Armenian Question and The Unites States mandatory Issue over Armenia
INTRODUCTION
The Berlin Treaty, which was signed in 1878 between the Ottoman Empire, Russian Empire, United Kingdom, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany and Italy, revised the Treaty of San Stefano in the same year, was the turning point for Armenian Question and Eastern Question. As a result of this treaty, the situation in the Balkans was settled to a large extent by the European Powers in accordance with their interest. However, the Armenian Question was suspended for the next decades. The decision taken by European Powers as to Armenia during the Berlin Treaty was that the Sublime Port would make reforms in the places where the population mostly consist of the Armenians.
Throughout the next decades, the Armenian Question became a complicated subject between Ottoman government and European Powers and it
…show more content…
was not settled until after World War I. The Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria were defeated during the war by Western Allies which were France, United Kingdom, the United States and Associated countries. Armenia took side with the Allies during the war at many fronts. It was the first time for the Armenian people to settle their problems in a way of their demands. In order to talk about the treaty which was going to be prepared for the final solution of the Ottoman Empire, the Western Allies held conferences in Paris, London and San Remo (Italy) respectively. As a parallel to these conferences, there was an increasing interest among Armenian people and organizations for the mandate of the USA over Armenia. They started preparing memorandums to excite the attention of the Congress’ and political decision-makers’, among them the important person was the president of the USA, Woodrow Wilson. There were some initiatives for mandatory over Armenia, such as General Harbord’s and George Van Horn Moseley’s reports. They did the feasibility study as to whether the mandatory is possible or not. Contrary to all this interest about mandatory over Armenia, as a pioneer figure Woodrow Wilson, the US Congress rejected it. In this paper, I will explain the reasons why Armenian people had sought the USA’s mandatory and also, I will mention the reasons why the US Congress rejected mandatory over Armenia. Lastly, I will mention the progress after the Treaty of Sevres in order to explain why America’s mandatory was important for the Armenians. 1) Conference Process and Emergence of Mandatory Idea From Paris Peace Conference held on January 19, 1919 to San Remo Conference held on April 18-26, 1920 there were different approaches as to Armenian Question. The president of the Delegation from the Armenian Republic to the Peace Conference, A. Aharonian and the president of the Armenian National Delegation Boghos Nubar submitted a memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference as to the Armenian demands. According to this memorandum, they defined the Armenian borders which are the seven vilayets of Bitlis, Van, Kharpout, Diarbekir, Trebizon, Sivas and Erzeroum; four Cilician sancaks which are Khozan (Sis), Djebel-Bereket, Adana together with the Alexandretta and Marash. Also, they claimed all the Armenian territory in the Caucasus including Kars and Ardahan (Nubar, p. 5). This was the first international conference that Armenian people showed their demands to the international community. They also mentioned about mandatory rule that “The Armenian Conference, gathered at the present moment in Paris, and representing the whole Armenian Nation, should be consulted about the choice of the Mandatory Power. The mandate to be of a maximum duration of twenty years” (Nubar, p. 7). The tendency among Armenians about mandatory was toward the USA. For example, the letter sent from American Diplomatic Mission in Egypt of Hampson Gary to Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, Washington mentioned that Armenian Catholicos of Cilicia, Sahag II expressed his desire and sympathy toward American mandatory (American Diplomatic Agency and Consulate General, Cairo, Egypt, No: 421). Another example is a telegram directly sent to the President pointed out that “We believe that without regard to party or creed the American people (are deeply interested in the welfare of Armenian people) and expect to see the restoration of the independence of Armenia (Philips, June 28, 1919). The America’s mandatory was not only claimed by telegrams but also books or articles were written about it. James W. Gerard listed 22 reasons as to why America should take the mandatory over Armenia. Among those reasons, mandatory