The Turks And Europe By Gaston Gaillard.doc

Excerpts and Comments by Sukru Server Aya on: “THE TURKS AND EUROPE”

(GASTON GAILLARD London, Thomas Murphy & Co., 1921)

P.274: Each of the four districts o Zeitun was governed by the chief who had assumed the title of “ishehan” or prince, a kind of nobleman whom the Turkish villages had to pay some taxes collected by special agents….

The Armenians had already refused to pay the taxes and had rebelled between 1782 and 1851 at which time the Turkish incensed at the looting and exactions of the Armenian mountaineers, left their farms and emigrated…

The movement was spurred on and eagerly supported by Armenians living abroad and in 1865, after the so called Turkish exactions the Nationalist committees openly rebelled against the Government and demanded the independence of Zeitun. Henceforth rebellion followed rebellion, and one of them, foments by the Hunchagists, lasted three months

In 1890 the Huntschag and Tashnaksuitoun committees stirred up riots at Erzerum and in 1894 at Samsun, where the patriarch Ashikian was fired at, as has just been seen. In 1905 the Tashnakists started a new insurrection. The rebellion extended to Amasia, Sivas, Tokat, Mush and Van and the committees endeavored to spread and intensify it. In 1905-06 the maneuvers of the Armenian committees succeeded in rousing hostile feelings between Kurds and Armenians, which no reform whatsoever seemed able to sooth. And in 1909-10 when new troubles broke out, the revolutionary leaders openly attacked the Government troops. .

P.277-278 In this way the Armenian Christians contributed to the extension of the Russian Empire. In 1904-05, the Nestorians asked for Russian priests and expressed their intention to embrace the Orthodox Faith. The Armenians of Bitlis, Diarbekir, and Kharput in 1907 handed the Russian consul a petition bearing over 200.000 signatures, in which they asked to become Russian subjects.

The Huntchagist leader, Sabah-Guian, even owned in the Augah Hayassdan (Independent Armenia) newspaper that the members of the committee had taken advantage of the Turks’ carelessness to open shops, where rifles were being sold at half-price or even given away.

The Armenian committees took advantage of the new parliamentary elections to stir up a new agitation. They increased their activity, and, contrary to their engagements, corresponded with the members of the opposition who had fled abroad.

During the Balkan war in 1913 the Tashnakist committees issued manifestoes against the Ottoman Government and the Union party. The Russian consuls at Erzerum and Bitlis did not conceal their sympathy, and at Van the Russian consul threatened to the vali to ask Russian troops to come through Azerbaijan under the pretext of averting the fictitious dangers the Armenians were supposed to run, and of restoring order.

Now, whereas Russia at home unmercifully stifled all the attempts of the Armenian committees, she encouraged and energetically supported the agitators in Turkey. Moreover, in the report addressed by the Russian consul at Bitlis to the Russian ambassador in Constantinople, dated December 24, 1912. and bearing number 63, the Russian Government was informed that the aim of the Tashnakists was, as they expressly said, “to bring the Russians here,” and that, in order “to reach this end, the Tashnakists are resorting to various means, and doing their best to bring about collisions between Armenians and Moslems, especially with Ottoman troops.” in support of this statement he mentioned a few facts that leave no doubt about its veracity. This report contained the following lines, which throw considerable light on the Allies policy:

“Your Excellency will understand that the future collisions between Armenians and Moslems will partly depend on the line of conduct and activity of the Tashnaktsutioun committee, on the turn taken by the peace negotiations between Turkey and the Slavonic States of the Balkans, and on the eventuality of an occupation of Constantinople by the Allies. If the deliberations of the London Conference did not bring about peace, the coming downfall of the Ottoman capital would certainly influence the re1abons between Moslems and Armenians at Bitlis. “Both in towns and in the country the Armenians, together with their religious leaders, have always displayed much inclination and affection for Russia, and have repeatedly declared the Turkish Government is unable to maintain order, justice, and prosperity in their country. Many Armenians have already promised to offer the Russian soldiers their churches to be converted into orthodox places of worship.”

