Armenian delegation at the Berlin Congress

Last updated
Armenian delegation at the Berlin Congress
DissolvedJuly 13, 1878
Types Diplomatic mission
PurposeReforms achieved in Ottoman Armenia
Location Congress of Berlin
Chief Executives Mkrtich Khrimian
Affiliations Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, Armenian National Assembly

The Armenian delegation at the Berlin Congress was a diplomatic mission led by Archbishop Mkrtich Khrimian, whose objective was to advocate for the interests of Ottoman Armenians before the Great Powers following the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878. This congress marked the inception of the Armenian Question.

Contents

Context

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 witnessed Russian advances in Ottoman Armenia, with the imperial army successfully capturing Bayazet and Kars [1] between late 1877 and early 1878. [2] As they advanced, irregular Kurdish troops and bashi-bazouks looted and burned several Armenian border villages, leading Armenians in the region to welcome the Russians as liberators. [2] The Russian generals in command of this front—Mikhail Loris-Melikov, Arshak Ter-Gukasov, and Ivan Lazarev—were themselves Armenians. [3]

From the Russo-Turkish War to the Treaty of Berlin (1878)
The Russo-Turkish War in Caucasia, 1877-fr.png
The Caucasus front during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878.
Treaty of San Stefano.jpg
The signing of the Treaty of San Stefano (March 3, 1878).
Berliner kongress.jpg
The Berlin Congress (summer 1878) by Anton von Werner (1881).
Mkrtich Khrimian 1881.png
Mkrtich Khrimian shortly after the Berlin Congress.
Khrimian Etchmiadzin memorial.jpg
Monument to Mkrtich Krhimian in Etchmiadzin, Armenia. The inscription reads: “Armenian people, always remember your father's iron ladle”.

In the meantime, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, Nerses Varzhapetyan, and the Armenian National Assembly viewed this triumph as a potential opportunity. [3] They directed the Armenian bishop of Adrianople to request that Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, who had taken control of the city, incorporate stipulations regarding the autonomy of the Armenian provinces within the Ottoman Empire in the proposed peace treaty. [3] The Grand Duke expressed positive sentiments towards this proposition. [3]

The Armenians were able to secure Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano (dated March 3, 1878) from the Russian negotiators. This article provided immediate reforms for Ottoman Armenians. [4] [5] The text of the article is provided below for reference: [6] [7] [8] [9]

Article 16: The evacuation of territories occupied by Russian troops in Armenia, which are to be returned to Turkey, could potentially give rise to conflicts and complications that would be detrimental to the positive relations between the two countries. In light of this, the Sublime Porte has undertaken to implement the necessary improvements and reforms in the provinces inhabited by Armenians without delay and to guarantee their security against the Kurds and Circassians. [10]

The term "administrative autonomy" was initially employed instead of "improvements and reforms," [6] but the text was subsequently modified at the behest of the British. [6]

The troops under the command of Loris-Melikov were charged with the occupation of Erzurum until Tsar Alexander II could be assured of the protection of the local Christian populations. [11] Consequently, these reforms were subject to Russia's control as the occupying power. [12]

The Congress of Berlin

The United Kingdom, under the leadership of Benjamin Disraeli, and Austria-Hungary expressed concern regarding the Russian expansion at the expense of the Ottoman Empire [11] and the subsequent weakening of the latter. [6] In response, the British requested the organization of a congress. [11] Consequently, the Treaty of San Stefano was revised during the Congress of Berlin, held in the summer of 1878. [4] [11] [13]

An Armenian delegation, headed by Mkrtich Khrimian (accompanied notably by Minas Tchéraz  [ fr ] [14] ) and comprising another archbishop and two deputies from the Armenian Assembly, [12] proceeded to the congress with the approval of Nerses Varzhapetyan, [6] the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. The objective was to present a project for the administrative autonomy of Armenia, inspired by the 1861 status of Lebanon. [4] [11] [15] [12] [16] The plan proposed the appointment of an Armenian governor in Erzurum by the Ottoman government, the implementation of judicial, fiscal, and police reforms under the control of an international commission, [12] the formation of mixed Christian-Muslim militias, the extension of male suffrage, and the local utilization of tax revenues. [11] On their way to the congress, the delegation visited European capitals intending to influence the diplomats attending Berlin. [11] In London, they met with the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury, who was unable to offer any guarantees. [11] Their meetings with diplomats in Paris and Rome were similarly unsuccessful. [11] [6] Meanwhile, Khosrov Nar Bey Kalfayan was dispatched to Saint Petersburg to deliver a memorandum to Tsar Alexander II, requesting autonomy for the Armenian provinces. [6]

