ANGLO-RUSSIAN FRIENDSHIP A VITAL NECESSITY FOR PEACE AND PROGRESS
IN ASIA--MOSLEMS AND TURKISH RULE--ARMENIANS PROGRESSIVE AND
DEMOCRATIC BY TEMPERAMENT
The exaggerated panegyrics on the virtues of the Turk, while the Turk is
at war with England and her Allies and Turkish emissaries are busy
making all the mischief they can among loyal subjects of the British
Empire, exploiting religion as a weapon of squalid intrigue, point to
the existence of influences which have been at work ever since Turkey
joined the war, to screen from public view and to palliate the enormity
of Turkish perfidy in making common cause with England's enemies in the
hour of England's difficulty. These same influences seem to regard with
disfavour the growth of Anglo-Russian friendship and would apparently
not be sorry to see some hitch or other occur that would weaken or
endanger the permanence of that friendship.
This may be an unfounded assumption, and I hope it is. But if these
pro-Turkish and anti-Russian influences exist in fact, and gain enough
strength to exercise any influence on the course of events after the
war, it will be a calamity for the smaller nations of the Near and
Middle East, and in fact for all Asia. It will be a hindrance and a
deterrent to the tranquillity and development that has been so long
denied to these regions. Close and cordial friendship between England
and Russia are almost as indispensable a condition of life and growth
and progress to these backward countries as light and heat. It is
scarcely for me to say that it is also necessary for the future peace of
Asia and the world. The unnatural and unfounded mutual distrust that
shadowed Anglo-Russian relations throughout almost the whole of the past
century has been chiefly responsible for the woes and miseries of the
peoples of the Near East, Moslems as well as Christians. It has kept
back the clock of progress and civilization for at least fifty years. We
have felt its effect in our daily lives and regard any prospect of its
return with the utmost apprehension and regret. Pan-Turanian intrigues
under the cloak of Pan-Islamism will not end with the war. They will be
continued after the war by their protagonists, whose chief concern is,
not the interests of the Mohammedan religion, but the unscrupulous
exploitation of religious sentiment for personal ends, and the
disturbance of the tranquillity and ordered government which in the
present chaotic state of these countries are only possible under the
strong and just arm of British, Russian, or French protection. Any
weakening in Anglo-Russian friendship would give these intriguers their
chance, of which they would not be slow to take the fullest advantage,
with injurious consequences to the countries concerned and to the
general interests of peace. The best elements of Islam, and specially
the peasant populations which form the vast majority of the Moslem
world, know and have proved by their loyalty that they have nothing to
fear from Britain, Russia and France, who have always not only
respected, but fostered their religious interests and given them, in
addition, the inestimable blessings of freedom, justice, security and
prosperity such as they could never expect to enjoy under any other
régime.
It is idle to pretend that any subject race loves any form of
domination for its own sake. But many races and countries in Asia and
Africa are so situated that independence is beyond the bounds of
practicability. Any change would result in an exchange of one domination
for another. Some forms of domination are sincerely welcomed because, as
against the evil of domination, they have not only conferred upon the
peoples under their rule benefits and blessings which they themselves
could not possibly have achieved, but have allowed them freedom of
development on their national lines. Such in varying degrees is the
nature of British, French, Russian, and I may add, Dutch dominion over
the alien races under their rule. What has Turkish domination been to
its subject races? An unmitigated curse to Christian, Moslem and Jew
alike, with this difference, that while the Moslem and Jew have been
reduced by merciless taxation and robbery to extreme poverty, the
Christian races have been bled almost to death. The Turks have
deliberately fostered the criminal propensities of large sections of
their people and encouraged their free indulgence to check the growth
and progress of the moral and civilizing elements in their dominions. If
some of the Moslems of India, Egypt or Tunis, whose sympathy with the
Turks on religious grounds every one will understand and respect, would
live under Turkish rule for a few months, I have no doubt they would be
completely cured of their love for the Turk as such, hasten back to
their homes and beg the British and the French to remain in their
countries for ever. Similarly, if it were possible for the most rabid
pro-Turks in this or any European country to live some time under the
Turk, disguised as Armenians or Syrians, they would also be cured and
more than cured of their admiration for the Turk; then only would they
come to understand his real nature.
