No. 281.
Mr. White
to Mr. Evarts.
Berlin, July 5, 1880. (Received July 22.)
Sir: The change of government in England seems to have led to negotiations between the great powers of Europe, opening up anew one phase of what is known as “the Eastern question.”
When in the summer of 1878 the Berlin treaty was signed, it was not expected that a revolution of political opinion in England would occur very soon, and a slow course of procedure was therefore looked for with regard to the carrying out of the provisions of that treaty. The new British Government, however, had not been in office more than a month before negotiations were opened with the Porte in the intent to bring about a settlement of affairs. Mr. Goschen was sent to Constantinople, where, in concert with the ambassadors of the six great powers, he addressed what is known as “the identical note “to the Sultan. This dealt in very frank terms with particular reforms, and with certain provisions of the treaty, which the Porte should have carried into execution.
The note is chiefly remarkable as evidence of the fact that the powers are, nominally at least, quite unanimous in urging upon Turkey the necessity for speedy action on her part, if she does not wish entirely to lose their good-will. Further evidence of this fact, as regards another part of the question, is the following invitation, which the German Government, at the suggestion of the British cabinet, and, it is understood, at the request of Greece, communicated, in the beginning of June last, through its representatives abroad, to the Governments of England, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Italy:
The Government of His Majesty the German Emperor and King of Prussia has received the communication forwarded to it by the secretary of state for foreign affairs of Her Britannic Majesty on the Greco-Turkish frontier affair. This communication having met with a favorable reception from all the European cabinets, the Government of His Majesty, guided by the desire of seeing the common work which was sealed by the treaty of Berlin fully and entirely executed, has the honor of proposing to those powers, whose mediation is provided for by article twenty-four of that instrument, to commission their ambassadors in Berlin to meet there in conference on the 16th of June for the purpose of applying themselves to the task which appears to be assigned to their governments by the stipulations of that article.
The article referred to is as follows:
In the event of the Sublime Porte and Greece being unable to agree upon the rectification of frontier suggested in the 13th protocol of the Congress of Berlin, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia reserve to themselves to offer their mediation to the two parties to facilitate negotiations.
This article has not remained altogether a dead letter, for since the Berlin treaty was signed, as the contending parties would not accept the frontier proposed in the protocol, which is that drawn up by M. Waddington, several other propositions for new lines have been made. First of all, in March, 1879, the Porte suggested a somewhat indefinite boundary; in June, of the same year, England advanced a proposal; in October, Greece came forward with another 5 in November, Turkey modified the line she had suggested in March; in December, Greece changed the proposal she had made in November; and at the close of the year, France laid down the line which she thought should be adopted.
These conflicting suggestions remaining fruitless, the note above quoted was issued by the German Government, and on the day named, [Page 439] the 16th ultimo, the ambassadors to Germany of the mediatory powers met in the Berlin foreign office.
The following is a list of their names and the countries they represented, as officially published:
- Germany.—Prince von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst, German ambassador at Paris, and now acting as temporary chief of the foreign office.
- France.—Count de St. Vallier.
- England.—Lord Odo Russell.
- Austria-Hungary.—Count Széchéngi.
- Italy.—Count de Launay.
- Russia.—M. de Sabouroff, late Russian minister at Athens.
Count de Morey, of the French foreign office, and Dr. Busch, a distinguished orientialist, of the German foreign office, were chosen as secretaries to the conference.
Each mediatory power was also represented by technical delegates, who held deliberations among themselves and advised the diplomatic representations on geographical and strategical points. They were all men of much experience, many of them having personal knowledge of the districts through which the frontier line was to be drawn.
Their names are:
- For Germany.—Colonel Blume, of a Brandenburg (Prussian) fusileer regiment.
- England.—General Sir Lintorn Simmons, and Major Ardogh, his aide-de-camp.
- France.—Colonel Perrier, of the general staff, member of the institute, and of the bureau of longitudes 5 and Count de la Ferronays, major of a dragoon regiment.
- Austria-Hungary—Consul-General Zwiedenik, and Colonel von Ripp, of the general staff.
- Italy.—Brigadier-General Sironi, and Major Osio, military attaché to the Italian embassy.
- Russia.—General Bobrikoff.
Both the Porte and Greece were asked to send unofficial delegates who should informally acquaint the mediatory ambassadors of the wishes of their respective governments. Greece accepted this invitation, and in addition to the services of her minister, M. Rangabé, she has had those of M. Armenis Brailas, Greek minister at St. Petersburg; those of M. Fontoulis, of the Greek consulate in Epirus; and those of M. Metaxas and Captain Licondis, all men, it is stated, of much technical and special knowledge on the frontier question.
The Porte left the furtherance of its interest to the Turkish embassy here.
At its first sitting the conference elected Prince von Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst its president, and determined its course of procedure. Its deliberations were supposed to be strictly secret; but it has transpired that the boundary line laid down in the protocol was referred to the technical delegates as a base on which to construct a line which should be practicable and mutually satisfactory. This the delegates accordingly proceeded to do by the aid of the Austrian staff maps, considering the line piece by piece, and then referring their decisions to the meeting of the conference proper.
