The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern QuestionGreene, Frederick Davis
History
The Armenian Crisis in Turkey: The Massacre of 1894, Its Antecedents and Significance, With a Consideration of Some of the Factors Which Enter Into the Solution of This Phase of the Eastern Question
Greene, Frederick Davis
Armenian massacres, 1894-1896; Armenian question
These conclusions, moderately and very diffusely expressed in diplomatic
phraseology, are reflected in the Collective Note which was sent on
Sept. 11, 1880, to the Sublime Porte by the Ambassadors of the Great
Powers. On October 3d, without making the slightest references to
censures which had been addressed to it, and even appearing completely
to ignore the Collective Note, the Porte, assuming a haughty tone,
merely notified the Powers of what it intended to do.
In a Circular of the 12th of January, 1881, Earl Granville tried again
to induce the other five Powers to join in further representations to
the Sublime Porte on the subject. But the other Powers seem to have
thought that the diplomatic comedy had gone far enough, and sent evasive
answers. Prince Bismarck expressed the opinion that there would be
“serious inconvenience” in raising the Armenian question, and France hid
behind Germany. Such action by the powers had been anticipated by the
British Ambassador at Constantinople, Mr. Goschen, who had already
written to Earl Granville: “If they [the Powers] refuse, or give only
lukewarm support, the responsibility will not lie with Her Majesty’s
Government.” The whole correspondence was simply a matter of form.[23] I
have condensed this outline of events since the Treaty of Berlin from
_Armenia, the Armenians, and the Treaties_,[24] following as far as
possible the words of the writer, M. G. Rolin-Jaequemyns, a high
authority on International Law.
From 1881 to the present time, almost without exception, England, on her
part, has allowed no mention in her Blue-Books of the manner in which
her _protégés_ and those of Europe have been treated. Her energies have
seemed to be devoted to stifling the ever-increasing cry of despair from
Armenia, instead of attempting her rescue or relief. The other Powers
are only less guilty, in proportion as they have done less to perpetuate
Ottoman misrule, and have made less pretence of sympathy and help for
the oppressed. Freeman says of England,
“By waging a war on behalf of the Turk, by signing a treaty which left
the nations of Southeastern Europe [and Asia Minor] at the mercy of the
Turk, by propping up the wicked power of the Turk in many ways, we have
done a great wrong to the nations which are under his yoke; and that
wrong which we have ourselves done it is our duty to undo.”[25]
It is thus clearly seen that both the Sixty-first Article of the Berlin
Treaty, and the Cyprus Convention as well, have been of positively no
value in securing for the Armenians any of the reforms which were
therein recognized as imperatively called for and guaranteed. It is also
clear that the condition of Armenia, and of Turkey as a whole, is even
vastly worse and more hopeless than it was twenty years ago.
[Illustration:
PROFESSOR MINAS TCHÉRAZ.
Present at the Berlin Congress.
]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account