CHAPTER IX.

THE ARMENIAN QUESTION.

(p. 241-302)

AN HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

WE Young Turks unquestionably prefer the Armenians, and particularly the Armenian revolutionaries, to the Greeks and Bulgarians. They are a finer and braver race than the two other nations, open and candid, constant in their friendships, constant in their hatreds. We are absolutely convinced that the policy of Russia was alone responsible for the enmity between Turkish and Armenian elements. Sixty years ago, or, to speak more accurately, until ten years before the Russo- Turkish War of 1877-8, there was no question whatever of any religious conflict between the two races, i.e., religious differences between Mohammedans and Christians. In Anatolia, Rumelia, Constantinople, indeed throughout the Turkish Empire, the Armenians and Turks lived together in such harmony that Ottoman histories of that period do not even mention such a thing as an Armenian question. In family affairs there was no limit to Turco-Armenian friendship. When a Turk left his village in Asia Minor for some business journey he left his Armenian neighbours in full charge of his family, honours and rights, and the Armenians on their side showed equal confidence in their Turkish neighbours.

In the whole of Anatolia and Rumelia, and even in Constantinople there was not an Armenian who could speak Armenian. Turkish — in Armenian characters — was taught in all the schools, and in the churches Mass was said in Turkish. The highest offices of State were open to the Armenians, and they were regarded as the most loyal subjects of the Ottoman Empire.

(p. 242)

When the Beys of Kurdistan were overthrown by the Turks the Armenians who lived under their sway did not form an independent State. Under Kurdish domination they had suffered terrible oppression. Mr. Ambassador Morgenthau may say what he likes and take endless pains, as he does, to suppress the historical evidence. The fact is that just as justice and tolerance alone can explain the formation of the Turkish Empire and the rapid extension of Turkish dominion, so the magnanimity and friendship shown the Armenians won their gratitude. The result was that for five hundred years there was no sort of conflict between the two peoples and there was not a single Armenian who had not made the Turkish tongue and national customs his own.

When Sultan Fatih Mehmed Han allowed the Orthodox patriarchate to remain in existence after the capture of Constantinople and granted the Greeks (not as a result of any external pressure, but purely out of generosity and nobility of mind) a number of rights known as " religious privileges," he also founded an Armenian Patriarchate in the capital of his Empire, so that the rights of the Armenian nation, who were a national minority among the Mohammedans of Anatolia, should be the more worthily upheld. He also gave the Armenians the same rights and privileges he had granted to the Greeks.

On page 190 of his work Mandelstamm relies on the observations of a historian who, notwithstanding incontrovertible historical facts, is shameless enough to ascribe the tolerant generosity of the Turks solely to their contempt for all things Christian, which, in their eyes, were from the religious point of view impure !

In the year 1462 of the Christian era, at a time when throughout Europe the notion of the " rights of minorities " was utterly undeveloped, a Mohammedan Sultan at the height of his power allowed the Greek Patriarchate to continue in Constantinople. He granted the Greeks as " religious privileges " a whole series of special rights as to marriage, inheritance, and education. In his own capital he founded another Patriarchate for another nation which had lived under the yoke of Kurdish tyranny, and granted it the same rights and privileges. Yet shameless individuals of Mandelstamm's kidney do not shrink from ascribing this generosity to a feeling of contempt for everything Christian ! What an injustice !

Were not these rights granted by a great Turkish Sultan in the fifteenth century the highest application of those principles of the " Rights of Minorities " which President Wilson has endeavoured to get recognised by the civilised world ?

Has this principle received the same recognition and extension in the recent peace treaty with Austria at Saint Germain (which the Jugo-Slav and Rumanian Governments refused to accept) as it did in those rights granted by the Conqueror to the Christian nationalities ?

The Armenians know well enough that to these privileges alone they owe the fact that they have preserved their religion and nationality. Instead of the oppression they endured under the thraldom of the Kurds they have been able to live on the best of terms with the Turks, and especially with the Turkish Government. Why does Herr Mandelstamm, who gets his information from the works of men like Zarzeski and others, turn for proof to the sufferings and wrongs to which the Armenians were exposed before the nineteenth century under the feudal tyranny of the Kurdish Beys ? Why does he not think of the feudal tyranny in which the French nation lived before the Great Revolution ? It is not even necessary to go as far afield as that. Was the existence of the Russian mujiks more tolerable than that of the Armenians in Turkey ?

