The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury, in the
dispatch he sent to the British Ambassador in Istanbul, Sir Henry Layard, on 8 August
1878, instructed him to press the Ottoman government to implement the reforms to which it
had agreed in the 4th of June Agreement (Cyprus) and the Berlin Treaty. Layard submitted a
diplomatic note to the Babiali on 19 August.
The Ottoman government was not against the reforms. As a matter of fact, the intentions of
the government were clear in the reply given to Layard's note on 24 October 1878. (1)
The Ottoman government stated that it was considering the establishment of a special gendarme force in the eastern provinces, that the Gendarmerie would be a central administrative body, in which European officers would be employed, that changes would be made in the legal system, and that in some central courts European judges would be charged as inspectors.
Although the Babiali was ready in principle to make these reforms, the Treasury was empty. We learn from the British documents that this financial situation was explained to Layard during his meetings with Abdulhamid and Prime Minister Mehmet Esat Saffet Pasha, and that the Sultan even requested the British government to provide a loan of £6 million sterling. (2) However, it is apparent that the British government was not able to give this loan. For this reason, soon after the Berlin Congress, the Ottoman government was unable to implement the measures which it had considered in good faith.
Immediately after the Berlin Congress, Russia began to provoke the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire with propaganda to the effect that the reforms would not be implemented, so that they would be driven to emigrate to Russia. The Russians were even spreading rumours that they would rebuild the city of Ani, which had come into their possession with the most recent land gains, and that they would make it the capital of Armenia. (Nothing was done in Ani, until it was returned to Turkey after the First World War.)
Layard reported these developments to the Sultan and called his attention to the need for security and order in the eastern provinces. Layard informed the Foreign Office that Ismail Hakki Pasha, commander of the eastern army, had been instructed, as a result, to take every possible measure for the Armenians' security and protection, and added that various intrigues originating abroad were inciting the Armenians to rebel against the Babiali.(3)
It was mentioned in the reports of British Consuls in Trabzon and Erzurum that the Russians' activities bore fruit, and that Armenians inhabiting the regions which would be evacuated by the Russians started to emigrate in large numbers.
However, although the Russians spread rumours which encouraged emigration, they were also opposing emigration. The reason for this was clear. They could take advantage of the Armenian community, which was thus troubled, within the Ottoman Empire, instead of within Russia. If the Armenians could be maintained ready to explode in the eastern provinces of Turkey, when the time was ripe and the ground was prepared, this explosion could be ignited.
Faced with these developments, the Patriarchate did not follow a policy of reconciliation. As a matter of fact, the Patriarchate had almost adopted, especially after the Berlin Congress, the general policy of provoking the Armenians, instead of pacifying them, and had provoked incidents. We mentioned earlier that the Patriarch, during his conversations with the British Ambassador in 1877, had stated that if rebellions were necessary to gain the attention of Europe, they could be arranged.
Esat Uras reported by translating from the minutes of the Armenian Assembly the statements made by the Patriarch to justify himself, when he was required to give explanations to the Armenian National Assembly after his lack of success at the Berlin Congress. Some parts of this speech especially shed light on future events.
The Patriarch made the following statements in his written declaration read on 21 July 1878 at the Armenian National Assembly.
. . . . When neither the question of Bosnia-Herzegovina nor the political situation of Bulgaria were existent, the Armenian question had been around for ten years. This question stemmed from the hostilities which the Armenians were subjected to in Armenia. . . . Then the problems of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Bulgaria came about. Related to these two problems, injustices and national independence arose. . . .
. . . . The Ottoman nation shed great quantities of blood on the battlefield, and after so much sacrifice when they were defeated, and due to the fact that it was ringing in their ears that the suffering was the fault of Christians, they became extremely excited.
Prudence and farsightedness are required more than ever, and at the same time we must act effectively. . . .
The Ottomans had not yet sent their qualified representative to Edirne, when my respectable friends and I started working.
As we obtained the l6th article of the Ayastefanos Treaty, which provided us with new spirit and strength, we began working with greater aspiration and zeal. . . . The l6th article was certainly going to be changed. . . . The political situation of the region of Euphrates, too, had a close relationship with Britain's interests. . . . Britain would see that this article prepared the ground for the establishment of a new province in the region of Euphrates in the interest of one state especially among those who signed. Britain would certainly not accept this. . . .
Any impartial analysis will show that, if the Turkish-British Agreement had not made certain that the reform project for the Christian Asian community would be decided with agreement between the British and Turkish governments, the powers would decide on this project from the standpoint of their own interests. The 6lst article of the Berlin Agreement is this [see above, p.104]
The sad part of this article is that, it temporarily delayed the solving of our problem, did not fulfil the hopes of the nation, and did not provide a reward for the future. Which country has immediately obtained its desires. . . .
For this reason, I have considered it necessary to complain here to the Ambassadors, and in Berlin to the delegates. Let us continue the work we have started.
Such problems can neither be solved in one day nor by a single man. Let us be prepared for the future. Let us not stay here and there. Let us go to Armenia. Let us send to Armenia the competent, reputable, patriotic ones of our nation, our educators, our Churchmen. Let our educators, our teachers, our fervent youth go to Armenia. . . .(4)
The Patriarch had summarized in this manner what was and what would be accomplished. We do not think it is necessary to describe what had been accomplished and to speculate what would be accomplished, for the Patriarch's statements are clear enough.
Because of this attitude, when the British Ambassador pointed out the unfortunate consequences of provocation in the eastern provinces and of the discontent stirred among the people, and suggested to the Patriarch that he do something about it, the Patriarch stated that the Armenians accused him of having deceived them. He added that discontent would continue as long as Armenia was not granted autonomy, that the Babiali was no longer trusted, and that only when an Armenian governor was appointed to Armenia, would trust perhaps be re-established.(5)
Again, we are informed by the British documents that the British did not accept the idea of an Armenian governor. The British Consul in Trabzon, Alfred Bliotti, affirmed that the administration of the eastern provinces was indeed oppressive; this, however, was not directed specifically at Armenians, but, rather, was a general maladministration. He further stated that Muslims were more oppressed by this administration, for the non-Muslims could voice their complaints through the Consuls, whereas there was nobody the Muslims could complain to. Moreover, the Consuls did not see the necessity of speaking up against the treatment of Muslims. He added that appointing an Armenian governor to the East would have no effect, other than to facilitate Russian intrigues, and consequently to harm British interests. (6)
Towards the end of 1878, Britain sent military Consuls to the main eastern provinces, with the aim of closely following Russian activities on the one hand, and supervising the reforms on the other. Thus Major Trotter was sent to Diyarbekir, Captain Clayton to Van, and Captain Everett to Erzurum. This was not well received by the Ottoman government.
