had taken place in Wall Street that reason asserted itself with the American public, which hitherto had not understood the facts of the case, nor appreciated the position into which their country had been placed. After much discussion a solution of the boundary question was reached. By the Treaty of Washington, in February, 1897, a Tribunal was appointed which met at Paris, and made its award in October, 1899, thus satisfactorily settling the rival claims of Great Britain and Venezuela. During the dispute Mr. Olney had tried to base his case upon a misinterpretation of the Monroe doctrine. That doctrine, adopted by President Monroe in 1828 from George Canning, simply amounted to a declaration that any extension of the possessions of the European Powers on the American Continent would be dangerous to the safety of the United States. It was in no way applicable to the Guiana-Venezuela boundary question, for no European Power was endeavouring to extend its possessions on the American Continent.

The American Government, however, was fully justified in protesting against the Spanish misrule in Cuba. Ever since the century opened the Cuban people have had a deep interest for the Americans. The fertility of the island has excited their envy, its misgovernment their pity, while its situation commanding the Caribbean Sea rendered its eventual control by the United States Government a necessity. In 1867 a rebellion broke out in Cuba, and in 1877, President Grant’s intervention led to Spanish concessions. In 1894, a fresh rebellion led to cruelties on the part of the Spaniards, and roused public opinion in America.

On February 15th, 1898, however, an event occurred which forced the Americans to take action. On that day, the battleship Maine, which lay in Havana harbour to safeguard American interests, was blown up and sunk with 253 of her crew. The American nation was deeply stirred, and on April 19th, Congress resolved that it was the duty of the United States to demand the retirement of Spain from Cuba, and that the President was authorised to compel Spain’s withdrawal. It further declared that the United States would leave the government and control of the island to its people. In the war which followed one American fleet, under Admiral Dewey, attacked Manila, in the Philippines, while Admirals Sampson and Schley first blockaded and then destroyed the Spanish fleet under Admiral Cervera, off Santiago harbour (July 3rd). Meanwhile, 15,000 men, under General Shafter, landed in Cuba, and after hard fighting took Santiago (July 17th). On August 17th, Manila was taken, and shortly after­wards peace was signed. Spain lost Cuba and all her other West Indian Islands, as well as the Philippines. It is not unlikely that, just as after her losses in the Spanish Succession Wars, Spain’s position may be improved. Cuba was a con­stant source of expense, and a continual source of drain in men and money.

However this may be, the war marks an important epoch in the history of America. Hitherto she had steadily held aloof from European politics, and had taken no share in disputes between the Great Powers. Having no foreign policy she had no necessity for a fleet, and her army was only kept up for employment against the Indians. With the close of her war with Spain, America found herself in a new position. Her possession of the Philippines has brought her into close relations political and commercial with the European Powers, which have been so steadily dividing the unclaimed portions of the earth’s surface. It has become necessary for America to build a fleet powerful enough to defend her interests, it will become no less necessary to set on foot a large and serviceable army. Like England, Germany, France, and Russia, America is now interested in the balance of power in the Pacific, and, in the year 1900, when the European legations in Pekin were attacked by the Boxers, President McKinley fully recognized her responsibilities.

CHINA AND JAPAN

Ever since the victory of Japan in her war with China in the winter of 1894-1895, the Far Eastern Question had rapidly assumed great importance. By the Treaty of Shimonoseki, April 1st, 1895, Japan secured the Liao-tung Peninsula, the island of Formosa, and the Pescadores Archipelago, besides a large sum of money.

Russia, however, was strongly opposed to the expansion of Japan on the mainland, and with Germany and France, com­pelled her to evacuate Port Arthur and the Liao-tung Peninsula. From the close of the war events have marched rapidly. Russia has occupied Port Arthur and Germany has seized Kiao Chow Bay, and in order to safeguard British interests, Lord Salisbury has leased Wei-hai-Wei, for so long as Port Arthur shall remain in Russian hands. Germany, satisfied that England’s main object was to maintain the balance of power in the Gulf of Pechili and not to menace German rights in the Province of Shantung, has, together with America, supported the policy of the “open door.” During 1897 and 1898 there was danger of a war breaking out between Russia on the one hand, and England and Japan on the other. But, thanks to the firmness and sagacity of Sir Claude Macdonald, our Envoy in Pekin, and to Lord Salisbury’s determination to preserve British interests, an agreement was signed with Russia, on April 28th, 1899, which practically recognized the policy of Free Trade. In the struggle England had the approval, though not the active support of America, which is vitally interested in the maintenance of the policy of the “open door.” At the suggestion of Mr. Hay, the State Secretary, all the great Powers pledged themselves to maintain freedom of trade. But this unanimity between the Powers coincided with a revival of anti-foreign feeling in China, roused by the gradual partition of the coast, and stirred up by the Dowager-Empress, who carried out a coup d'état in 1898, and became paramount in Pekin.

In 1900 this hostility to Europeans produced a widespread rising in China against foreigners, and the Legations in Pekin were besieged by the Boxer Societies, aided by Imperial troops. All the nations interested at once united, Pekin was occupied, the legations were rescued, and the Dowager-Empress with the Emperor fled. After many difficulties order was restored in China, the foreign armies were withdrawn, and the Chinese Government was reinstated under stringent conditions.