Herr Mandelstamm does not shrink from confessing himself an enthusiastic partisan of the Russian Revolution. Does he not know that we, too, know something about the Russian revolutionary writings and something about the oppression of the Russian peasants by their landlords, and not so long ago ? If Herr Mandelstamm has the audacity to maintain that those writings exaggerated we can assure him without hesitation that he is not speaking the truth.

I repeat once again that until after the Crimean War of 1856 the Turks and Armenians lived together on the best of terms and the former were never guilty of any wrongs against their Armenian neighbours. When the Russians turned greedy eyes on the Ottoman Empire they began to think it would be politically effective if they could make the Christian elements in Rumelia tools in their designs.

It produces a remarkable impression to find Herr Mandelstamm, after saying on page 300 of his book that the Russian Revolutionary Government thoroughly approved of the steps taken by Czarist Russia to support the Christian nations against Turkish oppression, and adding that " the mujik, who himself is a victim of the greatest oppression, has always gone to war to save the Greeks, Bulgars, and Serbs."

All this was the result of that famous policy which aroused fear and aversion throughout the world. For the sake of mankind we cannot but hope it will be doomed to eternal extinction along with Czarism.

It must, of course, be admitted that the nationalist tendencies which began to develop and spread about the middle of the nineteenth century was the direct explanation of the fact that the young Armenians who had gone to Europe and America to gain knowledge or a living absorbed that mental atmosphere which drove them to strive for an easier private life for their people and more independent political activities. This development was regarded by the Russian diplomats as a gift from God, and from that moment they left no stone unturned to excite the Armenians against their Government.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century Sultan Mahmud II. had taken extreme steps to restore order in his Empire, and suppress the administrative and military anarchy which had been the result of two hundred years of misgovernment. He abolished the janissaries, restricted the powers of the Beys of Anatolia and Rumelia until they had hardly any authority left, and also curbed the power of the Beys of Kurdistan.

(p. 249)

 Herr Mandelstamm cannot say that my statements are invented because the " Dachnakzutiun," which participated in the general congress of the Committee of Unity and Progress in Paris in 1907 and their published programme, closely approached the reforms at which we aimed. They also promised to work in co-operation with the Committee of Unity and Progress. Malumian Effendi (Agnoni), one of the leaders of the “Dachnakzutiun Committee,” whom I met in Constantinople in 1908, frequently spoke to me of the Russian danger which was hanging over the Armenians' heads.

But among the Armenian revolutionary committees were some like the " Hinjakists " and " Reformed Hinjakists," most of whose leaders had been bought by the Russians, who sought no rapprochement with the Turkish committees and were aiming at an Armenian State under Russian protection.

Thanks to the representatives of these Russian committees and the Russian money distributed by all the Russian Consulates which took an active part in the revolutionary organisations, even the ecclesiastical party began to say that the protection of the Russian Czar was preferable to that of the Mohammedan Khalif.

Such was the position of the Armenian and Turkish revolutionaries when the revolution of 1908 began. The secret " Committee of Unity and Progress " which was formed at Salonica had accepted as its domestic programme the establishment pf 1!he " Midhat Pasha " constitution. The basis of this constitution was the recognition of Ottomanism and simultaneous decentralisation of administration. On the other hand, the system of " political decentralisation " without recognition of Ottomanism was the goal aimed at by the Macedonian Bulgarian Committees, the Macedonian Greek Committees under the leadership of the Ethniki Heteria, the Macedonian National War Committee, and the revolutionary Albanian, Armenian, and Arab Committees.

" Decentralisation of the Administration " meant administrative local autonomy in a single " Ottoman Empire " for the various parts inhabited by the different national elements. If the Committee of Unity and Progress had held the same views as our external enemies, who desired nothing so much as the dismemberment of the Empire and left nothing undone in the way of plots and intrigues, it would not have hesitated for a moment to accept that principle of " political or legal autonomy," the greatest champion of which was Prince Sabaheddin. But France coveted Syria, the English hoped to make themselves masters of Mesopotamia and the whole Arabian Peninsula, the Russians were only waiting for a favourable opportunity to seize the eastern provinces of Anatolia, the Bulgarians and Serbs wanted to carve up Macedonia, the Italians and Austrians wished to lay hands on Albania, and the Greeks hoped to incorporate the islands of the Archipelago in their kingdom. If all these regions had been created provinces on the principle of "political decentralisation," would those nations have had the slightest difficulty in swallowing them up one after the other ? Would our decentralisation principle have stood the test of time any better than the decentralisation principle of Austria ? Did it make the Czecho-Slovaks, Croats, and Slovenes lose hope of breaking away altogether from Austria ? Would the authority and power of our central Government have proved more effective than those of the Austrian Government to protect the independent provinces against the intrigues of our even more numerous and covetous enemies? No region enjoyed a larger measure of administrative autonomy than the island of Crete. But did we succeed in compelling the Cretans to abandon their hope of uniting with Greece ? The Island of Cyprus had a privileged position before the English occupation, but did we not hear the same story every year-the age-old desire for incorporation with Greece ?

