Notes on the Diplomatic History of the Jewish Question Part 8

FRANCIS BERTIE.

(_In the absence of the Marquis of Lansdowne._)

("Foreign Relations of the United States (1902)," pp. 910 _et seq._, 42 _et seq._, and 550).

(_h_) THE CONFERENCES OF LONDON, ST. PETERSBURG AND BUCHAREST (1912-13).

In connection with the Balkan complications of the last ten years, which form the overture to the present war, the Jewish organisations in Western Europe and America--chiefly the London Jewish Conjoint Committee--lost no opportunity of keeping the grievances of the Rumanian Jews before the Great Powers and of maintaining the liberties already won in South-Eastern Europe. The work has been of a more arduous and far-reaching character than the public suspect, and, although it has not achieved final success, it has been far from unfruitful. Of this work it is only possible to speak in a very summary way, as much of it is still confidential and all of it is directly related to negotiations still pending and necessarily belonging to the domain of what is invidiously called secret diplomacy.

In 1908, on the occasion of the annexation of Bosnia and the Herzegovina by Austria-Hungary, the Conjoint Committee seized the opportunity of endeavouring to reopen the Rumano-Jewish Question. The annexation was a technical infraction of the Berlin Treaty and required the sanction of the Great Powers, for which probably a Conference would be held. The Conjoint Committee addressed to Sir Edward Grey a request that the scope of the proposed Conference should be extended to other infractions of the Treaty, and accompanied it with a review of the Rumano-Jewish Question, which const.i.tutes one of the most important State Papers produced in the Jewish community.[46] Unfortunately the projected Conference was abandoned, but Sir Edward Grey was so impressed by the statements of the Conjoint Committee that he ordered an investigation to be made, and he afterwards formally avowed, in a letter to the Conjoint Committee, that the charges made in the Memorandum were accurate and that Rumania had not fulfilled her Treaty pledges. This perhaps may not seem to be a great gain, but those who know anything of international politics will be aware that an official statement of this kind has considerable practical importance, and, indeed, it was not lost upon the Cabinet of Bucharest.

The last occasions on which attempts were made to put an end to the Rumanian scandal were in connection with the Conferences of London, St.

Petersburg, and Bucharest, which liquidated the various questions arising out of the Balkan wars in 1912-13. Here two questions confronted the Conjoint Committee. While the international questions at issue were confined to the trans-Danubian States, all that was necessary was to secure for the populations of the transferred territories in that region a reaffirmation of the clauses of the Treaties of 1830 and 1878, by which the liberties of racial and religious minorities were guaranteed.

When, however, Rumania joined in the war, this question became of much greater importance, and it involved the reopening of the whole question of Rumania's violation of the Treaty of Berlin. In spite of the efforts of the Conjoint Committee, neither the three Conferences of London, nor the Conference of St. Petersburg dealt with these questions. At the Conference of Bucharest the United States Government, at the instance of the American Jewish Committee, made a suggestion that the civil and religious liberties of the populations of the territories transferred under the proposed Treaty should be specially guaranteed. On the proposal of the Rumanian Prime Minister, however, the Conference agreed that such securities were not necessary, but expressed their readiness to give a verbal a.s.surance that the wishes of the United States would be fully realised.[47] A long correspondence ensued between the Conjoint Committee and the Foreign Office, and eventually Sir Edward Grey agreed to a suggestion of the Committee that the Great Powers should be consulted with a view to making their sanction of the new territorial arrangements in the Balkans conditional on the guarantee of full civil and religious liberty to all the inhabitants of the annexed territories.[48] This important a.s.surance was reaffirmed by the Secretary of State towards the end of July 1914, within a week of the outbreak of the present war.

DOc.u.mENTS.

EXTRACT FROM THE PROTOCOLS OF THE CONFERENCE OF BUCHAREST.

_Protocole No. 6.--Seance du Mardi, 23 Juillet (5 Aout), 1913._

[Le President] fait part a la Conference de la note suivante que lui a remise S.E. Monsieur Jackson, Ministre des etats-Unis d'Amerique a Bucarest.

"Le Gouvernement des etats-Unis d'Amerique desire faire savoir qu'il regarderait avec satisfaction si une provision accordant pleine liberte civile et religieuse aux habitants de tout territoire que pourrait etre a.s.sujetti a la souverainte de quiconque des cinq Puissances ou qui pourrait etre transfere de la jurisdiction de l'une des Puissances a celle d'une autre, pourrait etre introduite dans toute convention conclue a Bucarest."