The following account of the experiences of some Indian pilgrims at
Kerbela at the outbreak of war, which appeared in _The Times_ of June 6,
1916, bears out my contention--
"The Bombay Government have published the story of an Indian Moslem
pilgrim, Zakir Husain, who recently escaped from Kerbela (Baghdad
Vilayet), whither he went on pilgrimage with his mother and sister
in the summer of 1914.
"Zakir Husain states that after the outbreak of war all routes
homewards were blocked, and the many Indian pilgrims at Kerbela
were subjected to the utmost discomfort and cruelty. The Turkish
authorities issued orders that the goods and women of Indians were
the legal property of those who plundered them. Their houses were
searched, their goods taken, and dozens of Indians were arrested
and deported to the Aleppo side, while their families and children
were left in Kerbela.
"Throughout these fourteen months," he continued, "we never got
meals more than once a day. We could not get any work, and
consequently we had to beg from door to door in order to get a few
scraps of bread to eat, and the state of the women and children was
worse even than that of the men. For a man to be an Indian was
considered a sufficient reason by Turks to torture and imprison
him. We protested that we were Moslems, but they never paid heed.
They themselves are no Moslems, and do not act according to the
precepts of Islam. According to what I heard, the Indians in
Nejef, Kazimain, and Baghdad have also been treated in the same
cruel way as we were; hundreds have been deported and their houses
pillaged."
The following from _The Times_ of December 26, 1916, is another
illustration of the way Turks treat Moslems of another race who refuse
to become the blind slaves of their political madness--
"Emir Faisal, commander of the Arabian forces in the vicinity of
Medina, has telegraphed to Mecca stating that the Turks have hanged
and crucified and employed every species of barbarity against the
population of Medina."
Turn now from that picture to the following appeal made to Armenians by
one of their principal Tiflis daily papers, _Mschak_ (Labourer), of May
16, 1915--
"To-day the Moslem Benevolent Society is organizing a collection
for building and maintaining a shelter for the children of the
(Moslem) refugees. War causes suffering to the population of the
country without distinction of race or creed. Moslems as well as
Christians have to face the effects of the war, therefore the
scheme of the Moslem Benevolent Society to establish a shelter for
the children of Moslem refugees is deserving of all sympathy and
support. We are convinced that the Armenian community also, having
in mind the universal idea of humanity, will take part in the
collection and do their duty as a humane people and good
neighbours."
These incidents, small in themselves, bring into strong relief the
difference between the mentality and degree of civilization of the two
races. The Armenian appeal on behalf of refugee Moslem children at a
time when one half of their own race was in the throes of the most
ferocious of the numerous attacks made upon its existence, is also
incidentally a reply, more trenchant than the most eloquent argument in
words, to those pro-Turks who have from time to time expressed fears for
the rights of the Turks, Kurds, Tcherkesses, Kizilbashis, etc., in an
autonomous Armenia. Such a fear is either due to ignorance of the
characteristics of the races concerned, or to prejudice. It is
inconceivable that any Armenian Government would tolerate, much less
impose upon orderly and good citizens, an injustice which Armenians
have themselves endured and struggled against for generations, and which
is, for that reason, abhorrent to their very nature. A study of the
Armenian Church organization will prove to the most sceptical that the
Armenian temperament is essentially democratic. In the smallest village
the candidate for priesthood must be elected by a vote of the
inhabitants before he can be ordained by the bishop of the diocese. The
Armenian deputies in the Russian State Duma as well as the late members
of the Ottoman Parliament are and were supporters of the Progressives.