Were we able to prevent the Bulgarians from taking Eastern Rumelia, though Rumelia enjoyed a generous administrative autonomy ? Did England have any difficulty in occupying Egypt, which was among the most highly privileged of our provinces ? Have the English hesitated to lay hands on Kuiveit, a dependency of the Ottoman Khalifate for centuries, after announcing that the Sheik Mubarek el Sabah had accepted English protection ? Did the English find any difficulty in treating Mesopotamia as their sphere of influence on the pretext that the local population were longing for English protection ? Could not the same be said of the French with regard to Syria ? And can we regard Macedonia or Albania in a different light to Eastern Rumelia and Bosnia- Herzegovina ?

Jemal Pasha: Minister of the Navy

  I do not think the advocates of “ political decentralisation “ can give a logical and satisfactory answer to all these problems. To those who reproach us with having pursued a “ purely Turkish policy," I reply emphatically that our policy was not a " Turkish " policy, but the policy of Ottoman unity. If we had accepted the decentralisation principle, the Committee would, indeed, have had to pursue a " Turkish " policy, for we should have had to demand the same local autonomy for vilayets inhabited solely by Turks as for the other provinces. So those who confess themselves " Turks " only are really advocates of '" decentralisation," for in effect they are simply following a purely Turkish policy. We, on the other hand, whose policy was Ottoman unity, had accepted as a fundamental principle that the influence of the Central Government on the vilayets should not be diminished, though the local administration should be granted the most extensive powers, always provided that the unity of army organisation should not be prejudiced.

Young Turkey realised that among the various Ottoman elements which were struggling for the advancement of their respective nationalities the Turks alone were isolated and without leaders, and so they, too, began to work for a great national revival in knowledge, education and virtue. The Committee of Unity and Progress had no right to put any obstacles in their way, and I cannot imagine that the advocates of decentralisation would have wished to oppose their endeavours.

Can it be said that the '" Turkification " of the nations was involved in the demand that the Turkish language should be the official tongue in the Ottoman Empire ? Were we engaged in the " Turkification " of the other nations when we said that public education in the Ottoman Empire must be under the supervision of the Government and well conducted ?

Just after the inauguration of the constitution a number of national committees were established in Constantinople, committees such as the " Arab Union," the " Cherkess Mutual Help Society," the " Kurdish Club," the " Albanian Club," and many others. Then why is it said that the foundation of the " Ottoman Home " proves that the Unionist Government had " Turkification " designs ?

Speaking for myself, I am primarily an Ottoman, but I do not forget that I am a Turk, and nothing can shake my belief that the Turkish race is the foundation stone of the Ottoman Empire. The educational and civilising influence of the Turks cements Ottoman unity and strengthens the Empire, for in its origins the Ottoman Empire is a Turkish creation.

If any evidence is required, look at the tragic situation in which we find ourselves to-day. Look at the Arabs, who rose against us in the hope of gaining their independence. Where are they today ? I have referred to this point before.

Immediately after Egypt deserted the Ottoman Union it fell under English domination. The moment Young Egypt protested against that domination England's heavy fist descended upon them. The coast region of Syria and Lebanon are not enough for France. She wants to occupy the interior as well.

Does anyone in those countries ever speak of Ottomanism ? On the contrary, the cry, “ By the grace of God we are freed from Ottomanism,” is ever on the lips of a crowd of traitors who have lived on the favour of the Government. But the voice raised in Anatolia — that sacred land to the Turks — proclaims that the " Ottoman Empire " still exists, and her noble sons who dwell in Western Thrace — that little Turkish corner — have never ceased to strive for their union with the Empire. In short, all Turks — wherever they are — endeavour to assert themselves and seek refuge in the glorious Ottoman name. We appeal to all who wish to preserve the cause of Ottoman unity to realise their holy duty of encouraging the Turks, increasing their number, and giving them their place in the sun.

I hope my little diversion, for the purpose of making my personal views widely known, may not be regarded as superfluous.

