The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1921-10-02

for its chief aim to make Turkey
strong. and to create on the Balkan
Peninsula such state OF things as
to deprive Russia of a pretext for
interference. They were morally
bound to remove the causes which
were working for the weakening and
decline Of their protege. and in as.
Stunning the responsibility for the
protection Of the Christian subjects
OF the Sultan they assumed obliga::
tons toward them which they were
In honor bound to fulfill. How they
kept their promises. and how much
Improvement in the condition of the
Chrfstions was secured under the
joint action of the Great Powers WI
be made apparent by a brief survey
Of European diplomatic action In
turkey. sEy1
EUROPE NOT SINCERE.
The march of events, however,
proved too strong for European
diplomacy, and the scandal Of seeing
a whole Christian country (Greece)
deemed to determination. without
any Intervention from Christian, Eu.
rope to stop 1t. was too ignominious
10 be tolerated. An Anglo Russian
agreement supported also by France,
in favor Of an autonomous Greece,
under the sovereignty Of the Sultan.
was presented to the latter and
"scornfully declined" =.
There followed the battle Of Ma
varino. in which the Turkish fleet
was practically annihilated. O., The
landing of French troops in the
Mores and the declaration of war ty
Russia against Turkey, promised a
speedy and favorable termination Of
the Greek revolution.
By the treaty of Adrianople, Rus
STA forced the Sultan to recognize
the independence of Greece and the
autonomy Of Serbia. wallachia and
Moldavia. 1t took about nine years
for European diplomacy to settle the
Greek question, a question which,
owing to the geographical position
OF Greece, could easily have been
settled much sooner IL the European
powers had sincerely desired Its
settlement. Greece would have been
spared the misery and sufferings OF
those nine years and the integrity
Of the Sultan's dominions, and his
sovereignty would have been much
better preserved by the creation a
an autonomous partner than an IN
dependent Greece.
1t is absolutely certain that had
the powers presented a united front
the Sultan would have yielded sta
mere threat. Bulgaria, Boznia and
Herzegovina would have continued
for many years to form a part Of the
Turkish empire; the Russo Turkish
war of 1S77-lS7s would have been
avoided and the dismemberment of
large regions Of the Turkish empire
would have been prevented.
WHERE EUROPE FAILED.
The conclusion to be drawn from
the way the European powers have
dealt with the Near East question
is. that the force Of circumstances
was too strong for them to enable
them to maintain absolutely the
principle of the integrity Of the
empire and would have an infIu-
ence with the internal affairs or
Turkey. The latter principle espe-
cially was the most responsible, Tor
IL left the Christians to the tender
mercies of the Turks. Is
The Christians could not defend
themselves against oppression, be-
cause they were forbidden to pos.
sess or carry arms. European inter
vention was the only means of keep
Ing under restraint the evil pas
sions and the arrogant, domineering
spirit of the Turks. Whatever po-
iitiSui piiNitkcS nave UttH rcCUTeu
for the Christian peoples of the
Near East have been secured by the
interference of one or more of the
European powers. -.,
No Christian nation in Turkey
could have obtained single-handed
its political emancipation. IT, (
How much bloodshed. misery and
suffering the Near East would have
been spared had the Europesn
powers acted moro promptly and
theoretically In dealing with the
various problems they had to solve.
The integrity Of Turkey was not
with the granting Of tii6ss
elementary rights ana privileges Of
security of life. property and honor
which the Christians of Turkey, de-
msnded. and which every decent
Is bound to secure for its
subjects. Instead of looking facts
in the face and acknowledging that
the discomfort of the Christian sub