M. Maioresco estime que les delegues sont unanimes a reconnaitre pleinement, en fait et en droit, le principe qui a inspire la note precitee, le droit public des etats const.i.tutionnels representes a cette Conference en ayant consacre de longue date l'application. Le President pense donc que la note des etats-Unis d'Amerique ne saurait soulever aucune difficulte: il est peut-etre bon de rappeler quelquefois les principes, meme lorsqu'ils sont universellement admis. Aussi, croit-il etre l'interprete des sentiments de MM. les Plenipotentiaires en declarant que les habitants de tout territoire nouvellement acquis auront, sans distinction de religion, la meme pleine liberte civile et religieuse que tous les autres habitants de l'etat.

M. Venizelos considere qu'a la suite des declarations du President, qui seront consignees au Protocole, toute insertion dans le traite a conclure, d'un principe deja universellement reconnu serait superflue.

Cette maniere de voir de M. le premier delegue de Grece a recueilli l'a.s.sentiment unanime.

("Le Traite de Paix de Bucarest--Protocoles de la Conference," Bucarest, 1913, pp. 24-25.)

EXTRACTS FROM CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE CONJOINT COMMITTEE AND SIR EDWARD GREY.

CONJOINT JEWISH COMMITTEE,

19 FINSBURY CIRCUS, E.C.

_13th October, 1913_.

SIR,--The Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee of the London Committee of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish a.s.sociation have had under their consideration the diplomatic acts--princ.i.p.ally the Treaty of Bucharest--by which the new territorial system in the Near East has been adjusted, and they have instructed us to invite the attention of His Majesty's Government to the omission from those doc.u.ments of provisions either confirming or repeating on their own account, for the benefit of the annexed territories, the guarantees of civil and religious liberty and equality contained in the Protocol No. 3 of the Conference of London of February 3rd, 1830, and in Articles V, XXVII, x.x.xIV, XLIV, and LXII of the Treaty of Berlin.

Owing to the vast changes which have been made in the distribution of the Jewish communities throughout the region lying between the Danube and the aegean, and more especially in view of the annexations to the Kingdom of Roumania, where hitherto the Civil and Religious Liberty Clauses of the Treaty of Berlin have been systematically evaded, this question has caused the Jewish people the gravest anxiety. The Conjoint Committee are well aware that in four of the annexing States, namely, Greece, Bulgaria, Servia, and Montenegro, the Const.i.tutions provide for the equal rights of all religious denominations, and they gratefully acknowledge that for many years past the Jews in those countries have had no reason to complain; but in the new conditions of mixed races and creeds which confront those States, and in face of the symptoms already apparent of an accentuation of the long-standing inter-confessional bitterness and strife, they prefer not to relinquish the international obligations by which the rights of their co-religionists have hitherto been secured. In this view they find themselves supported not only by all the Jewish communities of the Balkans, but also by all of the religious minorities in the dominions which have recently changed hands.

The reasonableness of their view is further supported by the const.i.tutional changes effected in like circ.u.mstances in Moldo-Wallachia and Servia three-quarters of a century ago to the prejudice of the Jews, and also by the continued encouragement to religious intolerance afforded by the legalised oppression of a quarter of a million Jews in the Kingdom of Roumania.

The question was not ignored at the Peace Conference at Bucharest, but it failed to receive any contractual solution. At the sitting of August 8th a scheme of religious, scholastic and cultural liberty was discussed, but no agreement was reached, owing to irreconcilable differences between the Patriarchists and the Exarchists. Moreover, the scheme as drawn up was confined to Christian communities (Protocol No.

10). At the sitting of August 5th, the question was raised in its wider aspects by a communication from the United States Government expressing the hope that a provision would be introduced into the Treaty "according full civil and religious liberty to the inhabitants of any territory subject to the sovereignty of any of the five Powers, or which might be transferred from the jurisdiction of any one of them to that of another." This also met with no adequate response. M. Maioresco, the Chief Roumanian plenipotentiary, expressed the opinion that such a provision was unnecessary, "as the principle inspiring it had long been recognised, in fact and in law, by the public law of the Const.i.tutional States represented at the Conference," but he added that he was willing to declare on behalf of the plenipotentiaries that "the inhabitants of any territory newly acquired will have, without distinction of religion, the same full civil and religious liberty, as all the other inhabitants of the State." In this view the other plenipotentiaries concurred.

(Protocol No. 6.)

