ARMENIA AND REPARATION--ARMENIA'S MARTYRDOM--CONDEMNATION AND
DEMAND FOR REPARATION INADEQUATELY EXPRESSED
The Governments of the Allies have unanimously declared that peace is
only possible on the principles of adequate reparation for the past,
adequate security for the future, and recognition of the principle of
nationalities and of the free existence of small states.
"Reparation" means no doubt in the first place reparation for the wanton
and ruthless destruction of unoffending and defenceless civilian lives
and property.
It is characteristic of the British sense of justice and fair play that
Belgium, France and Serbia should be given the first place in their
demand for reparation, for, of course, there are the British victims of
"frightfulness," Zeppelin and submarine victims and the victims of
judicial murders to be atoned for and recompensed.
This unanimous demand for reparation to the smaller nations for all they
have suffered as a result of the brutal and unscrupulous aggression of
their more powerful neighbours, and their security and free development,
augurs well for the future. It is an earnest given by the Entente Powers
to the world, of the sincerity of their declarations regarding the
unselfish, just and worthy objects which they entered the war to attain.
I must be excused, however, if I confess to feeling not a little
perplexity at the fact that, in discussing the peace terms, the great
organs of British public opinion, with some notable exceptions,[5] have
made little or no reference to Armenia in the demand for penalties,
reparation and redemption. This fact must have impressed Mr. Arthur
Henderson, who, in his reference to Armenia quoted more fully elsewhere,
remarked that " ... Armenian atrocities _were not much talked about_
here ... etc." My anxiety will be understood when I point out that for
us it is not a question of a little more or less territory, a little
larger or smaller indemnity. For us more than for any other race
involved in the war it is a question of "to be or not to be" in a real
and fateful sense: the rebirth of Armenian nationality from the
profusion of its lost blood and heaps of smouldering ashes, or the end
of that long-cherished and bled-for aspiration, and the consummation of
the "policy" of Abdul Hamid and the Young Turks.
The first general discussion of the terms of peace has coincided with
the publication, as a Blue-book, of Lord Bryce's comprehensive
documentary evidence on the attempt of the Turks to murder the Armenian
nation in cold blood. I gratefully acknowledge the fact that many
newspapers wrote sympathetic editorial articles or reviews on the
Blue-book, emphasizing, with incontestable force, that this conclusive
evidence of the abominable crimes committed by the Turks in Armenia
without any protest from official Germany, is a crushing reply to the
German Chancellor's protestations of solicitude for humanity.
But, opportune as has been the immediate effect of this fresh evidence
of Lord Bryce's noble and untiring labours in the cause of humanity, as
a tragic and terrible exposure of the irony of the Central Powers'
professions of pity for suffering humanity, that is surely not the only
or the principal moral to be drawn from these haunting pages. They
constitute a terrible and lasting reproach to the European diplomacy of
our time. They unfold to the horrified gaze of mankind a vast column of
human smoke and human anguish rising to the heavens as the incense of
the most fearful yet most glorious mass-martyrdom the world has ever
seen, but casting a shadow of lasting shame upon Christendom and
civilization. The unparalleled outburst of barbarity they reveal did
not come as a surprise. Europe had heard its premonitory rumblings these
last forty years. As far back as 1880 the representatives of the Great
Powers in their famous and futile Identic Note to the Sublime Porte,
said: "So desperate was the misgovernment of the country that it would
lead in all probability to the destruction of the Christian population
of vast districts." The massacres of 1895-1896 and 1909 cost the lives
of 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians. But most of the European statesmen of
the day persistently refused to believe that "the gentle Turk" was
capable of such bursts of unspeakable barbarism; while Bismarck declared
openly that the whole Eastern Question was not worth "the bones of a
Pomeranian grenadier." His successors have followed and improved upon
his ruthless, unchristian policy, and Europe sees the result.
