The Politician.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 419, 21 February 1880, Page 7

The Politician.

EASTERN AFFAIRS.

(From the New Zealand Times, February 14.) Herat is the key of India. Competent judges have often asserted that such is the case, and there can be no doubfc whatever that as a base of operations it is invaluable to any power which desires to secure a valuable fortress in that part of Asia. Some idea of the importance attached to it by England some years ago may be gathered from the following short extract from the treaty made between Persia and England in 1853, according to the terms of which Persia promised that, " if any foreign State, either Afghan or " other, should desire to interfere with, "or encroach upon the territories of " Herat or its dependencies, and the " Persian Ministers should make the reil quest, the British Government are not " to be remiss in restraining them, and in "giving their friendly advice, so that " Herat may remain in its own state of " independence." Sir Henry Rawlinson's opinion of the importance of Herat is well known. Inasmuch as our latest news shows that there is a probability of England and Russia coming into collision on the question of the ownership of this city, we think the following extract from Sir H. Rawlinson's work on "Russia in the East" will be read with interest : Herat possesses natural advantages of quite exceptional importance. It is the frontier town between Persia and India. It is connected by high roads with the capitals of all the surrounding countries, with Cabul through the Hazareh .hills, with Balkh and Bokhara through Mymeneh, with Khiva through Merv, with Meshed, with Yezd and Isfahan, with Seistan and Candahar. It enjoys an admirable climate, and is situated in the midst of one oi the most fertile and populous valleys in Asia. Above all, the city itself is surrounded by earthworks of the most colossal character, dating from pre-historic times, and which, with the adaptations and of modern science, might be rendered quite impregnable to an Asiatic force. The city of Herat occupies an area of nearly a mile square, and is surrounded by an earthwork which measures about 250 feet in width at the base, and from 50 to 60 feet in height, and which is surmounted by a wall, 14 feet thick at the base, 9 feet thick at the top, and 18 feet high, exclusive of the parapet. There is also a wet ditch of 45 feet in width, and 16 feet in depth; and an ark or citadel of considerable strength. [A most elaborate report on the defences of Herat, extending over 30 pages, by Major Sanders, Bengal Engineers, who visited the place in 1838, after the Persian seige, is to be found in McGregor's Central Asia, Part 11. p. 341.] —Russia in possession of Herat would have a grip on the throat of India. She would, indeed, iu virtue of the position,_command the military resources, both of Persia and Afghanistan, and would thus oblige us at once to increase our frontier army by at least 20,000 fresh British troops. Viewing, then, the question as merely one of finance, it may be assumed that our advance above the passes and occupation of Herat would be the cheapest insurance against Russia that we could effect for the benefit of our great Indian estate. Measured on the map Herat lies about 350 miles due west of Cabul, which is now occupied by the British forces ; it is also at the present day the western capital of Afghanistan, and as such, tenanted by people who are certainly hostile to the English. At heart they are probaly equally hostile to the Russians. For the time being, it is true, Herat is comparatively safe from Russian'aggression, as their recent advance upon Merv, which lies about 260 miles south of Khiva, and 225 miles north of Herat, was repulsed by the Tekke Turcomans with great loss. Nevertheless, the latest telegraphic advices show plainly that Russia is violently opposed to the fortress of Herat being occupied by Persia, with England ready to back her up. Herat has been in the hands of Persia before now. In 1856 Herat surrendered to Persia, which power had laid siege to it in 1837, but had failed to capture it. In 1857, by the treaty of Paris, Persia had to evacuate it. It then came into the possession of Dost Mohamejd, who took it by storm after a ten months' siege, in 1863. Dost Mohamed soon died, and Shere Ali next inherited it; at one time, Herat was the only possession which remained in his hands ; however, after years of civil war, in 1868 Shere Ali proved victorious over the brothers who had opposed him, and, by the capture of Cabul, established his rule over the whole of Afghanistan. The course of events since then—the occupation of Cabul by the British, their subsequent retirement and the signing in 1879 of the very lenient treaty of Gandamuk, which was followed by the massacre of the British Embassy under Sir Louis Cavagnari—must be familiar to our readers.

The present position is difficult to define, as the telegrams sent through Reuter's Agency have been, to some extent, contradictory of one another. By a cable message of the sth, we were told that the Herat tribes had appealed to Russia to prevent the cession of the district to Persia. On the 10th we heard

that Persia had been released from the Treaty of Teheran, binding her not to take Herat ; on the 11th, this was contradicted as premature, and on the 12th news was despatched to the effect that Persia proposed that a commission should be appointed to define her north-eastern frontier, and that the Russian Press declared that if Persia accepts English aid and rejects the friendship of Russia she does so at her peril. The special correspondent of an evening contemporary goes much further than this, and declares that a fresh treaty has been drawn up between Persia and England, and that under the new convention, that power undertakes to occupy Herat at a date to be fixed by the British Government, and, in the meantime, to afford every assistance to Great Britain by supplying transport, and, if necessary, troops to carry on the war in Afghanistan. In return for this undertaking, and to facilitate the holding of Herat by Persia, England engages to construct a railway from Teheran to the Persian Gulf. If this news should be confirmed, no one would be surprised at Russia taking offence. The intelligence, however, is given rather as the gossip of diplomatic circles than as well ascertained facts. Nevertheless it points to further complications with Russia in the East. By the last mail we heard that Russia is equipping a large army in the face of her peaceful professions, and the towns of Russian Poland are filled with well-armed troops; and also that General Skobeloff recently declared at a banquet that Russia is on the eve of a national war. In addition to this, from Vienna we heard that the Austrian Press is of opinion that a collision is inevitable ; and the London "Times" has indicated the probability of the appointment of Sir Garnet Wolseley as Commander-in-Chief of the forces in India. This bold bid for Persian support of .the British Empire in India is with one consent accepted as another instance of Lord Beaconsfield's dashing and dazzling policy. The attempt certainly appears to have been welltimed, following as it does close upon the news of Russian defeat and disaster in Central Asia, The popular verdict in respect to it will mainly depend upon the success or failure of the coup. If successful, it will probably be applauded ; if unsuccessful, it will certainly be censured. The real question at issue appears to be this : Is Russia prepared to go to war in order to prevent Persian occupation of Herat under the cover of British protection and approval ? If JLord Beaconsfield's last political coup should in volve England in a war with Russia singlehanded or with Persia the only British ally, the wisdom of the step taken may well be doubted. Australian colonists who know that Russia has been adding strength to her fleet in the Pacific may soon have good reason to complain loudly of the effects of Beaconsfield's " boun- " cable policy."