On Wednesday, 4 December, 1878, the Grand Vizier Saffet Pasha was dismissed from office, and Senator Hairettin Pasha of Tunisia was appointed in his place. It is said that the dismissal was due to the fact that an informer reported to Abdujhamid that Saffet Pasha, along with members of the Cabinet, was thinking of dethroning the Sultan.
The subject of reform was mentioned in the imperial decree following the announcement of the new government, and the new Grand Vizier was asked to implement it without delay.
The new Grand Vizier, Hairettin Pasha, decided in February 1879 to send commissions to the eastern provinces with the aim of studying the condition of the region and the Christians' complaints. These commissions, which consisted of three members, also included an Armenian member. A commission in which Yusuf Pasha and Nuryan Efendi participated was sent to Van; another, which included Abidin Pasha and Manas Efendi, was sent to Diyarbekir and its vicinity; another, which included Sait Pasha and Sarkis Efendi, was sent to the province of Aleppo.
It is known that a project prepared by the Patriarchate entitled the Reform Project of the Province of Erzurum was submitted to the commission which was sent to Erzurum, and that the same project was also sent to the British Embassy in Istanbul. We have not included the text of this project because we have been unable to discover what formal procedures were undertaken concerning it. However, there was no mention in this project of either autonomy or an Armenian governor.
The prerequisite of any reform was the establishment of a police and gendarme force; this, however, was impossible, because the Treasury was empty. As a consequence, the year 1879 saw nothing but continued discussions between the British Embassy, the Patriarchate and the Babiali concerning the subject of reforms.
Because it was only Britain that was interested in the subject of reforms, Russia having ceased to be involved, and because Britain was continually sending reports of complaint to the Babiali through the military Consuls whom it had sent to various provinces, the Babiali and especially the Sultan began to hesitate. Moreover, the Patriarchate was in a suspicious position because of its work on the idea of an autonomous Armenia, and the discontent created in the eastern provinces. The attitude of Britain during the rebellion which occurred in Zeitun in 1878 (we shall discuss this subject on page 150.) indicated that the Armenians were on the point of creating a question in Anatolia, similar to a new Serbian or Bulgarian problem. Indeed, the British documents have proved that this was exactly the intention of the Armenians.
The year 1880 started in such an atmosphere, and the elections which took place in March in England brought the Liberal Party to power. Gladstone became Prime Minister, and Lord Granville Foreign Secretary.
We have mentioned Gladstone's opinion regarding the Ottoman Empire and the Turks. It was expected that he would use every opportunity to benefit the Armenians. Whereas Salisbury had preferred that Britain should handle the matter alone, without the involvement of other powers, Granville adopted a totally different policy and invited other powers to work with Britain.
With this intention, he sent circulars in May to the British Ambassadors in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St Peterburg and Rome urging them to persuade the governments of the countries to which they were accredited to put pressure on the Babiali to implement the reforms put forward in the 6lst article of the Berlin Treaty.
While he sent this instruction, Granville changed the Ambassador in Istanbul and appointed Goschen to replace Layard. From this time forward, it was Goschen who was to play a major role in Istanbul. However, before looking at his activities, it is useful to look, first, at the last report Layard sent to the Foreign Office before he received the order to return. Layard wrote:
The Armenians who expected that, after the announcement of the Cyprus Agreement, Britain would immediately have the reforms implemented, were disappointed when they saw that nothing was done, and Russia, taking advantage of the situation, began to encourage them to ask its help. Such a situation would prepare the ground for the occupation of these provinces by Russia. It was necessary to have the Ottoman Empire take action.
The Armenians, if absolute autonomy was not possible, expected partial autonomy. But under these circumstances, to provide them this possibility would eventually result in disaster for the Armenians, for it would lead tö the oppression of the Armenians, who are everywhere in a minority, by the majority of the population, and this would open the way for Russian intervention. While it cannot be expected that Russia would grant autonomy or independence to the Armenians, it would be inevitable that the Armenians would be lost iyy the Russian Empire.(7)
The accuracy of Layard's statements cannot be refuted. However, Granville was not of the same opinion, and considered granting independence to the Armenians. But, to do this, he had to obtain the consent of Russia. Russia, knowing that Brtain coveted Arabia, did not see any benefit in the establishment of an independent Armenia. The Ottoman Empire, too, realized that Britain would cease to protect the integrity of its territory, but would rather try to obtain whatever it could get, and subsequently began to see the advantage of turning towards Russia.
It is impossible to affirm that the Sultan's opinion was erroneous, for the period of pillaging the Ottoman Empire had begun. In 1881 France would obtain Tunisia, and Thessaly be relinquished to Greece; in 1882, Britain would occupy Egypt; in 1885, Eastern Roumelia would become part of Bulgaria. Although the Turks were to win the 1897 Turco-Greek War, they would have to recognize the autonomy of Crete. It cannot be assumed that Abdulhamid had foreseen all this, but the fact that he was determined not to let the last Anatolian territory go, knowing that he had no chance in Europe and Asia, is an attitude that can easily be understood.
However, the Ottoman Empire was not in good condition. It was impossible to talk of a continuous and stable administration. The only continuity was in the Sultan, and he seemed determined not to let any government stay in power. Indeed, we can easily see this if we enumerate the Ottoman Grand Viziers from the Berlin Congress to the establishment of the Second Constitutional government:
Saffet Pasha 4. 6.1878-4.12.1878
Hairettin Pasha of Tunisia 4.12.1878-29. 7.1879
Ahmet Arifi Pasha 29. 7.1879-18.10.1879
Mehmet Sait Pasha 18.10.1879-9. 6.1880
Mehmet Kadri Pasha 9. 6.1884-12. 9.1880
Mehmet Sait Pasha 12. 9.1880-2. 5.1882
Abdurrahman Nurettin Pasha 2. 5.1882-11. 7.1882
Mehmet Sait Pasha 12. 7.1882-1.12.1882
Ahmet Vefik Pasha 1.12.1882-3.12.1882
Mehmet Sait Pasha 3.12.1882-25. 9.1885
Mehmet Kamil Pasha 25. 9.1885-4. 9.1891
Ahmed Cevad Pasha 4. 9.1891-8. 6.1895
Mehmet Sait Pasha 8. 6.1895-1.10.1895
Mehmet Kamil Pasha 2.10.1895-7.11.1895
Halil Rifat Pasha 7.11.1895-9.11.1901
Mehmet Sait Pasha 18.11.1901-14.1.1903
Mehmet Ferid Pasha 14.1.1903-22. 7.1908
Mehmet Sait Pasha 22. 7.1908-4. 8.1908
18 Grand Viziers in 30 years, and 14 Grand Viziers in 18 years between 1878 and 1896, which we can consider a critical period, was quite high for the execution of an important task.
