Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (656) Special reporter A 45-day tour of Italy, Eastern Europe and the Balkans gave Al-Ahram 's correspondent a glimpse of parts of Europe in the years preceding World War II. In turn, the writer provided readers a close-up of the states as was recorded in a series of informative articles compiled by Professor Yunan Labib Rizk In following international developments, Al-Ahram at first relied upon news companies, or what later became called news agencies, and in particular the English Reuters and French Havas. It allocated space in one of its inside pages to their telegraphs under the headline "Foreign telegraphs". Yet as time passed and the newspaper's readers grew increasingly interested in what took place in the world, and especially so after such events influenced the daily life of Egyptians, Al-Ahram preferred to have what it called a "special reporter" in important places. It began doing so in nearby Arab countries, and in a number of cities of the Levant and Iraq it contracted a journalist, or "literary writer", as it put it, to provide it with information on the important events he witnessed there. It appears that the experiment's success encouraged those responsible for the newspaper to repeat it in a number of major capitals. Al-Ahram began with Paris and London, and then spread across the rest of Europe. It agreed with journalists living in those capitals to supply it with "the latest and most important news" in return for set compensation. The third stage of Al-Ahram 's journalistic following of events in areas of strife, and particularly in Europe, began during the successive crises the continent underwent in the years preceding WWII. The first was the crisis of the Sudeten province in Czechoslovakia, a province that comprised a German majority. The Nazi government sought to annex it in 1938 after having previously succeeded in annexing Austria. This caused a crisis within the continent in which Britain intervened when it signed with Germany, Italy and France the Munich Agreement in September 1938. This fulfilled German demands, but also fanned Fascist ambitions in Eastern Europe that were announced by the Italian parliament on 30 November of that year in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. This was followed by a "disturbance of the ropes of politics", as Al-Ahram put it. Under these circumstances, Al-Ahram decided to have a "special reporter" travel to the regions of tension in order to provide it with information on the situation there. He was to visit Italy, Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and began his trip in mid-December 1938 and finished it in late January the following year. He thus spent a month and a half "during which he toured the reaches of these countries, studied their circumstances close at hand, and spoke with the political leaders there. He thus collected interesting and detailed information that he recorded in a series of stimulating articles." In keeping with Al-Ahram 's custom, it did not reveal the name of its reporter in any of the articles it published. Al-Ahram began publishing the first of these articles a few days after his return, on 10 February 1939. It was titled "Was the Munich Agreement an ending or a beginning? -- The position of Hitler and Chamberlain between France and Italy -- What is said about Tunisia, Djibouti, and the Suez Canal". IN THIS ARTICLE, our friend turned his attention to the difference between France and Italy and attributed it to the psychological state the Munich Agreement had put the autocratic state in. He summed it up as the Italians believing that democracy had reached the stage of dissolution and that following the collapse of Czechoslovakia and the other countries' loss of confidence in it, "it has become weak to the point that any bold entity can harm it." As for the psychological state of the French, the man summed it up as being that the day of Munich had been one of calamity for them and that some of their ministers had been let down by their nerves and had committed a serious mistake by not following the opinion of the military. This is what he understood from the French foreign minister's latest statements, in which he said that his country would not allow for a single foot of its ground to be touched, whether in Europe or beyond the seas, and that every attempt Italy made to this end would surely lead to war. When Al-Ahram 's special reporter spoke to a number of Italians, he found that they unanimously agreed that their country was not in need of Germany's military support in order to settle its score with France. As for the position of London's government, they held that "Chamberlain's Britain" would not go to war, and that this government inclined towards conceding British Somalia to Italy and granting it a share in the administration of the Suez Canal, as well as decreasing its transport fees. This led Al-Ahram 's special reporter to comment, saying, "there is no doubt that God granted the personage of Chamberlain the most glorious and splendid of characteristics, and yet the Almighty held back from him the strength of obstinacy and firm nerves. In his direct communications he lost before confronting his foe. Can someone point me to a direct or indirect communication in which he came out on top?" The second article was also from Rome, and was devoted to French-Italian relations. Al-Ahram 's special reporter commenced it with a historical introduction in which he noted that animosity between the two states began when France placed Tunisia under its protection in 1881 after Italy had had ambitions for it. From there he moved on to the question -- Why Tunisia? The answer was that Italy's geographic