p. 3 | The Eastern Question by S. M. BUTLER

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 3, 1914

The Eastern Question

By S. M. BUTLER

S. M. BUTLER

What is the Eastern Question? That depends upon the viewpoint of the student. To the European statesman it is the problem of getting rid of the Turk without too greatly disturbing the balance of power, that delicate relationship of the Continental nations which it is thought must be maintained for the sake of the peace of Europe. For many years this has been one of the most perplexing problems with which the various European chancelleries have had to deal. In its many ramifications, it has long cast its dark shadow across the council table of every European cabinet. Several of the most sanguinary wars of modern times have been waged for its solution, and more than once has it changed the Continental map.

These efforts, however, have not been without results. Gradually, and irresistibly, it seems, the Turks are being pushed off the map. To all human appearances, the time is not long until they will be driven back across the Bosporus, and their European possessions will fall into other hands.

To the student of the Bible, the Eastern Question is much more than a political one, interesting as that phase of the question is. It is the march of events which are to culminate in the setting up of the kingdom of God.

History

The history of the Eastern Question falls naturally into three distinct periods. The first period began with the coming of Turks into Europe in 1453 A. D., when Constantinople fell before the assaults of the Ottoman power. This tragic event struck consternation into the hearts of the European nations, as did the downfall of Rome before the barbarians in the fifth century. There seemed now nothing to prevent the conquest of Europe by these barbarians of the East. But God spared the civilization of Europe from this scourge, as he had saved it from Moslem Moors many years before in the other corner of the Continent. The valiant Hungarians rose up to check the Turkish advance. “Before the end of the sixteenth century the conquering energy of the Ottomans had about spent itself, and their empire had attained its greatest extent.”

The second period of the Eastern Question opens with the memorable year of 1840. In that year the Turkish Empire lost its sovereignty, and has since maintained its position in Europe only by the aid of the great powers. The loss of Turkish sovereignty may be briefly described. Mehemet Ali was the ruler of the sultan’s Egyptian dependency for some years prior to 1840. Being a warrior, a statesman, and a man of genius, he looked with contempt upon the incompetent government of the Sublime Porte. It is quite probable that Mehemet Ali nourished the ambition of establishing an independent sovereignty. At any rate, he cast longing eyes toward Syria, and thither carried his victorious arms. At first the Porte seemed inclined not to interfere with the plans of his powerful vassal. But in 1839 he declared war against him. A great battle followed, in which the forces of Mehemet Ali, under the command of his able adopted son, Ibrahim Pasha, won a decisive victory over the sultan’s army. The admiral of the Turkish fleet deserted to the Egyptians, and not only Egyptian independence seemed assured, but the loss of the Turkish territories around the eastern and the southeastern borders of the Mediterranean appeared imminent.

But such an event was contrary to the general policy of the powers of Western Europe. These powers, under the leadership of England, had decided to maintain the political and territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Accordingly Great Britain resolved to interfere, and sent a fleet and an army to the assistance of the

Porte. Acre was bombarded, and the strongholds of Mehmet were attacked and his forces repulsed with severe losses. Mehmet was obliged to give up the hopeless contest, and content himself with the government of Egypt. Representatives of the great powers met in London in July, 1840, and arranged the terms of settlement. France, however, did not sign the treaty until July, 1841.

Thus did the major powers of Europe formally commit themselves to the maintenance of the autonomy of the Turkish Empire; and thus did Turkish sovereignty pass away when the Porte agreed to the interference with his affairs, and accepted the terms arranged for preserving the integrity of his dominions.