“The present condition of the Balkans, the victory of the Slav and Hellenic Governments over Turkey, have delighted the Armenians and filled their hearts with the cheerful hope of being freed from Turkey.”

Of course, the corning to Bitlis of a mixed Commission of Armenians and Turks under the presidency of an Englishmen, to carry out reforms in the Turkish provinces near the Caucasus, did not please the Armenians and Russians who had sacrificed many soldiers to get possess these regions.

P.279 - 280 Taking advantage of the difficulties experienced by the Ottoman Government after the Balkan war, the committees agreed together to raise anew the question of “reforms in the Eastern provinces”. A special commission, presided over by M. Boghos Nubar, was sent by the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin to the European Governments to uphold the Armenian claims.. At the same time a campaign was started by the Armenian newspapers in Europe. Constantinople, and America, especially by the Agadamard, the organ of the Tashnaktsutioun committee, which had no scruple in slandering the Turks and announcing sham outrages.

In 1913 Russia proposed a scheme of reforms to be instituted in Armenia. it was communicated by M. de Giers to the Six Ambassadors Conference, which appointed a commission to report on it As the German and Austrian representatives raised objections to the Russian scheme before that Commission of Armenian Reforms, which met from June 20 to July 3, 1913, at the Austrian embassy at Yenikoy, Russia, after this defeat, strove to bring over Germany to her views.

In September, 1913, M. de Giers and M. de Wangenheim came to terms on a programme to which the Porte opposed a counter-proposal. Yet the Russian representatives succeeded in concluding a Russo-Turkish agreement. January 26 to February 8. 1914. When the scheme of reforms was outlined, and the powers and jurisdiction of the inspectors and their staff were settled, the Catholicos sent a telegram of congratulation to M. Boghos Nubar and the latter sent another to M. Sazonov, for the Armenian committees considered the arrangement as a first step towards autonomy. Encouraged by this first success, the committees exerted themselves more and more. The Tashnaktsutioun transferred its seat to Erzerum, where it held a congress. The Huntchag committee sent to Russia and Caucasus several of its most influential members to raise funds in order to foment a rising to attack the Union and Progress party especially, and to overthrow the Government. Such was the state of things when war broke out.

The Patriarch, who passed himself off as representing the Armenian people, gathered together under his presidency the leaders of the Tashnaktsutioun, the Huntchag, Ramgavar and the Veragaznia!-Huntchag, and the members of the National Assembly who were affiliated to these committees to decide what attitude they were to take in case the Ottoman Government should enter into the war. No decision was taken, the Huntchakists declining to commit themselves and the Tashnakists stating they preferred waiting to see how things would turn out. Yet these committees carried on their activities separately, and sent instructions to the provinces that, if the Russians advanced, alt means should be resorted to in order to impede the retreat of the Ottoman troops and hold up their supplies, and if, on the contrary, the Ottoman army advanced, the Armenian soldiers should leave their regiments, form themselves into groups, and go over to the Russians.

The committees availed themselves of the difficulties of the Ottoman Government, which had recently come out of a disastrous war and had just entered into a new conflict, to bring about risings at Zeitun, in the sandjaks of Marash and Cesarea, and chiefly in the vilayet of Van, at BitIis, Talvari, and Mush in the vilayet of Bitlis, and in the vilayet of Erzerum.