When Goschen arrived in Istanbul in June 1880, an agreement had been made between the powers for common action. At that time, the Grand Vizier was Mehmet Kadri Pasha, and the Foreign Minister was Abidin Pasha, who had gone to Diyarbekir and its vicinity as the chairman of the investigation commission.
The joint note of the six powers was submitted to Abidin Pasha on 11 June 1880. This note mentioned the Armenian topic, among various reform matters, and requested information as to what had been accomplished regarding the 6lst article of the Berlin Agreement. The attention of the Babiali was drawn to the responsibility that would arise from new delays in the application of those measures, which the great powers agreed were necessary in the interest of the Ottoman Empire and Europe.
When Goschen submitted this note, he did not have the time or the opportunity to learn the opinion of his staff in Istanbul. He did this later on. He gathered the opinion of the Embassy staff and the Consulates. Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson from the Embassy, too, had prepared a long memorandum. We summarize below the opinion of Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson in the memorandum sent by ?oschen to Foreign Secretary Granville on l6th June:
The Armenians are divided into the Gregorian (Orthodox), Roman Catholic, and Protestant sects, which are usually at variance with each other, and rarely combine for any common object. Not only do the different sects intrigue against each other, but the Gregorians are rarely if ever united among themselves on any question of local politics. [There is a paragraph which extensively describes the weak and corrupt character of Armenians which we prefer not to include here.] The mixed population of Anatolia has not reached the maturity necessary for reforms in the Western sense. The masses of the people are generally uneducated and far from civilized. Possible reforms would be re-assembly of the Imperial Parliament, [the Sultan had closed the Assembly eleven months after its opening on 13 February 1878), the execution of existing laws, the implementation of the reform envisaged in the 1867 Vilayet Law, abolition of the system of ruling the people by religious communities, the improvement of civil service regulations, to enable Christians to become government officials, the reorganization of local administration budgets, reforming the tax laws, improving the courts, making a civil law for various cases, the modification of laws concerning bribery and embezzlement, reforming the jails, establishing a real gendarmerie, and appointing selected European full-pay officers for the gendarmerie, having Christians, too, become gendarmes, agrarian reform, improving the educational system, granting freedom for the press, encouraging various industries, and to give them to foreign capital.(8)
This is all very well, but there is no information in the report as to how the necessary funds would be found. The reports coming from the Consuls emphasized that the Armenians were preparing to secede from the Ottoman administration and that their goal was autonomy.
The Consul of Erzurum; Everett, in particular, wrote in his report dated 25 June that the Armenians did not believe Europeans would help them to obtain autonomy, and that they had prepared themselves for the necessary action; that teachers coming from Istanbul attempted to give direction to the people; that they imported arms; that he had heard weapons were hidden in all the Armenian houses; that they were not yet ready, but serious troubles would arise when the time came.(9)
The Ottoman Empire gave a reply to the joint note of the six powers on 5 July 1880.
It was stated in this reply, signed by Abidin Pasha, that meticulous investigations were carried out in the eastern provinces, and that the work had begun; that commissions would be established in nahiyes, formed by a president belonging to the sect of the majority of the nahiye, a vice-president of the minority sect, and 4&127; members, which would be responsible for the administration; that the bujaks would have their own gendarmerie; that a gendarmerie force would also be established in the province; that itinerant courts would be formed for penal matters; that in principle the right to become government officials had been granted to non-Muslim, and that this right would be extended even more; that one-tenth of the sum remaining after having subtracted local expenses from provincial income would be left in the province for public works and educational services; and that a regulation was being drafted for all the Anatolian provinces. The note ended with the following statement: `Before concluding my reply, I would like to inform you that it was established in the census arranged by the Babiali in the provinces of Van, Diyarbekir, Bitlis, Erzurum, and Sivas, where Armenians are present in large numbers, that only 17 per cent of the total population were Armenians, approximately 4 per cent were other non-Muslims, and 79 per cent were Muslims.'
It is clear that Goschen especially focused on the information given about the Armenian population.
The Armenian Patriarch, too, had provided him with some statistics on the population subject. (We noted them in Chapter 3.) Goschen began an investigation on this subject through his local organization. (Major Trotter's conclusions were based on this investigation.) Parallel to this, the Ambassadors in Istanbul of the six powers began to work together to submit another note concerning matters which were not satisfactory in the reply of Abidin Pasha. The Patriarch took part indirectly in this, by providing them with various information.
A new note was subsequently prepared and, after the concerned governments' approval had been obtained, was submitted to the Babiali on 7 September 1880. Abidin Pasha was still the Minister of Foreign Affairs when the note was submitted. However, three days later the Grand Vizier was dismissed, being replaced by Sait Pasha, and the new Minister of Foreign Affairs was Asim Pasha. Consequently, the responsibility for examining and answering the powers' note was left to the new cabinet.
This note, dated 7 September is quite long. We summarize its main points:
The six powers, after having stated that the explanation given by Abidin Pasha was in no way satisfactory, and that it did not comply with the obligation of article 61 of the Berlin Agreement, make the following observations.
There is no indication that reforms have been applied to the legal organization. Although the reform concerning all provinces is pleasing, priority must be given, above everything else, to the provinces mentioned in the 6lst article. Not only the bujak leaders, but higher officials too, must be selected from among the sect of the majority. The gendarmerie organization must also include non-Muslims as officers and privates. The authority of governors must be extended. The population question must be established as soon as possible through a special commission, but this must not cause delay in other respects.(10)
The Babiali did not answer this note separately. However, in the note sent by Minister of Foreign Affairs Asim Pasha to the powers on 3 October 1880, concerning the reform to be implemented in Roumelia, this subject, too, was mentioned, and information was given about the decisions taken following the investigations made by delegations sent to the eastern provinces, most recently by Baker Pasha.