system was mentioned as it could be an important phase for preserving weak nations against strong ones (Gerard et al., p. 5). On the other hand, there were some doubts about this kind arguments in US politicians mind. To illustrate, a letter sent from Department of State, Office of Solicitor to the Secretary claimed the information that the head of the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia, James W. Gerard was trying to get information about the Armenians who might serve incase US undertook any mandatory policy over Armenia. He added his comment that this kind of action might be resulted certain criticism from the Congress (Department of State, Office of Solicitor, August 25, 1919). As the claims and demands increased and the necessity of reliable information came out. Another example from a news of The Washington Post. It is mentioned that if the United States accepts the mandatory over Armenia, he will share the common border with Russia. They could have clash. Also, Armenia will be among large number of the Turks not only in Anatolia but also in Caucasus. Preserving peace between these groups might be distressed (Mar 26, 1919, p. 6). 2) Moseley and Harbord Reports for the Mandatory Duty There were two important reports about the possibility of American mandatory over Armenia. The first one was prepared by General James Harbord on April 13, 1920 one week before the San Remo Conference. According to his report, there were military and economic problems which have to be dealt with. Firstly he offered that the first duty of mandatory power was to create order and security in the region. Secondly, the training of the native police was priority. Also, considering tensions among ethnic groups such as Kurds, Arabs, Turks or others, constant force should be deployed so that they could support the local police force (Harbord, p. 18-19). He also calculated the estimated expense of this mandatory duty. Estimated number for the first year was $275 million, for the second year $174,264 million and the total number for 5 years mandatory was $756,014 million (Harbord, p. 24-25). In his report, he also listed negative and positive aspect of this responsibility. General Moyeles prepared similar comments on his report as General Harbord did. According to the Moyeles’ report which was submitted on May 27, 1920; if America accepts this mandatory duty, it should be only the humanitarian ground except for any other interest. In terms of security in the region, mandatory should ensure internal order and protection of people. In order to provide this, he offers 30.000 local police force for security. The total cost that he calculated for mandatory purposed was around $100 million (Moyeles, p. 28-35). These reports played important role for the decision of the Congress because they contained important analyses in terms of military and economic requirements of possible mandatory duty over Armenia. Between April 18-26, 1920 and May 24, 1920 was the peak times of the decision of the United States as to whether they would undertake the mandatory duty over Armenia. This is because during San Remo Conference held in Italy on April 18-26, 1920, the pressure had been increased so that United States undertook this duty. Also, the article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant defined the role of mandatory as “The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be intrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience, or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as mandatories on behalf of the league” (Report of Mr. Moores to House of Representatives, Report no:1101). On the other hand, the official reports were prepared around the same time containing possible consequences of the mandatory duty. General Harbord’s report submitted one week before the San Remo Conference and General Moyeles’ report submitted couple days after the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson made his speech to the Congress as to Armenian mandatory should be admitted. In his speech, Woodrow Wilson mentioned about the report that it was not only reflecting his feelings but also representing all American people.
He explained why the Central Powers were in need of United States mandatory that the Central Powers had already embarked many responsibilities stemmed from the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (Wilson, p. 2). According to his speech, the official request for American mandatory over Armenia offered even though the Central Powers had pressured informally so far. In reply to this request, President Wilson asked the Congress decision to be authorized on this duty.
