Chapter XXXV: Appendix: V

THE ITALIAN MASSACRE OF ARAB PEASANTRY IN TRIPOLI

MR. BLUNT’S LETTER TO MR. WILLIAM STEAD

DEAR MR. STEAD,

I am, of course, in complete—indeed, in violent—sympathy with all you say in denunciation of the Italian raid, and I entirely agree with you that a strait waistcoat must be applied, and applied at once. I go even farther than you do, knowing how absolutely destructive of their domestic and moral life such a government as modern Italy would impose on the Arabs of Tripoli would be. The modern Italian has divested himself of all restraint, moral or religious. He has cast off his mediæval beliefs and, apart from his still remaining superstitions, acknowledges no principle we in England connect with the name of Christianity. The Italian of the South especially, to establish whom as colonist the raid has been devised, is an utterly depraved being. His establishment in North Africa would mean the establishment of the drink shop, the brothel, and the gambling hell. It is against these, and in defence of their domestic life far more than against dogmatic Christianity that the Mahommedans of Tripoli are fighting. There need be no doubt as to which side in the present quarrel represents the cause of God and which of the Devil.

In all this I am sure that your view and mine are pretty much the same. What I have, however, a doubt about in your programme is the efficacy of the means you propose for putting an end to the war and defeating the proposed iniquity. I cannot think that there is the smallest chance at the present stage of the affair of an appeal to arbitration being listened to, and something much stronger than argument is needed to apply what you call the strait waistcoat on the wrong-doer. The Italian fleet is cruising loose in the Mediterranean and is threatening new murders everywhere among the sea-coast towns and villages of the Ottoman Empire. What is wanted now, and at once, is not a court of law to settle where the right and the wrong is, but a policeman to arrest the disturber of the peace. The Hague Tribunal, though excellent as a Court of Appeal, has no executive authority. Some Power stronger at sea than the Italian must be persuaded or forced by agitation to intervene and insist upon an evacuation of the invaded territory. Then, if you will, we can go to The Hague for a final settlement.

If you agree with me in this, as the right order of procedure, I would suggest that the first point to determine at your meeting on Tuesday will be which of the Great Powers of Europe is in the best position to apply the needed force, and which can best be acted upon and constrained to undertake the executive duty. It is clear that none of them are willing, and, that being so, it is all but hopeless to expect them to act in concert. In my own opinion, I have no hesitation in saying that the duty of intervention is rightly England’s own. England is, in the first place, by far the strongest power at sea, and this is essentially a naval affair. Secondly, England is far more free than the rest to act. Were the German Powers to intervene, there would always be the risk of a combination against them of Italy with France and England. Were France to act, there would always be danger of such a combination with the German Powers. England’s island position and her entente with France leaves her free. Lastly, England is in reality the Power more than any other responsible for the partition of North Africa, the cause of the present trouble and Italy’s excuse for aggression. I need not argue this point—our position in Egypt, our agreement with France seven years ago about Morocco, are sufficient proof, even without the all but certainty we have that Sir Edward Grey was secretly cognizant this summer of the intended raid on Tripoli, and consented to and approved it. It is, therefore, England’s duty, one of reparation, more than the duty of any other Power, seeing what inhuman results have followed from Sir Edward Grey’s connivance, to intervene now and bid Italy go no further.

I will not do Sir Edward Grey the injustice of supposing that he foresaw, when he consented to the raid on Tripoli, that it would be carried out by the Italians as a war of extermination against the Arab population. Sir Edward Grey is a worthy English country gentleman of old-fashioned Whig opinions, and he cannot have foreseen the massacres that have resulted, the lust of slaughter, the murder by hundreds of women and children. Sir Edward is neither brutal by nature nor callous, but he is singularly ignorant of any country but his own, and he is entirely without imagination, and woefully ill-advised by his subordinates. He probably had been told that the Arabs, because they do not love the Turks, would greet the Italians with joy as deliverers. And he gave consent on this understanding in England’s name. The raid was, of course, immoral in itself, but not more immoral than many an English raid which he and statesmen of his Whig type of Imperialism have schooled themselves into regarding as necessities of civilisation. He foresaw nothing except, perhaps, a little bloodshed of the ordinary military type. All the same, he has made one of the most ghastly mistakes ever an English Foreign Secretary committed this country to. If you want to do any good with your agitation, you should therefore begin with Sir Edward Grey and our own Foreign Office. You should insist on his making a clean breast of the whole affair. If he says he knew nothing of it, tell him he ought as Foreign Secretary to have known. The result has been criminal, his ignorance in itself was criminal. If he admits his knowledge and consent, then insist on his resignation, as the admission involves a double criminality. Above all, insist on reparation at once being done and the murderous work being put an end to; insist on a cessation of hostilities.

Sir Edward, when closely pressed, will probably plead that England cannot withdraw from her plighted word to Italy; that England has declared neutrality; that she cannot now resort to force or to anything more than expostulation. These are idle words. It is a maxim in law that an immoral agreement cannot be enforced; it is not binding either in law or equity. It is null and void. Neither is a dishonourable agreement binding in honour. Insist, with Mr. Asquith’s Government, that the language his Foreign Secretary shall use to Italy shall be this: “When we agreed that you should take possession of Tripoli, we thought that the Sultan, its legal owner, would be willing to part with a province, useless to him, for money; we thought that the Sultan’s subjects there would be glad to transfer their allegiance from him to you; we thought that things would go easily, that it would be a walk over for you; above all, we thought that you would behave like a civilized people, not like wild beasts, in your conduct of the war. We see we were mistaken, that you are without honour, without civilization, without Christian decency. We will have no farther part in this affair. We will not continue to be your accomplice; we summon you to recall your fleet and evacuate the ports you have seized. We insist that this war shall cease.” This, translated into the polite phraseology of diplomacy, would suffice; Italy would give in. If she does not give in, insist that England shall make common cause with Turkey and mobilize the British Fleet. We have no right to remain neutral. There is a saying of the late Lord Salisbury which I was reading only yesterday in Mr. Holland’s “Life of the Duke of Devonshire,” and which applies well to the case: “Those,” said Lord Salisbury, “who have the absolute power of preventing lamentable events, and, knowing what is taking place, refuse to exercise that power, are responsible for what happens.”

As you were good enough to ask my opinion, this is what I send you, believing it to be the right and reasonable way, and I shall esteem it a favour if you will read my letter in its entirety to the meeting and invite a decision on it. Also I shall be glad to help you in any way I can to carry on an agitation on the lines suggested, including a subscription towards expenses. I believe I could raise a very handsome sum from among my Mohammedan friends.

Believe me, very truly yours,

WILFRID SCAWEN BLUNT.