P.281-282 In the sandjaks of Erzerum and Bayazid, as soon as the decree of mobilization was issued, most of the Armenian soldiers went over to the Russians, were equipped and armed anew by them, and then sent against the Turks. The same thing occurred at Erzindjan, where three-fourths of the Armenians crossed the Russian frontier. The Armenians of the vilayet of Mamouret’ ul Azig (Kharput), where the Mussulmans were also attacked and where depots of arms had been concealed, provided with numerous recruits the regiments dispatched by Russia to Van and the Persian frontier. Many emissaries had been sent from Russia and Constantinople to Dersim and its area to raise the Kurds against the Ottoman Government. So it was in the vilayet of Diarbekir, though the Armenians were in a minority. Depots of arms of all descriptions were discovered there, together with many refractory soldiers. In the Karahissar area, where several revolutionary movements had broken out during and after the Balkan war, the Armenians refused to obey the decree of mobilization and were only waiting for the corning of the Russians to rebel. Similar incidents -such as mutinous soldiers, attacks against the Turks, threats to families of mobilized Ottomans- occurred in the vilayet of Angora. In the vilayet of Van, when the Russians, reinforced by Armenian volunteers, started an offensive, some Armenian peasants gathered together and prepared to attack the Ottoman officials and the gendarmerie. At the beginning of 1915 rebellions took place at Kevash, Shatak. Havassour, and Timar, and spread in the kazas of Arjitch and Adeljvaz. At Van over five thousand rebels, seven hundred of whom attacked the fortress, blew up the military and Government buildings, the Ottoman Bank, the offices of the Public Debt, the excise office, the post and telegraph offices, and set fire to the Moslem quarter. When this insurrection subsided about the end of April, numerous Armenian bands, led by Russian officers, attempted to cross the Russian and Persian frontiers.

After the capture of Van, the Armenians gave a great dinner in honor of General Nicolaiev, commander-in-chief of the Russian army in Caucasus, who made a speech in which he said: “Since 1826, the Russians have always striven to free Armenia, but political circumstances have always prevented their success. Now, as the grouping of nations has been quite altered, we may hope Armenians will soon be free. Aram Manoukian, known as Aram Pasha, soon after appointed provisional Governor of Van by General Nicolaiev, replied: When we rose a month ago, we expected the Russians would come. At a certain moment, our situation was dreadful. We had to choose between surrender and death. We chose death. But when we no longer expected your help, it has suddenly arrived.” The Armenian bands even compelled the Ottoman Government to call back troops from the front to suppress their revolutionary maneuvers in the vilayet of Brusa and the neighborhood. At Adana, as in the other provinces, all sorts of insurrectionary movements were smoldering.

P.283-284: Under such circumstances, the Turkish Government tried to crush these revolutionary efforts by military expeditions, and the repression was merciless. A decree of the Government about changes of residence of the Armenian populations included measures for the deportation of Armenians. As the Turks are generally so listless, and as similar methods had been resorted to by the Germans on the Western front, these measures may have been suggested to the Turks by the Germans.

Tahsin Pasha, Governor of Van, was replaced by Jevdet Bey, Envers brother-in-law, and Khalil Pasha, another relation of Enver, had command of the Turkish troops in the Urmia area. Talaat sent Mustafa Khalil, his brother-in-law, to Bitlis.The revolutionary maneuvers of the Armenians and the counter measures of the Turks, with their mutual repercussions, could not but quicken the old feuds; so the outcome was a wretched one for both parties.

One cannot wonder that under such conditions continuous conflicts arose between the two elements of the population, that reprisals followed reprisals on ether side, first after the Turco-Russian war, again after the events of 1895-96, then in the course of the Adana conflict, during the Balkan war, and finally during the later war. But it is impossible to trust the information according to which the number of the Armenians slaughtered by the Turks rose to over 800,000 and in which no mention is made of any Turks massacred by the Armenians. These figures are obviously exaggerated, since the Armenian population, which only numbered about 2.300,000 souls before the war throughout the Turkish Empire, did not exceed 1.300.000 in the eastern provinces, and the Armenians now declare they are still numerous enough to make up a State. According to Armenian estimates there were about 4,160,000 Armenians in all in 1914 –viz., 2,380,000 in the Ottoman Empire, 1,500,000 in Russia, 64,000 in the provinces of the Persian Shah and in foreign colonies, and about 8.000 in Cyprus, the isles of the Archipelago, Greece, Italy and Western Europe.