In accordance with the Act of the Constitution, the Central Committee of " Unity and Progress " expressed a desire to form the various revolutionary political committees in the country into one " Political Committee of Ottoman Unity ." With that end in view it first of all got into touch with the various Bulgarian revolutionary committees. We opened negotiations with the celebrated Sandansky, Chernopexiff, and their friends. But, whereas we regarded the principle of Ottomanism as the basis of the negotiations, they refused to make the slightest concession, and demanded the autonomy of Macedonia. God alone knows what we had to put up with at those conferences in which Talaat Bey and I participated as delegates. I shall never forget the painful day I spent with Sandansky in the Bulgarian villages of Menlik, Petric, and Osmanje Djuma-i-Bala at the time of the first elections. Yet we got on better with them than with any of the other revolutionary committees, for the Macedonian Bulgarian Committee absolutely refused to abandon its own programme.

A Greek, who had come to Salonika to negotiate in the name of the Ethniki Heteria, proposed that Crete and Samos should be annexed by Greece, that the other islands should be granted administrative autonomy, and so-called Greek Macedonia the most far-reaching privileges. As compensation there was to be an alliance between Greece and Turkey. We rejected these proposals as, of course, what we wanted was not a Turco-Greek alliance, but that the Greeks of Turkey should join our Committee of Unity and Progress so that Ottoman unity could become a reality.

In August, 1908, the Central Committee was provisionally transferred to Constantinople, where we opened negotiations on the same principles with Prince Sabaheddin and the Armenian Committee. Our party was represented by Talaat Bey, Behaeddin Shakir Bey and myself. Dr. Reschad Nihad represented Prince Sabaheddin, while Malumian and Shahirikian Effendi acted on behalf of the Armenians. We demonstrated to them in turn all the drawbacks the principle of decentralisation involved for the Ottoman Empire. Prince Sabaheddin's views were more or less those of the Dachnakzutiun Committee. They both replied to us in the same sense.

It was curious that Dr. Reschad Nihad asked us to grant privileges even more extensive than those claimed by the Armenian Revolutionary Committee and refused to consider the disadvantages those privileges involved. At length Malumian Effendi, speaking in the name of the Dachnakzutiun Committee, made the following proposal :

The Dachnakzutiun Committee will work hand in hand widl the Committe of Unity and Progress to safeguard the constitution in the Ottoman Empire. but otherwise each Committee retains full freedom of action both as to the realisation of its main programme and the choice of means. This means that the Dachnakzutiun Committee will maintain its revolutionary organisation in the country with the single difference that the organisation, which has hitherto been secret, will now come forward openly as a political committee and its members will work in public.

Of course we had no alternative but to accept this proposal. To put it shortly, after all our sacrifices and three or four months of unceasing labour, we had not succeeded in incorporating the revolutionary committees of the other nationalities in our II Unity and Progress " Association because our aims and theirs diverged too greatly. They wanted to carryon in public their propaganda in favour of autonomy and independence, propaganda which had hitherto been secret and exposed to great perils. They hoped in that way to reach their goal all the sooner. We, on the other hand, wanted to give the Committee of Unity and Progress the prestige of a joint association of all revolutionary committees of the Ottoman nationalities, just as the Empire itself had come into being by the joint association of all those nationalities. We wanted the necessity of Ottoman unity to be realised and recognised by all the elements so that the constitution should be safe from any danger .

Just as all Republicans in France at once unite against the aggressor the moment they consider the Republic in danger, the '" Unity and Progress " Association, composed of all the old revolutionary committees, was to call upon its members to rise as one against the slightest attack on the constitution. Just as the Republicans in France comprise men of the most varying political views and adherents of different parties, our '" Unity and Progress " Association was to comprise men of different political views and parties, without prejudice to their national and religious convictions.

None of the political parties whose aims were exclusively nationalist were willing to accept this super-national programme, for in reality they were receiving their directions from abroad, and as far as we were concerned they were simply puppets. Thus the Dachnakzutiun Committee, which was the most favourably inclined to us and had a very real fear of seeing Armenia fall under the Russian yoke, maintained its own organisation, and publicly announced its intention of continuing its work for the realisation of its political aims. The Armenian Hinjakists and Reformed Hinjakists absolutely refused to enter into negotiations with us and their leaders in Constantinople or entered into open relations with the Russian Embassy.

