Tweet
Westminster Turcophiliacs
By Jirair Tutunjian, Toronto,
20 October 2014
During the North American book launch of Katia Peltekian's "The Times
of the Armenian Genocide" in Toronto in August, many attendees were
astonished by the tremendous and almost unequivocal British support of
the Armenians during the Genocide. They were surprised because
throughout the rest of the 20th century Westminster was an ally of
Turkey and refused to recognize the Genocide.
England/Britain-Ottoman Empire/Turkey relations go back to the reign
of Queen Elizabeth I (1550-1603). England's first ambassador was
dispatched to Istanbul in 1578 to obtain the charter of the Levant
Company from the Sublime Porte. The charter granted privileges to
English merchants trading in the Ottoman Empire. Two years later the
two countries signed a treaty of commerce. The Virgin Queen also sent
to the sultan a musical clock organ and a ceremonial coach to cement
relations. It was of no consequence to the English that the sultan had
executed 19 of his brothers and half-brothers to secure the throne.
Ignoring the threat the Ottomans posed to Europe, Britain sold
ammunition, tin and lead (for the manufacturing of cannons) to the
Ottoman Empire. Queen Elizabeth even contemplated a joint military
operation with Sultan Murad III against Spain in 1585.
In the 17th century diplomatic and trade relations picked up speed and
English adventurers travelled through the Ottoman Empire; some of them
wrote about their journey ("Descriptions of the Turkish Empire" by
George Sandys, "General Historie of the Turkes" by Richard Knolles) to
familiarize English politicians, merchants and scholars with the
Ottomans. Knolles expounded that Turkish ignorance of classical
literature was a boon because it allowed them to focus on the business
of government. Many other books followed.
Although in the next two centuries relations between England/Britain
and the Ottomans remained reasonably friendly, the image of the Turk
began to slowly change from an exotic warrior to one of weak, corrupt,
and incompetent Oriental.
Nevertheless, the British helped the Ottomans when Napoleon invaded
Egypt and Palestine in the last years of the 18th century. The might
of the British Navy dissuaded the French general from continuing his
campaign north into other Ottoman occupied lands.
During the Second Turco-Egyptian War (1839-1841), when the Ottoman
armies were on the verge of collapse, the British and Austrian fleets
cut Egyptian military leader Ibrahim Pasha's communications with
Egypt. The British also occupied Acre (Palestine) and Beirut to scotch
the Egyptian invasion of Asia Minor. Because of British threats, Egypt
abandoned its claims to Syria (Lebanon, today's Syria, Palestine and
Jordan) and Ibrahim Pasha (son of Egypt's leader Muhammad Ali) signed
a peace treaty.
Throughout the rest of the 19th century Britain continued to nurse the
"Sick Man of Europe". The reason it did so was because of British
regarded the Ottoman Empire an obstacle to Russian expansion into the
Middle East.
During the Crimean War, in the mid-1850s, Britain joined several
European nations to defend the Ottomans against Russian encroachments.
Two decades later, at the Congress of Berlin (1878), Britain, along
with Germany, reversed the gains Russia had made during the
Russo-Turkish War.
But the ungrateful Ottomans joined Germany against Britain and its
allies during the First World War. This goes a long way to explain why
the British government sided with the Armenians when the latter were
being exterminated by the Ottomans. With the war over, London didn't
see any benefit in continuing hostilities against the Turks. 10
Downing Street betrayed the Armenians, and returned to its traditional
strategy of supporting Turkey.
In the last few months of the Second World War the Soviet Union tried
to annul the Kars Treaty and regain Kars and Ardahan. Soviet Foreign
Minister Vyacheslav Molotov told the Turkish ambassador to Moscow that
the territories should be returned to the Soviet Union in the name of
the Armenian and Georgian republics. Winston Churchill objected to
Moscow's claim while President Harry J. Truman felt that the matter
should be settled between Moscow and Ankara. However, Churchill
persuaded the newly-elected American president to force the Soviets to
drop the idea. Kars and Ardahan remained in Turkey.
British/Turkish relationship was solidified in the late '40s with
Turkey's admission to NATO. Turkey has remained in the good books of
Westminster despite Ankara's decades of dictatorships, the illegal
occupation of northern Cyprus, the atrocities against the Kurds, the
persecution of minorities, the drift to Islamic fundamentalism... and
the recent Ankara support of the Islamic terrorists in Syria/Iraq.
