[25] Mr. Vartkes was an Armenian deputy in the Ottoman Parliament, who
was murdered, together with another deputy, Mr. Zohrab, when he was
being escorted by gendarmes from Aleppo to be court-martialled at
Diyarbekir (see Documents 7 and 9).--EDITOR.
X
GREAT BRITAIN AND ARMENIA--THE LATE DUKE OF ARGYLL'S VIEWS--AN
APPEAL TO BRITAIN
There is no brighter page in the glorious history of the British Empire
than the records of the liberties that conduce to the contentment and
happiness of peoples--freedom of thought and worship, freedom of speech
and association, freedom of movement and habitation, freedom of
language, etc.; as well as measures of self-government varying in
accordance with local needs and circumstances--granted unstintingly to
the great family of nations and races constituting that marvellous
commonwealth. This policy of broad, liberal justice has proved, under
the stern test of this great war, the highest statesmanship and the
strongest bond of empire. Freedom, justice, humanity have proved an
infinitely stronger impetus to loyalty than "frightfulness," a stronger
cement, a superior and better "paying" stock-in-trade of empire by far
than the jack-boot and the _yatagan_. The conclusive and practical
demonstration of this great fact by the British Empire will probably
exercise a far-reaching influence for good on the future policies of
empires and the liberties of mankind. The British Flag has not only
carried security, order and justice wherever it has gone, it has
scrupulously respected religious and national sentiment everywhere. It
has not denied to the peoples under its sway, or attempted to suppress,
the sentiments and allegiances which it has itself held sacred. It has
maintained the freedom of the seas as I believe no international device
could have achieved it. I do not say this to please British readers. I
have lived and travelled among small peoples and subject peoples large
and small, and that is the impression I have gathered. Thus the Union
Jack has become a symbol of freedom and fairplay the world over, and
persecuted peoples have long had the conviction, deep down in their
hearts, that British influence is continually at work towards their
ultimate liberation. If we were to reverse Mr. Gladstone's famous
challenge concerning Austria, and ask, _mutatis mutandis_: "Can any one
put his finger on the map of the world and say, 'Here the British Empire
has wrought evil'?" it may be that Count Reventlow himself and the
author of the "Hymn of Hate" might find themselves baffled. However
opinions may differ as to the justice of some of her wars, the just and
liberal treatment of the peoples that have come under British dominion
is an indisputable historical fact to which the masses of mankind owe at
least as much gratitude as they do to the French Revolution. Ireland may
be singled out, and not without reason, if I may say so, as the one
shaded spot on this bright page of the story of the spread of British
liberty. To the neutral observer it certainly seems strange that
Ireland, so near the home of liberty and the stronghold of democratic
institutions, should be so long denied the full and free enjoyment of
those blessings liberally bestowed upon the more distant parts of the
empire. Possibly neutral observers do not and cannot understand the
difficulties and obstacles that have hitherto proved insuperable. It is
outside the scope of my subject and beyond my competence to enter into a
discussion of the Irish question here, but this much I may say, that
Ireland should convince rulers in all countries that material prosperity
alone "is no remedy." Security, order, prosperity, an efficient and
equitable administration may palliate but can never heal a political
injustice. They can never satisfy the legitimate aspirations for
self-rule of a high-spirited and cultured people conscious of a strong,
indestructible will as well as the undoubted capacity to govern itself.
On the other hand, to compare the wrongs and sufferings of Ireland (and
Poland) with the agony of Armenia, as is sometimes done, is to compare a
headache, an acute headache if you will, with the Black Death.
It is in keeping with the ill-fortune that has dogged the footsteps of
the Armenian people for five centuries that Armenia should have been the
one exception to the rule; the one country which has been denied the
blessings and benefits that have accrued to every small people which has
come within the sphere of, or whose fortunes have been directly or
indirectly affected by, the policy or interests of the British Empire.
One of the most striking features of what has been said and written in
this country on the treatment meted out by the Turks to their Armenian
subjects during the war has been the paucity of reference to the effect,
incidental and indirect no doubt, but the real and disastrous effect,
nevertheless, of British policy in Turkey since the Crimean War upon the
fate of the Armenian subjects of the Turk. This is in contrast with what
was said and written during previous massacres, and is no doubt
attributable to the fact of the country being at war. I am not touching
this aspect of the question in the way of a grievance. I well know, and
most gratefully recognize what the British Government and people have
done and are still doing for us during the long and ghastly nightmare
through which we are passing. The noble and unremitting efforts of Lord
and Lady Bryce, Lady Frederick Cavendish, Mr. Aneurin Williams, Mr. T.