The best answer to the eager and ever-recurring complaints made by the Armenians of at their instigation is to refer the reader to a report entitled Statistics of the Bitlis and Van Provinces drawn up by Genera Mayewsky, who was Russian consul first at Erzerum for six years and later an at Van, and in this capacity represented a Power that had always showed much hostility to Turkey, it was said in it:

“All the statements of the publicists, which represent the Kurds as doing their best to exterminate the Armenians, must be altogether rejected, if they were reliable, no individual belonging to an alien race could have ever lived in the midst of the Kurds, and the various peoples living among them would have been obliged to emigrate bodily for want of bread, or to become their slaves. Now nothing of the kind has occurred. On the contrary, all those who know the eastern provinces state that in those countries the Christian villages are at any rate more prosperous than those of the Kurds. lf the Kurds were only murderers and thieves, as is after said in Europe, the prosperous state of the Armenians till 1895 would have been utterly impassible. So the distress of the Armenians in Turkey till 1895 is a mere legend.

- Comment: The population controversy is charted in page 303 of Vol.1. For some unknown reason, Gaillard used the exaggerated estimate of Armenian historian K. Basmajian. The most dependable figures are line (i) 1.280.000 for the whole Ottoman Empire, 550.000 in the eastern six-vilayets affirmed by the joint French-Armenian Land Distribution Committee on 1.3.1914, or 2.000.000 for the whole area including Russia and Persia as reported by National Geographic, October, 1915, p.325.

p.285: The condition of the Turkish Armenians was no worse than that of the Armenians living in other countries. “The complaints according to which the condition of the Armenians in Turkey is represented as unbearable do not refer to the inhabitants of the towns, for the latter have always been free and enjoyed privileges in every respect. As to the peasants, owing to their perfect knowledge of farm work and irrigation, their condition was far superior to that of the peasants in Central Russia.
As to the Armenian clergy, they make no attempt to teach religion; but they have striven hard to spread national ideas, within the precincts of mysterious convents, the teaching of hatred of the Turk has replaced devotional observances. The schools and seminaries eagerly second the religious leaders”.

After the collapse of Russia, the Armenians, Georgians, and Tatars formed a Transcaucasian Republic which was to be short-lived, and we have dealt in another book with the attempt made by these three States together to safeguard their independence.”

The Soviet Government issued a decree on January 13, 1918, stipulating in Article 1 “the evacuation of Armenia by the Russian troops, and the immediate organization of an Armenian militia in order to safeguard the personal and material security of the inhabitants of Turkish Armenia” and in Article 4, the establishment of a provisional Armenian Government in Turkish Armenia consisting of delegates of the Armenian people elected according to democratic principles, which obviously could not satisfy the Armenians.

Two months after the promulgation of this decree, the Brest - Litovsky treaty in March, 1918, stipulated in Article 4 that ‘Russia shall do her utmost to ensure the quick evacuation of the eastern provinces of Anatola. Ardahan, Kars, and Batum shall be evacuated at once by the Russian troops.”

P.286-287: The Armenians were the more dissatisfied and anxious after these events as they had not concealed their hostile feelings against the Turks and their satisfaction no longer to be under their dominion; they now dreaded the return of the Turks, who would at least make an effort to recover the provinces they had lost in 1878.

In April of the same year fighting was resumed, and Trebizond. Erzinjan, Erzerum, Mush, and Van were recaptured by the Turks. After the negotiations between the Georgians and the Turks, and the arrangements that supervened, the Armenians constituted a Republic in the neighborhood of Erivan and Lake Sevanga (Gokcha).

- Comment: The author bypasses a crucial stage of history, viz.: The new Armenian Republic was founded on May 28, 1918 but a week later on June 4, 1918 concluded Batum Treaty with Turks and on June 8, 1918 became a “protectorate” of the Ottoman Empire and sent their envoy Aharonian and Hatissian to Istanbul to thank the Sultan who were received in early September with bilateral expression of friendship. However, once the Ottoman Empire signed the Mudros Cease Fire on 30.10.1918, a month later Armenia broke the treaty, attacked and occupied Oltu-Ardaha-Kars and re-entered into war with the Ottoman Empire to be replaced by Nationalist Turks. The envoy that was in Istanbul, only three months later, were demanding half of Anatolia cleaned on non-Christians (85%)!