While many British citizens and media are supportive of Armenians,
don't expect 10 Downing Street to recognize the Genocide of Armenians
next year.
http://www.keghart.com/Tutunjian-Westminster-Turcophiliacs
From: Baghdasarian
By Jirair Tutunjian, Toronto,
20 October 2014
During the North American book launch of Katia Peltekian's "The Times
of the Armenian Genocide" in Toronto in August, many attendees were
astonished by the tremendous and almost unequivocal British support of
the Armenians during the Genocide. They were surprised because
throughout the rest of the 20th century Westminster was an ally of
Turkey and refused to recognize the Genocide.
England/Britain-Ottoman Empire/Turkey relations go back to the reign
of Queen Elizabeth I (1550-1603). England's first ambassador was
dispatched to Istanbul in 1578 to obtain the charter of the Levant
Company from the Sublime Porte. The charter granted privileges to
English merchants trading in the Ottoman Empire. Two years later the
two countries signed a treaty of commerce. The Virgin Queen also sent
to the sultan a musical clock organ and a ceremonial coach to cement
relations. It was of no consequence to the English that the sultan had
executed 19 of his brothers and half-brothers to secure the throne.
Ignoring the threat the Ottomans posed to Europe, Britain sold
ammunition, tin and lead (for the manufacturing of cannons) to the
Ottoman Empire. Queen Elizabeth even contemplated a joint military
operation with Sultan Murad III against Spain in 1585.
In the 17th century diplomatic and trade relations picked up speed and
English adventurers travelled through the Ottoman Empire; some of them
wrote about their journey ("Descriptions of the Turkish Empire" by
George Sandys, "General Historie of the Turkes" by Richard Knolles) to
familiarize English politicians, merchants and scholars with the
Ottomans. Knolles expounded that Turkish ignorance of classical
literature was a boon because it allowed them to focus on the business
of government. Many other books followed.
Although in the next two centuries relations between England/Britain
and the Ottomans remained reasonably friendly, the image of the Turk
began to slowly change from an exotic warrior to one of weak, corrupt,
and incompetent Oriental.
Nevertheless, the British helped the Ottomans when Napoleon invaded
Egypt and Palestine in the last years of the 18th century. The might
of the British Navy dissuaded the French general from continuing his
campaign north into other Ottoman occupied lands.
During the Second Turco-Egyptian War (1839-1841), when the Ottoman
armies were on the verge of collapse, the British and Austrian fleets
cut Egyptian military leader Ibrahim Pasha's communications with
Egypt. The British also occupied Acre (Palestine) and Beirut to scotch
the Egyptian invasion of Asia Minor. Because of British threats, Egypt
abandoned its claims to Syria (Lebanon, today's Syria, Palestine and
Jordan) and Ibrahim Pasha (son of Egypt's leader Muhammad Ali) signed
a peace treaty.
Throughout the rest of the 19th century Britain continued to nurse the
"Sick Man of Europe". The reason it did so was because of British
regarded the Ottoman Empire an obstacle to Russian expansion into the
Middle East.
During the Crimean War, in the mid-1850s, Britain joined several
European nations to defend the Ottomans against Russian encroachments.
Two decades later, at the Congress of Berlin (1878), Britain, along
with Germany, reversed the gains Russia had made during the
Russo-Turkish War.
But the ungrateful Ottomans joined Germany against Britain and its
allies during the First World War. This goes a long way to explain why
the British government sided with the Armenians when the latter were
being exterminated by the Ottomans. With the war over, London didn't
see any benefit in continuing hostilities against the Turks. 10
Downing Street betrayed the Armenians, and returned to its traditional
strategy of supporting Turkey.
In the last few months of the Second World War the Soviet Union tried
to annul the Kars Treaty and regain Kars and Ardahan. Soviet Foreign
Minister Vyacheslav Molotov told the Turkish ambassador to Moscow that
the territories should be returned to the Soviet Union in the name of
the Armenian and Georgian republics. Winston Churchill objected to
Moscow's claim while President Harry J. Truman felt that the matter
should be settled between Moscow and Ankara. However, Churchill
persuaded the newly-elected American president to force the Soviets to
drop the idea. Kars and Ardahan remained in Turkey.
British/Turkish relationship was solidified in the late '40s with
Turkey's admission to NATO. Turkey has remained in the good books of
Westminster despite Ankara's decades of dictatorships, the illegal
occupation of northern Cyprus, the atrocities against the Kurds, the
persecution of minorities, the drift to Islamic fundamentalism... and
the recent Ankara support of the Islamic terrorists in Syria/Iraq.
While many British citizens and media are supportive of Armenians,
don't expect 10 Downing Street to recognize the Genocide of Armenians
next year.
http://www.keghart.com/Tutunjian-Westminster-Turcophiliacs
From: Baghdasarian