position in the Mediterranean demanded so, that the Italians had no life or future except in that sea and its shores, "and because the Fascist Italians believe that they are the inheritors and successors of Rome, and that the reason for and conditions of this succession would not be complete without the Mediterranean becoming a Roman sea. This would not take place except through transferring the rule of Tunisia to its hands." Al-Ahram 's reporter felt that such zealous speech required an investigation. He admitted, however, that he was not able to speak with any of the government's ministers, drawing most of his information instead from journalists and some of the businessmen he knew. The result, as he said, however, was one and the same, "for ministers do not know about the intentions of the leader any more than journalists do. In fact, a journalist might sense intentions hidden within the folds of his conscience more than a minister might. And yet the spirit and inclination remain one." When our friend spoke with someone he considered in- the-know, he listed for him the reasons for the antipathy between the two states. In Tunisia, the French tread on the necks of the Italians there and preferred the Arabs over them. "They boycott the former and obstruct their work and they do not have the right of possession unless they betray their country and take French nationality." Moreover, in Corsica, all the Italian residents wish to merge with the motherland. Napoleon himself was Italian, "and there is no use in the demonstrations orchestrated by the French administration in Algeria's cities to cover up this truth. The boycott of Savoy, the cradle of the royal family, is in France's hand, and Nice is Italian in flesh and blood." Then that person in the know turned to the Italian presence in East Africa. He mentioned that the Suez Canal Company had gained from its investment the worth of its capital in multiples and that it must accordingly reduce its transport fees significantly. He said that Djibouti was the natural gateway to the Italian empire in Ethiopia and that "France only wants to remain in that port to vex the French." Before Al-Ahram 's special correspondent left Italy, he travelled to Milan where he met an old friend of Mussolini's who was also severely resentful towards the French. If their difference with his country had cost the Italians more than they could bear, "this was a loan for war and that was a loan for investment, and all these loans are mandatory," he said. Yet this opinion was not shared by the special reporter, who summarised his view of the Fascist regime before leaving Milan in the following words: "I witnessed with my own eyes that autocracy has greatly benefited Italy for it has made its people accustomed to order and civilised dealings. It has done away with chaos in many aspects of administration and work. It has removed slum dwellings and the like from the city centres, as well as the homes in which tuberculosis coexisted with workers and vagabonds. It has forged splendid, wide avenues through the major cities and created public gardens that mothers frequent. It has opened up educational clubs to which thousands of people go after work. And it has built grand palaces and sports fields that call to mind those the Roman tyrants built when its state policy concerning the people's needs was summed up in two words -- 'bread and games.'" BELGRADE WAS THE SPECIAL REPORTER's second stop. He arrived 13 hours late due to a snow storm that swept across the train's path and found that the city had halted all shipping on the Danube. "The porters deserted the station platforms and the streets were bare other than for vagabonds for whom there is no difference between the street and the slums they take refuge in." He came across German and Italian journalists in the foyer of the hotel he was staying in, the Majestic, and introduced himself. Their topic of discussion was the Mediterranean crisis and the tense relations between Rome and Paris, and in it he heard an even more extreme view than those he had heard at his previous stop. An Italian journalist said of the crisis between his country and France that "there is no importance to it, for it is of the kind that dissolves within an hour of erupting. This is because the French know that Italy is intent on fighting, and so they will, in the end, submit to its will because they do not want war. As for the Suez Canal, Egypt has no option for opposition other than through speech. And the time for speech has passed. The canal is our path to a section of the empire, and thus we have no option other than to participate in the administration and protection of this path." The most significant matter preoccupying our friend's mind during this visit was an answer to the question repeatedly raised among political circles as to whether Yugoslavia would choose to adhere to a policy of neutrality if a new struggle broke out in Europe. The answer came from one of the officials he met, although it was not very precise. The official said, "Yugoslavia's neutrality will be one that is loyal to Germany and Italy. Yet we must not forget that our people are a war-like one before all else. War-like people long to fight from time to time, especially if they see fire in the distance, hear the booming of cannons, and learn news of bravery on battle sites. Take this, for example. Last September, the entire Yugoslav people were beside Czechoslovakia. We were deeply pained when news of Munich arrived, and if the Czech army had not conceded to the will of the four states that fought its nation and prepared to sacrifice, the Yugoslav people would have waited for the government to issue orders to mobilise to express its will. And if the