It has since transpired, through well-informed authorities, that the line ultimately unanimously adopted was suggested by the French ambassador, at the recommendation of the British technical delegate, General Sir Lintorn Simmons.
This line runs from the northern branch of the Kalamas delta, a little [Page 440] above the thirty-ninth degree of latitude, following the river course northward to Poadhoniani, in the thirty-ninth degree of latitude. Then, turning northeastward, it passes through the village of Kalbáki, and divides the Zagórion district into two parts, giving to Greece the valleys of the Zagoritikos and Metsovitikos Rivers with the towns of Métsovon and Jânnina. It then follows the watershed north of the river Salamorias, touching the Demirkapón and Tahapka peaks, intersecting the Olympian Mountain range through its highest peak, Mount Ilias, and then running eastward to the Ægean Sea, which it touches at the mouth of the river Mavrolongos.
This line cedes to Greece, it may be observed, all she asked for last December, excepting the region north of the Kalamâs, opposite the central portion of Corfu, and the northernmost spurs of the Olympian range. The district it gives to Greece contains, it is reported, a population of 300,000, of whom one-third are Mohammedans and the remainder Greek Christians. Its extent is calculated at 22,000 square kilometers.
In an appendix, the conference suggests regulations regarding church property in the ceded district, advises that Greece should take over a portion of the Turkish national debt, that the straits between Corfu and Epirus should be free to all navigation, and that the harbors of Yolo and Arta-Préveza be open to the navies of all the powers.
The last sitting of the conference took place on the 1st instant, when a “collective note” to the Porte and Greece was signed by the ambassadors. This note recounts the occurrence which led to the mediation of the powers, indicates the frontier line agreed upon, and invites Greece and Turkey to accept it. This communication has been made to the Porte and to the Greek Government, and the reply of the former is awaited with some anxiety.
I may say in conclusion, regarding the whole matter, that the general drift of feeling constantly and strongly favors Greece, and that there is general satisfaction that Greece, though obtaining less than she asked at first, has secured more than was formerly proposed by any of the great powers.
During the negotiations Austria has generally shown a natural tendency to hold back. Russia has made a show, sometimes of generosity, sometimes of opposition, but generally of indifference, the main-spring of her policy throughout being doubtless the desire to increase complications, and thus to do what will most surely aid in the dissolution of the Turkish Empire. But there is reason to suppose that the present Queen of Greece, niece of the Russian Emperor, and who is now in Russia, has had some influence to soften Russian opposition to Greek claims.
The question now arises as to how the whole matter will be received by the Porte. The European papers have contained statements that the determination of the Porte, as formerly expressed, to consider the results arrived at by the conference merely as proposals, had been changed, and that they would be accepted as final.
There is great reason now to suppose that these statements are utterly without foundation. It is now understood that from nothing that the Government of the Sultan has done could it be assumed that the decision of the conference would be accepted; that, on the other hand, there are many things which point the other way, and that the European governments may find themselves greatly embarrassed by the quiet and stubborn refusal of the Porte to accept their conclusions.
As to the greater question, in the development of which all this is but a passing phase, there is certainly a general opinion among thoughtful [Page 441] men that the rule of the present dynasty at Constantinople, and, indeed, the Turkish Empire in its present form, is rapidly approaching its end.
While the dispatch of Mr. Layard, recently published, has not revealed much of a general sort which the public has not before known, it has deepened this feeling throughout Europe, and, above all, in England. The question at the bottom of all thinking on the subject at present, though it rarely comes to the surface, is really, What power can be developed to which Europe can safely give the succession at Constantinople?
Of the solutions proposed, only three seem to claim much thoughtful attention. The first is to give it to one of the existing great powers; the second is to give it to Greece-; the third is to place it in the hands of a power, or confederation of powers, to be erected upon the Balkan Peninsula.
The first seems utterly inadmissible; the second hardly within the range of possibilities; the third surrounded by enormous difficulties. The ultimate solution will be, of course, a matter of time, probably of long time; but it will be surprising if the fierce beginnings of the end are prevented much longer.
With the authorities at Constantinople desperate; with over 20,000 Turks in the districts ceded by the conference to Greece, armed with the best weapons, and called to give up their homes; with all the religious and race hatreds, which are seething in the Balkan Peninsula and neighboring territories; with Bulgaria arming most completely, and well-trained Russian officers constantly arriving to take part in her affairs, it will require almost superhuman efforts to prevent the outbreak of another war. And though happily the United States has no direct concern with the matter in Europe, it is by no means unlikely that the final convulsions of the Ottoman power will extend to Asia Minor, and for a time place American officers, traders, and missionaries there in peril.
I inclose a map, prepared by Professor Kiepert, a leading geographer here, showing the lines proposed at various times and giving some indications of the line adopted.
I have, &c.,