Whatever may be the future of the Chinese Dynasty, the events in China since 1895 have shown that freedom of commerce will be maintained in the far East. Each nation is now supremely anxious for commercial concessions and trade advantages. But the majority of them are none the less prepared with regard to dealing with such a country of such a vast extent as China to sink their individual ambitions and unite in preserving the “open door.”

In this work the new position taken up by America will be of incalculable importance. Her commerce with the far East is extensive, her interests in that region are immense. The possession of the Philippines gives her an admirable station for watching over her commerce, and it is quite clear that any Power wishing to disturb the present arrangements for ensuring freedom of trade in China will have to count upon the opposition of America.

From what has been already said it will be apparent that with the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 the European world entered upon a new period. Though on the surface it might appear that the antagonism of Germany and France still continued to be centred round Alsace and Lorraine, and though the Triple Alliance of 1883 was answered by the Dual Alliance of 1891, as a matter of fact a revolution was quietly taking place in all the chancelleries of Europe. Bismarck occupies a transitional position. The main portion of his career was devoted to the reconstitution of Germany, but during his later years he recognized the growing strength of the colonial and commercial movements. Before he fell Germany had stepped out to compete with other nations for a full share of the trade of the world.

In view then of general consensus among the Great Powers that the expansion of their commerce and the development of their colonies need not be accompanied by internecine struggles, it is not surprising that, on the initiation of the Tsar Nicholas II., the successor of Alexander III (1894), a Congress met at the Hague on May 18, 1899, to consider the best means of reducing existing armaments and substituting arbitration for war. England had already, in the case of the Alabama Claims, consented to have the claims of the United States decided by arbitration. Though the experiment was not satisfactory, England had persevered in its belief in the advantages of arbitration, and had used that method for settling the Guiana-Venezuelan boundary dispute.

Still, it was somewhat a surprise that the Tsar should take the lead in inviting representatives of the leading States to meet at the Hague to consider the best means of bringing wars to an end. America, China, Japan, Siam, Persia, and Mexico, together with the great European Powers sent representatives, and the Conference has undoubtedly done a great work in bringing home to nations the advantages of arbitration over war. The fact that Great Britain was compelled to go to war with the Dutch Republics in South Africa, and that hostilities broke out in China, in 1900, need not be regarded as in any way invalidating the usefulness of the Congress of the Hague. Rebellious dependencies and backward nations are sure, from time to time, to compel a resort to forcible measures, which seems one of the only means to advance civilization. But the chief European States which have been built up by steady efforts lasting over centuries, and who have advanced from childhood to manhood will, it is hoped, hesitate in the future before embarking on a great war.

A new century, therefore, opens with hopes of peace, which may justify the expectations of those who were present at the Conference of the Hague. It also opens with many new problems for future generations. Europe remains divided between those nations which form the Triple Alliance and those which form the Dual Alliance; Germany, Austria, and Italy are united, and opposed to them stand Russia and France. But the desire for world empire has caused the main attention of the nations to be concentrated outside Europe. The Graeco­Turkish war has brought prominently forward the importance of Asia Minor and Palestine; the reconquest of the Soudan has revealed the possibilities to England of a wide dominion in the region of the Nile, the opening up of West Africa is of immense importance to England, France and Germany. The effects of the war in South Africa have yet to be seen, but one result has been to unite England and her colonies in a union the strength of which will be enormous, and the importance of which cannot be overrated.

The effects of the Cuban war upon America cannot as yet be fully estimated. All that is certain is that America has entered upon a new period of her career, and that her entry into the politics of the world may profoundly affect the future development and relations of the Teutonic and Slavic races. But apparently the key of the relations of the European nations to each other and also to America is to be found in the Pacific Ocean and in China. In the East a new nation has appeared, and Japan has already shown a determination to have a voice in any settlement of the Balance of Power in the Gulf of Pechili. During the eighteenth century the rise of Prussia and Russia startled Western Europe; during the last ten years of the nineteenth century America and Japan have taken their position alongside the older Powers.

On the importance of preserving the peace of the world all the principal States are agreed. Francis Joseph, the Emperor of Austria, has the most difficult task. He rules over Germans, Czechs, Magyars, Slavs, and many other nationalities; it is only his influence and the fears of foreign invasion that keeps the Austro-Hungarian kingdom united. The Emperor William II of Germany has an influence second to that of no other ruler in Europe. To reconcile his subjects to an enormous expenditure on the army has always been his most difficult task. He has encouraged commerce and colonization, and has acted firmly and wisely during the progress of the Chinese difficulty. Like Francis Joseph and Nicholas II of Russia, with whom he is on terms of friendship, he remains devoted to the preservation of peace. Under President Loubet, France has continued the peace policy adopted in 1871; she has indeed occupied Tunis and Madagascar by force of arms, but though a conflict with England over the Fashoda question seemed at one time possible, she wisely decided not to enter upon a great war in a bad cause. Lord Salisbury remains the most experienced foreign politician in the world, and it is felt that his influence will always be used to preserve harmony among the Great Powers.

In January, 1901, Queen Victoria died after a reign unexampled in importance in English History, and in September, 1901, President McKinley was assassinated. Their successors, King Edward VII and President Roosevelt, however, have continued to follow carefully the lines of policy already indicated in the later years of the nineteenth century.