We summarize below the information given by the Babiali to the powers.
The courts of Diyarbekir, Bitlis, Van, and Erzurum would be reformed the police and the gendarmerie would be reorganized in these provinces, the colonels of gendarmerie would be appointed from the Ministry of War, other officers would be selected by regiment assemblies and they would be appointed through the suggestion of the governors, by the Ministry of War. The bujak organization mentioned in the note dated 5 July 1880 would be completed shortly.10 per cent of provincial income would be allotted to the province for educational and public services. Provincial administrative offices would be open to every subject.
Military courts would apply the civil code and the other statutes in force. This constituted a sufficient answer to the powers' note. However, they, and especially Britain, were not willing to consider it as an answer, and from this date on, some sort of dispute began between Britain and the Babiali. Various endeavours we shall mention, before going into detail, will clarify this point.
Ambassador Goschen, in a telegram he sent to the Foreign Office on 16 November 1880,11 mentioned that the Babiali had not replied to the joint note, and stated that the Armenians did not have the patience to wait endlessly, that they could attempt to revolt, and that it would be well to invite the powers which had signed the Berlin Agreement to a new joint undertaking.
The Gladstone cabinet wanted such an undertaking anyway. However, Russia did not want the Armenian question to be put forward, when the Karadagh and Greek topic was being discussed. Germany and Austria did not find it appropriate to put pressure on the Ottoman Empire. For this reason, Granville was unable to send Goschen the instructions he wanted concerning a joint undertaking.
In March 1881, Tsar Alexander I y was shot by a nihilist. From this date on Russia began to apply a policy of opposing any kind of liberation movement and taking as priority the russification of the country. Subsequently it lost almost all interest in the subject of implementing reforms to the advantage of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Britain was thus left totally alone.
Goschen made no new attempts until he finally left Istanbul in June 1881. He was replaced by Lord Dufferin in that month.
Dufferin mentioned the Armenian question the first time he saw Sultan Abdulhamid, and suggested that a competent governor should be sent to the region. The British Ambassador repeated his views when he was received in July by the Grand Vizier Sait Pasha.
Not only did the British Embassy make these attempts, but it was also in the process of preparing proposals concerning the reform to be made. We have mentioned these activities during the time of the former Ambassador Goschen. The new Ambassador also got involved in this subject, and had Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson, who was the Embassy expert on these matters prepare new proposals. (13) We mention this, not to report these proposals, but to show the extent to which the British took this matter seriously. A report by Dufferin dated 23 August informs us that during another visit
he paid to the Grand Vizier Sait Pasha on 22 August he mentioned these proposals which he was having prepared. (14)
On Dufferin's instruction, Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson and Major Trotter prepared a new note on 23 August and submitted it to the Ambassador. On 29 August Dufferin organized a meeting with the Ambassadors of the other five powers, and suggested that a joint note should again be submitted to the Babiali, and that an answer to their note dated 7 September 1880 should be requested.
On 9 September 1881, the Ambassadors met again at the British Embassy. Dufferin suggested that the six powers should write a new joint note and request from the Babiali first of all that a general-governor should be appointed to the East, that they should state that their opinion in their note dated 7 September 1880 had not changed, and that they should insist on the subject of reform. He also suggested that the Ambassadors should prepare reform proposals among themselves.
The Ambassadors accepted these suggestions, on condition that their respective governments approve of them; however, the Russian Ambassador suggested that, instead of submitting a joint note, they should separately make these requests orally, using the same terminology, and this suggestion, too, was accepted. (15)
When Dufferin was received by the Sultan on 15 September, he mentioned the subject and elaborated on the idea of sending a governorgeneral, stating that it would be time to implement the reforms when the governor-general was in control of the situation and when he had dealt with complaints. We are informed by Dufferin's report dated 19 September 1881 that Sultan Abdulhamid replied that he would send a high-ranking official to the region in a month. (16)
On 1 October 1881, the Ambassadors met again, at Dufferin's invitation, to study the reform proposals prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Wilson and Trotter. It was decided at this meeting that the Russian Ambassador Novikoff and Dufferin should work as a subcommittee, that they should prepare a memorandum, and that the Ambassadors should meet again.
In November, Dufferin made various requests to be informed about the progress of the decision to send a governor-general to the East; he was told that reform proposals were being prepared, and that he would soon be informed of them. (17) This was at the time when the Zeitun incidents, which we shall describe on page 150 occurred.
On 22 November, Dufferin paid a visit with the Russian Ambassador to Minister of Foreign Affairs Asim Pasha, and mentioned the subject of appointing a governor-general.
When Dufferin learned in December from the secretary-general of Foreign Affairs, Artin Efendi, that the Sultan would do nothing about the Armenians without the insistence of Germany, he asked his Ministry to approach Germany. (18) Germany did not want to exert pressure, nor was a British approach to Austria successful.
Dufferin was received by the Sultan on 14 January 1882. During the meeting, the Sultan told him that difficulties arising from the application of the decrees established by the Berlin Treaty concerning the eastern borders had been overcome; that the subject of reform in the eastern provinces had also been examined, and that it would be put into effect; that a qualified governor-general had not been appointed because one had not yet been found, and that he needed time. (19)
In 1882, Britain encouraged Germany to act with it. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs stated, in the instruction he sent to the Embassy in London, that they would lose the Sultan's trust if they interfered in Turkey's internal affairs, and that they wanted to maintain this trust from the perspective of European peace. (20)
No further attempts were made, because 1882 continued with unrest in
Erzurum.
When the British Foreign Secretary realized that he was not going to succeed in obtaining the support of other powers, he decided to resort to threats. And he decided to dwell on the Cyprus Agreement.
On 10 May 1883, Dufferin, following the instructions of his government, paid another visit to the Sultan, and when they were discussing the Armenian question, told him that the 4 June 1878 Cyprus Agreement put forward obligations on both sides; that if the Ottomans would not fulfil theirs by implementing reforms, then the obligation on Britain to protect Turkey would be annulled. The Sultan then asked the British Ambassador why, in that case, they still remained in Cyprus. This approach, too, proved fruitless.
