The Diary of a Turk

by Çerkesseyhizade Halil Halit

CHAPTER VI.
TURKEY'S INTERNAL DANGERS.

The anomalous position of foreigners in Turkey—Capitulation privileges—The Porte has no jurisdiction over foreign criminals—Attempts to modify the anomaly—Reason for their failure to be found in the Sultan's misrule—The independence of Turkey a mere fiction—The native Christians—Their separatist aspirations—Their treasonable acts—Their English apologists—Tolerant policy of the Turks—Dangers of this tolerance —The Armenians—Their ancient privileges—The massacres— Their present position.

In the preceding chapter I gave a summarised account of the jurisdiction of Turkey, and also made an allusion to the admission of the Armenians and other non-Mussulman natives of Turkey to the judicial institutions. Here I will say something on the position held by foreign subjects in regard to the law of the country, as well as on the disposition of the non-Mussulman population towards the Ottoman empire.

As a matter of fact, foreigners enjoy a most extraordinarily privileged position in Turkey, and their privileges are known as 'capitulations.'

Every foreign colony forms a distinct imperium in imperio more markedly in Constantinople than in any other city of the Ottoman empire. Every individual foreigner enjoys extra-territorial privileges, such as in other countries could only be afforded to the diplomatic representatives of Foreign Powers. Whatever crime a foreign subject may commit, he is not amenable to the authority of the Ottoman Government The capitulation privileges of the foreign subjects granted in bygone centuries by the Ottoman rulers to European visitors, who were then few in number, were in reality acts of hospitality. But they have been abused in later times by those in whose favour they were granted. I cannot here enter into the details of the capitulation privileges which[5] fetter the hands of the Ottoman statesman, which create insurmountable difficulties for the thorough enforcement of the laws, and which seriously impede the adoption of progress and reforms. There was at one time a real possibility of the Porte getting rid, at least partially, of these capitulation privileges, which are really not justified by international law, and some friendly Powers, notably Great Britain, appeared well disposed to discuss the advisability of making some modification in them. In fact, certain concessions were made to the Porte in the carrying out of the sentences passed by it on foreign criminals. These modifications could still be successfully brought about if Turkey could earnestly set to work to reorganise the administration of the country, and to introduce such practical reforms as are necessitated by the actual requirements of the case, and then appeal to the justice and equity of the Great Powers not to insist upon exercising fully the capitulation privileges of their subjects. It was some thirty years ago that the statesmen of the Sublime Porte seriously meant to accomplish this great task. But with the beginning of Abd-ul-Hamid's disastrous reign all the previous schemes of the Porte were brought to naught This capricious Sultan began to rule over an important empire, which required the most delicate handling, in a manner which has never before been seen in the history of any civilised or semi-civilised State, and which can only be paralleled by the mode of governing of some wild tribal chieftain. He proceeded, with a tyrant's zest, to crush the influence of Ottoman statesmen of capability and integrity, and handed over the most important offices of the State to ignorant fanatics and to cosmopolitan upstarts, whose one claim to notice was their dishonourable behaviour. One of the results of the present rule has been that foreign residents in Turkey have naturally clung more firmly to their extra-territorial privileges, and the old capitulation privileges have given rise to new privileges which are by no means based upon the stipulations of the ancient treaties. So one can now see in Constantinople the most amazing anomaly of many centres of Government, all distinct from one another, and all of them utterly unaffected by the sovereignty of the Porte. Thus the independence of Turkey is quite fictitious nowadays, and Abd-ul-Hamid can only satisfy his lust of tyranny by oppressing the section of his subjects who can expect no outside protection or sympathy.

Throughout these pages I have consistently condemned the misrule of the present Sultan. My feeling against his ways is the stronger because I am sure that, in spite of the ascendancy gained by foreigners in Turkey, she might yet assert and maintain an honest and sound administration, in place of the miserable tyranny which oppresses her now. But as it is, the Foreign Powers, taking advantage of the existing misrule, not only fetter the hands of Turkish statesmen by persistently demanding fresh extra-territorial privileges for their subjects, but also take up, some of them, the cause of those Eastern Christians who are under Ottoman rule, alleging that they are acting in the name of 'humanity.'

Their real motive, however, is that they may use them as a point d'appui for their political schemes and designs. Thus these subject populations of Turkey, whose true racial characteristics have often been made clear by Englishmen who have travelled in the Levant, form a great internal danger to the integrity of the Ottoman empire. The subject populations of Turkey are of course of various distinct nationalities, such as Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, non-Mohammedan Syrians, and so forth. Each of these large communities has its own quarter, churches and denominational schools, national aspirations and separatist ideas. Each community speaks its own language, each native Christian community entertains, nowadays more or less without disguise, sentiments of animosity towards the Osmanlis, and even sympathises with the enemies of the Turkish empire in time of international trouble or war. These sentiments of the Eastern Christians are known to many politicians in this country, and they excuse these treasonable sentiments of their 'Christian brethren' by maintaining that they are the natural outcome of long years of oppression and persecution. This apologetic contention is not based upon an intimate knowledge of the real state of things in the nearer East, nor is it at all justifiable. Of course, the Ottoman empire has long been suffering from intolerable oppression, but its Christian inhabitants have not been the only sufferers; on the other hand, many of them have allowed themselves to be the cause of oppression, and have even acted as the right-hand men of the oppressors. If there had ever been a serious persecution particularly directed against the native Christians, there would not now be many Armenians or Greeks left alive in Turkey. In past ages they were entirely at the mercy of the Ottomans; there was no European Power, and no Concert of Powers, strong enough to stop the conversion or extermination of the non-Mussulman population of the Ottoman empire. There could be no better proof of the tolerant policy of the Osmanlis towards their subject populations than the actual existence at the present day in that country of so many millions of native Christians of all denominations. Moreover, not only have native Christians had their existence assured to them, but also their freedom of conscience, which is amply proved by the fact that their ecclesiastical constitutions, their languages, and their national customs have been respected by the Turks. But this liberal treatment has been abused by the subject populations of Turkey. They have never done anything to show their gratitude, and have never displayed any patriotism towards the Ottoman empire. If they were to do so it might perhaps save Turkey from internal dissensions, and from consequent strife, anarchy, and the ruin which stares it in the face. The history of Turkey must have taught the Russians wisdom, for they are careful to insist upon the Russification of their conquered subject populations, and never risk grafting on to their stem a shoot which may turn out to have thorns. The fact is that tolerance towards subject populations of alien race and faith, as shown by Mussulmans, excellent as it may appear to sentimental humanitarians, is a sure way of imperilling the future independence of a nation.

Of all her non-Mussulman subjects Turkey has the greatest reason to be anxious about the Armenians and their separatist movement. The ambition of Armenian agitators is to form an independent State in an important portion of Asia Minor, the backbone of the Ottoman empire. I therefore wish to make a few remarks here on Armenian matters, in particular as, though Armenian affairs may seem to be in the background at present, political mischief makers will take up this plaything of theirs again sooner or later.

As I pointed out in the last chapter, among forty-five students of the faculty of law, thirteen were Armenians. Thirteen out of forty-five is proportionately a large number, considering the small number of Armenians relatively to other nationalities of the Ottoman empire. The Armenians are admittedly very industrious people. They won good marks in the entrance examination, and the authorities at the Ministry of Public Instruction would not affix a limit of number, but admitted as many as successfully passed the examination. I doubt, however, after those agitations, if such impartiality has been shown towards the members of that race in all Ottoman institutions. And if not it would not be a matter for surprise when one considers how the Armenians have conducted themselves towards the Empire and their Mussulman compatriots for some time past.