FRANCE AND MOROCCO.
FRANCE is acting energetically in Morocco in order to obtain reparation for the numerous injuries her citizens and interests have suffered. We are glad to think that for this purpose she is supported almost unanimously at home, and, so far as one can judge, has the goodwill of all the Powers who are connected with Morocco. The murder of Dr. Mauchamp at Marakesh was only the culmination of a series of affronts, but hitherto the sole answer France has been able to get to her demands has been irrelevance or defiant silence. Ever since the visit of the German Emperor to Morocco, a year after the Anglo- French Agreement was made, French authority in Morocco has declined. The Sultan is playing the easiest and most profitable game which the Monarchs of weak and chaotic States can play in the face of the Great Powers. He is trying to balance one Power against another. He sets off Germany against France. He disregards France because be knows that she cannot bring him to book without the consent in some degree of Germany, and he shrewdly guesses that that consent will be withheld just at the stage where intervention would be really effectual. The whole point, then, is that the Powers of Europe should refuse to lend themselves to this immemorial game. It is in the interests of civilisation that no Power which has a perfectly obvious claim upon Morocco for compensa- tion should be prevented from exacting it by the jealousy of others. We should regard any Govern- ment which did not subscribe to this sentiment as simply anti-European. France at this moment has a perfectly just and obvious reason for demanding satis- faction. If she gets it, she will do so, not only for her own good, but for the good of all the other Powers. All Europe, therefore, it seems to us, should consent readily to the occupation of Oujda, which will be held by a French force till the Sultan has yielded. The only alternative would be for an international, instead of a purely French, force to hold some town. This would be most undesirable, partly because an international force is a clumsy, scarcely manageable instrument, apt to provoke the very jealousies that ought to be avoided, and partly because the issue is one solely between France and Morocco. Even if it were not now a question of the murder of a French citizen, France would still be the beat spokesman, as it were, to put forward on behalf of all the Powers. Because her colony of Algeria borders on Morocco, she has troops on the spot, and her stake in Morocco is greater than any one else's. When one considers that France is not only the best agent in all circumstances, but in these particular circum, stances is the only Power immediately concerned, the conclusion is irresistible that she should be allowed to exact the moderate compensation which she proposes.
The Franco-Spanish naval demonstration in December last, so far from impressing the Makhzan, was the signal for an outburst of Fraucophobia. The assassins of M. Charbonnier, who was murdered nine months ago, are still impudently free, and may be seen sometimes in Tangier. Recently M. do Girancourt was stoned by the mob at Fez, and hardly escaped with his life. Some of the French papers find in all this a sign of German intrigue. We do not ourselves think it fair to say more than that it is an inevitable result, in such a country as Morocco, of the public dispute between France and Germany. You cannot argue in the presence of inferiors, who expect to find in you firmness and dignity, witheut paying for it. The best pledge that Germany can give now that she really meant what she said when she admitted at Algeciras that France had a" special interest" in Morocco is to allow her to act as though she had. We are glad to notice that, after some preliminary hesitation in the Press, Germans seem inclined amiably to give their blessing to the enterprise. We are convinced that they will not regret doing what in the long run will be in their own interest. But Frenchmen put some of the blame on themselves. The Temps says the murder of Dr. Mauchamp is due to the "excessive indecision" of the French Government. It is not for us to judge, but we may say that if there has been "excessive indecision," it is surely a proof that since the Conference of Algeciras France has not been " penetrating " Morocco in any sense forbidden by the international agreement. It must he clear to the whole world that in the pre-Algeciras days, or
rather in the days before M, Delcassi fell, France would not have borne the present violence for a single week. The critical point has been reached. If the last murder were to go unchallenged, nothing is more likely than that a. religious persecution would before long be set on foot, not against Frenchmen only, but against all Europeans. The citizens of all States have a right to live, and France is doing no more than assert that right for her own people first, and for the rest of us secondly. A Moorish soldier in Tangier has actually told the Times correspondent that the fanatics already talk of driving all " unbelievers " out of the country. Europe cannot afford to bicker if there is a bare possibility of such a thing.
. In the debate in the French Chamber on Tuesday M. Dubief read a letter from the late Dr. Mauchamp in which he complained of the dangers of his position. He had often been insulted by fanatics in the streets, and had only bought their forbearance by the distribution of medicines. His warnings to the French Legation at Tangier were, however, all disregarded. It is only fair to say that M. Pichon in reply hinted that Dr. Mauchamp was not a master of tact ; but even if he were worse than tactless, it seems to us a perversity to pretend that thereby Frenchmen lessen their right to live. M. Pichon's long list of Moorish acts of violence would have been convincing quite apart from the case of Dr. Mauchamp. We are very sorry indeed to see that at least one Liberal paper in England, no doubt with a desire to argue the ease justly from both sides, minimises the grievance of France on the ground that Dr. Mauchamp was a political agent who at the moment of his death was taking part in a survey, and thus forwarding the scheme of "pacific penetration." France, it is argued, is asserting her intention of " penetrating " even while she exacts retribution, and she is, in a word, scarcely loyal to the Algeciras Convention. We have already mentioned the patience which seems to us an absolute proof of French good faith. No doubt the steps necessary to inflict punishment are much the same as the steps that would be taken in the early stage of absorption. Everything must depend upon French intentions,—upon the good faith of the Republic. To assume at this stage that those intentions are not sincere, to provide Germany with arguments for objecting to the only course France
w can well take, is in our judgment a mischievous, anti- European act. It shows an almost inhuman failure to keep in touch with realities, and is cruel in effect, though, we
. are sure, not intentionally. The decision of France to act on the frontier where she has been conceded rights, rather than elsewhere where her rights are not exclusive, and her resolve to take Oujda, where a smaller force of occupation can be employed than almost anywhere else, are inter- preted as revealing a desire to escape the scrutiny of the signatories to the Algeciras Convention. Perversity could hardly go further. But we are glad to think that very few Englishmen will accept this opinion, and we are sure that it is not held by the Foreign Office.
• Germany herself has established precedents for France. The seizure of Kiao-chow after the murder of two German missionaries is the chief ease, and in Morocco itself Count Tattenbach landed Marines at Salli and obtained the • execution of the murderer of a German commercial traveller. If any proof outside Morocco were needed of the essential moderation of French policy, one might turn
, to the remarkable debate in the French Chamber on Wednesday. The Government had to defend their removal of General Bailloud from his command on the German frontier because at a public ceremony he had used indiscreet language. It is doubtful whether he said " la guerre se fera," or only uttered the very pious opinion that "la guerre peut se faire." But, in any case, the Government would not accept the risk of having on the frontier any officer of high rank who might be considered a firebrand. In vain M. Maurice Barres and others tried to work up Jingo growls over the old bones of Alsace and Lorraine. The Government paid a tribute to General Bailloud as a soldier, but made it quite clear that they thought him an indifferent diplomatist. Besides, as General Picquart pointed out, it was against the law to express an opinion in Orders, and General Bailloud had also done that. The German Emperor himself has some- times said rather provocative things, but he does not hold his position by pleasure of the peace-loving French Republic, and that mikes all the difference.
Previous page
