The Hypocrisy of British Liberalism

Maoriland Worker, Volume I, Issue 7, 20 March 1911, Page 8

The Hypocrisy of British Liberalism

The ordinary Englishman "dearly loves a Lord," and just as dearly does lie love a platitude. If he lias a preference it is for the platitude. This disposition renders it essential on the part of a political party as the condition of victory to plan the platitudes that please. "Liberty and Freedom" sounds grand. "Will of the People" is impressive. "Down with the Peers" appeals to the iconoclasm of the virile. So Liberals employ them with sxich damnable iteration as to convey an impression of sincerity. There can be no complaint about the phrases.. In spirit they are admirable; but in the mouths of Liberals they are so much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Liberals never mean Liberty when they proclaim it. In the recent election campaign, as in preceding campaigns, they sought not liberty but power to overreach their traditional foes, the aristocracy —power to buttress their own plutocracy. Nothing more impressively demonstrated the. shallowness of Liberal B3 T mpathy with Liberty at home than its policy aibroad. Like Lowell's pious editor, its enthusiasm for Liberty is tempered by some judicious tyranny : "It's w.al enough agin, a King To dror resolves an' triggers, Bait Libbaty's a kin' <o* thing Thet don't agree with niggers. Liberalism in its foreign policy is a® despotic, callous,, as unsympathetic with democratic aspiration as is the most brutal Tory of them all, for inconsistency and partiality, for public evil doing and indifference to the rights of weaker nationalities, Liberalism occupies a pre-eminent position, and one winch must produce results highly inimical to the ptiblic interest. These unholy principles, or want of principles, during the. past five years have manifested themselves in acts which outrage every ethic of freedom. They have affected our relations with Spam, Russia, Finland, Iligypt, India and Persia, and, if not early repented of, promise to be fertile in tempestuous international situations. How completely they destroy the integrity of Liberal declarations will be seen by what follows. Ferrer's Official Murder. Just over a year ago the Spanish Government decided to murder Francisco. Ferrer. His crime was that he hated darkness and superstition. Terrible offence in these enlightened days ! Ferrer was incarcerated, tried under biased conditions, and condemned to death. Influential deputations waited on the Liberal Foreign Sir Edward Grey, and pleaded his intervention. Sir Jlklward refused to take any action, advancing as his reason that the foreign policy of Liberalism was one of "nonr interference in the internal affairs of friendly States." A day or two after, Ferrer was officially murdered in broad daylight. The premeditated inertia or Liberalism on this occasion besmirched the British escutcheon. A word from the British Government would have saved the world from a, crime. A few months before the committal of this ghastly atrocity, Sir Edward, as Foreign Minister, extended an invitation to that arch-ruffian, the Czar of Russia, to meet the late King Edward and to be the nation's , guest, fle came, his hands red with the blood of his subjects, was met "off Cowes," there hobnobbed with the King and received from the London Chamber of Commerce an address of welcome "in a gold box." Tthis week's papers report that the people will foot a bill of £770 for the pleasure of his presence. Everybody knows the motive of the tion and the visit was to effect such an "entente cordiale" as would facilitate operations which were proceeding; between the impecunious Russian Government and London financiers rampant for investinents. Kings nowadays do the dirty work for the Money-Lords. The Betrayal of Finland. The sequel? Our new ally (!) rejuvenated by British money, immediately assaulted the constitutional liberties of Finland. Finland enjoyed wdde autonomous , powers under a Constitution solemnly sworn to by several Czars, including the present one. Exercising these rights, her people made rapid progress in all the arts and reached a high state/ of civilisation. Russia calmly tears up this Constitution, overruns Finland with troops, closes her schools and demands the dissolution of her Diet. The most eminent jurisconsults of Europe issue a document protesting the invalidity of these depredations, but when Sir Edward Grey is urged to exert British influence on behalf of Finnish nationality, he stonily declares that the foreign policy of Liberalism is "non-intervention in the internal affairs of friendly states, ,, —therefore

(By James Thorn.)

he can do nothing. Interesting spectacle ! A liberty-mongering Liberal Minister acquiescing in the despotism of his ally ! Such insistence upon a foreign policy of laissez-faire naturally encourages the guileless to- believe that with Liberalism "consistency still Avas a part of its plan." What pin-headed simpletons are they who embrace this delusion is evidenced by a little business now under way in Persia. "Non-interfer-ence" only applies to conditions where Liberty is endangered. The reverse operates where the loot is substantial. Witness: In 1907,, an Anglo-Russian agreement was signed, "defining" inter aliia the position of Persia. There is a grim humour in the fact that Persia sihould be selected for "definition" by two external powers, one of which emblazons "non-interference" upon its banners. Persia is "friendly." She is independent but decadent, impoverished, much too feeble to be offensive. Why interpose then in her affairs to "define" her? Inscrutable enigma. But the fact remains the afore-men-tioned agreement was entered into. Its provisions were so elastic that immediately upon their publication protests were raised on the ground that they would allow Russia to penetrate Persia with military. These protests went unheeded however, and, as if to verify prediction, Russia, with the utmost despatch, pushed troops into every important strategici position on the North Persian frontier. Next, without the shadow of a reasonable, pretext, Russian soldiery were openly amassed in Northern Persia itself. Inevitably this free J bootery produced irritation in Persia., which expressed itself in raids upon a trade route over which foreign goods were transported. First Police, then Partition. To the ordinary man the obvious policy to compose Persia's feelings, was for Britain to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops from Persian territory. Instead of which Sir Edward Grey insisted that Persia should estaiblish along the route a gendarmerie under British officers, drawn from the Indian army. Persia under compulsion accepted this proposition, but when she entered into negotiations with Seligmann's financial house to< finance these policing; arrangements, Sir Edward intervened amd insisted, that the money required should be borrowed from the Imperial Bank of Persia, whose headquarters are in Teheran and in which British financiers have a dominant interest. What about "non-in-terference" now? It required but the ordinary mental vision to perceive what the acceptance of this demand will lead to. As soon as British financiers hold substantial securities in Persia, military force will be established there to protect said securities —"in the interests of Persia." The military occupation will be "temporary"—as in the case of Egypt! Insidiously, imperceptibly almost, Persian independence will be undermined. Excesses will be provoked. More military will be poured in. The occupation will become permanent. The necessary "preliminaries" will have been achieved for the partition of Persia.. Britain and Russia will divide the booty. The Empire will be extended. God save the Kingl What then? Persia as a buffer state between British territory and Russian territory will disappear. The two allies for the first time will have a common frontier. The jostle of competing traders will necessitate the upkeep of increased British military forces, not provided by present voluntary methods, thus compelling the imposition of conscription upon the British people. This is a moral certainty. If Australasians are desirous of knowing the gravamen of Lord Kitchener's recent Colonial peripatetics and of the feverish military propaganda of Colonial misleaders, it is elucidated in such transactions now being accomplished in Persia. Tlhe manhood of the Colonies is being garnered into military barns to empower the filibusters of British capitalism to eiff ect the robbery of nations. India, Egypt, and now Persia. When Persia has been painted red, in what degree every aspiration for Liberty will be mutilated can be measured in the light of British administration in India and Egypt. In these countries British Government holds the mere desire for nationality as seditious. Every democratic movement suppressed with an iron hand. Educated Indians arrested and deported without warrant and without trial. The right of public meeting denied. Questionable means used by the police to extract "evidence" from prisoners are defended in the House of Commons by the Liberal Under-Secretary for India. So far has the stifling of Indian protest been car-