After the discussion of the Armenian question at the Peace Conference and a long exchange of views, Mr. Wilson, in August, 1919, sending a note direct to the Ottoman Government, (Comment: that was a puppet Government since Allied Forces had taken all strategic posts, occupied Istanbul and arrested some 144 Ottoman dignitaries they interned in Malta, pending a trial for Armenian wrongdoings) called upon it to prevent any further massacre of Armenians and warned it that, should the Constantinople Government be unable to do so, he would cancel the twelfth of his Fourteen Points demanding “that the present Ottoman Empire should be assured of entire sovereignty” –which, by the way, is in contradiction with other points of the same message to :Congress especially the famous right of self-determination of nations which he wished carried out unreservedly.
The Armenians did not give up the tactics that had roused Turkish animosity and had even exasperated it, for at the end of August they prepared to address a new note to the Allied High Commissioners in Constantinople to draw their attention to the condition of the Christian element in Anatolia and the dangers the Armenians of the Republic of Erivan were beginning to run. Mgr. Zaven Armenian Patnarch, summed up this note in a statement published by Le Temps. August 31, 1919.

Mr. Gerard. former ambassador of the United States at Berlin, in a telegram addressed to Mr. Balfour on February 15, 1920, asserted that treaties for the partition of Armenia had been concluded during Mr. Balfour’s tenure of the post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs and at a time when the Allied leaders and statesmen had adopted the principle of self-determination of peoples as their principal war-cry. He expressed distress over news that the Allies might cut up Armenia, and said that 20,000 ministers. 85 bishops, 250 college and university presidents, and 40 governors, who had “expressed themselves in favour of unfiled Armenia, will be asked to join in condemnation of decimation of Armenia.” He added that Americans had given £6,000,000 for Armenian relief, and that another £6,000,000 had been asked for. Americans were desirous of aiding Armenia during her formative period. “Ten members of our committee, including Mr. Hughes and Mr. Root, and with the approval of Senator Lodge, had telegraphed to the President that America should aid Armenia. We are earnestly anxious that Britain should seriously consider American opinion on the Armenian case. Can you not postpone consideration of the Turkish question until after ratification of the treaty by the Senate which is likely to take pace before March?”
Mr. Balfour, in his reply dispatched on February 24, said:

P.288-289: “In reply to your telegram of February 16, I should observe that the first paragraph seems written under a misapprehension. I concluded no treaty about Armenia at all.

“I do not understand why Great Britain will be held responsible by 20,000 ministers of religion, 85 bishops, 250 university professors, and 40 governors if a Greater Armenia is not forthwith created including Russian Armenia on the north and stretching to the Mediterranean on the south.

“Permit me to remind you of the facts,

“1. Great Britain has no interests in Armenia except those based on humanitarian grounds, in this respect her position is precisely that of the United States.

“2. I have always urged whenever I had an opportunity that the United States should take its share in the burden of improving conditions in the pre-war territories of the Turkish Empire and in particular that it should become the mandatory in Armenia. Events over which Great Britain had no control have prevented this consummation and have delayed, with most unhappy results, the settlement of the Turkish peace.

“3. There appears to be great misconception as to the condition of affairs in Armenia. You make appeal in your first sentence to the principle of self-determination. If this is taken in its ordinary meaning as referring to the wishes of the majority actually inhabiting a district, it must be remembered that in vast regions of Greater Armenia the inhabitants are overwhelmingly Mussulman, and if allowed to vote would certainly vote against the Armenians.

“I do not think this conclusive; but it must not be forgotten. Whoever undertakes, in your own words, to aid Armenia during her formative period must. I fear, be prepared to use military force. Great Britain finds the utmost difficulty in carrying out the responsibilities she has already undertaken. She cannot aid Armenia to their number, America with her vast population and undiminished resources, and no fresh responsibilities thrown upon her by the war, is much more fortunately situated, She has shown herself most generous towards these much oppressed people; but I greatly fear that even the most lavish charity, unsupported by political and military assistance, will prove quite insufficient to deal with the unhappy consequences of Turkish cruelly and misrule.