In 1883, the Foreign Secretary, Granville, made new approaches to Germany and Austria. However, these too were fruitless. The German Minister of Foreign Affairs stated the following points in his instruction No. 84 which he sent to his London Ambassador on 17 May 1883:
I do not understand what England will gain by putting the Sultan in an uneasy situation. The matters called Armenian reform are ideal and theoretical requests, and they have been included in Congressional discussions, with the thought that they could be useful in Parliaments. Their practical value and the result they will give are doubtful, and constitute a double-edged sword for the Armenians. In our opinion it should not be part of British policy, to weaken the Ottoman Empire, and to cut the ties connecting Armenians to Turkey. To interfere in such internal matters is the surest way to bring distressful results. I find Dufferin's attempt unfortunate for European peace and the tranquillity of the East. (21)
The Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs was not so categorical. However, he did not conceal that he wanted to maintain the friendly attitude of the Sultan, and that consequently he could not act with Britain.
The stubborn insistence of the British, the fact that in the meantime they invaded Egypt, and the fact that they remained in Cyprus despite their declaration that they would not keep their obligations under the Cyprus Agreement (Britain did not annul the 4 June 1878 Agreement until Lausanne) clearly indicated the new policy of Britain and its intentions concerning the Empire.
This change in British policy was the main reason why the Ottoman Empire turned towards the Central powers. It was for the same reason that Von der Gotz Pasha came to Turkey (in the spring of 1883) and began the reform of the Ottoman Army.
In spite of the attitude of Germany and Austria, Granville insisted on his policy. But nothing was obtained in 1883, because of Britain's unnecessary insistence. After 1883, the attitude of Russia towards the Armenians became even harsher. Naturally this left Britain more isolated.
In 1885, the Liberals lost the election in Britain, and Lord Salisbury became Prime Minister. However, Salisbury's government did not last long a new election became necessary and Gladstone again became Prime Minister in February 1886.
One of the first subjects that the new Foreign Secretary, Lord Rosebery, became occupied with was, as was to be expected, Armenian reform. He requested the Ambassador in Istanbul, Sir E. Thornton, in June 1886 to remind the Ottoman Empire of the obligations of the 6lst article, since there was no other bone of contention left.
Instead of making this request orally, the Istanbul Ambassador preferred to submit a memorandum when he visited the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sait Pasha, on 16 August 1886. This memorandum had no result other than angering the Ottoman government. The Grand Vizier Mehmet Kamil Pasha even demanded that the memorandum be taken back.
This last attempt of the British was not welcomed by Germany and Austria. In the meantime there was a new Foreign Secretary, Lord Iddesleigh replacing Lord Rosebery. Lord Iddesleigh was compelled to reply to the German and Austrian Ambassadors that the instructions had been sent by the former Foreign Secretary, and that their Ambassador had not felt the need to request a new instruction before making an approach to the Babiali.
We have mentioned that, at the beginning of the Berlin Congress, when talking to the British Ambassador, the Armenian Patriarch stated that if revolt was necessary to gain the attention of the European powers, it would not be difficult to achieve. We have also pointed out that the Patriarch, in the speech he made at the Armenian National Assembly after the Berlin Congress, encouraged teachers, radicals, and enthusiastic youth to go to the eastern provinces.
The information coming from the British Consuls in the eastern provinces from 1880 on showed that the Armenians were beginning to be restless. At that time only Russia and Britain had Consulates in the eastern provinces, Britain at Trabzon, Erzurum, Van and Diyarbekir, and Russia at Erzurum and Van.
Reports were coming from the provinces through the governors-general and the security offices to the Ministry of the Interior, but because these were more case reports, and did not include evaluations, and because the Consul's reports in some cases included information given by Armenians, we have preferred to analyse developments on the basis of the latter.
The Consul of Van, Captain Clayton, wrote in his report dated 12 October 1880 (22) that he was informed that associations were being formed in Russian Armenia to send weapons to the Armenians of Turkey, and that agents had been engaged for the distribution of these weapons. In November, Clayton stated that the Armenians were preparing to rebel, and that an American missionary in Van had stated that weapons were continuously being sent from Russia. (23)
The Consul of Erzurum, Everett, gave similar information concerning his region, and wrote in his report dated November that it was a certainty that weapons were being gathered in Russia; because it was out of the question that these weapons would be used in Russia, it should be accepted that they were gathered to be used in Turkey. He then stated that the Russian Consul-General in Erzurum, M. Obermüller, had confirmed this, but that he did not know what his government thought about it. (24)
On 23 December 1880, the Consul of Izmir, Colonel Wilson, wrote on the basis of the information he had gathered that he had heard that Armenians would want to use force, and that many young people had gone to Istanbul, Tiflis, and Van. He added to his report a memorandum by Lieutenant Herbet Chermside.25 In this memorandum, the lieutenant wrote that a rebellion movement could be organized in Van; that he had obtained a letter written by a doctor named Rufrenian (who had previously been employed in Turkey, and who had gone to Ighdir in Russia) to his wife, in which he stated that he had become the leader of an organization formed in Russia against Turkey.
The Consul of Van, Clayton, reported in the last days of 1880 that the Russian Consul-General, Major Kamsaraghan, had informed him that the Armenib ns were preparing to revolt, but that he was trying to persuade them not to. (26)
The Consul of Trabzon, Alfred Bliotti, in his report dated 5 March 1881, gave an account of a discussion he had with the Russian Consul-General of Erzurum. He wrote that the Russian Consul-General had told him that `the Russian Consul in Van, who is of Armenian origin, was attempting to create incidents in Armenia, that he had reported the situation to his government, but that he was dismissed instead of the Consul'. Bliotti went on to say that the former chief translator of the Istanbul Embassy, Belotsercovetz, had been appointed to the Trabzon Consulate, and that this individual had played a very active role in the Bulgarian rebellion. (27)
At the beginning of 1882, Everett wrote that evidence was increasing that the Armenians were preparing to revolt. (28) The Consul had been provided with two documents, in Armenian, which were used to register volunteers. The first documerit was used for the oath of loyalty of the volunteer, and the second was used for the employment of the taker of the oath. The ConsulGeneral reported that the quality of the paper indicated that they had been printed in Russia, and that the watermarks showed that they could have been printed between December 1880 and August 1881. (When this information was submitted to Dufferin, he instructed the Consul that there was no need to inform the local authorities.)
Everett, in his report of June 1882, (29) stated that he had received his information from totally reliable sources, that the attempts of the Armenians were preparations, that they were working to raise the people's consciousness, to strengthen nationalistic feelings, that the activities extended in the south to Mush and Van, that Van was one of the main centres, that the activities were supported by Russia, and that the main agent was the Russian Consul in Van, Kamsaraghan.
