Hakob Kocharian, delegation first secretary, has recorded the details of the humiliating interviews in pursuance of the first goal. In presence of numerous Turkish officials, the suppliants proclaimed thanks to the Ottoman Empire for allowing the Armenian Republic. Khatisian and Aharonian felt the greatest revulsion to their acts of obeisance when performed before Enver and Talaat pashas. The hypocrisy began the day the delegation arrived in Constantinople. Met at the quay by Mukhtar Bey, former ambassador to Russia, Aharonian's entourage was taken to the Tokatlian Hotel as guests of the Ottoman government. There, Khatisian spoke of the new star of friendship which shone above the two neighbouring lands. When the delegation called at the Sublime Porte, Talaat lamented the misfortune that had befallen the Armenians. He blamed the Kurds, the military, and irresponsible local administrators for the calamity, but the Ottoman Vizier also pointed an accusing finger at the Armenians: "Our enemies were the Russians, but when the fired on our soldiers, their bullets would strike at our feet. However, when the Armenians who were Turkish subjects began to fire and betrayed their homeland, then their bullets stuck the hearts of our soldiers." 51 The petitioners hurriedly changed the topic of conversation from past to present and future relations.
The most candid official in this period of duplicity was Enver Pasha. He received the Armenian delegates coldly, gave them few hopes, and offered no sympathy. The man through whom concession must be gained seemed the least amenable to granting them. Khatisian was impressed by the contrast between Talaat and Enver. While the first was slovenly, easily agitated, and rambling in speech, the latter was smart, shrewd, and precise. Unlike Talaat, he could not be provoked during heated discussions into disclosing a bit of secret information. During Enver's first interview with the Armenians, he rejected entreaties to permit the Republic to expand just a little. He stated clearly that his tactic was to solve the Armenian problem by condoning the establishment, on former Russian territory, of a small state which would not deter the interests of the "old or the new Turkey." All major routes east were to remain Turkish; the borders drawn in Article II of the Batum Treaty would not be altered. 52
At the beginning of July, the delegation was granted an audience by Sultan Mehmed V and the heir apparent, Vahideddin. Abdul Hamid's successor expressed satisfaction that the Armenians now had a state of their own, and he earnestly anticipated lasting good relations. Crown Prince Vahideddin, destined to rise to the throne of Osman in a few days as Mehmed VI, left a favourable impression on Khatisian and Aharonian. He bewailed the suffering of the Armenian people and, according to a delegation report, later disclosed his dissatisfaction and impatience with the Ittihadist leaders whose contrivance had placed Turkey on the wrong path. 53 In September, during an audience to felicitate the enthronement of the Sultan, Aharonian expressed thanks for Vahideddin's good wishes and again promised that the Armenian government would not forget the Ottoman charity which had allowed the Republic to be created. With obvious satisfaction, Enver translated the laudation from French to Turkish. The Armenians acted well the role of suppliants. 54
Interviews were also solicited with other ranking officials. Foreign Minister Nessimi, Marine Minister Rauf, and Ittihad Central Committee members Bahaeddin Shakir and Nazim Bey all enunciated the desire for friendship but pointed out that only Talaat and Enver could grant concessions. News of the Baku massacres reached Constantinople, Shakir and Nazim claimed that the information was grossly exaggerated and that, if excesses had occurred, it was only because the Ottoman troops were too fatigued to restrain the Tatar bands. Furthermore, they complained that, while the Armenians might be subject to physical violence, the Turks were being annihilated morally. Widespread Armenian propaganda had aroused the fury of America and Europe. "The Murderous Turk" was the phrase circulating from one capital to another. 55 The same charge was repeated by Talaat and Enver. The latter stressed that in time of war the civilian population inevitably suffered. Other nations killed with cannons and rifles, while the Turks killed with scimitars and bayonets. There was no difference in the en result – it was death. Those who castigated Turkey were Pharisees, for they chose to ignore the perpetrations of their own governments. 56
|