The Jewish Conjoint Committee regret that they are unable to accept either the reasoning or the a.s.surances of M. Maioresco for the following reasons:--

1. Even if it were true that the const.i.tutions of all the five contracting States a.s.sure civil and religious liberty to their inhabitants without distinction of religion--Roumania herself is a flagrant exception--it would not afford as permanent a guarantee as an international obligation. The circ.u.mstances which render such a guarantee necessary in the present case have already been referred to above.

2. In previous territorial changes in the Near East, the liberal provisions of the const.i.tutions of the annexing States have not been held sufficient for the protection of religious minorities. Thus, in 1864, when the Ionian Islands were transferred to Greece, the Powers specifically extended to the new territories the civil and religious liberty obligations imposed on the h.e.l.lenic Kingdom in 1830 (see Article IV of the Treaty of London of March 20th, 1864). Again in 1881, when Thessaly was ceded to Greece, the religious liberty obligations of 1830 were repeated in the Treaty of Cession for the benefit of the Mussulman population (Convention of May 14th, 1881, Article VIII). A similar course was adopted by the Great Powers in 1886, when Eastern Roumelia was virtually annexed to Bulgaria (Article IV of Arrangement of April 5th, 1886; _cf._ Eastern Roumelia Statute, Article XXIV).

3. Roumania herself is not content to rely on the national const.i.tutions of the other Balkan States where the destinies of her own expatriated brethren in race and religion are concerned. Although she persuaded the Conference of Bucharest to reject the American proposal to insert binding guarantees for the equitable treatment of racial and religious minorities in the annexed territories generally, she insisted on the adoption of an Annexe to the Protocols of the Conference pledging the signatory States to grant equal rights and religious and scholastic freedom to the Koutzo-Vlachs residing within their dominions. It is difficult to understand why these Treaty guarantees should be required for communities which have a Government at Bucharest, attached to them by racial and religious sympathies, to look after their interests, and not for the Jews, who have no such resource in the event of their rights being ignored.

4. The terms of M. Maioresco's declaration in regard to "the inhabitants of any territory newly acquired" are ambiguous, and in the case of the Jews of the northern districts of Bulgaria, now annexed to Roumania, might, and no doubt would be, interpreted as a.s.similating them to the oppressed Jewish communities of the annexed State. Moreover, in view of what happened to the Jews of the Dobrudja when that province was acquired by Roumania in 1878, any unilateral a.s.surances from the Cabinet of Bucharest on this subject must fail to inspire confidence. The action of the Roumanian Government on that occasion was dealt with by us in the letter we had the honour of addressing to you on July 13th last, and it will consequently suffice to state now that the Jews of the Dobrudja were deprived of their national rights for thirty years after the annexation, and even then they experienced great difficulty in obtaining them. We cannot contemplate without anxiety the possibility of a repet.i.tion of this application of the principle formulated by M.

Maioresco.

For these reasons the Jewish Conjoint Committee regard with grave apprehension the omission from the Treaty of Bucharest of guarantees of civil and religious equality for the inhabitants of the territories which have changed hands in virtue of that instrument, and they trust they may rely on His Majesty's Government to take such steps as will a.s.sure to those inhabitants the full enjoyment of the high protection accorded them by the London Protocol of 1830 and the Treaty of Berlin.

They venture to suggest that the objects they have in view might be attained by a collective note to the States signatory of the Treaties of London, Bucharest and Constantinople, declaring that the Great Powers regard the Civil and Religious Liberty clauses of the Protocol of 1830 and the Treaty of Berlin as binding upon all of them within their new frontiers and throughout all their territories. The Committee hope that His Majesty's Government may see their way to propose such a note to the Great Powers.

We are, Sir,

Your humble and obedient Servants,

D. L. ALEXANDER,

_President, London Committee of Deputies of British Jews_,

CLAUDE G. MONTEFIORE,

_President, Anglo-Jewish a.s.sociation_.

TO THE RT. HON. SIR EDWARD GREY, BART., M.P., K.G., ETC., HIS MAJESTY'S PRINc.i.p.aL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ETC., ETC., ETC.

FOREIGN OFFICE,

_October 29th, 1913_.

GENTLEMEN,--I am directed by Secretary Sir E. Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 13th, and to observe in reply that the Articles of the Treaty of Berlin, to which you refer, are in no way abrogated by the territorial changes in the Near East, and remain as binding as they have been hitherto as regards all territories covered by those Articles at the time when the Treaty was signed.

His Majesty's Government will, however, consult with the other Powers as to the policy of reaffirming in some way the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin for the protection of the religious and other liberties of minorities in the territories referred to, when the question of giving formal recognition by the Powers to the recent territorial changes in the Balkan Peninsula is raised.

I am, Gentlemen,