The President’s speech was well-accepted among Armenians that one of the reaction came from A. F. Hafopisan who was the Vice-President and Special Envoy of the Armenia National Delegation to the Peace Conference to the Secretary of the State, BainBridge Colby. He emphasized in his letter that the question of mandatory over Armenia has been about to be decided and the people supporting American mandate should continue to express their opinions to the President Wilson (Hafopisan, May 27,
1920). 3) The Treaty of Sevres (August 10, 1920) After Paris, London and San Remo Conferences, the Central Powers could not partition the Ottoman Empire. The next conference held in France on August 10, 1920. The Treaty of Sevres was signed among Allied Powers. According to this treaty, “Turkey, in accordance with the action already taken by the Allied Powers, hereby recognises Armenia as a free and independent State” (The Treaty of Sevres, Section VI-Article 88). Also, Armenia and Turkey accepted the arbitration of the President Wilson for the controversial regions which are Van, Bitlis, Trebizond and Erzurum. After the partition of the Ottoman Empire by Central Powers, the new national movement started in Anatolia by the leadership of Mustapha Kemal. This movement started changing balance in Anatolia and also they did not accept the Treaty of Sevres. That is why a new conference held in London in order to revise the Treaty of Sevres by Allied Powers and Turkey. However, the sides of conference could not make any decisions due to strong controversial arguments. This progress of the Turks in Anatolia distressed Armenians and it reverberated the memorandum presented to British Armenie Committee. It is mentioned on this memorandum that the Armenian Question turns into a fragile stage because of London Conference. The subject of the conference will be the certain modification of the Treaty of Sevres. He emphasized that Armenian people should prevent any kind of initiative which predicts alteration on the treaty (Nubar, May 12, 1921). This is an example of separation between the Allies because as the nationalist movement arose in Anatolia, the divergence between the Allies increased. As the divergence increased among the Allies, they started to search other alternatives. For example, after Armenian people understood that the balance in Anatolia has started chancing, they again started to get the US help. For example, a memorandum on Armenia presented to the government of the United States by the Armenian National Union of America explained the reasons why United States should help to Armenia. According to this memorandum, sense of justice, obligations, interest of America, the wish of the American people and the obligations were listed as reasons for American help. In the same memorandum they also request from United States government to become guarantor for the Treaty of Sevres because it is mentioned that France and Italy signed secret treaties with Turks (April 22, 1921). Another example of memorandum presented to the Secretary of the State, Charles Evans Hughes, by James Gerard, the Chairman of the American Committee for the Independence of Armenia. This memorandum is about the treaty signed between Turks and French government. Firstly, he prepared as a draft and submitted to the members of the committee. The replies contained two common points which are “this treaty was unfortunate” and “the promises of the Turks may not relied upon” (December 16, 1921). This treaty was another important for the Armenian Question because it was the first time Mustapha Kemal’s government was recognized by a Central Power, which is one of the powerful. By signing this treaty, French government gained some privileges from the Turks. However, they abandoned their responsibility as a mandatory over Armenian people in the Mediterranean region. The Armenian Question was affected deeply by this disintegration between the Allies. This is because others would follow the French government and they all signed the final treaty which was the Treaty of Lausanne and Armenian Question remained unsolved. Conclusion In the last couple decades of the Ottoman Empire, Armenian question was one of the important and complex issue between European Powers and the Empire. Although the Balkan states gain their independence during those years, the Armenian Question constantly postponed by these states. During the World War I, the Armenian people joined the Western Allies and fought against German-Ottoman block. After the war, they were part of winning party. In exchange for their support to the Allies, they demanded their share from the Ottoman partition as other winning powers. After Ottoman Empire and German accepted their defeat, there were conferences between these two opposed groups. Except for the Ottoman partition, the Allies signed the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Austria-Hungary and Germany. However, these powers could not agree on the same conditions and they did not have the same approaches about the Ottoman Empire. That is why until the Treaty of Sevres which was signed on August 10, 1920, they met Paris, London and San Remo in order to made decision on this issue. During these conferences, Armenian delegation provided a memorandum claiming their arguments on the Ottoman Empire. For example, they provided their claims to the Paris Peace Conference for the first time. However, during the San Remo Conference, it is decided that mandatory powers will be assigned to the small nations until they have enough power to administer their lands. This is decided by article 22 of the League of Nations.
The Ottoman Empire was a large empire that lasted for several hundred years. They were primarily Sunni Muslims and they were led by the Sultan. Over time, they had a long decline, mostly because they hadn’t progressed with the times. France and Britain were getting very involved with their affairs in Egypt. By the late 1800’s most of the Ottoman Empire was gone. During World War One (WWI), in 1916, the Arabs helped Great Britain to defeat the Ottoman Empire. In 1918 the Ottomans surrendered and their empire was dissolved. When mandates were established it caused nationalist ro revolt. General Mustafa
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
As he sat down to compose his congressional address proposing war, the uncertainty of his decision. overwhelmed him. He confided to a member of his cabinet, Frank Cobb, that He had never been as unsure about anything in his life as the judgment he made for the nation (Baker 506). Through a rhetorical analysis of Wilson’s points of argumentation and his style in the presentation to the war. congress, we can gain a better understanding of the president’s purpose.