Armenians who have risen to positions of influence in the service of
foreign countries have invariably used their influence in the cause of
progress. General Loris Melikoff as Minister of the Interior had
actually prepared a scheme for the reform of the Government of Russia
when his Imperial Master, the Czar Alexander II, died, and the scheme
was shelved. Nubar Pasha, the famous Egyptian-Armenian statesman, for
many years Prime Minister, was largely responsible for the abolition of
the _corvée_ in Egypt, and the introduction of many other reforms. The
writer of Nubar Pasha's biography in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_,
referring to his substitution of Mixed Courts in place of the
"Capitulations," says (Eleventh Ed., Vol. 19, p. 843), "That in spite of
the jealousies of all the Powers, in spite of the opposition of the
Porte, he should have succeeded, places him at once in the first rank of
statesmen of his period." Prince Malcolm Khan, for some years Persian
Minister in London, sowed the first seeds of constitutional government
in Persia, for the defence of which another Armenian, Yeprem Khan, laid
down his life while leading the constitutional struggle against Mohamed
Ali Shah. The first constitution of the Ottoman Empire, known as the
Midhat Constitution, was largely the work of Midhat Pasha's Armenian
Under-Secretary, Odian Effendi. These are but a few outstanding
instances. It must appear inconceivable to right-minded men that a race
with such a past record, achieved under all sorts of handicaps, will
either establish a régime of tyranny over other races or prove incapable
of self-government after a transition period under European advisers, as
is alleged by some.
V
ARMENIA AS A PEACE PROBLEM--VIEWS OF THE "MANCHESTER GUARDIAN" AND
THE "SPECTATOR"--CAN ARMENIANS STAND ALONE AMONG THE
KURDS?--AMERICAN OPINION AND THE FUTURE OF ARMENIA
Although the Allies have declared in their reply to President Wilson
that one of their aims is "the liberation of the peoples who now lie
beneath the murderous tyranny of the Turks," no official or
authoritative statement has yet been made by the Allied Governments as
regards the precise future status of Armenia. Mr. Asquith in his
Guildhall speech spoke of "reparation and redemption." M. Briand in a
letter to M. Louis Martin, Senator of the Var, published in the _Courier
du Parlement_ (Paris) of November 12, 1916, says: "When the hour for
legitimate reparation shall have struck, France will not forget the
terrible trials of the Armenians, and, in accord with her Allies, she
will take the necessary measures to ensure for Armenia a life of peace
and progress." M. Anatole France, in his speech at the great "Homage à
l'Arménie" meeting in the Sorbonne in April 1916, used these words:
"L'Arménie expire, mais elle renaitra. Le peu de sang qui lui reste est
un sang précieux dont sortira une postérité héroïque. Un peuple qui ne
veut pas mourir ne meurt pas. Après la victoire de nos armées, qui
combattent pour la liberté, les Alliés auront de grands devoirs a
remplir. Et le plus sacré de ces devoirs sera de rendre la vie aux
peuples martyrs, a la Belgique, a la Serbie. Alors ils assureront la
sureté et l'independance de l'Arménie. Penchés sur elle, ils lui diront:
'Ma soeur, lève toi! ne souffre plus. Tu es désormais libre de vivre
selon ton genie et foi!'"[13]
M. Paul Deschanel, the President of the French Senate, and M. Painlevé,
Minister of Public Instruction, spoke in more or less similar terms.
The most recent authoritative reference to Armenia--and one which is of
special importance, coming as it does from a member of the Inner Cabinet
or War Council--is Mr. Arthur Henderson's statement in his conversation
with the correspondent of the _New York Tribune_, reported in _The
Times_ of January 8, 1916, as follows: "Speaking of the part of Turkey
in the war, Mr. Henderson said that though Armenian atrocities were not
much talked about here, they had undoubtedly made a deep impression on
the minds of the working population, who, he thought, were determined
that never again should a Christian nation be under the yoke of the
Turk." These are comforting words indeed to Armenians, as were those of
Mr. Asquith at the Guildhall. Nothing could give the Armenian people
more comfort and hope for the future than this assurance of the British
working man's sympathy--of which they never had any doubt--and his
determination to see them freed from the Turkish yoke once and for all.