P. O'Connor, Miss Robinson, Mrs. and Miss Hickson, Mrs. Cole, Mr. Noel
Buxton and his brother the Rev. Harold Buxton, Mr. Arthur G. Symonds,
Mr. Llew Williams, the Rev. Greenland, Mr. Arnold J. Toynbee, and so
many other friends of Armenia in this country, have placed us under a
lasting debt of gratitude to them and to Britain. Lord Bryce's name will
live in Armenian history as long as Armenia lasts.
But I do think it is fair, in justice to the people of this great and
righteous empire, to one-half of the Armenian nation who have fallen as
heroes and heroines both in war and martyrdom, and to "the little blood"
that is left to the Armenian people, that the facts in this connection
should be placed frankly and fully before the British public at this
juncture, so that it may be able to form an equitable estimate of the
reparation due to the Armenians, not only for the crimes and ravages
committed by the enemy during the war, but also in the light of the
obligations and responsibilities incurred by Europe in general and
Great Britain in particular for the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman
Empire by Art. 61 of the Treaty of Berlin and the Cyprus Convention.
I have said "Great Britain," but it would be more accurate to say "the
British Government of the day," for I firmly believe--in fact, who will
doubt?--that if the British people had had the slightest suspicion that
the Treaty of Berlin and the Cyprus Convention had in them the germs of
the disaster that has since overtaken the Christian subjects of the
Porte, they would never have ratified those treaties. Nor do I suggest,
I need hardly say, that the statesmen who are responsible for these
diplomatic instruments consciously and deliberately jeopardized the
existence of an ancient Christian people. Lord Salisbury's sympathetic
utterances in 1895-96 show unmistakably how deeply distressed he was at
the grievous turn events had taken, and still more at the powerlessness
of the Concert of Europe to save the Armenians from the position of
extreme peril in which the Concert had placed them in 1878.
Successive British Governments have made frequent attempts to improve
the lot of the Armenians; but the more they tried the more the Turks
massacred. There is no fairer-minded public than the British, whose
hospitality and the blessings of whose rule I have gratefully enjoyed
for many years, as have some thousands of my compatriots in almost every
part of the empire. There is also no one more ready and anxious to pay
his debt than the Briton when he knows what he owes. I have therefore no
fear whatever of arousing any resentment by calling the attention of the
British public to the existence of this old liability. On the contrary,
I am convinced that the fact will be taken note of in good part, and by
most even thankfully. I read a Press article not long ago--it was, if I
remember rightly, a review of Mr. Llew Williams's book, _Armenia Past
and Present_ in _The Court Journal_--which ended with the following
question: "If these terrible things are true and we have any
responsibility, why are we not told so?"
As regards the nature of the responsibilities and obligations, I refer
my readers to the Appendix, where will be found the texts of Art. 61 of
the Treaty of Berlin, Art. 18 of the Treaty of San Stefano--which was
torn up and superseded by the Treaty of Berlin--the full text of the
Cyprus Convention, and Lord Salisbury's Dispatch to Sir Henry Layard
containing instructions for the negotiation of that Convention.
I may here point out that though at first sight there appears to be
little difference between the wording of Art. 16 of the Treaty of San
Stefano and Art. 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, there is this fundamental
difference between the application of the two clauses that, while the
former left the Russian Army in occupation of the Armenian provinces
until the reforms should be an accomplished fact, the latter was a mere
Turkish promise to be performed after their evacuation by the Russian
forces. How the Turk performed his promise is well enough known, and
forms the darkest page of modern history--probably of all history.
Those who have the interest and the time for fuller information on the
subject I recommend to refer to Mr. Gladstone's famous speeches on the
Eastern Question and the Treaty of Berlin, the debates in both Houses of
Parliament on the massacres of 1895-96, Canon Maccoll's "The Sultan and
the Powers," Mr. W. Llew Williams's "Armenia Past and Present," and last
but not least, "Our Responsibilities for Turkey," by the late Duke of
Argyll. This frank and admirable commentary on the bearing of British
policy upon the Armenian question is now unfortunately out of print. I
therefore quote, with apologies, the following lengthy extract for the
convenience of those who may have difficulty in procuring a copy. It is
an authority that will command general and respectful attention.[26]
(The italics are mine.)