The new Consul of Erzurum, Eyres, in a report he sent to his Embassy on 9 December 1882,3o wrote that the day before the government had discovered a rebellion attempt of Armenians, that there were about 40 arrests, and that the government knew the identity of approximately 700 participants. (We shall return to this subject on page 130.)
Portakalian was one of those who worked with Hrimyan in Van. When arrests started following the Erzurum incident, and he was forbidden to reside in Van, Portakalian decided to leave the country with some of his followers. He went to Marseilles and in 1885 began to publish there a newspaper, Armenia, which is still published. One of Portakalian's supporters, Avetisian, return to Van and or anized a revolutionary party, `Armenakan'.
Following Portakalian, an Armenian group in England began to publish a newspaper, Hayastan. Later, this group succeeded in founding the BritishArmenian Committee in England in 1888. This committee, which included some prominent members of the Liberal Party, became one of the most important propaganda centres of the Armenian question.
In 1885, the Armenakan Party was founded in Van, in 1887 the Hunchak Party was founded in Switzerland, followed by the Tashnak Party, and the revolt activities became the responsibility of these parties and committees.
The first association founded by Armenians within the Empire was the `Benevolent Union founded in Istanbul in 1860. The aim of this association was to restore Cilicia. The association included such well-known figures as H. Shishmanian, M. Beshiktashian, N. Sivajian, S. Tagvorian, and Dr H. Katibian. It is reported that the association did not secretly get involved in the subject of revolt, but that some of its members took part in the 1862 Zeitun events and the y names of Hasi Shishmanian and Migirdich Beshiktashian are given. (31)
Between 1870 and 1880, the societies of `Araratian' in Van, `The Friends of the Schools' and `The East' in Mush, and `Nationalistic Women' in Erzurum appeared. Later the `Araratian', `Friends of the Schools', and `East' united and formed `The United Association of Armenians'. In outlook, all of these associations were committed to social affairs. (32)
Revolutionary associations were also founded alongside these societies. In 1878 the association of `Black Cross' was founded in Van. This association was similar to the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. In 1881, the association of `The Defenders of the Motherland' (Pashtpan Haireniats) was founded in Erzurum. Its aim was to arm Armenians to protect them from attacks. It was this organization whose activities had been discovered in 1882, and whose members had been arrested. (only lasted for one an â h shall return to this subject. ) This association only lasted for one and a half years, from May 1881 to November 1882.
The first revolution g ary political party was the Armenian Party. Although he had nothin to do with the founding of the party, Migirdich Portakalian's name is associated with Armenakan. Portakalian, who was born in Istanbul in 1848, was a teacher who spent many years in Van teaching in the school he had founded and trained a generation of revolutionaries. (33)
When, in 1885, he was forbidden to reside in Van, as we have mentioned he went to France and began to publish the Armenia newspaper there. Although in the beginning he presented himself as a loyal Turkish citizen his views changed with time; he became a real revolutionary, and began working on the slogan that independence would not be gained without shedding blood.
In the autumm of 1885, nine individuals who were Portakalian's students founded the Armenakan Party. These nine individuals were Migirdich Terlemezian (Avetisian), Grigor Terlemezian, Ruben Shatavarian,Grigor Adian, Grigor Ajemian, M.Bratjian, Gevord Hanjian, Grigor Beozikian, and Gareghim Manukian. It is believed that Avetisian was the leader of this organization and that he made the contact with Portakalian. Although the newspaper Armenia was connected with this party. It never became the official newspaper of the party. Despite the fact that in August 1885 Armenia was not allowed to enter Turkey, in continued to be secretly introduced. (In 1886, it was forbidden that the newspaper enter Russia).
The Part Programme was written b hand in seven or eight copies, and was published for the first time after the Second World War. (34) We summarize it below.
The Party was founded in order to obtain the right of Armenians to rule themselves. Only Armenians can be Party members. To attain its goal, the Party shall unite all patriotic Armenians who share the same ca ûe, shall spread revolutionary ideas, shall teach members to use wea ons, shall teach them military discipline, shall provide weapons and money, shall organize guerrilla forces, and shall prepare the people to a general movement. The Party shall be formed of active and auxiliary members; the latter shall only provide financial support. A central organization shall be formed, and regional committees shall be established. The Central Organization shall be formed by representatives of Regional Committees. An additional committee shall be formed to ensure cooperation with other revolutionary groups.
It is also reported that the Russian Consul Major Kamsaraghan gave instruction about using weapons and military strategy in the Armenian Schoolin Van.
It is reported in Nalbandian's book that the known activities of the party were the shoot-out between three revolutionaries disguised as Kurds (Hovannes Agripassian, Vardan Goloshian and Karabet Kulaksizian) and Turkish gendarmes, Avetisian's attack with three accomplices on a Kurdish group, and various murders, including that of police officer Nuri Efendi in Van on 16 October 1892.
There is also a rumour that the Armenakan Party became in time the Ramgavar Party. The two organizations which we must focus on are, without any doubt, the Committees of Hunchak and Tashnak.
In Armenian, Hunchak (Hinchak or Henchak) means Bell. The founders of this party were the children of well-to-do families, who had never set foot in the Ottoman Empire, who were sent to Paris to study, and who had adopted Marxist theory. It is accepted that it was Portakalian and the newspaper Armenia which he published that united them. As a matter of fact, Avetis Nazarbekian, who wrote fervent revolutionary articles in the newspaper Armenia, was a student in Paris. In the summer of 1886 he went from Paris to Geneva with his fiancee Marian Vardanian. At that time they were both only in their twenties. In Geneva they met four Russian Armenian students, Gabriel Kafian, Ruben Hanazad, Nicoli Martinian, and Migirdich Manucharian. All were readers of Armenia. Because Armenia dwelled on the situation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, the main topic of conversation between these six students was how to save the Armenians of Turkey, which they had never seen. Later, Manucharian left the group, but another student, Gevorg Harajian from Montpellier, joined.
This six-member group decided to organize a society, and asked Portakalian to lead them, but did not receive a positive answer. The group then decided to publish another newspaper in response to Armenia, and began a campaign to raise money. They applied to the Mekhitarist Monastery in Vienna, and requested Armenian type for a newspaper to be published in Armenian. While waiting for the type they formed a threemember committee (Nazarbekian, Vardanian, and Harajian) towards the end of 1886 and began preparing the programme of the future organization. We give below the main points of the project which was later announced as the programme of the Revolutionary Hunchak Party. (35)
1. The present order must be removed by a revolution and must be replaced by a new society based on economic realities and social justice.
