An Observer in the Near East

by William Le Queux

The Roumanian policy is one of peace, combined with firmness. General Lahovary is not a vacillating statesman. His policy is one of progress, as his action towards Greece over the ill-treatment of Roumanians in Macedonia has shown. It is intended, no doubt, that the much-vexed question shall not be settled without Roumania having a hand in it. As is well known, Germany protects Roumania’s interests in Macedonia. Through her, the Roumanian schools have been established in Salonica, Monastir, and other places; but quite recently the good relations with Germany have been somewhat lessened owing to some friction regarding the exploitation of the Roumanian oil wells by a German syndicate. The German intention was to make a trust, which Roumania promptly quashed by passing a special Act directed against them. It is a curious fact that since this friction Germany has stood by and witnessed the terrible atrocities committed by the Greek bands upon the Roumanians in Macedonia without raising her voice in protest. This, in itself, is sufficient to make one doubt Germany’s sincerity, and certainly the eyes of the Roumanians are already pretty wide open to the machinations of Berlin in the Balkans.

His Excellency Geo. G. Mano,
Roumanian Minister of War.

Sir Conyngham Greene,
British Minister at Bucharest.
Photo] [Bassano.

The conflict between Roumania and Greece—whatever may be thought of the very recent discovery of Roumanians in Macedonia—is quite simple. There are in Macedonia undoubtedly a small percentage of the population which speaks Roumanian, and who are appealing to their brothers for protection to allow them to remain Roumanians. In face of this appeal there are two courses of action possible. One is to reply, “You are of no importance; you are so few; you are too far away; you cannot expect us to embroil ourselves in foreign politics for your sake. And besides, our ideals and our aspirations are different.” The other reply is to adopt the course which, for the past forty years, all Roumanian Governments have adopted, namely, to protect and support their subjects abroad and look after their general interests. Roumania has already done this in Macedonia. She obtained an irade from the Sultan recognising the Roumanians in Turkey as a nation apart, and giving them the right to live as Roumanians. And what has been the result? Bands of Greek antartes at once crossed into Macedonia and began to assassinate and torture every Roumanian subject they could lay hands upon. Is it therefore any wonder that diplomatic negotiations should be broken off between Bucharest and Athens?

The action of Roumania in pressing for the rights of Roumanians in Macedonia and in obtaining the irade has, of course, been the subject of much criticism in the European press. M. Take Jonesco has been personally criticised as having been the prime mover of the agitation of the past two years. I mentioned it to him, and he denied that Roumania had any ulterior motive in Macedonia save to protect her subjects there and to allow them their own language, their own religion, their own education, and give them freedom to live as Roumanians. It was absurd, he declared, to suggest that Roumania intended to acquire territory in Macedonia, or that the Roumanian Valachs were of only recent discovery. Their geographical position refuted the first suggestion; and as to the second, he proved to me that geographers and travellers had written about them a century ago, one proof being that the English traveller Leake had mentioned them in his book, published in 1814, saying that the race in question were undoubtedly Roumanians. Leake also says: “The Valachs occupy the centre of Macedonia and Thessaly, and nearly all the Pindre, forming three principal groups.” The Finance Minister also showed me the evidence collected by the Roumanian writer, Nicholas Papahagi, and recently issued under the title Les Roumains de Turquie. To me he proved most conclusively that the Roumanian contention was at least well founded, and that the European critics were incorrect in supposing that Roumania wants territory in Macedonia. She may have her eye upon that little strip of Bulgaria in order to strengthen her frontier, and, I think, quite naturally. She knows that “a big Bulgaria” is bound to arise. She can never hope to be of equal strength with the Bulgar. Therefore she wants to entrench herself now that there is a forthcoming opportunity.

Both General Lahovary and M. Take Jonesco were quite frank with me in their explanation of Roumania’s future policy. Roumania knows that nowadays right, if not supported by force, is not might. Grand words, if not sustained by bayonets, bring serious men into ridicule. During the past two years the Roumanian army has been improved, consolidated, and brought into perfection. But their intentions are entirely pacific, even though they have not hesitated to augment the war budget, and will still augment it if necessary. Roumania intends to remain passive in the present Balkan complications, but if she finds it necessary for the protection of her compatriots in Macedonia she will, like Bulgaria, take arms against the Turk and drive him back into his capital, and across into Asia Minor—which is surely the best place for him.

I spoke with several Roumanian statesmen upon the idea of a Confederation of the Balkan States. Most of them were in accord that such a thing was within the bounds of possibility, but that it was very unlikely that Roumania would ever enter such a Confederation. Roumanians are fond of declaring that their country is not a Balkan State, yet if such Confederation were formed it seems difficult to see how Roumania could hold aloof.