The third period of the Eastern Question opened in 1853. It was in that year that England awoke fully to the realization of Russia’s designs upon Turkey. Although for more than a decade before that it had been the policy of the great powers, particularly England, to maintain Turkey as a sort of buffer state between Russia and the rest of Europe, the wisdom of that policy became more clearly manifest to English statesmen with the opening of the year 1853. In January of that year, while the czar was attending a party in St. Petersburg, to which the diplomatic corps of that capital had been invited, he drew aside the British ambassador, Sir Hamilton Seymour, and frankly stated to him his plans for the dismemberment of Turkey. It was during this memorable conversation that Nicholas coined the phrase “the Sick Man” as applied to Turkey. Addressing Sir Hamilton, he said: “We have on our hands a sick man, a very sick man; it would be a great misfortune if, one of these days, he should slip away from us before the necessary arrangements have been made.” “The necessary arrangements” related, of course, to what England and Russia should do at the funeral! These “arrangements” were clearly indicated by the czar. All southeastern Europe was to be reorganized under the direction of Russia and England. The Danubian principalities of Turkey were to be given independent government under the protection of Russia, and that country should be allowed free transit through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. England might, if she chose, take possession of Egypt and Crete as remuneration for the part she was to act in the game of spoliation.

It seemed not to occur to Nicholas that England would not agree to his proposal. He was soon undeceived, however, for the British ministry promptly informed him that England would not be a party to his designs against Turkey. He then fell back upon his right to protect the Greek Christians under Turkish rule. This right seemed to be given him by an old treaty of 1774 made between the sultan and Empress Catharine of Russia. The czar’s government construed this treaty to mean that Russia had the general right of interference in the affairs of the adherents of the Greek Church throughout the Turkish dominions. At first England virtually admitted this construction, but she soon came to realize that such an

interpretation would place Turkey at the mercy of the Muscovite power. Consequently she strenuously opposed the Russian view. Russia, however, pursued her policy of interference. This led to grave complications, and finally to the Crimean War, in which England, France, and Sardinia came to the assistance of Turkey.

Russia’s Expansion Policy

Peter the Great, “that inspired barbarian,” saw clearly enough that if the Russia of which he dreamed was ever to come there must be found for her somewhere an outlet to the ocean. Three routes offered themselves for consideration: Down through Persia to the Indian Ocean, through Turkey to Constantinople, and northward to the Baltic Sea. The Persian route would take him into contact with Oriental civilization, whereas it was Western culture and progress that he was seeking. The Turkish route was the ideal one, but in that case he must overwhelm a power that was vastly more formidable than it is now after the lapse of two centuries. The Baltic route was therefore the only practicable one in his day, although his sagacious mind must have perceived that sooner or later a warmer port must be sought. In the wrongly so-called will of Peter he expressly enjoins his successors “to take every possible means of gaining Constantinople.” Whatever opinion one may hold as to the authorship of this will, it must be conceded that it sets forth accurately the Russian policy.

Three wars were waged by Russia during the nineteenth century against the Ottoman Porte, resulting in the expulsion of the Turks from a large part of their conquests in Europe. The first of these conflicts is known as the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-29. “The Russian troops crossed the Balkans without serious opposition, and were marching upon Constantinople when the sultan sued for peace. The Treaty of Adrianople brought the war to a close.” Several important territorial changes were made as the result of this war. Turkey lost the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia,—known now as Roumania,—while the southern part of Greece was liberated and formed into an independent kingdom.

The Crimean War, 1853-56, was the second attempt of Russia to expel the Turk from his European possessions. The ostensible reason for this war was stated above. The sultan appealed to the powers for help, and England, France, and Sardinia responded, joining their forces to those of the Turks. The conflict centered mainly about Sevastopol, in the Crimean peninsula, where Russia had a great military and naval station. The siege of this place lasted eleven months. Great bravery and heroism were manifested on both sides.

The Russians were finally forced to surrender. The Treaty of Paris, signed March 30, 1856, terminated the war. The main provisions of this treaty were that Russia was required to abandon her claims to a protectorate over the Greek Christians of the Turkish provinces, to agree not to build any more fortresses on

the Black Sea, nor keep any war vessels upon that sea, except such as were needed for police duty. Sevastopol was given back to Russia. The integrity of the Ottoman Empire was guaranteed as a barrier against Russian aggression.