"Nothing can be more childish than to suppose that the significance and
effect of such a change as this[27] can be measured or appreciated by
looking at the mere grammatical meaning of the words. The words seemed
harmless enough. They may even seem to be most benevolent and most wise
in the interests of the Christian subjects of the Porte in Armenia. But
when we look at the facts which lay behind the words, and at the motives
which were at work among the contracting parties, we must see that
nothing could have been devised more fatal to their interests. The
change which the new words affected in the Treaty of San Stefano wounded
the pride and the most justifiable ambition of Russia to be the
protector of her co-religionists in provinces with which no other
Christian Power had any natural connection. On the other hand, it
delighted the low cunning of the Turk, in constituting another 'rift
within the lute' which by and by would be quite sure to make the 'music
mute' of any effective concert between the Powers of Europe. The Turk
could see at a glance that, whilst it relieved him of the dangerous
pressure of Russia, it substituted no other pressure which his own
infinite dexterity in delays could not easily make abortive. _As for the
unfortunate Armenians, the change was simply one which must tend to
expose them to the increased enmity of their tyrants, whilst it damaged
and discouraged the only protection which was possible under the
inexorable conditions of the physical geography of the country._[28]
"But this is not the whole of the responsibility which falls on us out
of the international transactions connected with the Treaty of Berlin.
After that treaty had been concluded, we entered by ourselves into a
separate, and for a while a secret, convention with Turkey, by which we
undertook to defend her Asiatic provinces by force of arms from any
further conquests on the part of Russia, and in return we asked for
nothing more than a lease of Cyprus, and a new crop of Turkish promises
that she would introduce reforms in her administration of Armenia. No
security whatever was asked or offered for the execution of those
promises. We simply repeated the old mistake of 1856, of trusting
entirely to the good faith of Turkey, or to her gratitude. But this time
the mistake was repeated after twenty-two years' continued experience of
the futility of such a trust. As to gratitude, it must have been quite
clear to the Turks that we were acting in our own supposed interests in
resisting the advance of Russia at any cost.
"No doubt we had occasion to remember, with some natural bitterness, the
sacrifice to Russia of all that the gallant General Williams had done
for Turkey in his splendid defence of Kars. But we ought to have
remembered, also, how dreadful had been the account given by that able
and gallant man of the detestable Government which he was defending. We
ought to have remembered how easy were the reforms which he had
recommended, if the Turkish Government had been honest; and how they had
all been systematically evaded. We ought, above all, to have considered
the inevitable effect of this new treaty of guarantee upon the sharp
cunning of the Turks. They saw how eagerly it was sought by us, and they
must have concluded that, whilst we were clearly not only earnest, but
excited, in our opposition to Russia, we were comparatively careless and
lukewarm about any changes in their own system of government. _They must
have seen that the new convention_[29] _practically superseded even the
slightest restraints put upon them by the Treaty of Berlin, and that the
Christian population of Armenia were practically left entirely at their
mercy._
"Let us look back upon all these transactions as a whole, and try to
form some estimate of the position of responsibility in which they have
placed us towards the Christian populations subject to the Ottoman
dominion. In 1854-56 we had saved that dominion from destruction by
defeating, and locally disarming, its great natural enemy. We had set
up that dominion with new immunities from attack, and we had choked off
from any protectorate over the Christians the only Power which would or
could exert any such influence with effect. We had done this without
providing any substitute of our own, except a recorded promise from the
Turks. We had provided no machinery whereby bad faith on the part of
Turkey could be proved and punished. Then, twenty years later, in 1876,
we had obstinately refused to join the other Powers of Europe in
remedying this great defect, by putting a combined pressure on Turkey to
compel her to establish effective guarantee for the future. In 1878 we
had denounced the treaty in which Russia, by her own expenditure of
blood and treasure, had imposed on Turkey the obligations which we had
admitted to be needful, but which we had ourselves declined to do
anything to enforce. Then, in the same year, at Berlin, we had again
done all we could to choke off the only Power which had the means and
the disposition to secure the fulfilment of any promises at all.
