Map Close  
Person info Close  
Information Close  
Source reference Close  
  Svenska
 
Index

Armenia

The Urartu Civilisation

Victory for Independence

Artashisian Dynasty on the Armenian Throne

Armenia caught between Rome and the Arsacids

The Acceptance of Christianity

Defending Christianity

Armenia Under the Bagratouni Dynasty

Cilicia - the New Armenia

Armenia Under Turanian Rule

The Renaissance or the Resurrection of Armenia

The Eastern Question

Russia in the Caucasus

The Armenian Question

Battle on Two Fronts

Tsarist Russia Against the Armenians

The Revolution of the Young Turks and the Armenian People on the Eve of World War I

The First World War

The Resurrection of Armenia

Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

- Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918

Eastern Armenia

Western Armenia

"The Fateful Years" (1914-1917)

"Hopes and Emotions" (March-October, 1917)

The Bolshevik Revolution and Armenia

Transcaucasia Adrift (November, 1917

Dilemmas (March-April, 1918)

War and Independence (April-May, 1918)

The Republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia

The Suppliants (June-October, 1918)

In conclusion

Soviet Armenia

The Second Independent Republic of Armenia

Epilogue

Previous page Page 330 Next page Smaller font Larger font Print friednly version  
Pronounced religious antagonisms in the Ottoman dominion were of relatively late development. As long as Europe was considered culturally, politically, and militarily inferior, and as long as the subject nationalities performed their special obligations, there was little purpose in upsetting the established balance. During the seventeenth century, however, rebellions by Moslem chieftains, corruption in the administrative system, and the European threat to the security of the Empire fostered the growth of intolerance. The following century brought in its wake large Ottoman territorial losses and intensified unrest among the Balkan Christians, who were eventually to be assisted in their toward liberation by the diplomacy and arms of Europe.

It was unfortunate for the Armenians that the resurgence of their political consciousness lagged behind that of the Balkan peoples. The Armenian Plateau, distant from Western Europe, was not given the same attention by the Continental powers as were the Balkan provinces. By the time the Armenians had formulated their programs for reforms, self-rule, and even political autonomy, the Ottoman Empire was entrenched in a period of reaction. To the Turkish government, threatened with the final partition and dissolution of the Empire, Armenian demands were embarrassing, disloyal, and dangerous. Each supplication to Europe aroused more Turkish antagonism and suspicion. Every protest from Europe further sensitised the Ottoman rulers to the Armenian problem. If the Armenians were to follow the Balkan example, the entire Plateau would be lost.

Internationalisation of the "Armenian Question"

In 1876, the failure of projects for general reforms in Turkey, the Armenian protestations against devastating incursions of Moslem tribesmen, and above all, contagious Balkan revolts, elicited strong European pressure on the Sublime Porte. 3 Apparently in an attempt to eliminate the grounds for foreign interventions in Ottoman affairs, Sultan Abdul Hamid II promulgated a liberal constitution, which, if properly applied, should have satisfied not only the Armenians but all the subject peoples of the Empire. 4 That the constitution was soon suspended and the parliament instituted by it prorogued indicated, however, that Abdul Hamid's manoeuvre prove no more advantageous for the Armenians than had the earlier reform measures. Consequently the Armenians welcomed the Russian advance of 1877, and the Patriarchate, thrusting aside its normal conservatism and Russophobia, begged tsarist officials to protect the Ottoman Armenians. Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano seemed to provide for such protection, but its force was swept away by Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin, which stripped Russia from her coercive power and placed the responsibility for compelling the Sultan to carry out reforms upon the entire European Concert of Nations. Thus, as the influential Duke of Argyll later declared, "What was everybody's business was nobody's business." 5 Despite this setback, Patriarch Nerses Varzhapetian could still report to the representatives of his people that the solution of its problems was not hopeless, but simply delayed. As the spokesman of Western Armenians, he reiterated his loyalty to the Sultan and insisted that any changes be initiated within the framework of the Ottoman administration. 6 At the time that the Balkan states were being awarded independence, Armenian separatist tendencies were still negligible.

The Treaty of Berlin elevated the so-called Armenian question to the level of international diplomacy. Whether any benefits were derived from this is debatable, but that reforms remained unimplemented is not. From the eastern provinces, European diplomatic representatives kept their respective superiors informed about the aggravated misery of the Armenians and the injustices of Ottoman officials. 7 Neither the British proposals for reform, the increase in the number of European consuls on the Plateau, nor the subsequent notes of protest and warning from the six-nation European Concert improved the situation. 8 By 1881 Austria expressed the view that continued collective action was unnecessary, and Germany urged that further consideration of the Armenian problem be postponed until the involved Ottoman-Greek boundary dispute was settled. 9 Active European participation on behalf of the Armenians thus entered a period of dormancy lasting more than a decade.