In 1909, at the instigation of the Committee of Unity and Progress, Hussein Hilmi Pasha's Cabinet decided to send a commission of enquiry to the eastern vilayets to settle the agrarian disputes which had broken out in those vilayets between the Armenians, Turks, and Kurds. Ghalib Bey, Member of the Senate and Supreme Administrative Court, was appointed chairman of the commission, which, in addition to him, was composed of two 1'urkish and two Armenian members. One of the Turkish member was Major Zeki Bey, of the General Staff, who had been on the best of terms with the Dachnakzutiun Committee when he was in Europe, I was the other member. Once more it was the leaders of the Dachnakzutiun who asked that I should be a member of this committee. In the previous negotiations they had realised that my yiews were just .and impartial, and they assumed that as I was a member of the Central Committee, my decisions would be less exposed to attack by the committee. Glad to fall in with the suggestion, I left Salonica for Constantinople. Yet this proposal of the Government was most violently attacked in the Chamber by the deputies for the eastern vilayets, who maintained that to send a commission of enquiry was to encroach upon the constitutional authority of the Governor-General. As Ferid Pasha, then Minister of the Interior, proved incompetent to defend the Government's views to the Chamber, I had to wait idly in Constantinople until the events of March 31st (April 13th), 1909.

After those events the scheme was entirely dropped, and at the end of May, 1909, I was appointed Governor of Skutari.

THE ADANA AFFAIR AND AFTER.

Just at the time when the revolt of March 31st began with the avowed object of finishing with the leaders of the Committee of Unity and Progress and their followers there was a Turco- Armenian massacre in Adana.

As I was appointed Governor of Adana about the middle of August, 1909, four months after this occurrence, I may maintain that no one was better qualified than I to enquire into the psychological causes of this massacre, one of the most painful events in the history of our constitution.

After the constitution was proclaimed the civil population in every part of the Ottoman Empire had become so unruly that no one, from the lowest gendarme to the mighty Governor-General, had any influence with them. 'The word " freedom " was interpreted both by Press and public in a very erroneous sense, and every man thought he could do exactly what he liked without penalty. Several valis and many civil police and legal officials who had oppressed the people during the Absolutist regime were now subjected to very ugly and illegal attacks. Men who had never even heard the name of " Unity and Progress " before the promulgation of the constitution often paraded as " heroes of liberation," and went so far as to interfere with Government officials in the execution of their duty. My memories of the early days of the constitution, when I was a member of the Central Committee, are full of occurences of that kind.

The Central Committee did everything in its power to check such excesses and to protect everyone, whether guilty or innocent, against illegal attacks. With a view to imbuing the public with the essential principles of the committee's programme special deputies were sent out with the task of founding sections in all places where the committee had not yet established local organisations. Unfortunately, generally speaking, these deputies were not well chosen. Some of them allowed themselves to be carried away by the spirit of indiscipline prevailing among the people, and forgot that the main purpose of our regulations was to maintain the prestige of the Government in the country.

Later on several politicians who came forward as opponents of " Unity and Progress " used the harmful and peculiar interpretation put upon the word " freedom " in the Press to make attacks upon the committee and plunge the country into a perfectly hope- less anarchy. As th~ Government was deprived of all prestige and power in the capital of the Empire, it is easy to imagine the state of affairs in the provinces. Many men who failed to secure important positions in the local Unity and Progress Committees which we established founded branches of the various political committees which were gradually formed in Constantinople and took their revenge that way.

The Mohammedan and Turkish population was thus at sixes and sevens, while the Christian population through their own committees worked hard for the realisation of their programme.

(p. 257)

In the vilayet of Adana the Turkish population is in a majority. After it come the Armenians, then the Arabs (known by the name of "Arab Uschagi"), and finally the Greeks. The vilayet has a population of five hundred and fifty thousand. There are about sixty thousand Armenians, between twenty and twenty-five thousand Arab Uschagi, and ten to fifteen thousand Greeks. All the rest are Turks. For centuries these people, who are mostly engaged in agriculture, have lived together in the greatest peace and harmony.

It is an incontestable fact that long before the Ottomans came the vilayet of Adana was Turkish, for the Ottomans seized it from a Turkish ruling family known under the name of " Ramazun Oghullari." Although history tells us that at the time of the Crusades there was an Armenian kingdom called Cicilia in this region, it is equally true that a large number had settled in the country at that time, and the Turkish feudal Beys did not like that kingdom.

The majority of the Armenians now dwelling in the vilayet of Adana had their original home in Diabekir, Sivas and Mamuret-ul-Asis. They migrated during the nineteenth century in the hope of seeking their fortune. The real Adana-born Armenians are to be found in the town of Hadjin, on the northern border of the vilayet, in a few villages in the neighbourhood of Sis, chief town of the Sandjak of Kozan, and in Dort Yol, on the shores of the Gulf of Alexandretta, and some villages in its vicinity.