_Particularly in Armenia we had substituted for a promise to Russia
which her power, her geographical position, and her pride might have
really led her to enforce, another promise to all the Powers which, on
the face of it, was absurd--namely, a promise to let all the Powers
'superintend the execution' of domestic reforms in a remote and very
inaccessible country._ Lastly, in the same year, as we had already
choked off Russia, we now proceeded by a separate Convention to choke
off also all the other Powers collectively, by inducing Turkey to give a
special promise to ourselves, apart from them altogether. For the
performance of this special promise we provided no security whatever,
but trusted entirely, as we had done in 1856, to the good faith of a
Power which we knew had none. _With Russia deeply offended and
estranged, and the rest of Europe set aside or superseded--such were the
conditions under which we abandoned the Christian subjects of the Porte
in Asia to a Government incurably barbarous and corrupt._
"And now, we are astonished and disgusted by finding that the terrible
consequences of all this selfish folly have fallen on those whom we had
professed, and whom we were bound by every consideration of honour, to
protect. Surely these years might have brought us a reconsideration of
our position. The fever of our popular Russophobia had sensibly abated.
We had secured our "scientific frontier" in India, and Russian expansion
had taken a new direction in the Far East. New combinations--and some
new disseverments--had taken place in Europe. The whole position of
affairs was favourable to a policy of escape from bad traditions--from
obsolete doctrines--and from duties which it was impossible we could
discharge. Surely we might have asked ourselves, What had we been doing
all these years to fulfil those duties? Nothing. And yet all along we
were not ignorant that the vicious Government which we had so long
helped to sustain against all the natural agencies that would have
brought it to an end long ago was getting no better, but rather worse.
We knew this perfectly well, and we have recorded our knowledge of it in
a document of unimpeachable authority. In the second year after the
Treaty of Berlin, when the obligations we had undertaken under it were
still fresh in our recollection, we had made one more endeavour to
recall the Ottoman Power to some sense of shame, if not to some sense of
duty. In 1880 we had a special Envoy at the Porte, one of our most
distinguished public men--Mr. Goschen; and we had called together at
Constantinople a meeting of all the Ambassadors of the six Powers of
Europe who were signatories of the Treaty of Berlin. They drew up an
Identic Note, which they all signed and presented to the Porte. In that
Note they declared that no reforms had been, or were even on the way to
being, adopted, and that 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.' Could a more dreadful
confession have been made in respect to the conduct and policy of any
Christian Government?
"This Identic Note commented severely on the calculated falsehoods of
all kinds, and on the cunning procrastinations, which characterized the
conduct and language of the Porte. It concluded by reminding that
Government, as an essential fact, 'that by treaty engagements Turkey was
bound to introduce the reforms which had been often indicated,' and that
these reforms were to be 'carried out under the supervision of the
Powers.'
"We might as well have addressed our representations to a convict just
released from a long sentence, and determined at once to renew his
career of crime. And so we had gone on for fifteen more years since
1880, failing to take, or even attempt taking, any effectual measures to
protect the helpless populations subject to a Government which we knew
to be so cruel and oppressive--_populations towards whom we lay under so
many responsibilities, from our persistent protection of their
oppressors_. At last comes, in 1894, one of those appalling outbreaks of
brutality on the part of the Turks which always horrify, but need never
astonish, the world. They are all according to what Bishop Butler would
have called the 'natural constitution and course of things,' that is to
say, they are the natural results of the nature and government of the
Ottoman Turks."
Such is the nature of Great Britain's debt to us. It was rashly incurred
by her statesmen. Successive British Governments have made strenuous
efforts and run great risks to discharge it. But it has proved
undischargeable for forty years, with consequences to us which are well
known. This terrible war and the ensuing peace will give Great Britain
both the power and the opportunity to discharge that obligation, and our
weapons for enforcing our claim are the honour, the conscience and the
never-failing sense of justice of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and
the British Empire. I appeal to these in the name of my sorely-stricken
nation, pale, prostrate and bleeding almost to death, to stand by us and
fight our battle at the Peace Conference. And if my appeal reaches a
wide enough circle of British and Irish men and women, I am confident
that my nation will not die, but will live and prosper, and carve out a
future that will amply compensate her for the past.