ministers had shrunk from this, the people would have fought them." This vague position of Yugoslavia's was the topic of the special reporter's article, titled "Democracy and Fascism in Yugoslavia". He opened the article with the observation that there were many political parties in the country, a total of 14, and made some comments on them. Regarding the Communist Party, it had no existence, and the law forbade the spread of Bolshevik principles. This was in contrast to the Fascist Party, which enjoyed full rights "and spreads the propaganda of Hitler and Mussolini and openly works to change the state's regime. Its followers are few, but they have strong voices. Some of them wear turquoise shirts and others wear green shirts. The party's headquarters are in Belgrade, and you can see on its walls pictures of Mussolini and Hitler." When Al-Ahram 's reporter met the head of the party and asked him about its programme, he responded that it sought to purge the country of the filth of democracy. "We are Fascists by nature because we are a strong people. Fascism is strength, boldness, and youth. Democracy, in contrast, is impotence, fear, and old age." Our reporter also turned his attention to the Muslims of Yugoslavia. He was pleased by the statues of the Muslim fighters who proved brave in WWI and that were set up by the government with nation-wide public donations. He learnt from some Muslims he met in a cafe that they were generally in line with the Democratic Party although they did not stand by it in the last elections because the leadership of the parties that formed a coalition with it in a single front was supported by a certain Macek, a Croatian who was waging war on Yugoslavia's unity and sought to fragmentise it. He was responsible for the idea of Croatian separatism "and so we had to lean away from this separatist and support the government because we are Slavs before all else." Following other meetings of lesser importance, Al-Ahram 's special reporter began his journey to the third stop on his tour. This time it was in Bulgaria, and he sent the next article in his lengthy serial report from Sofia. THE FIRST THING that caught his attention was the traditional Balkan clothing the Bulgarians wore. He was assisted in this by a French merchant who rode in his train compartment and who noted that historians had concurred that the Bulgarians had brought these designs from the Volga Valley in Russia and that the Crusaders had copied them. He also noted that the women of Latakia and other coastal cities and mountain villages in Lebanon had copied the clothing's designs from the Crusaders. The special reporter was sure to begin his tour of the Bulgarian capital with a visit to Sofia's grand mosque, which he beheld as a massive structure of splendid Eastern architectural design. Above the doorways were carvings and writings in Arabic. "And I read, 'Hasten to prayer before it passes you by' and 'Hasten to repent before you die.' Between the two writings was a third -- 'Enter in peace as believers.'" After observing the behaviour of Bulgarians, he held that they were well balanced. "If called to fight, they are valorous. When they sit to dine, they eat a great deal and drink without taking account... They are a people unlike any other, and this is not only true for them as a whole, but for their individuals as well." As for the political situation, Al-Ahram 's reporter had learnt before reaching Sofia that the press was restricted, censorship was strict, and all parties had been dissolved. "I learnt that there is a parliament and that the representatives have a wide degree of freedom and say what they want in council but that the people do not know what they say because the papers don't dare print their statements." As for the country's parties, they were annulled by law and the press was forbidden to mention their names. "Yet what pens do not write, tongues pronounce. Why do governments impose laws on their peoples that only result in their being attached to what they prohibit?... A free parliament and a restricted press -- this is an aberration in parliamentary life, a new principle in constitutional law." This anomalous situation motivated the special reporter to visit the Bulgarian parliament, which he discovered to be a small hall similar to lecture halls in European universities. "In the centre, behind the speaker's podium, is a large colour picture of King Boris and below it a massive golden chair... Boris is the third of Bulgaria's Caesars in this age. The first played with the constitution and so the nation removed him. The second lost the war and with it the throne. "The ministers have a high bench on the northern side of the hall." It seems that our friend attended one of parliament's sessions, for he made several observations: There were 160 representatives, of which official sources said 99 supported the government. The opposition, however, claimed that this majority was merely imagined as it did not have a programme. There was not a single face from among the well- known political figures upon the ministers' bench. "And yet I saw among the representatives a significant number of well-established politicians." He added that one of his colleagues had told him that he had been invited to dinner not long ago and that most of these representatives had been there. He counted four former premiers among them, and 28 former ministers. He sensed a general lack of satisfaction despite noticing that the majority of those hostile had previously assumed authority and were not any less tyrannical than those they blamed while he was in the country. All that concerned them was mockery of the government, and one even whispered amusing news in his ear -- that the most the current