RUSSIA AND THE DARDANELLES.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11726, 29 October 1903, Page 4

RUSSIA AND THE DARDANELLES.

Passing interest is again renewed in the ‘‘classic problem” of the Dardanelles, as “Lo Temps” called it last January when commenting upon the protest addressed to the Porte by the British Embassy in Constantinople against the passage of four Russian torpedo destroyers through the .Strait to the Black Sea. It is stated in our cable news this morning that the “Bourse Gazette,” of St. Petersburg, says the time is opportune for Russia to tear up the remnant of the musty and obsolete Treaty of Paris, and obtain a free passage of warships through the Dardanelles, since she has important interests to guard in the Alediterranean. The story of the Dardanelles has been often told. By the Kuts-chuk-Kainardji Treaty of 1774, Russia compelled. Turkey to open the Black Sea and the Straits leading to it from the Alediterranean to merchant vessels. It had till then been the practice of the Porte, which did not consider itself bound by the public law of Europe, to forbid the passage ,of the Bosphorous and Dardanelles to ships of other Powers. After 1774 ships of war were still excluded. In 1809 Great Britain recognised this practice as the “ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire. By a defensive alliance of a most intimate character between Russia and the Porte, signed at Unkiar Skelessi in 1833, the Porte undertook, when Russia should be at war, to close the Dardanelles to the Warships of all nations. But in 1841 Russia had virtually consented to the abrogation of that treaty, and, together with France, the members of the quadruple alliance of 1840 joined in a declaration that tli9 ancient rule of the Ottoman Empire, which forbade the passage of these straits to the warships of all nations, except when the Porte itself should be at war, was accepted by Europe at large. The Treaty of Paris renewed and confirmed the principle in 18-56. “The Black Sea,” it said, “ is neutralised; its waters and its ports, “ thrown open to the mercantile marine of “every nation, are formally and in perpetuity interuieted to the flag of war “either of the Powers possessing its coast “or of any other Power, with the excep- “ tions mentioned in articles fourteen and “nineteen.” The exceptions referred to reserved the right to each Power to have the same number of small armed vessels in the Black Sea “to act as a sort of mari"time police, and to protect the coasts.” The Sultan of Turkey and the Emperot of Russia both engaged to establish and maintain no military or man-

time arsenals in that sea. And in connection with Iho international character of treaties regarding tho Near East, point is given to the words of Mr Gladstone, who said that “ the final set- “ tlcment must be arrived at with the “ intervention and under the authority of

“ Europe, and could never be adequately “founded upon the simple conclusion of “auy single Tower of Europe. 1 Ihe first subsidiary Convention to tho Treaty of Taris revised the rule with regard to the Dardanelles, in that it allowed the passage of light cruisers employed in the service of the foreign Embassies at Constantinople, and of a few small war vessels to guard the international works at tho mouth of tho Danube. In 1371 Russia procured a further modification of the Blade Sea clauses in the Treaty of Paris. The Treaty of London ratified the previous rules, but reserved power to the Sultan to open the straits in time of peace to war vessels of friendly powers, if necessary, to secure observance of the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris. After the RussoTurkish war of 1877-8 came tho Treaty of Berlin of 1873, and the maintenance of the international “Concert of Europe principle in thus case is further emphasised by tho fact that after a sharp diplomatic straggle Great Britain succeeded in preventing Russia from making any separate peace with Turkey, and whilst in many respects the Treaty of Berlin materially altered the Treaty of Paris, and modified the San Stefano proposals of Russia and Turkey, the rules as to the Dardanelles were carefully preserved. We liavo referred to the protest made last January by Great Britain. It will be remembered that she received but little support in Europe. Things have altered since 1856. France is the ally of Russia. Germany lias asserted that she remains neutral. New interests have displaced old ones. We are beginning to realise t-tiat past diplomacy has hardly been very happy in the results it has produced in the Near East. Paper protests are of little use, unless we are prepared to back them up. England desires no conflict with Russia, and the Dardanelles problem has assumed a new and far less important complexion. Russia, on the other hand, had to submit to the Treaty of Paris under compulsion, and it is hardly likely sho will respect it unless that compulsion is maintained. Sho did, indeed, endeavour to show that the passage of dismantled torpedo vessels last January was no infringement of the Treaty of Paris, but the hollow casuistry of 3ier pretensions is sufficiently laid bare in the words of the “ Bourse Gazette.” Everyone knows that sho desires to break down the remaining restrictions regarding the Dardanelles, and international interests have now drifted to such an extent that it is not at all improbable she will get her way. Certainly England will not go to war witli her single-handed, to prevent her from doing so in this particular matter.