Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern QuestionInagaki, Manjiro
History
Japan and the Pacific, and a Japanese View of the Eastern Question
Inagaki, Manjiro
Eastern question (Balkan); Europe -- History -- 1871-1918; Japan -- Politics and government
Article LX. The valley of Alaxhkerd and the town of Bayazid, ceded to
Russia, are restored to Turkey.
The Sublime Porte cedes to Persia the town and territory of Khotou for
its delimitation of the frontiers of Turkey and of Persia.[84]
_The Anglo-Turkish Convention._
Article I. Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them, shall be retained by
Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by Russia to
take possession of any further territories of His Imperial Majesty the
Sultan in Asia, as fixed by the Definitive Treaty of Peace, England
engages to join His Imperial Majesty the Sultan in defending them by
force of arms.
In order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing her
engagement, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan further consents to assign
the island of Cyprus to be occupied and administrated by England.
Beaconsfield having thus attained “peace with honour” for England,
returned, and in a speech[85] in the House, said, “They are not
movements of war, they are operations of peace and civilization; we have
no reason to fear war. Her Majesty has fleets and armies which are
second to none.”
VIII.
REMARKS UPON THE TREATY OF BERLIN.
_The position of affairs—The Salisbury-Schouvaloft Memorandum and its
disastrous effect on the negotiations at Berlin—Russia’s
gain—England and Austria the guardians of Turkey—Austria’s vigorous
and straightforward Balkan policy—Thwarted in Servia but triumphant
in Bulgaria—Relations of Greece to Austria—Solution of the Crete
question—Neutrality of Belgium threatened—Importance of
Constantinople to Russia; the Anglo-Turkish Convention—England’s
feeble policy in Asia Minor—The question of Egypt—A new route to
India by railway from the Mediterranean to Persian Gulf—England’s
relation to Constantinople._
Let us now review and make a few remarks on the Treaty of Berlin.
Firstly, the whole treaty seems to me to be virtually a repetition[86]
and revision of the conditions of the European concert in the Eastern
question.
Prince Bismarck’s opinion was that the Treaty of San Stefano meant to
alter “the state of things as fixed by former European Conventions,”
consequently the Berlin Congress followed for “the free discussion of
the Cabinets’ signatories of the treaties of 1856 and 1871.”
The Treaties of Paris and London being still in force, and owing to the
rise of a new nationality and the redistribution of territory, these
treaties were altered and amended by the Congress.
Before we criticize the Treaty of Berlin we ought to bear two things in
our mind. (1) At the Conference of Paris, 1856, England, France, and
Turkey were victorious, while Russia was conquered. (2) At the Berlin
Congress, 1878, Russia was victorious over Turkey, while England and
France were neutral.
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