“If I am right in inferring from your telegram that my attitude on the question has been somewhat misunderstood in America, I should be grateful if you would give publicity to this reply.”

On February 28 M. Gerard telegraphed to Mr. Balfour that in referring to treaties made during Mr. Ba!four’s period of office he had in mind the Sykes-Picot compact. After saying that “Great Britain and France could not be justified in requiring American aid to Armenia as a condition precedent to their doing justice in Armenia he declared that “Armenia’s plight since 1878 is not unrelated to a series of arrangements, welt meant, no doubt. in which Great Britain played a directive role.” and he concluded in the following terms:
“Our faith in chivalry of Great Britain and France and our deliberate conviction in ultimate inexpediency of allowing Turkish threat to override concerted will of Western civilization through further sacrifice of Armenia, inspire us to plead with you to construe every disadvantage in favour of Armenia and asks you to plan to aid her toward fulfillment of her legitimate aspirations, meanwhile depending on us to assume our share in due time, bearing in mind imperative necessity of continued concord that must exist between our democracies for our respective benefit and for that of the world.”
Soon after, Lord Curzon said in the House of Lords: it must be owned the Armenians during the last weeks did not behave like innocent little iambs, as some people imagine. The fact is they have indulged in a series of wild attacks, and proved bloodthirsty people.’ The Times gave an account of these atrocities on March 19.

At the beginning of February, 1920, the British Armenia Committee of London had handed to Mr. Lloyd George a memorandum in which the essential claims of Armenia were set forth before the Turkish problem was definitely settled by the Allies.

P.290-291: In this document the Committee said they were sorry that Lord Curzon on December 17, 1919, expressed a doubt about the possibility of the total realization of the Armenian scheme, according to which Armenia was to stretch from one sea to the other, especially as the attitude of America did not facilitate the solution of the Armenian question. After recalling Lord Curzon’s and Mr. Lloyd George’s declarations in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, the British Armenia Committee owned it was difficult. If the United States refused a mandate and if no other mandatory could be found, to group into one nation all the Ottoman provinces which they believed Armenia was to include; yet they drafted a program which, though it was a minimum one, aimed at completely and definitely freeing these provinces from Turkish sovereignty, it ran as follows:

“An Ottoman suzerainty, even a nominal one, would be an outrage, as the Ottoman Government deliberately sought to exterminate the Armenian people.

“It would be a disgrace for all nations if the bad precedents of Eastern Rumelia. Macedonia, and Crete were followed, and if similar expedients were resorted to, in reference to Armenia. The relations between Armenia and the Ottoman Empire must wholly cease, and the area thus detached must include all the former Ottoman provinces. The Ottoman Government of Constantinople has for many years kept up a state of enmity and civil war among the various local races, and many facts demonstrate that when once that strange, malevolent sovereignty is thrust aside, these provinces will succeed in living together on friendly, equable terms.

The British Armenia Committee asked that the Armenian territories which were to be detached from Turkey should be immediately united into an independent Armenian State, which would not be merely restricted to the quite inadequate area of the Republic of Erivan,” but would include the former Russian districts of Erivan and Kars, the zone of the former Ottoman territories with the towns of Van, Mush, Erzerum, Erzinjan, etc., and a port on the Black Sea. This document proclaimed that the Armenians now living were numerous enough to fortify, consolidate, and ensure the prosperity of an Armenian State within these boundaries, without giving up the hope of extending farther. It went on thus:

“The economic distress now prevailing in the Erivan area is due to the enormous number of refugees corning from the neighboring Ottoman provinces who are encamped there temporarily. If these territories were included in the Armenian State, the situation would be much better for all these refugees would be able to return to their homes and till their lands. With a reasonable foreign support, the surviving manhood of the nation would suffice to establish a National State in this territory, which includes but one-fourth of the total Armenian State to be detached from Turkey, in the new State, the Armenians with still be more numerous than the other non-Armenian elements, the latter not being connected together and having been decimated during the war like the Armenians.

