Lessons of history according to Leo
In our journalistic texts, the phrase about British armor-clads and the Armenian mountains has become an oft-repeated saying. Sometimes it is forgotten who and why this idea was made. According to historian Leo, it was said by the British Prime Minister, Robert Salisbury, after the massacre of the Armenians in 1895 by the hand of Abdul Hamid. “He (Salisbury – A. A.) suggested exerting a collective pressure on the Sultan, but Russia, following him, as well as France, opposed this suggestion. At that time, Salisbury announced that England alone can do nothing, that the British armor-clads cannot climb the mountains of Armenia,” writes Leo. Britain, France and Russia were, the so -called “co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group” (the United States was less influential at the time) that were “sponsoring” the “reforms” in Armenian-populated Turkish vilâyets, a program giving some autonomy to Armenians and facilitating their situation.
Naturally, the aforementioned countries were pursuing exclusively their own interests. We, Armenians, were fool were thinking that Abdul Hamid would ever implement such programs under the pressure of any country, Fedayeen combat or even under the influence of terrorism. We were double fool thinking that Russia, France or Britain were interested in such reforms.
I would not recall this famous history, if our political thought had not appeared in the same trap 120 years later, and the politicians and publicists had not argued with each other about which of the superstates runs an “Armenophile” policy, and with whose intervention we are more successful in resolving our national problems. The answer is evident: neither one. “Giving an advantage of one imperialist predatory state over another one, this was a miserable infantile,” says Leo, talking about Henchaks in this specific case, but it certainly applies to all of us. The formulas of “Cheer up! The West will help us,” and “We are lost without Russians” are equal for me. Considering one predator “better” as compared to the other and arguing about it with a foam in the mouth is truly infantile. Now more than 120 years ago, because at that time there was no independent Armenian state with its established army, and today, fortunately, we have all of it.
Read also
Indeed, it is clear that such a small state like ours should have powerful allies. But we always have to consider that at the moment of danger, any ally can leave us alone and will not even blink the eye at seeing us destroyed. And in this sense, our destiny is not absolutely “unique”. The powerful ones have “betrayed” and keep “betraying” many other nations, at this moment, for instances, the Yezidis. Simply, the word “betrayal” is not inappropriate here. Nations and states do not married to each other to betray later, and breaking the written or oral promises is an overall, I would say, a “world-spread” phenomenon. Understanding it, hoping for some brotherly feelings, is an immature romanticism.
In the end, another quote from Leo: “Khrimian Catholicos(in the summer of 1895, after the massacres in Sasun – A.A.) returned empty-handed from St. Petersburg, whereas Lobanov-Rostowsky (Russia’s foreign minister –A.A.), who had donated several fake smiles of a diplomat, made his political motto of “Armenia without Armenians”. The Armenian land was necessary for the cannibal tsarism but not the Armenian people.”
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