But here again Mr. Henderson--no doubt for very good reasons--gave no
intimation of the intentions of the British or Allied Governments
concerning the new status of Armenia after its liberation from the
Turkish yoke.
It has been suggested that American opinion would favour annexation by
Russia as a means of putting an end to Turkish atrocities and
misgovernment of Armenia. This reading of American opinion is not
supported by President Wilson's statement in his historic speech to the
Senate that "no right anywhere exists to hand peoples from sovereignty
to sovereignty as if they were property." All the Allied countries, and
probably all neutrals, are determined to see the end of the Turkish
reign of terror in Armenia. But _annexation_ by Russia or any other
Great Power, before the blood is dry of hundreds of thousands of
Armenians sacrificed for their faith and passionate adherence to their
ideal of nationality, must seem particularly unjust to all fair-minded
men in all countries, especially the great American democracy, who
themselves put an end to misgovernment of a much milder kind in Cuba,
but did not annex it. Indeed, having herself, jointly with her Allies,
solemnly laid down the "recognition of the principle of nationalities"
as one of the terms of peace stated in the Allied Note to President
Wilson, it seems unthinkable that Russia, on her part, would entertain
the intention of _annexing_, and especially of annexing a country and
people who have paid a terrible price largely on account of their
sympathy with and support of the Allied cause, and rendered services the
value of which Russia herself has generously recognized.
It is argued in some quarters that the Armenian highlands are a
strategic necessity to Russia. There is a "scrap of paper" ring in such
an argument, and I for one cannot believe that the justice-loving
Russian people would allow such considerations to override a solemn
pledge and the principle of common justice. An Allied protectorate with
Russia acting as their mandatory would place these strategically
important regions under practically as effective a Russian control as
outright annexation, while it would have the additional advantages of
giving real effect to the "recognition of the principle of
nationalities," and avoiding injustice, injury and affront to the
national sentiment of a people which has endured such grievous
sufferings and sacrifices to uphold that sentiment.
As I write, two important references to the future of Armenia have
appeared in the Press. One in the _Manchester Guardian_--that old
and constant champion of wronged and suffering humanity--quoted
by _The Times_ of December 30, 1916, as follows: "Another word
remains--Armenia--a word of ghastly horror, carrying the memory of deeds
not done in the world since Christ was born--a country swept clear by
the wholesale murder of its people. To Turkey that country must never
and under no circumstances go back...."
The other reference is made by the _Spectator_ in its issue of December
30, in a leading article entitled "The Allied Terms." It says--
"The process of freeing nationalities from oppression must be
applied organically to the Turkish Empire. The Armenians, or what
remains of the race, whose agonized calls for help and mercy have
been heard even through the din of the present war, will probably
have to be placed under the tutelage of Russia. They could not
stand alone among the Kurds."
If by "Russian tutelage" the _Spectator_ means the setting up of a
self-governing Armenia under Russian suzerainty, that would amount, in
my opinion, to the approximate realization of the hopes and aspirations
of the Armenian people, provided that by "Armenia" is understood the six
vilayets and Cilicia; provided also that Great Britain and France
retained the rights of Protecting Powers as in the case of Greece.
Anything short of this, any parcelling out of Armenia, either by
annexation or "tutelage" of different parts under different Powers,
would not only be irreconcilable with the "recognition of the principle
of nationalities" which the Allies have solemnly declared to be one of
their principal aims and terms of peace; it would imply an outrage upon
the ideal of nationality which is the ruling passion of Armenians
everywhere. Lynch, the great Armenian authority, has called the
Armenians "the strongest nationalists in the world." This ideal of
nationality has grown stronger, more alive and resolute than ever by
their services and unimaginable sufferings and sacrifices in the war.