Regrettably, Mkrtich Khrimian's delegation was not permitted to attend the congress proceedings, a decision that was met with considerable disappointment. [17] [6]

The Congress resulted in the Treaty of Berlin (July 13, 1878), where Article 61, concerning the Armenians, represented a dilution of the promises outlined in Article 16 of the Treaty of San Stefano. [4] The reforms that had been promised were now the sole responsibility of the Ottoman Empire. [12] While the document mentioned the need for reforms in the Armenian provinces, it placed their implementation under the supervision of the powers, [6] [17] [18] a concerted effort that was unlikely to succeed: [4]

Article 61: The Sublime Porte shall proceed without further delay with implementing the requisite improvements and reforms under the specific local needs of the Armenian-inhabited provinces. Furthermore, it shall guarantee the security of these provinces against incursions by Circassians and Kurds. It shall provide regular updates to the Powers regarding the measures taken to this effect, which they shall oversee. [19]

The "Iron Ladle": Disappointment and consequences

On the day of the treaty's signing, Mkrtich Khrimian sent a letter to the diplomats expressing his regret that his legitimate and modest demands had been ignored. "The Armenians have come to understand that they have been misled, that their rights have not been acknowledged because they have pursued a policy of peaceful resistance. The Armenian delegation returns to the East, bearing this understanding with it. Nevertheless, it declares that the Armenian people will persist in making their voices heard until Europe meets their just demands," he concluded in his letter. [17]

Upon his return, Khrimian was inspired to deliver a renowned sermon at the Armenian Cathedral in Constantinople [13] 's Kumkapı district: [17]

My dear and blessed compatriots. You are attentively listening, filled with hopeful impatience, waiting to know what good news Father Khrimian has brought back from the Congress of Berlin and what, according to Article 61, the great powers of the world have offered to the regions inhabited by Armenians. Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you. Take time to understand the meaning of my words and weigh them.

As you know, we went to Berlin, according to the wish of Patriarch Nerses and the National Assembly, as representatives to defend the Armenian cause before the great powers. We had high hopes that the Congress would bring peace to the world and freedom to persecuted small nations. The congress began, and the delegates of the great powers gathered around tables covered with green cloth while the delegates of the small nations waited outside. On one of the tables, in the center of the meeting hall, there was a large pot of harissa from which peoples and governments, both great and small, were about to take a share. Among the audience, there was talk of the East and the West, and after long discussions, they began, one by one, to call in the representatives of the small nations. First, the Bulgarian entered, then the Serb, the Montenegrin, and the sound of the clattering swords hanging from their belts caught everyone's attention. After lengthy discussions, these three delegates drew their swords and used them as iron ladles, dipping them into the pot of harissa and taking their share! Then they left, proud and confident. Then it was the turn of the Armenian delegation. I approached and presented the petition entrusted to me by the National Assembly, begging them to fill my bowl with harissa. Then the plenipotentiaries standing by the pot asked me, 'Where is your iron ladle? Indeed, we are distributing harissa, but those without an iron ladle cannot take any. In the future, when harissa is served again, do not come without an iron ladle, or you will go home empty-handed.' Well, my dear compatriots, I could have dipped my paper ladle into the pot of harissa! But it would have disintegrated. Requests and petitions have no place where weapons speak, and swords shine.

The Montenegrins, Bulgarians, and other delegates had arrived accompanied by warriors, and from their swords, which they wore at their sides, blood was observed to drip. Upon observing these individuals, I turned my attention to the search for my Armenian warriors, hailing from Zeitun, Sason, Shatakh, and other nearby regions. However, the question remained as to their whereabouts. I inquire of my esteemed compatriots: where were these warriors? It would have been advantageous to have had one or two of the warriors present to demonstrate the capabilities of the iron ladles to the politicians at the Congress. "Here they are, ready to be drawn!" Unfortunately, I only had a petition with me. It disintegrated in the harissa, and we returned empty-handed. In comparison to the other delegates, I was taller and more handsome. However, this did not result in any tangible benefits. The petition was merely a piece of paper, not a sword. Consequently, we did not receive any harissa. Nevertheless, the Congress of Berlin had some positive outcomes in the long term.