2. The first goal of the Party is to obtain the political and national independence of Turkish Armenia. After having attained this goal, an attempt will be made to reach various political and economic aims. The political aims are:
- the establishment of a Legislative Popular Assembly to be elected with free elections by general and direct vote;
- the election of national representatives from all classes of society;
- extensive provincial autonomy;
- extensive city autonomy;
- the right for every individual to be employed in any office;
- absolute freedom of press, speech, conscience, assembly, organization, and vote;
- general military service.
3. The economic aims shall be established after a careful study of the people's needs and wishes. Probably a progressive tax above a certain income level will be applied.
4. The method to be used to attain goals which will be realized in Turkey through revolution is propaganda, provocation, terror, organization and the peasant and worker movements.
The propaganda will consist of explaining to the people the basic reasons and the appropriate time of the revolt against the Government. Provocation and terror are necessary to increase the people's courage. The main methods of provocation are demonstrations against the Government, not paying taxes, not wanting reform, creating hatred against the aristocratic class. Terror is the method for protecting the people and obtaining their trust in the Hunchak programme. The Party's aim is to use terror against the Ottoman Government, but the Government will not be the only target. Terror will also be used against dangerous Turks and Armenians working for the Government, spies and informers.
5. A special branch will be formed to organize these terrorist activities.
6. The Party shall include a central committee. Two large revolutionary groups shall be formed by workers and peasants. In addition to these groups, bands of guerrillas shall be formed.
7.The most appropriate time to realize the revolution will be when Turkey is at war.
8.Syriacs and Kurds must be won over in the struggle against Turks.
9.After the independence of the Armenia of Turkey, the revolution will be extended to the Armenia of Russia and Iran, and a Federative Armenia will be established.
It appeared that the Hunchak programme was both nationalist and communist. First it based the revolution on class struggle against economic exploitation, and then it aimed at establishing a nationalist state.
It was clear that the students who had drafted the programme had adopted the views of revolutionary Russians; they were in contact with Plekhanov and Zasulich, Russian revolutionaries who were in Geneva.
This project was unanimously accepted by the students, and the Hunchak Party was founded de facto in Geneva in August 1887. However, it was later called, in 1890, the Revolutionary Hunchak Party, referring to the newspaper it published.
The Armenian type arrived in 1887, and the Hunchak newspaper began to be published in Armenian. The Party Programme was published in the October-November 1888 issue.
The economic and social views of the Hunchaks did not find an audience among the middle- and upper-class Armenians in Russia, or in Turkey. The Hunchaks chose Istanbul as their centre of operation, and sent organizers to other regions (Bafra, Merzifon, Amasya, Tokat, Yozgat, Arapkir, Trabzon). The Hunchaks were supported by young people, and began to gather supporters among them in Turkey, Russia, and Iran.
According to Esat Uras, those who came to Istanbul to open the Centre were Shimavon from Tifiis, Megoveryan from Batum, Danielian from Iran, and Rupen Hanazad from Russia. (36) This last was one of the founding members of the Party in Geneva.
The Hunchak Party took responsibility for the demonstrations of Kumkapi and the Babiali, and the rebellions of Sassun and Zeitun. We shall later examine each of these in turn.
When it became apparent that the activities undertaken in Turkey did not produce the desired result, the Hunchak Party was split into two factions. One group claimed that the European powers did not support them because of the socialist ideas of the Party programme. They wanted to exclude all socialist principles from the programme. This difference of opinion resulted i in a split into two factions in 1896, the Nazarbekian faction, and the antiNazarbekian faction which wanted to abandon socialist ideas. This second faction held a meeting in 1896 in Alexandria and founded the `New Hunchak Party'. The Revolutionary Hunchak Party held its second general congress in London in 1896 and continued to exist.
In Armenian the word Dashnaksutyun means Federation. Because this party was born through the unity of various Armenian groups, especially those in Russia, it was called the Federation. The word was shortened into `Tashnak' when using it in Turkish.
The factions which gave rise to the federation can be divided into three main groups.
The first, called non-socialist revolutionary nationalists, was formed by individuals who were interested in the independence of the Armenians of Turkey, and who leaned towards the Armenakan Party. Most of them were students studying in St Petersburg, and their spokesman was Konstantin Hatisian, a wealthy Russian Armenian. This group was called the Northerners, based on the name of the boarding house where they gathered (Severnye Nomera = Northern Boarding House).
One group of the socialist revolutionaries wanted to cooperate with Russian and Georgian revolutionaries and abolish the Tsarist regime. A second group focussed only on the Armenians of Turkey. Both socialist groups were generally supported by students in Moscow. They were called the Southerners from the name of the boarding house where they gathered in Tiflis (Iuzhnye Nomera = Southern Boarding House). Within the group which focused on the Armenians of Turkey there were some who were members of the Hunchak Party. (37)
It is not known how and when these various groups came together. However, it is known that Christopher Mikealian, Stepan Zartan, and Simon Zavarian made unification possible in the summer of 1890, and that Ruben Hanazad took part in the meetings in the name of the Hunchak Party.
It is said that, at the beginning, a secret bureau established in Geneva organized and administered the activities, and that this bureau managed the other members with very strict discipline. (38) Even so, the area where the main activity took place and where the most important leaders were was Tiflis. According to another report, Trabzon was chosen as the centre. Nalbandian, who gives this information, states that `The Central Committee was formed of five members, and most of them continued to live in Tiflis. These five individuals who were elected to the executive board were C. Mikaelian, S. Zavarian, Abraham Dastakian H. Loris Malikian, and Levon Sarkisian. (39)
When the federation was formed in 1890, it appeared that the Hunchak Party was included in it. This unity, however, did not last long. The Hunchaks severed their ties with the federation on 5 June 1891, claiming that the Tashnaks were very slow in organizing their activities. Obviously it was hardly practical for the Hunchaks, who had communist tendencies, to remain in the federation.
The Hunchaks were followed by non-socialist leaders such as Konstantin Hatisian. Discontent arose from the fact that the Tashnaks had first announced a Manifesto, before drafting a programme. They decided to hold a General Congress in the summer of 1892, and began to publish the newspaper Droshak, one of the Party's official journals.
The programme of the Tashnaks was drafted during this 1892 meeting.