"The little blood that is left them" has become doubly and trebly
precious to the survivors. They rightly feel that they have established,
and more than established, their title to autonomy and a strong claim
upon the whole-hearted support of the Allied Powers to enable them to
stand on their feet again and make a fair start on the road to
nationhood. If Armenia is cut up and parcelled out without regard for
this fervent living sentiment of Armenian nationalism, and their high
hopes and expectations are dashed to the ground, it will conceivably
engender in all Armenians a deep sense of wrong and injustice, an
intense discontent with the new order of things, that are not likely to
conduce to that contentment and that smoothness of relations between the
governors and the governed that are the essentials and the fundamental
preliminary steps towards setting these much-troubled regions on the
road towards good government, progress and civilization.
The "principle of nationalities" and of "government by the consent of
the governed" will be applied all along the line: Belgium,
Alsace-Lorraine, Serbia, Poland, Bohemia, Transylvania, Arabia, Syria,
Palestine, will have restored to them or will be granted the forms of
government most acceptable to the peoples concerned. These true and
righteous principles, which will herald the dawn of universal justice
and morality in the treatment of their weaker brethren by the Great
Powers of Europe, will cease to operate only when Armenia comes to be
dealt with. Armenia alone, who has suffered the most tragic, the most
grievous and heartrending Calvary, shall be denied an Easter. Why?
Because the Armenian people have lost too much blood; because they have
paid too high a price for their fidelity to their faith, the
preservation of their distinctive national life and their strong support
of the Allied cause. That would be an unspeakably cruel and bitter
climax to the unending nightmare of Turkish tyranny, the Great Tragedy
and martyrdom of the Armenian people. It will be nothing less than a
confirmation of the death sentence passed by Abdul Hamid and the Young
Turks on the ideal of Armenian nationality.
Let those who speak lightly of _annexation_ by Russia put themselves in
the place of the tens of thousands of Armenians who have lost wife and
children, sons, brothers, fathers, near or distant relatives, both in
massacre as well as in what they understood to be a sacred struggle for
liberty, to say nothing of their complete economic ruin. They would be
much more or much less than human if they did not feel a deep and
smarting sense of wrong at seeing all their appalling sacrifices and
important services result in a mere exchange of the _Kaimakam_ for the
_Chinovnik_. It is far indeed from my purpose to put the two types of
official and the respective systems of government they represent on the
same level. They differ as day from night. In my opinion and to my
knowledge the vast majority of Armenians will welcome Russian suzerainty
with sincere satisfaction. But, after the ordeal of blood and fire
through which they have passed, they must feel, as I believe they do
feel with ample justification, that they have a right to a voice and a
liberal measure of participation in the government of their own country.
I cannot do better than quote here a passage from Mr. Gladstone's great
speech on the Treaty of Berlin, which is applicable to Armenia, and than
which there could be no wiser, more just or authoritative guidance for
the formation of a sound and just view on the Armenian and kindred
problems--
"My meaning, Sir, was that, for one, I utterly repelled the
doctrine that the power of Turkey is to be dragged to the ground
for the purpose of handing over the Dominion that Turkey now
exercises to some other great State, be that State either Russia or
Austria or even England. In my opinion such a view is utterly
false, and even ruinous, and has been the source of the main
difficulties in which the Government have been involved, and in
which they have involved the country. I hold that those provinces
of the Turkish Empire, which have been so cruelly and unjustly
ruled, ought to be regarded as existing, not for the sake of any
other Power whatever, but for the sake of the populations by whom
they are inhabited. The object of our desire ought to be the
development of those populations on their own soil, as its proper
masters, and as the persons with a view to whose welfare its
destination ought to be determined."