The Arab-Uschagi are part of the population which was transplanted from the Sandjak of Lazkie, under the government of Sultan Abdul Aziz, in order to cultivate the plain of Adana, which was very fertile, but at that time sparsely populated.

As I have already said, the Turks and Armenians, as, indeed, the rest of the population, had previously lived together on the very best of terms, and there was no reason to anticipate any sort of strife between them. At the time of the disorders and massacres of 1894-1896 nothing at all had happened in the vilayet of Adana, and Turks and Armenians had worked together to prevent the spread of disorder into their district. Their efforts had not been without success. After the promulgation of the constitution the Armenians of Adana founded local branches of the Dachnakzutiun, Hinjakists and Reformed Hinjakists in opposition to the Turkish political committees which were being formed, or rather — to speak more accurately — they continued openly those activities of their organisation which they had hitherto carried on in secret.

At this time the Armenian vicar in Adana was a young and ambitious priest named Muscheg Effendi, who was also leader of the Reformed Hinjakists. The Armenians could not say enough about the licentiousness of this man. If all the stories told about him by the Armenians are true, it may be stated without exaggeration that he was the incarnation of all the evil instincts.

After the promulgation of the constitution Monsignor Muscheg regarded himself as the religious and political head of Adana. I was told that this priest, shamelessly taking advantage of the weakness of the Government, adopted a most insulting attitude towards the Governor-General at a meeting of the Administrative Council, and left the assembly in a furious rage after threatening to box the ears of the Colonel of Gendarmerie for the vilayet. I was also told by Armenians that at this time a considerable number of young Armenians — acolytes of Monsignor Muscheg — carried their effrontery so far as to proclaim publicly at various meetings that it would not be long before the Armenians were liberated from the Turkish yoke.

To be fair, I should add that the delegate of the Dachnakzutiun had no part in Monsignor Muscheg's excesses, and did not fail to draw the attention of the Dachnakzutiun deputies in Constantinople to the very evil results of his conduct.

But Monsignor Muscheg was not content with all this. He sent to Europe for rifles and revolvers with which to arm the Armenians. At this time the Government was permitting everything, even traffic in arms and their importation. Monsignor Muscheg let it be known publicly in all quarters that, " as the Armenians are armed at last, they no longer fear a repetition of the massacres of 1894, and that if anything happened to any Armenians ten Turks would pay for it with their lives." These declarations and Monsignor Muscheg’s acts compelled the Turks of Adana to take similar steps.

It is at this point that the heavy responsibility of the then Government of Adana begins, for an admission of weakness can never be a permissible excuse for the authorities. When Monsignor Muscheg's unruly agitation began to have its evil influence on the local population the safest course would have been at 9nce to arrest him and his adherents, and also any Turks who seemed likely to promote disorder, hold a legal investigation with- out delay, and, if necessary, threaten the vitayet with martial law . But at that time the Grand Vizier himself, Hussein Hilmi Pasha, did not dare to adopt energetic measures in Constantinople. It was he who had been insulted by members of the Mohammedie Committee in the avenue leading to the Sublime Forte on the occasion of the funeral of the journalist, Hassan Felimi Bey. The first duty of a Government is to make it clear to the nation that freedom and anarchy are not the same thing. Unhappily, we had no such Government in the Turkish Empire at the end of 1908 and the beginning of 1909.

At this period the Governor-General of Adana was Djevad Bey. He may certainly be regarded as a model of uprightness, but, unfortunately, he was also a model of administrative incapacity. He was in no way equal to the demands made upon a vali of Adana. An old soldier, General Mustafa Renizi Pasha, commanded the division. In his youth he had come to the front through his great energy, and he always maintained the traditions of honourable patriotism. But it cannot be said that this officer, who was both old and without any police powers, possessed the qualifications required by the military commander of Adana.

In the Sandjak of Bjebel Bereket the mutessarif was Assaf Bey, who was so timid that he was afraid of his own shadow. I have never been able to understand how such an individual came to be appointed Vice-Governor.

At the beginning of the year 1909 a rumour was going round that the Armenians would rise and destroy the Turks in the immediate future. They would use the opportunity to let the vilayet be occupied by contingents from the fleets of European Powers, and then proceed to form an Armenian State. The Turks were so convinced of the truth of these rumours that many reputable people took their families to a place of safety.

"Djemal Pasha (x), followed by his aide-de-camp, Nusret Bey, and Hassan Bey, the Director of Deportations, reviewing the Armenian orphans at Damascus." Photo and caption from the Naim-Andonian reprint of 1964. Goodwill shown toward Armenians must always be represented as evil intentions, where hateful propagandists are concerned.