With due respect to the small minority of humane Turks, who, I dare say,
are themselves shocked at what their rulers, their soldiery and populace
have proved themselves capable of, the Turk as a race has added yet
another and vaster monument than ever before to the long series of
similar monuments that fill the pages of his blood-stained history, in
proof of the unchangeable brutality of his nature. You cannot reason or
argue with him. Nor can you expect justice or ordinary human feelings
from such a nature. The only sane and honest way to deal with him is to
make him innocuous. It is official Europe that is to blame for leaving
him so long at large and his prey at his mercy. It is European diplomacy
of the past forty years that is responsible for looking on while the
relentless mutilation was going on limb by limb, until Moloch saw his
chance in the war and all but devoured his hapless victim, with the
tacit acquiescence of the Governments of two great Christian empires,
and the applause of Count Reventlow and his disciples.
How is it to be explained that this deliberately planned destruction of
more than half a million human beings by all the tortures of the Dark
Ages, and the deportation and enslavement worse than death of more than
half a million, have not aroused the righteous wrath of the great
British writers and thinkers of the day to nearly the same extent as the
martyrdom of Belgium? How is it that great writers and poets have not
felt the call of expressing to the world in the language of genius the
stupefying horror as well as the moral grandeur of this vast,
unparalleled tragedy?[6] Great Britain has always been, and is to-day
more than ever, the champion and "the hope of the oppressed and the
despair of the oppressor." That sympathy, horror and indignation exist
in this country in the fullest measure there is not the slightest doubt.
One sees proofs and indications of their existence at every turn. But
why, in Heaven's name, is it not proclaimed to the world that the
culprits may know and tremble and stay their hand? Bishops have been
burnt to death, hundreds of churches desecrated, and ministers of Christ
tortured and murdered; hundreds of thousands of Christian women and
children done to death in circumstances of unspeakable barbarity and
bestiality. Why are the Churches of Great Britain and all Christendom
not raising a cry of indignation that will reverberate throughout the
world and strike the fear of God into the hearts of these assassins and
all powers of darkness? Why is not a word said as a tribute, so richly
deserved, to the heroic and indomitable spirit of the men and women and
even children who chose torture and death rather than deny their Christ,
sacrifice their honour or renounce their nationality?[7] Here is
assuredly the most inspiring example of all times of the triumph of the
spirit of Christ and the fidelity in death to conscience, personal
honour and independence, over savage fury and brutal lust at the highest
pitch ever attained in them by fiends in human form; a triumph and an
example more inspiring, and with a deeper and more lasting significance
for humanity and Christianity, perhaps, than this great and terrible war
itself; and the Churches and spokesmen and writers of great Christian
countries, belligerent and neutral, pass over that aspect of the Great
Tragedy almost in complete silence!
I do not ask tributes for the martyrs; let their praise be sung by the
hosts of heaven. Nor is this a complaint; and it would be a presumption
on my part to assume the rôle of critic or mentor to leaders of
religion, thought and learning in great Christian countries. It is far
indeed from my intention to assume such a rôle. But these are facts
which I contemplate with inexpressible sorrow, almost despair--facts
which perplex and puzzle me and which surpass my understanding. Perhaps
my judgment is dimmed and embittered by my nation's sufferings. If that
is so, is any one surprised that the Armenian soul should be bitter
to-day, bitter with a bitterness, anguish and indignation such as the
soul of man has never tasted before, or any people can possibly imagine?
Some papers speak of the sufferings of the Armenians being _equal_ to
those of the Belgians.
Armenians know, if any one does, what bondage and suffering under the
tyrant's heel mean, and they yield to none in their profound sympathy
and admiration for heroic Belgium, Serbia and the occupied parts of
France. The martyrdom of 5000 unoffending Belgian civilians is a
horrible enough episode, but surely there is some difference between
5000 and 600,000 victims, to say nothing of the 600,000 who were
enslaved, forcibly converted to Islam, and driven in caravans of torture
and death to the Mesopotamian deserts.[8] What is the condition of
these unfortunates, and how many have survived, must remain a dread
secret of the desert until the end of the war.
Is it because the victims are Armenians, mere Armenians so used to
massacre, so long abandoned by Europe to the lust and pleasure of "the
Gentle Turk"? That may be so in the eyes of men. But there is God, and
in His eyes the life and pain and torture and death of an Armenian
child, woman, or man are the same, exactly the same, as those of any
other child, woman, or man without exception.