It may be argued that things have changed since 1878. The answer to that
is that principles are immutable. The only change is the cruel reduction
of the Armenian population. I ask, first of all: "Is it fair and right
and just that we should suffer massacre and persecution for generations,
and when the time for reparation comes, should be penalized because so
many of us have been massacred?" Secondly, it should not be forgotten
that although the Armenian element of the population has been reduced,
the Turks and Kurds have also suffered very considerable losses.
Thirdly, the Armenians are much more advanced intellectually to-day than
they were forty years ago, while their neighbours--Turks, Kurds, and
others--are stagnating in the same primitive state as they were
forty--or, for that matter, four hundred--years ago. Another
circumstance which adds materially to the chances of success of an
autonomous Armenia is the existence of a number of nourishing Armenian
communities of various sizes in other countries--in the Russian Caucasus
and the Russian Empire, Persia, the United States, Egypt, the Balkans,
France, Great Britain, India, Java, etc.--which are at the present time
looking forward with enthusiasm and readiness for sacrifice, to "do
their bit" in the sacred work of the reconstruction of their stricken
and beloved Motherland.
Coming to the _Spectator's_ contention that "they (the Armenians) could
not stand alone against the Kurds," I can assure the _Spectator_ that
there is no cause whatever for apprehension on that score, if only the
Russian Government and Army authorities will agree to allow the
Armenians to organize under their guidance and supervision, immediately
after the war, a number of flying columns from among discharged Armenian
volunteers and soldiers in the regular army, for the specific purpose of
carrying out a "drive" from one end of the country to the other and
disarming the Kurds. The Armenian volunteers, of whom I speak in another
chapter, have had a good deal of fighting to do with the Kurds during
the war and have proved more than their match, in many cases against
superior numbers.
The prevailing erroneous belief that the Armenians "could not stand
alone among the Kurds" has its origin in the fact that for centuries (up
to 1908) Armenians have been an easy prey to the Kurds by reason of
their being prohibited to possess or carry arms on pain of death, while
the Kurds were supplied with arms from the government arsenals, and
encouraged and supported in every way by the central government to
harass the Armenians. What chance would the bravest people in the world
have under such circumstances? Since 1908, when the prohibition of
carrying arms by Christians was relaxed, it is a well-known fact,
attested by European travellers, that Kurds never attacked Armenian
villages which they knew to be armed. Zeytoon and Sassoon have
demonstrated beyond question that when Armenians have met Turks on
anything like equal terms, they have proved their match. These isolated,
compact communities of fearless mountaineers were never entirely
subjugated by the Turks until the outbreak of the present war, when the
Zeytoonlis were overwhelmed by Turkish treachery and the Sassoonlis died
fighting to the last man and woman (_see_ Blue-book, pp. 84 and 87).
In 1905 the Tartars, who are nearly twice as numerous as the Armenians
in the Caucasus, made a sudden attack upon the latter in the Hamidian
style. But thanks to the equity of Russian government, Armenians in the
Caucasus were as free to carry arms as Tartars, so the Tartars soon
regained their "humane sentiments" and offered peace to stop further
bloodshed. I would recommend those who entertain any fears of Armenians
being able to defend themselves against Kurds or Tartars to read
Villari's _Fire and Sword in the Caucasus_ and Moore's _The Orient
Express_.
At all events Europe will not be taking any risk in giving the Armenians
the opportunity of proving that they can "make good" in spite of the
Kurds, and also, as we hope, can gradually civilize the Kurds and other
neighbouring backward races.[14]
As far as I know (in fact I have no doubt about it), Armenians are
prepared to take the risk of "standing alone among the Kurds", provided
that the Entente Powers afford them the necessary assistance during the
first few years of reconstruction and initiation, and above all,
provided that they enjoy the whole-hearted and benevolent good-will of
Russia, for which, it is as certain as anything human can be, their
great protector and neighbour will reap a rich harvest in the future--as
rich a harvest as that which Britain is reaping to-day for her act of
justice and statesmanship in South Africa.