My fellow citizens, it has become evident that using weapons can achieve the same results as they typically do. Therefore, I urge you, especially those from the provinces, to bring weapons to your families and friends when you return to our homeland. It is crucial to obtain weapons and more weapons and to continue acquiring them. Most importantly, place your hope for liberation in yourselves. Arm yourselves mentally and physically, because you must rely on yourselves to be saved. [20] [21]

Because the principalities of Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro were liberating themselves from Ottoman rule by force of arms during the Russo-Turkish war and then by diplomacy at the Congress of Berlin, Mkrtich Khrimian could only urge his compatriots to take up arms themselves in order to achieve self-determination. [22] [23] The Armenian delegation at the Congress of Berlin, and the sermon delivered afterward by its leader, constituted a significant factor in the gradual emergence of the Armenian national liberation movement.

The initial mention of the Armenian Question at an international conference marked its transition into an international issue. [24] [25] Despite this, Article 61, which was designed to address the issue, [26] [27] was never implemented. [12] [4] Russia consented to withdraw its troops before the implementation of the reforms, [12] which resulted in the exodus of numerous Armenians to Russia. [23] The Treaty of Berlin, however, became a source of hope for Armenians while also feeding Ottoman authorities' mistrust of this minority, [4] now perceived as a persistent threat to the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire. [6] In an address to the Armenian National Assembly, Nerses Varzhapetyan articulated his hope that future reforms would be based on Article 61 while proclaiming Armenians' loyalty to the Ottoman Empire. [28]

Following the Congress, the Armenian Question was largely eclipsed by the Great Powers, who were preoccupied with the expansion of their colonial empires in Africa and Asia. They favored economic imperialism as a means of extending their influence in the Ottoman Empire. [24] Therefore, until 1881, the Great Powers limited themselves to sending largely similar notes to the Sultan, reminding him of his obligations. [26] However, their joint initiative subsequently faltered: Germany and Austria withdrew, and Russia, now under the rule of Alexander III following his father's assassination that same year, lost interest in the Armenian Question. [26] Armenians in the Empire's eastern provinces continued to endure mistreatment, as evidenced by the documentation of such incidents by British consuls stationed in the region. [26]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)</span> Conflict between the Ottoman and Russian Empires

The Russo-Turkish War was a conflict between the Ottoman Empire and a coalition led by the Russian Empire which included Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro. Additional factors included the Russian goals of recovering territorial losses endured during the Crimean War of 1853–1856, re-establishing itself in the Black Sea and supporting the political movement attempting to free Balkan nations from the Ottoman Empire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Congress of Berlin</span> 1878 meeting of representatives of the major European powers

The Congress of Berlin was a diplomatic conference to reorganise the states in the Balkan Peninsula after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878, which had been won by Russia against the Ottoman Empire. Represented at the meeting were Europe's then six great powers: Russia, Great Britain, France, Austria-Hungary, Italy, and Germany; the Ottomans; and four Balkan states: Greece, Serbia, Romania and Montenegro. The congress concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Berlin, replacing the preliminary Treaty of San Stefano which had been signed three months earlier.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic</span> 1918 month-long state in the South Caucasus

The Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic was a short-lived state in the Caucasus that included most of the territory of the present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, as well as parts of Russia and Turkey. The state lasted only for a month before Georgia declared independence, followed shortly after by Armenia and Azerbaijan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hamidian massacres</span> 1894–1897 massacres of Armenians and Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire

The Hamidian massacres also called the Armenian massacres, were massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1890s. Estimated casualties ranged from 100,000 to 300,000, resulting in 50,000 orphaned children. The massacres are named after Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who, in his efforts to maintain the imperial domain of the declining Ottoman Empire, reasserted pan-Islamism as a state ideology. Although the massacres were aimed mainly at the Armenians, in some cases they turned into indiscriminate anti-Christian pogroms, including the Diyarbekir massacres, where, at least according to one contemporary source, up to 25,000 Assyrians were also killed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russian Armenia</span> Armenian history from 1828 to 1917

Russian Armenia is the period of Armenian history under Russian rule from 1828, when Eastern Armenia became part of the Russian Empire following Qajar Iran's loss in the Russo-Persian War (1826–1828) and the subsequent ceding of its territories that included Eastern Armenia per the out coming Treaty of Turkmenchay of 1828.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Turkish–Armenian War</span> Conflict during the Turkish War of Independence

The Turkish–Armenian War, known in Turkey as the Eastern Front of the Turkish War of Independence, was a conflict between the First Republic of Armenia and the Turkish National Movement following the collapse of the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. After the provisional government of Ahmet Tevfik Pasha failed to win support for ratification of the treaty, remnants of the Ottoman Army's XV Corps under the command of Kâzım Karabekir attacked Armenian forces controlling the area surrounding Kars, eventually recapturing most of the territory in the South Caucasus that had been part of the Ottoman Empire prior to the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) and was subsequently ceded by Soviet Russia as part of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mkrtich Khrimian</span> Armenian Apostolic Church leader (1820–1907)

