PERSIA.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2476, 15 April 1909, Page 5

PERSIA.

CUSTOMS PLEDGED FOR BRITISH LOANS. THREATENED COMPLICATION WITH NATIONALISTS. United Press Association—Copyright TEHERAN, April 13. The fact that the Bushiro Customs have been pledged as security for British loans threatens complication with the Nationalists. IS PERSIA TO BE A SECOND EGYPT. “There is no time to waste in instructing and arraying public opinion with regard to the crisis which has been precipitated in Persia,” says the “Manchester Guardian.” “Tire necessity is all the more pressing if, .s H e “Times” assorts, the Memorandum which the Russian Government despatched a feudays ago to London is really • nothing more than the elaboration of proposals made ‘in response to certain suggestions emanating from Great Britain’; the. insinuation that it is almost as much British as Russian demands that, to strengthen our Foreign Office’s hands, British public opinion should be rallied quickly and overwhelmingly against the policy of the Memorandum. IS IT A REVOLUTION IN OUR POLICY ?

“For the Memorandum proposes a complete revolution in British policy in Persia. In September, 1907, the British Minister in Teheran was instructed to explain to the Persian Foreign Minister the meaning of the Anglo-Rtis-sian Agreement. ‘The object,’ lie said, ‘of the two Powers in making this Agreement is not in any way to attack, but- rather to ensure for ever, the independence of Persia. Not only do they not wish to have at hand any excuse for intervention, but their object in those friendly negotiations was not to allow one another to intervene on the pretext of safeguarding their interests. The two Powers hope that in the future Persia will be for ever delivered from tire fear of foreign intervention, and will thus be perfectly free to manage her own affairs in her own way, whereby advantage will accrue both to herself and to the whole world.” IS IT INTERVENTION?

“We italicise the most important passage,” says the “Guardian.” “That is the policy to which Russia and England solemnly pledged themselves to the Persian people, and which Sir Edward Grey has repeatedly reaffirmed in the House of Commons;' and that is the policy, which now, in the absence of both the English and Russian Parliaments, our Foreign Office is asked by Russia to reverse completely. What the Memorandum proposes is intervention in an extreme form. Russia is to advance the Shah a loan, and in turn the two Powers are to extract from him a sort of Parliament of which the only certain facts arc that it is not to have the authority over the Executive nor the popular origin of the Mejliss which the Shah, with the alleged assistance of the British and Russian Ministers, destroyed. For themselves, the two Powers are to get the right to appoint advisers to superintend the regeneration of Persia. “In short, instead of Persia being ‘for ever delivered from the fear of foreign intervention’ and left _ ‘perfectly free to manage her own affairs in her own way,’ she its, it is suggested, to ho turned into a second Egypt, and Russia and England are to administer her affairs in their own way. The policy of non-intervention, as Sir Edward Grey wisely showed, was for the host interests of Persia, the two Powers, and the whole world; the policy of intervention now under preparation must, therefore, be against the best interests of Persia, the 'two Powers, and the whole world. PERSIAN OPINION. “Persian opinion has not been slow to pronounce its condemnation of the proposed new policy. Persia wants neither foreign gold nor a foreign occupation, but merely to be let alone; she can then re-establish order and liberty. That is tire judgment of Persian Liberals, represented by one of the greatest Persian ecclesiastics, Sheikh Mirza Ali.” , . . , The Foreign Office has since issued another denial cf any intention to dopart from the principle or non-mtci-vent ion in Persian affairs.