The third attack of Russia upon Turkey was made in 1878-79. The immediate cause of this war was the “Bulgarian atrocities,”—massacres of men, women, and children belonging to the Greek Church. The sultan was either unable or unwilling to protect these people from the fanaticism of his Moslem subjects. Russia declared war; and although the Turks fought with great valor, they met with overwhelming defeat, “and the armies of the czar were once more in full march upon Constantinople, with the prospect of soon ending forever Turkish rule upon European soil.” At this juncture England, true to her traditional policy, intervened in Turkey’s behalf, and sent her fleet through the Dardanelles and checked the Russian advance once more.

The Congress of Berlin was called to settle as well as it might the disorganized affairs of the Sick Man of the East. “But he lost a good part of his estate, for even his friends had no longer any hope either of his recovery or of his reformation. Out of those provinces of his dominions in Europe in which the Christian population was most numerous, there was created a group of wholly independent or half-independent states. The northern frontier of the Ottoman Empire in Europe was thus pushed back to the Balkans.” “Thus as a result of the war Turkey was shorn of half her European possessions. There were left in Europe under the authority of the sultan barely five million subjects, of which number about one half are Christians,” that is, members of the Greek Church. Since that time Turkey has suffered further territorial reductions. It should be noted that this has come about mainly as the result, either directly or indirectly, of Russia’s expansion policy, and of her position as the natural leader of the Slavic peoples.

The Outcome of the Question

On this point we are not left to conjecture. The prophet declares of the “king of the north,” Turkey, that “he shall come to his end.” Dan. 11:45. For many years he has been a “very sick man,” and his demise at any time would have occasioned no surprise. Indeed, the surprising thing is that he has lived so long. But gradually he is passing away, as we have seen. Soon the final convulsion must come.

The prophet further declares that “none shall help him.” We have seen that he has continued for three quarters of a century only by the sufferance of the European powers, and that this assistance has come mainly through England or through English influence. Why has England thought it necessary to support the Turk? Her support has been prompted mainly by self-interest. Whether they were right or wrong, British statesmen have regarded the Russians as a menace to English interests. Hence they long ago adopted

the policy of placing every possible obstacle in the way of Russian progress. How the maintenance of Turkish independence would accomplish this result will appear from a little consideration of England’s and Turkey’s position around the Mediterranean Sea. The English fortifications at Gibraltar control the western outlet of that body of water. At the southeastern angle of that great inland sea is the Suez Canal, connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea. England holds a controlling interest in that canal. Thus at the two main entrances of the Mediterranean, Great Britain is in position to control the commerce between Europe and the Orient. If she could exercise the same influence at the northeastern extremity of the Mediterranean, her domination would be complete. Now since England could not hope, in case of the dismemberment of Turkey, to get possession of Constantinople herself, she would do what amounts to the same thing; namely, maintain the Turk there as her vassal; by diplomacy when possible, and when that fails, by force of arms. The Treaty of Paris at the close of the Crimean War, as we have seen, prohibited Russia’s keeping a war fleet on the Black Sea or erecting any fortifications on its coasts. The Dardanelles and the Bosporus are closed to the war vessels of all nations. This of course chiefly affects Russia. Thus is Russia through the unique position of Turkey compelled to occupy an insular position. Her only outlet is by way of the Baltic Sea, and that is too far north to furnish a good port the year round.

This will explain, in a measure at least, why Russia temporarily abandoned her efforts to force an outlet to the ocean by way of Constantinople, and turned her attention toward the Far East. But here, as in southeastern Europe, she was compelled to face English opposition. Britain, believing that Russian success in Manchuria meant a new menace to her Indian empire, formed the Anglo-Japanese alliance. How valuable that alliance is is being demonstrated in the present European war. Japan has already entered the fray in order to protect England’s interests in that quarter of the world. Besides, Japan was opposed on her own account to Russian advance in the Orient. The Nipponese mind could not forget the role which the Muscovite played in depriving her of her victory over the Chinese in the war of 1894. At the close of that war, China recognized the independence of Korea, which Japanese statesmen considered essential for the development of their country’s interests. She was also forced to cede to Japan the island of Formosa and the extreme southern part of Manchuria, including Port Arthur. It was at this point that Russia, backed by England and France, interfered, and Japan was forced to accept a money indemnity in place of land on the continent.