Mkrtich Khrimian was an Armenian Apostolic Church leader, educator, and publisher who served as Catholicos of All Armenians from 1893 to 1907. During this period he was known as Mkrtich I of Van.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Treaty of Batum</span> Treaty signed by the Democratic Republic of Armenia and the Ottoman Empire

The Treaty of Batum was signed in Batumi on 4 June 1918, between the Ottoman Empire and the three Transcaucasian states: the First Republic of Armenia, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Georgia. It was the first treaty of the First Republic of Armenia and the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and had 14 articles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian national awakening</span>

The Armenian national awakening paralleled the rise of nationalism among other non-Turkish ethnic groups during the late Ottoman Empire. Ottoman statesmen sought to counter Armenian nationalism during the Tanzimat era, initially through the promotion of Ottomanism and later by transforming the empire into a constitutional monarchy during the First Constitutional Era. However, the reorganization of the millets—the legal courts for confessional communities—exacerbated the issue of dualism within the Ottoman state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timeline of Armenian national movement</span>

The following is the Timeline of Armenian national movement which is the collection of activities during the Armenian national movement.

The Armenian national movement included social, cultural, but primarily political and military movements that reached their height during World War I and the following years, initially seeking improved status for Armenians in the Ottoman and Russian Empires but eventually attempting to achieve an Armenian state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian resistance during the Armenian genocide</span> Armenian resistance in the Ottoman Empire during WWI

Armenian resistance included military, political, and humanitarian efforts to counter Ottoman forces and mitigate the Armenian genocide during the first World War. Early in World War I, the Ottoman Empire commenced efforts to eradicate Armenian culture and eliminate Armenian life, through acts of killing and death marches into uninhabitable deserts and mountain regions. The result was the homogenisation of the Ottoman Empire and elimination of 90% of the Armenian Ottoman population.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian question</span> Political debate of 1878 Berlin Congress

The Armenian question was the debate following the Congress of Berlin in 1878 as to how the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire should be treated. The term became commonplace among diplomatic circles and in the popular press. In specific terms, the Armenian question refers to the protection and the freedoms of Armenians from their neighboring communities. The Armenian question explains the 40 years of Armenian–Ottoman history in the context of English, German, and Russian politics between 1877 and 1914. In 1915, the leadership of the Committee of Union and Progress, which controlled the Ottoman government, decided to end the Armenian question permanently by killing and expelling most Armenians from the empire, in the Armenian genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenians in the Ottoman Empire</span>

Armenians were a significant minority in the Ottoman Empire. They belonged to either the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, or the Armenian Protestant Church, each church serving as the basis of a millet. They played a crucial role in Ottoman industry and commerce, and Armenian communities existed in almost every major city of the empire. The majority of the Armenian population made up a reaya, or peasant, class, in Eastern Anatolia. The Tanzimat reforms in the nineteenth century sought to manifest the doctrine of equality before the law. Despite their importance, Armenians were persecuted by the Ottoman authorities, especially from the latter half of the 19th century, culminating in the Armenian Genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenian nationalism</span>

Armenian nationalism in the modern period has its roots in the romantic nationalism of Mikayel Chamchian (1738–1823) and generally defined as the creation of a free, independent and united Armenia formulated as the Armenian Cause. Armenian national awakening developed in the 1880s in the context of the general rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire. The Russian Armenia followed with significant causes. The Armenian Apostolic Church has been a great defender of Armenian nationalism, with leaders like Khrimian Hayrik who devoted his life to the peasantry. The establishment of modern Armenia (1991) and Armenian social fabric becoming more complex gradually decrease the political influence of Hye Dat and shifted towards a modern Armenian nationalism modeled as a liberal nationalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1914 Armenian reforms</span> Reform plan devised by the European powers between 1912 and 1914

The Armenian reforms, also known as the Yeniköy accord, was a reform plan devised by the European powers between 1912 and 1914 that envisaged the creation of two provinces in Ottoman Armenia placed under the supervision of two European inspectors general, who would be appointed to oversee matters related to the Armenian issues. The inspectors general would hold the highest position in the six eastern vilayets (provinces), where the bulk of the Armenian population lived, and would reside at their respective posts in Erzurum and Van. The reform package was signed into law on February 8, 1914, though it was ultimately abolished on December 16, 1914, several weeks after Ottoman entry into World War I.