The programme stated that the Party would form revolutionary groups to reach its goal by means of revolts, and indicated that the methods of the Russian nihilists would be adopted. (40)
The methods to be used by revolutionary bands organized by the Party were as follows: (41)
l. To propagandize for the principles of the Dasnaksutyun and its objectives, based upon an understanding of, and sympathy with, the revolutionary work.
2. To organize fighting bands, to work with them with regard to the above-mentioned problems, and to prepare them for activity.
3. To use every means, by word and deed, to arouse the revolutionary activity and spirit of the people.
4. To use every means to arm the people.
5. To organize revolutionary committees and establish strong links between them.
6. To stimulate fighting and to terrorize government officials, informers, traitors, usurers, and every kind of exploiter.
7. To organize financial districts.
8. To protect the peaceful people and the inhabitants against attacks by brigands.
9.To establish communications for the transportation of men and arms.
10.To expose government establishments to looting and destruction.
The Party also drafted an organizational regulation and founded the Eastern and Western bureaus. The Eastern bureau included the area east of the Giresun-Harput-Diyarbekir axis, Caucasia, Russia, and Iran. The Western bureau included the area west of Giresun-Harput-Diyarbekir, the Balkans, America, Egypt, and other foreign countries. The Western bureau also organized the activities of these bureaus. (42)
From the moment it was founded, the Tashnak Party was a terrorist organization. While the Hunchak Party wanted to form a politically independent Armenia by uniting the Armenias of Turkey, Russia, and Iran, the Tashnak Party did not even mention the word independence in its 1892 programme. It also did not claim a separation from the Ottoman Empire. Nalbandian states that `the fact that the political goals of the Tashnaks were almost identical to the reform project submitted by the Patriarch Nerses to the Berlin Congress, was expressed in the first editorial of Droshak'. In 1919, during their 9th General Congress, the Tashnaks expanded their programme, and adopted the goal of founding an autonomous and independent Republic by uniting the Armenias of Turkey and Russia.
The Tashnaks, who started their activities as a terrorist organization, assumed responsibility for the attack on the Ottoman Bank, the 1904 revolt in Sassun, and the assassination in Yildiz. In addition there were various other incidents. We shall examine these later.
Let us first make the following observation. Before the Tashnaks appeared as an organized party, they had started their terrorist acts. The Tashnaks had assassinated Gerekjian, the former president of the `Defenders of the Motherland' Society, in 1891 in Erzurum, acting on the decision taken by the local central committee. Gerekjian's error had been to oppose immediate revolutionary activity and to suggest prudence and preparations. The local central committee had him killed, following the motto that he who is not with us is against us. In 1892, the Tashnak Central Committee disapproved of this assassination, but did not punish Aram Aramian who was responsible for it. (43)
The ideas of rebellion which developed after the Church and the religious factor on one side, and the policies of the powers on the other, had prepared the ground, were easily utilized by the terrorist organizations, and the epoch of rebellions came. In this period, propaganda became a very effective weapon.
Before describing Armenian terrorist activities and rebellions, it will be useful to record various reflections and observations that have been made regarding this topic.
We cited one, from Sydney Whitman, in Chapter 2.44 During his discussion with the British Consul in Erzurum, Whitman asked whether, in his opinion, any killings would have taken place, if Armenian revolutionaries had not arrived in the country to encourage the people to revolt, and the Consul had replied, `No, without any doubt, not one Armenian would have been killed'.
Clair Price observed in 1923:
. . . the Capitulations were more than merely a legal process. They constituted a mental attitude toward the Ottoman Government. They made it the Western habit to disregard the Ottoman Government and to establish contacts with its subjects quite independently of the existing relations with that country. Under the Capitulations, the West long ago established contact with the Ottoman Government's Christian subjects and a code of governmental conduct was unwittingly built up which the West applied to that Government alone. Under this code, any Ottoman Christian was given the right to rebel against the Government but the Government, although it was the only body charged with the maintenance of peace in the country, was denied the right to put down Christian rebellion. This code the West has applied to no other Government. (45)
One of the revolutionaries told Dr. Hamlin, the founder of Robert College, that the Hentchak bands would `watch their opportunity to kill Turks and Kurds, set fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged Moslems will then rise, and fall upon the defenceless Armenians and slaughter them with such barbarity that Russia will intervene in the name of humanity and Christian civilization.' When the horrified missionary denounced the scheme as atrocious and infernal beyond anything ever known, he received this reply: `It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free. Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children. . . . We are desperate. We shall do it'. (46)
The Armenian, for all his ineffaceable nationalism, his passion for plotting and his fanatical intolerance, would be a negligible thorn in the Ottoman side did he stand alone. The Porte knows very well that while Armenian Christians are Gregorian, Catholic, and Protestant, each sect bitterly intolerant of the others, and moreover while commerce and usury are all in Armenian hands, it can divide and rule secure; but behind the Armenian secret societies (and there are few Armenians who have not committed technical treason by becoming members of such societies at some period of their lives) it sees the Kurd, and behind the Kurd the Russian; or, looking west, it espies through the ceaseless sporadic propaganda of the agitators Exeter Hall and the Armenian committees. The Turk begins to repress because we sympathize, and we sympathize the more because he represses, and so the vicious circle revolves. Does he habitually, however, do more than repress? Does he, as administrator, oppress? So far we have heard one version only, one party to this suit, with its stories of outrage, and echoing through them a long cry for national independence. The mouth of the accused has been shut hitherto by fatalism, by custom, by that gulf of misunderstanding which is fixed between the Christian and the Moslem.
In my own experience of western Armenia, extending more or less over four years up to 1894, I have seen no signs of a Reign of Terror. . . . Life in Christian villages has not shown itself outwardly to me as being very different from life in the villages of Islam, nor the trade and property of Armenians in towns to be less secure than those of Moslems. . . . There was tension, there was friction, there was a condition of mutual suspicion as to which Armenians have said to me again and again, `If only the patriots would leave us to trade and to till!'. . . . The Turk rules by right of five hundred years' possession, and before his day the Byzantine, the Persian, the Parthian, the Roman preceded each other as over-lords of Greater Armenia back to the misty days of the first Tigranes. The Turk claims certain rights in this matter - the right to safeguard his own existence, the right to smoke out such hornets' nests as Zeitun, which has annihilated for centuries past the trade of the Eastern Taurus, the right to remain dominant by all means not outrageous. (47)