Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic daysGabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
History
Armenia, a martyr nation: A historical sketch of the Armenian people from traditional times to the present tragic days
Gabrielian, Mugurdich Chojhauji
Armenia; Armenian question
The Turkish government has revised the sixty-first article of the
Treaty of Berlin, and the other signatory Powers have silently
consented to it. The following is the Turkish revision: “The
sublime Porte engages to realize without delay such maltreatments,
persecutions, oppressions, outrages, cruelties, and murders in the
provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and guarantees the security of
their enemies, the Kurds, Circassians and the Turks, and will acquit
them in case of their being brought to justice, and will assist them in
case the Armenians rise against them in self-defense, by force of arms,
and will declare the Christians as rebels. It, moreover, undertakes to
make known to the civilized and Christian powers from time to time,
that Mohammedanism and barbarism go hand in hand.” This is just what
Turkey has been doing with the silent consent of the European Powers.
Of course, Turkey is the chief criminal in the case and the other
Powers have been accessories of her crime. And England’s share of that
crime is confessed by the best of England’s sons:
“The only effect of the Anglo-Turkish convention has been to increase
the confidence of the sultan that he can do as he pleases in Armenia
notwithstanding Article LXI of the Berlin Treaty.
“England, therefore, is responsible in three ways. She destroyed the
Russian guarantee exacted by the Treaty of San Stefano. She framed
the ‘watching’ clause of the Berlin Treaty, and then, to preclude all
possibility of effective pressure upon the Turk, she concludes the
Cyprus convention which established an illegal British protectorate
over the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan.”[109]
“In the field of Eastern politics generally the conspicuous result
has been the failure--the complete, humiliating, and irretrievable
failure--of the traditional policy pursued by England of supporting
the Turk against Russia. That policy, first attempted by Mr. Pitt, in
1791, against the vehement protests of Mr. Burke[110] but presently
abandoned, was warmly espoused by Lord Palmerston. It prompted the
Crimean war of 1853, and was embodied in the Treaty of Paris of 1856.
It had the lifelong support of Lord Beaconsfield, who by refusing to
join Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1876 in applying pressure to the
sultan, brought on the war of 1877. Public opinion in Great Britain,
outraged by the Bulgarian massacre, prevented him from giving the
armed support of Great Britain to the Turks in that year. But he was
able to revert to and enforce that policy in the negotiations of 1878,
which substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano,
and it dictated the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish convention.”[111]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account