Woodrow Wilson was the 28th President of the United States and held the office from 1913-1921. He became known as “the Crusader” due to his foreign policy theory that America should be a beacon of liberty and aggressively pursue the spread of democracy throughout the world. His policy would enable America to prosper economically and develop an international security community through the promotion of democracy in other nations. While former Secretary of State Kissinger writes in his book Diplomacy that 20th century American foreign policy has been driven by Wilsonian idealism, an analysis of 21st century US foreign policy reveals that, in fact, US foreign policy has been influenced by ideals that can be characterized as Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian as well.
Link’s book was published in 1979 and was written based upon privet manuscript collections, government archives from the U.S, Brittan, France and Germany, as well as newspapers. Link also reaches from monographs, biographies, and articles from numerous colleagues. (Link.pg 129) Each of these sources are solid and reliable sources, and were well used to put together a book packed with information on Woodrow Wilson’s life. Link uses many firsthand accounts from Wilson himself, but seems almost suspicious of accounts that were not presented first hand. Though Link is extremely selective in what he chose to present, the book clearly presents these facts, but has a very bias opinion of Wilson as discussed earlier. Link’s evidence, though selective, fits nicely in the monograph and makes the aspects of Wilson that he does cover clear and easy to read
He constantly pulls on the heartstrings of the audience by persuading them to choose a truce and freedom over violence. When listeners heard the tranquil life they could live if they followed the points, many of them eagerly agreed with Wilson. When he explained why he entered the war, he said that war “touched us to the quick” (Wilson) because the United States simply could not move on without joining in and correcting the issue. This use of language appeals to the emotions by showing America’s sensitivity and passion towards righteousness. Later, he continues to establish his nation’s morals by declaring “We stand together until the end” (Wilson). Woodrow Wilson makes the unity of his country very clear, likely inspiring others who yearn for similar connections. Also, he uses the word “we” (Wilson) instead of only referring to himself to show that this was a decision made by his whole country. He ends the speech by explaining the commitment of his people, announcing that “they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess” (Wilson). American citizens are so committed to what they believe in, that they are willing to risk it all just to stand up for what they believe is right. All of these statements appeal to feelings because it is moving to hear how the citizens of the United States put their lives on the line in an attempt to achieve a state of peace for every country involved in the
The Special Olympics date back all the way to the year 1968. Many see these Games as a time to honor someone who is able to “overcome” a task, but author William Peace sees this as an insulting portrayal of people with disabilities. Peace is a multidisciplinary school teacher and scholar that uses a wheel chair and writes about the science behind disabilities and handicaps. As a physically handicapped individual, Peace is able to observe a negative portrayal of disabled persons. In his article titled, “Slippery Slopes: Media, Disability, and Adaptive Sports,” William Peace offers his own personal insight, utilizes several statistics regarding handicaps, as well as numerous rhetorical appeals in order to communicate to the “common man”
George Washington, the first president of the United States, had written a very important historical speech and document towards the end of his time in office. He had written the Farewell address which focused on helping America understand the importance of preserving unity, acknowledging the rise of political parties forming, strengthening religion and morality, and he stated his position on American foreign policy. He addressed these ideas with strong tone and used incredible amount of dictions that strengthens his tone as well as representing his appeal to ethos to a strong degree. However, today’s society seemed to forget Washington’s position on foreign policy and has created a new form of the policy. But nonetheless as time grew, change occurs. In today’s society Washington’s foreign policy would include many positive and negative manifestations, but it is still a speech and document that will always apply to America.
