A RUSSIAN DIPLOMAT

Hokitika Guardian, 11 January 1921, Page 1

A RUSSIAN DIPLOMAT

M. Alexander Iswolsky, whose “.Memoirs” have hern translated by Air C. L. Seeger, entered tho Russian diplomatie service in 1875. After filling various posts in Bucharest, Washington, and Belgrade, he became Resident .Minister at Rome, and subsequently went as Ambassador to Tokio, where he remained until the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war. Ilis next appointment was to Copenhagen, an “Irishman’s rise,” which he attributes to the fact that the Czar’s advisers disapproved of his well-known Liberal sympathies. However, on the Revolution of 1005, which was followed by the grant of a constitution, the Czar thought it expedient to si ow his sincerity by choosing .Ministers of more advanced views, and M. Iswolsky was recalled fiom Denmark and placed in charge of the Foreign Office. As Minister for Foreign Affairs he conducted the negotiations with Austria regarding the annexation of Bosnia and lierzgovina, and, although he did not succeed in his main object, his tact prevented a serious rupture between Austria and Russia and his influence was also indirectly responsible for the consummation of the Kntente with Britain and France, and the renewal of friendly relations with Japan. In 1910 he became Ambassador to France; his diplomatic career ended with the Revolution of 1917. He associated himself with various anti-Bolshe-vik movements, and began these “Memoirs,” but died of influenza last year before he had time to complete them.

This volume is concerned chiefly with iiis work at Copenhagen and in the Foreign Office, and the most interesting chapters are those which deal with the relations of (formally and Russia in the early years of the century, and with the domestic situation in Russia after the grant of a constitutional charter. Long before the outbreak of 1905 lie saw clearly the perils which threatened Russia because of the obstinacy with which the reactionary bureaucrats surrounding Nicholas II clung to their antiquated ideas of government. He was convinced that Russia was on the edge of a volcano; the only alternative to a reign of anarchy was the establishment of some form of representative government. But lie realised that the Russians were not yet ready for the institutions of Western democracy; something «f the old system must be retained. He was a reformer who believed that it was best to hasten slowly, and hence he exposed bimselt to the attacks of the extremists on either side. Mis moderate policy, though it seemed to succeed for a time, ended by pleasing no one. He was accused of being an upholder of Czarism, with its tyranny, persecution, and injustice, while simultaneously the official Press, with no less violence, denounced him as a dangerous revolutionary.

On two points. liis foresight was abundantly justified. t)n the aholitioii ol - seifdoin m 18(51 Llio peasants were i\ til not only their freedom, hilt lend. However, the principle of individual ownership was not recognised ; the hind war held in common by {(roups under the system ot llit- "inir,” which was thought to be a national Russian institution peculiarly suitable to Russian conditions and ideas. .M. Jsvvolsky believes that this was a grave mistake, lie insists that the 'mil” must be regarded as a relic of a primitive system ol organisation which the Russian peasant had long outgrown. Incidentally it was adopted in 1 <S(?J on tin* evidence ot a Westphalian baron whose knowledge of Russian agriculture was somewhat superficial. The moujik was not satislied with communal ownership, he was quite indifferent to theories o| social science; he wanted separate ownership, and he would support any party that would promise him this- Russian statesmanship failed to appreciate the importance of the agrarian problem, and with a curious lack of prevision, encouraged the growth ot tin urban proletariat. Count Witte, in particular, made the development of the manufacturing industries his chict aim. M. Iswnlsky does not belittle his achievement, but suggests that the history ot Russia might have been ditleicnt il equal solicitude had been shown tor the agricultural industries. "The creation of a numerous labouring class crowded together in the cities, and forming the revolutionary element par excellence, ought to have been preceded by extensive agrarian reform in the sense of the development, of small private owner ship.” A population of peasant proprietors does not readily succumb to the persuasions of anarchy. In 1917 the Soviet- Government published various secret treaties, including one concluded at Bjorkoo in 1905 beTwerii the Czar and the German Emperor. M, Iswolsky. discusses this at some length, and quotes the correspondence which loci to it, correspondence which throws much light on the characters of the two momnehs. The generally accepted view is that in signing this treaty Behind France’s hack the Czar was guilty of a shameful act of treachery to his ally. M. Iswolsky, however defends Nicholas’s ireputntion. His apologia- is not very convincing, lie cannot get away from the fact that although Russia was hound by solemn obligations to France, the Czar undertook to help Germany with all his forces on land and sea in the event of that country being attacked bv any European State. It is true that the treaty provided that at a latter date Russia should make its terms known to Franco and invite her to join. But that does not pu'rgc the arrangement of bad faith; France was to be confronted by tt “fait accompli.” M.Tswolsky’s loyalty to his former sovereign impels him to a hopeless advocacy. Rut while he cannot secure an acquittal he shows that Nicholas was bluffed and bullied into signing the treaty by one who was a past-master in the arts of misrepresentation and intrigue. William 11. in this correspondence sedul-

ously strives to promote ill-feeling Iretween England and Russia. He hints that France is playing a double game. No callunmy is too wild, no fabrication too extravagant to repeat. At tho time of the Dogger Bank incident “Willy” declares that the English are aware (though they deny it) that foreign warships, presumably Japanese were among the fishing vessels. A little later, to has a circumstantial story of a British expedition which is going to establish British-Russian interests, and which is already preparing by the way Tfr assassination. Week after week Nicholas hears the catalogue of the iniquities of France and Britain as recorded by William’s flowing pen. He is still reluctant to sign, so at last “Willy” makes a sudden descent on bim at a Finnish wafering place. No one knew of bis coming; the Czar is taken by surprise; liis advisers are not at hand. Nicholas, weak and easily led, cannot stand up to bis forceful cousin who lias no difficulty in dominating him. “The Kaism gave his victim no chance to escape li is flowery eloquence and overbearing manner of argument.” The signatures are affixed and William departs before the Czar has time to .realise wlmt lias happened.