government had done was to sign a treaty of friendship and peace with Mexico. THE FINAL PART to the lengthy report of Al-Ahram 's special reporter on his trip to the Balkans came from Bucharest, Romania. This part, which consisted of two long articles published in Al-Ahram, was different from the previous ones in that it did not focus on the state he was visiting as much as it was a vehicle for his general opinion on the circumstances in the Balkans, which were feared might explode at any moment. This part began with the observation that most of the Balkan states suffered from the problem of minorities. In Bulgaria there were Romanians and Turks; in Hungary there were Czechs, Germanic tribes, Ruthenians, and Romanians; in Yugoslavia there were Bulgarians, Turks, Germanic tribes, Greeks, and Hungarians; in Greece there were Bulgarians and others; and in Albania there were Romanians, Greeks and Serbs. Every state in this part of Europe was a mosaic of languages and ethnicities. This mosaic, in the opinion of the special reporter, was not under any circumstances a source of strength for the Balkan states. On the contrary, it was one of the most important reasons for their fragmentation and internecine fighting. The presence of minorities on such a widescale was a "pretext used by those aspiring to conquest and expansion, and exploited by the deceived poor in order to regain their lost possessions." The man attempted to explain the reasons for the spread of this phenomenon, and traced it to successive conquests, persecution and injustice. While conquerors placed land in the hands of their people, some other inhabitants of that land fled from oppression and taxes and sought refuge with their neighbours. "This explains the presence of the Turks on the banks of the Danube and that of the Hungarians in the middle of Romania. In fact, it explains the presence of the Romanian nation itself in an area surrounded by Slavs on all sides." The solution, in the opinion of our friend, was for these states to draw inspiration from their true interests and view their pluralism as a cause for mutual understanding, not as a tool for conflict with each other. "The justice some demand today is impossible to realise without oppressing others. The transfer of a minority from the rule of one state to that of another cannot geographically occur without injustice." Al-Ahram 's reporter coined an unusual term to describe the situation in the Balkan states -- what he called "political atheism." This was an atheism produced by the fact that those states agreed on nothing because they had come to trust nothing. "Their belief in honour, friendship and treaties has ended, and they give no worth today to any word spoken by a minister of a great state, or to an agreement signed yesterday or to be signed tomorrow. This one betrays that, and one breaks relations with another. Each state wants to feast on the flesh of its neighbour. And each people see regaining its minorities in the countries of others as the only solution to the crises they suffer from. It is a psychological state that warns of the approaching collapse of social and political systems and supports the opinion of those who say that Europe is becoming barbarian." Then the author of this article traced all the dangers that circumstances were warning of in the Balkan peninsula to the strikes against democracy that took place prior to and following the Munich conference without proponents of democracy defending it. In particular he blamed England, which always arrived late, as he wrote. This denied it the ability to say that it had been taken by surprise. He gave the example of Mussolini, who told nations that his philosophy sought to put an end to human rights as established by the French revolution, as well as the philosophy of the 18th century and the political systems that evolved from it. Another example he gave was Hitler, who acted only to erase the outcome of Versailles and to establish a new political world on the ruins of the democratic one at that time. Al-Ahram 's reporter devoted the second section of this article to his tour of Bucharest, which he beheld as a new capital in the like of Paris. "Everything in the life of the king who has assumed its throne indicates that he is of the highest taste, sophistication, order and splendour. And thus he has increased its order, beauty, and cleanliness." With regard to the political circumstances, he expressed his surprise over the Romanians' lack of sense of becoming a "morsel for the tyrant" in the spring. In contrast, they were preparing for the season of dance. The tyrant he meant was Adolf Hitler, the German dictator who was planning at the time to advance onto Ukraine. To do so, he first had to take command of Romania in order for it to serve as his launching pad for executing his major endeavour in the direction of the east. Our friend was sure to acknowledge a phenomenon singular to Romania among the Balkan states, and that was the Iron Guard led by Corneliu Codreanu. This was established to confront the government's despotism, and used violence to reach its goals. It spread like the plague, as the reporter put it. Yet the man had arrived in Bucharest after the government had succeeded in assassinating Codreanu. It then attempted to mar his reputation and described him as a "blood-shedding swindler who killed during the day and claimed at night to be the holy messenger Michael coming to purify the earth of its filth and sins." No one responded to this slander. In any case, Egypt later had an entity of the same name -- the Iron Guard. This time, however, it was in line with the government and not against it. This was the guard established by King Farouk towards the end of his reign.