 
THE REFORMS.

In August, 1912, when I left the administration of Bagdad (where I was sent on from Adana) and returned to Constantinople. the Ottoman Empire was passing through one of the most dangerous crises of its existence. (1) We were in the throes of war with Italy. (2) Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece had formed an alliance and were searching for some excuse for making war on us. (3) The Albanians were in revolt. (4) The whole Syrian Press was vomiting flames against the Government and demanding reforms for the Arabian provinces. (5) The Armenian Patriarch was addressing note after note to the Sublime Porte and insisting upon reforms in Armenia. (6) Perhaps the greatest danger of all — a number of officers had banded together under the name of the " Officer Liberators Group " (Halaskiaran) and were promoting deadly anarchy in the army. It could be said with perfect truth that the troops at the Dardanelles and in Smyrna and Albania were completely out of hand. At the head of the Government was Ghazi Muhtar Pasha's Cabinet.

During all these troubles the Balkan War began. The politicians of Russia and France took advantage of our various military failures to get to work. The French egged on the Arabs to demand reforms in Syria, and the Russian Ambassador at Constantinople, Baron von Giers, raised the Armenian question once more and handed the Minister of the Interior the following note on November 26th, 1912 :

Since the memorable events of 1894-1896, when Asia Minor and Constantinople were bleeding from the barbarous Armenian massacres, the position has in no way improved. Effect has not been given to the reforms decreed by Sultan Abdul Hamid on October 2oth, 1895, as a result of Russian, French, and English pressure. The agrarian question is becoming more and more acute from day to day. Most of the landed estates have been or are being seized by the Kurds, and instead of forbidding this illegal confiscation, the authorities are protecting and assisting the usurpers. The reports of all our consulates agree as to the acts of brigandage perpetrated by the Kurds, the unprecedented exactions, the murder of Armenians, and forced conversion of Armenian women. The miscreants are hardly ever dealt with according to law. The memoir presented by the Armenian Patriarch in Constantinople to the Sublime Porte and the Minister of the Interior gives a true picture of the miseries and persecution to which the Armenian subjects of the Sultan are exposed.

This state of things (continued Baron von Giers) sufficiently accounts for the fact that the Armenian nation is looking more and more to Russia. The Russian consulates in Armenia all bear witness to the state of public feeling there. The Armenians are demanding the introduction of reforms under Russian super- vision or even a Russian occupation. The Armenians professing the Catholic faith are imploring Russia, the "ancient protectress of the Christians of the East," in the name of the Almighty to take the wretched Armenian population in Turkish Armenia under her protection. The Ambassador is of opinion that t!he Armenian question is of the highest importance to Russia. and desires the Government will do what is necessary to remedy matters. He regards an occupation as premature and advocates reforms. But in doing so he does not forget the tragic fate of the decree of 1895, and insists upon the necessity of the reforms being effectively supervised by Russian or European officials. In view of the state of anarchy in which Turkey is plunged at the moment, the possibility must be reckoned with that the reforms will not have the calming effect desired and that it may be necessary for our troops to enter this region.

As early as the beginning of 1912 the Catholicos of Etschmiazin in Russia had sent the Boghos Nubar Pasha, to the Cabinets of Europe with a commission to demand administrative autonomy for Turkish Armenia. This proceeding was nothing but a step in Russian policy.

What a strong resemblance there was between the course taken by the Russians (which was designed to conceal their real intentions with regard to Armenia) and the policy pursued by France in Syria !

A Mohammedan of Beirut, member of the Arab Congress which met in Paris at the beginning of 1913, said to Monsieur Pichon, the French Foreign Minister :

Although we have called our congress in Paris. our only object is to obtain reforms for the Arab provinces from the Ottoman Government. We want neither a French occupation of Syria nor a French protectorate.

To prove that France had no arrière pensée with regard to Syria Herr Pichon reported this conversation to Herr Bompard, the French Ambassador in Constantinople. Almost at the same moment, on March 15th, 1913, the Russians said the same thing, possibly in the same words, to the Boghos Nubar Pasha.

What I say is confirmed by the following letter of February 28th (March 13th) from M. Isvolsky, the Russian Minister in Paris, to H. Sasonov, the Russian Foreign Minister.

Boghos Nubar Pasha (the Ambassador writes) repeatedly asserts that the Armenians of Turkey in no way desire to bring up the question of independence or constitutional changes. Their sole aim is to secure the reforms drawn up by Russia, France and England and provided for in the Treaty of Berlin, reforms which have remained a dead letter hitherto.