Kars <i>oblast</i> Oblast in Caucasus, Russian Empire

The Kars oblast was a province (oblast) of the Caucasus Viceroyalty of the Russian Empire between 1878 and 1917. Its capital was the city of Kars, presently in Turkey. The oblast bordered the Ottoman Empire to the west, the Batum Oblast to the north, the Tiflis Governorate to the northeast, and the Erivan Governorate to the east. The Kars oblast included parts of the contemporary provinces of Kars, Ardahan, and Erzurum Province of Turkey, and the Amasia Community of the Shirak Province of Armenia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Garegin Srvandztiants</span>

Garegin or Karekin Srvandztiants was an Armenian philologist, folklorist, ethnographer, and ecclesiastic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Armenia–Turkey border</span> International border

The Armenia–Turkey border is 311 km in length and runs from the tripoint with Georgia in the north to the tripoint with Azerbaijan in the south. The land border has been closed since 3 April 1993. The border has been protected by guards of the Russian Federal Security Service since 1992. On 9 May 2024, Russian Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that Russian border guards will continue to serve on Armenia's borders with Turkey and Iran, at Armenia's request. The border is set to reopen for diplomats and citizens of third countries in 2023.

The Armenian National Delegation is a diplomatic mission and an Armenian organization whose objective is to advocate for the claims of the Armenians of Western Armenia between 1912 and 1925. The organization was established by Georges V Soureniants and initially led by the businessman and diplomat Boghos Nubar Pasha until 1921.

References

  1. ↑ Ter Minassian 2007 , p. 499
  2. 1 2 Hovannisian 2004 , pp. 207–208
  3. 1 2 3 4 Hovannisian 2004 , p. 208
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ter Minassian 2007 , p. 500
  5. ↑ Kraft van Ermel, Nicolaas A (2017). "5: Perspectives from a Neutral State: Dutch Sources on the Question of the Armenian Genocide". Unknown Fronts : The "Eastern Turn" in First World War History (PDF). Nederland Rusland Centrum. p. 84. ISBN   978-90-825590-1-9.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mahé, Annie; Mahé, Jean-Pierre (2012). Histoire de l'Arménie des origines à nos jours. Pour l'histoire (in French). Paris: Éditions Perrin. pp. 440–441. ISBN   978-2-262-02675-2.
  7. ↑ Hovannisian 2004 , pp. 208–209
  8. ↑ Zohrab 1913 , p. 27
  9. ↑ Nalbandian 1963 , p. 27
  10. ↑ "Grands traités de paix - Paix de San-Stefano, 1878". mjp.univ-perp.fr. Archived from the original on October 19, 2022.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hovannisian 2004 , p. 209
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mouradian 2003 , p. 69
  13. 1 2 Nalbandian 1963 , p. 28
  14. ↑ Hacikyan, Agop Jack; Basmajian, Gabriel; Franchuk, Edward S; Ouzounian, Nourhan (2005). The Heritage of Armenian Literature, vol. 3 : From the eighteenth century to modern times. Vol. 3 : From the eighteenth century to modern times. Wayne State University Press. p. 459. ISBN   978-0814328156. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024.
  15. ↑ Kieser, Polatel & Schmutz 2015 , p. 286
  16. ↑ Text available in Zohrab 1913 , pp. 28–30 [archive]
  17. 1 2 3 4 Hovannisian 2004 , p. 210
  18. ↑ Zohrab 1913 , p. 31
  19. ↑ "Grands traités politiques - Congrès de Berlin de 1878". mjp.univ-perp.fr (in French). Archived from the original on October 19, 2022.
  20. ↑ Adjémian, Haïg (1929). Հայոց Հայրիկ [Petit père arménien](PDF) (in Armenian). Vol. 1. Tabriz: Ատրպատականի հայոց թեմական տպարան. pp. 511–513.
  21. ↑ Bairamian, William (March 4, 2014). "Iron Ladle by Khrimyan Hayrig". thearmenite.com. Archived from the original on September 9, 2024. Retrieved July 5, 2023.
  22. ↑ Nalbandian 1963 , pp. 28–29
  23. 1 2 Hovannisian 2004 , p. 211
  24. 1 2 Mouradian 2003 , p. 70
  25. ↑ Hovannisian 2004 , p. 203
  26. 1 2 3 4 Hovannisian 2004 , p. 212
  27. ↑ Nalbandian 1963 , p. 25
  28. ↑ Hovannisian 2004 , pp. 211–212

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.