The Daily News. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1912. THE TROUBLE IN PERSIA.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 159, 4 January 1912, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1912. THE TROUBLE IN PERSIA.

The situation in Persia has become acutely interesting to Britishers, if only because aggrieved Persians, who are just as angrj with Britain as with Russia, have attacked a British consul and the Indian troops accompanying him. Both Britain and Persia have been actively interested in keeping the trade routes in Persia free from the bandits that molest them, and under the Anglo-Rus-sian agreement Persia has been practically divided into two spheres of influence by mutual arrangement between the two great Powors. Both Russian and British interference has incensed the Persian authorities and people, aiul the accusation made by Persia that Britain has aided every act of aggression on the part of Russia-in her action prior and subsequent to the armed interference by Persians with a Russian guard on a mortgaged bank, an affair in which Mr. Morgan Shuster, the American who is supposed to be the hope of Persian finance, took a leading part. Persia's dilatoriness in replying to the ultimatum of Russia that she would move her troops if Mr. Shuster were not removed sped matters. It seems necessary, therefore, that two highly civilised and immensely powerful nations should endeavor to crush "the oldest nation on earth.." Persia is suffering from a grievance that is really the result of the national laek of business acumen and a desire to effect reforms without knowing how to go about it. Persia apparently recognised that her only safety lay in respectability, and because she desired to be respectable she endeavored to do what highly respectable nations always do—raise a loan. Both Russia and Britain have tremendous influence in Persia. The two nations agreed that, as far as loans were concerned, Persia was a "bad mark." Persia did not get the money necessary to make the reform she contemplated—to increase the army, to weed out the ruffians in it, to despoil the spoiler, to police the trade routes with troops, or police who would do their duty. Britain decided that these trade routes must be kept open and safe for British trade, and threatened that if this were not done that she would do it herself with Indian troops. The threat was made when it was possible to despatch native Indian troops at any moment. The fact that Mr. Smart, the British Consul, was guarded from Bushire to Shiraz by Indian troops is significant of the British policy in Persia. Bushire—indeed, one might almost say, a British depot, garrisoned partially by Indian troops—is the terminal of the Indo-European telegraph line, and the cfcief station of the British Steam Navigation Company, although- it is one of the chief ports of Persia, with a population of at least twenty-five thousand, Persians. Shiraz, the capital , of the famed province of Fars, is but 215

miles from Bushire, and it would seem to be highly reasonable that the Persians, who are of a dreamy, poetical temperament, should be angry at what they feel to be the desecration of their city (which was founded away back in the eighth century) by modern vandals with an eye strictly to the main chance. The habit of the great Powers of butting in on a weak nation and mopping up concessions and territories may be very good "diplomacy." It is, however, the sort of diplomacy that rouses the ire of the weaker ones. Irate people the world over are after the scalp of the man who butts in. A single scalp is the best excuse for any great Power to pour troops in to wipe the scalpers and their kith and kin out of history. Diplomatically considered, it may be a very neat thing for a great Power to excuse its aggression by saying that Mr. Sinister must be removed, and that if lie is not removed Persians, rneni, women and children, must either die or at least suffer in some degree. We are not likely to hold that Mr. Smart or any other free Britisher has no right to wander about Persian territory guarded by Indian troops whom the Persians detest. It is very wrong of the Persians to resent the appearance i of strangers by killing some of them, and it is necessary that these uncivilised barbarians, who have been writing poetry and painting bits of crockery for some thousands of years, should be slain by a punitive expedition in order to drive home the doctrine that killing is qatte wrong, if the killer is not British. Russia in her might has resolved to severely punish the wretches who have the bad manners to detest the sight of foreigners in their own country. Russia is very angry at the barbarity of the Persians. Russia discriminates between a Russian in Persia and a Jew in St. Petersburg, It is all inexplicable. Civilisation with a sword, pacification by artillery, Christianisation by the knout. Britain must butt in, because Mr. Smart has been hurt.- Russia butted in because Mr. Shuster was the kind of man he is. In the meantime, tens of thousands of Persians who know absolutely nothing about i international quarrels and haven't the least idea what reason Russia and Britain have for making Persia a theatre of war are -victimised for being born. It is a question of using a sledge hammer to smash a butterfly. These, too, are the days when peace councils are prating. Human nature does not change. The weak go to the wall.