Straightway Russia induced the Chinese government to give her a twenty-five-year lease of the most strategic portion of the territory from which she had been instrumental in ousting Japan. Port Arthur was by her transformed into a naval and military fortress, “which was

to be the Gibraltar of the East.” Everything indicated that she not only intended to make Manchuria a part of the Russian Empire, but that she would also seize upon Korea. This would mean, of course, that Japan would be deprived of the leadership of affairs in Eastern Asia, and that her independent national existence would be imperiled.

It could not be expected that Japan would look on complacently while these inimical developments were taking place. Her only hope, however, lay in striking before her powerful antagonist could get in shape for successful resistance. Accordingly exactly ten years from the time of the Chino-Japanese War the world witnessed the surprising spectacle of the little island kingdom’s attack upon the great northern bear. The result of this conflict is well known. Russia’s development in the Far East being only begun, and being five thousand miles away from her home base, from which men and supplies had to be transported over a single-track railroad; and worst of all, her army, navy, and general government being in control of a miserably corrupt and incompetent autocracy, she suffered a disastrous defeat at the hands of her tiny antagonist.

Thus again foiled in her long quest for a warm-water port, she returned to her European possessions to reorganize her army, her navy, and in large measure her government, and bide the time for forcing a road to Constantinople.

Sometime this many-sided Eastern Question is to be settled, for the prophet declares that the Turk “shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” So long ago as the Congress of Berlin, in 1878, as we have seen, “even his friends had no longer any hope either of his recovery or of his reformation.” These same friends proceeded to carve up his territory most unsparingly. England, the only steadfast supporter of the Turk, no longer considers it essential to British welfare to oppose Russian encroachments upon the integrity of the Ottoman government. The Russian specter that was so terrifying to the Court of St. James during the greater part of the nineteenth century has vanished. The old antagonism between the two nations that formerly manifested itself in Central Asia and in Persia has disappeared. Instead the lion and the bear are in virtual alliance, and in the present conflict in Europe are fighting side by side against a common foe. And this notwithstanding the fact that if the Triple Entente should win in the war, Russia would almost certainly be given a preponderance of power in southeastern Europe in the reorganization of states which it seems must come as the result of the fight. All this seems to indicate that England has lost her ardor in supporting the Turkish power.

On the other hand, if Germany and Austria-Hungary should conquer their opponents, the Germanic peoples would probably obtain a commanding influence in that part of Europe covered by the Balkan States and by Turkey. Neither of these powers has ever shown any particular love for the Sublime Porte, and he would be pushed across the straits as soon as the interests of either power demanded such a course. The Turk, therefore, seems to be between the upper and the nether millstone whichever way the conflict terminates.

After the Turk Leaves Europe

The expulsion of Turkey from Europe settles the European phase of the Eastern Question. But there will be an Asiatic phase yet to be disposed of; for the prophecy tells us that “he [Turkey] shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” Dan. 11:45. Even so radical a move as the transfer of his seat of government to Jerusalem will not save him. “He shall come to his end.” His end will mark the signal for the gathering of the nations to Armageddon. Rev. 16:12-16. It also marks another event far more momentous: “At that time shall Michael stand up . . . and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation.” Dan. 12:1. The standing up of Michael, or Christ, is the taking of his kingdom. It is described in the book of Revelation as the time when the kingdoms of this world “become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Rev. 11:15.

The final settlement of the Eastern Question, therefore, terminates earthly history with all its strife, and ushers in the eternal reign of the Prince of Peace. How soon that will take place no man can tell. Events now enacting may make complications which will bring on quickly the final act in the great tragedy. In the closing scenes events are to move rapidly. Rom. 9:28.

Washington (D. C.) Missionary College.