The speech “War Message” by former president Woodrow Wilson is one of the most memorable speeches of all time. He is able to capture the audience’s attention and really make them listen with the help of many rhetorical elements. Woodrow Wilson is by far one of the best presidents this nation has ever seen and also one of the best speakers of all time. The magnitude of this speech and what it is about gives it such an appeal without even trying. The rhetorical elements of this text such as ethos, pathos, and logos are what gives this speech its credibility, its powerfulness, and its persuasiveness.
There was a long-standing rivalry between Austria-Hungary and Russia due to their interests in the Balkans. Russia saw her role as leading and supporting her fellow Slav peoples in the Balkans. This Pan-Slav concept provided an ideal excuse to interfere in the Balkans and to extend Russia's influence towards the Eastern Mediterranean. Ideally Russia wished to open the Dardenelles straits to its warships. Austria-Hungary was concerned that this Russian encouragement of nationalism may threaten her borders and inspire nationalism within her own empire. In turn, Germany recognised that as Austria's closest ally her fate was linked with that of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Austria-Hungary was anxious to prevent Russian encroachment in the Balkans. This aim would be best served by the elimination of Serbia, Russia's Balkan ally. In 1878, Russia was humiliated at the Congress of Berlin when her proposal for a Greater Bulgarian state was rejected and Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia to maintain order amongst the nationalist revolts.
President Woodrow Wilson had hopes for a New World. For Wilson, the war had been fought against autocracy. A peace settlement based on liberal-democratic ideals, he hoped, would get rid of the foundations of war. None of Wilson's hopes seemed better than the idea of self-determination -- the right of a people to have its own state, free of any foreign domination. In particular, this goal meant the return of Alsace and Lorraine to France which had been lost to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, the creation of an independent Poland, the changing of the frontiers of Italy to include Austrian lands where Italians lived, and an opportunity for Slavs of the Austro- Hungarian Empire to form their own states.
Ethnic Armenians have resided in the Middle Eastern region of the world since approximately 3500 BC. Armenians lived and still live in many Middle Eastern countries such as Armenia, Turkey, Syria, Iran, Azerbaijan, and the republic of Georgia. Armenians have their own language and alphabet and have a very unique culture, which has set them apart from other countries and ethnic groups. In 300 AD, there was not a single nation who had Christianity as their national religion. “Following the advent of Christianity, Armenia became the very first nation to accept it as the state religion.” Armenian pride in their culture and way of life never wavered, even throughout being conquered by different nations. Armenian lands were taken over by many different nations on several different occasions, but they finally ended up in the Ottoman Empire in the 1500s, when ...
...and military restrictions were implemented. Armenia, and various other independent states were established as a result of the treaty. The empire lost about 80 percent of its original landmass, and eventually declined and fell entirely.
The Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire faced years of persecution and murder due to their religious beliefs and their choice of location. This genocide began, as quoted in The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation by Stephan Astourian, as beginning between the nights of April 24th and 25th, 1915. (Astourian, 1990) On these nights, hundreds of Armenian leaders, ranging from the political sphere to financial and even intellectual leaders were arrested in Constantinople, the capital of the
Studying the factors that went into the Armenian genocide not only gives us an understanding of a historical moment but also provides us with the knowledge for finding out if the mass murders actually occurred. Did the Armenian genocide really happen? Or is it all just a myth? The history that comes with the Armenian genocide is a victim of historical distortion, state-sponsored falsification, and deep divisions between the Armenians and the Turkish people (Mustafa 1). In 1915, it was said that leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. However, the Turkish government does not acknowledge these events, in fact it is still illegal in Turkey to discuss what happened to the Armenians (History.com Staff 1). The elimination of the Armenians was the model of modern genocide, the act in which a certain state adopts a scheme geared to the destruction of a group of its own citizens (Gust 1). In order to understand why the Turks continue the denial of being involved in the criminal act that was eliminating the Armenian people, we must first consider both the Armenian people and the Turkish peoples’ thoughts and knowledge of the events that took place, and only then, after extensive analysis of the evidence recovered, then we can come to a conclusion as to what really happened all those years ago.