Finally, in support of its claim, the Committee urged that the Nationalist movement of Mustafa Kemal was a danger to England, and showed that only Armenia could check this danger. “For if Mustafa Kemal’s Government is not overthrown, our new Kurdish frontier will never be at peace: the difficulties of its defense will keep on increasing: and the effect of the disturbances will be felt as far as India. If on the contrary, that focus of disturbance is replaced by a stable Armenian State, our burden will surely be alleviated.’

Then the British Armenia Committee, summing up its chief claims, asked for the complete separation of the Ottoman Empire from the Armenian area, and, in default of an American mandate, the union of the Armenian provinces of the Turkish Empire contiguous to the Republic of Erivan with the latter Republic, together with a port on the Black Sea.

Comment: Above remarks give additional proof that Armenians at all times were at war with Ottoman or Nationalist Turks, that they were crowded enough (not massacred…) to fill up the large land they requested.

P.292: In the report which had been drawn up by the American Commission of Inquiry sent to Armenia, with General Harbord as chairman, and which President Wilson had transmitted to the Senate at the beginning of April, 1920, after the latter assembly had asked twice for it, no definite conclusion was reached as to the point whether America was to accept or refuse a mandate for the country. The report simply declared that in no case should the United States accept a mandate without the agreement of France and Great Britain and the formal approbation of German and Russia. It merely set forth the reasons for and against the mandate.

It first stated that whatever Power accepts the mandate must have under its control the whole of Anatolia, Constantinople, and Turkey-in-Europe, and have complete control over the foreign relations and revenue of the Ottoman Empire.

Before coming to the reasons that tend in favour of the acceptance of the mandate by the United States, General Harbord made an appeal to the humanitarian feeling of the Americans and urged that it was their interest to ensure the peace of the world. Then he declared their acceptance would answer the wishes of the Near East, whose preference undeniably was for America, or, should the States refuse, for Great Britain. He added that each Great Power, in case it could not obtain a mandate, would want it to be given to America.

The report valued the expenditure entailed by acceptance of the mandate at 275 million dollars for the first year, and $756,140,000 for the first five years.

P.293:- 294: After some time, the profits made by the mandatory Power would balance the expenses, and Americans might find there a profitable investment. But the Board of Administration of the Ottoman Debt should be dissolved and all the commercial treaties concluded by Turkey should be cancelled. The Turkish Imperial Debt should be unified and a sinking fund provided. The economic condition granted to the mandatory Power should be liable to revision and might be cancelled.

Further, it was observed that if America refused the mandate the international rivalries which had had full scope under Turkish dominion would assert them again.

The reasons given by the American Commission against acceptant of the mandate were that the United States had serious domestic problems to deal with and such an intervention in the affairs of the Old World would weaken the standpoint they had taken on The Monroe doctrine. The report also pointed out that the United States were in no way responsible for the awkward situation in the East, and they could not undertake engagements for the future – for the new Congress could not be bound by the policy pursued by the present one. The resort also remarked that Great Britain and Russia and the other Great Powers too had taken very little interest in those countries, though England had enough experience and resources to control them. Finally, the report emphasized this point- that the United States had still more imperious obligations towards nearer foreign countries, and still more urgent questions to settle. Besides, an army of 100,000 to 200,000 men would be needed to maintain order in Armenia. Lastly, a considerable outlay of money would be necessary, and the receipts would be at first very small.

On the other hand, the British League of Nations Unions asked the English Government to give instructions to its representatives to support the motion of the Supreme Council according to which the protection of the independent Armenian State should be entrusted to the League of Nations.

According to the terms of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey, President Wilson had been asked to act as an arbiter to lay down the Armenian frontiers on the side of the provinces of Van, Bitlis, Erzerum, and Trebizond.

Under these circumstances the complete solution of the Armenian problem was postponed indefinitely, and it is difficult to foresee how the problem will ever be solved.

Excerpts and Comments by Sukru Server Aya on: “THE TURKS AND EUROPE”

Please report to newsrush@gmail.com If you see any copies of this document on the net other than

Armenian Genocide Resource Center (http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com)