I think this remarkable coincidence in the views of the Arab and Armenian reformers is sufficient proof of the policy pursued by Russia and France with the object of dismembering Turkey.

(p. 265):

On March 22nd, 1913, the Russian Foreign Minister at length took the first step in the matter of the Armenian reforms. In a telegram of that date to the Russian Ambassador in Berlin M. Sassonoff called on Germany to associate herself with an international appeal to the Sublime Porte. The date coincides with the time when the Ottoman Government, utterly helpless, saw itself compelled to sign the preliminary peace in London and recognise the Enos-Midia line as the Turco-Bulgarian frontier.

At this time, too, the national demonstrations of the Armenians in Constantinople began to take unusual forms. They organised great celebrations in memory of the anniversary (I do not know which anniversary) of the discovery of the Armenian alphabet. They carried their audacity to the point of throwing confetti in the Armenian national colours about the streets. We bore all this with unshakable patience, and took the necessary steps to prevent ugly incidents. I was then Military Governor of Constantinople, and on an invitation from the Armenians went to the Tascion Garden and made a speech, speaking in the highest terms of the Armenian nation.

The course taken by the Russian Foreign Minister was to hand the representatives of the Great Powers in Constantinople a new scheme of reforms based upon the draft issued by the Ottoman Government in 1895. England and France at once fell in with their proposal. Germany alone suggested that plenipotentiaries of the Sublime Porte should be invited to join the committee to be formed by representatives of the Ambassadors. This suggestion was rejected out of hand by Russia, and Germany's consent was ultimately obtained to the establishment of a committee consisting of the Dragomans of the Embassies, which was to study the Armenian question. The only Government really concerned in the matter was calmly excluded.

Before the committee started on its work Russia had already had a scheme of reform prepared by Mandelstamm, the First Dragoman of the Embassy in Constantinople. I leave it to the conscience of the author to decide whether, under the pretext of preserving the rights of a national minority in a great empire, he can reconcile his sense of shame and the presentation of such a scheme of reforms to an independent State. In view of its great importance, I give the exact text of the Russian scheme:

I do not think anyone can have the slightest doubt that within a year of the acceptance of these proposals the vilayets of Erzerum, Vovas, Van, Bitlis, Diarbekir, and Mamure-el-Aziz would have become a Russian protectorate or, at any rate, have been occupied by the Russians.

During the negotiations the German delegate had always endeavoured to preserve and advance the rights of the Ottoman Government, while the Russian representative did his utmost to undermine them.

The delegates of England and France supported Russia, while the Austrian and Italian representatives appeared to take the same view as their German colleague.

The Commission, which first met on July 3rd, 1913, broke up on July 23rd. In spite of several sittings it had done nothing, as Russia's object was to carry out this scheme without any modifications, while Germany wanted to protect the Ottoman Government as much as possible. At length, in September, 1913, Baron von Giers succeeded in persuading Baron von Wangenheim, the German Ambassador at Constantinople, to accept a basic programme of six points. Then began negotiations between Said Halim Pasha, Grand Vizier and Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the two diplomatists.

(p. 272):

After we knew of the six fundamental points, we saw that it would be possible for the Ottoman Government to give effect to them itself and without any external pressure. We thereupon worked out a very comprehensive programme for the whole Empire and communicated it to the great Powers through our Ambassadors.

In accordance with this programme the whole Empire was to be divided into six General-Inspectorates, two of which were to be formed of the vilayets of eastern Anatolia.

With a view to foiling Russian intrigues, we wanted to let the English supervise these two districts. Tewfik Pasha, our Ambassador in London, was asked to enquire of Sir Edward Grey whether two English officials would be sent, and he replied that the English seemed inclined to fav-our this plan. The Grand Vizier immediately put forward the request officially. The moment England accepted this proposal the doom of Russia's designs would be sealed. A fortnight later, when the news came through that England could not undertake the appointment of the officials for eastern Anatolia without Russian consent, we had to abandon all our hopes and realise that England had once and for all sacrificed us to Russian ambition.

We were compelled to continue the negotiations between the German and Russian Ambassadors, and on February 8th, 1914, the resulting agreement was signed by M. Gulkievitch, the Charge d ' Affaires of the Russian Embassy, and Said Halim Pasha.

THE TURCO-RUSSIAN AGREEMENT OF JANUARY 26TH (FEBRUARY 8TH), 1914.

(Orange Book, NO.147.)

His Exce