Struggling for a Constitutional Regime: Armenian-Young Turk Relations in the Era of Abdulhamid II, 1895-1909 (original) (raw)

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT A Struggle for a Constitutional Regime: Armenian Young-Turks Relations During the Era of Abdulhamid, II, 1895 and 1909 By Garabet K Moumdjian Candidate for a “Doctor of Philosophy” degree in History University of California, Los Angeles, 2011 Professor Richard G. Hovannisian, Chair Although scholars devoted substantial attention to Armenian Revolutionary movements, relations between various Armenian organizations and Young Turk leaders, individually or through various institutions, these treatments of the subject has received a tangential consideration at best. This was largely due to the paucity of original sources that covered the second half of the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II given that most Ottoman and Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) archives were impossible to access for political reasons. Two seminal studies by a leading Turkish historian, Şükrü Hanioğlu, provided the first careful assessments, albeit from the Turkish perspective, which relied on Ottoman archival materials. Yet, while both studies added to our knowledge of what transpired at the time, they skirted much of the critical Armenian contributions that assisted Young Turks to attain power. It is the overall purpose of this dissertation to precisely address many of the significant relationships between various Armenian leaders, political parties, and revolutionary movements with their Ottoman counterparts, to clarify what actually occurred on the ground and capture the reasons as to why these relations did occur. This study aims to shed light on some of the reasons that motivated Armenians and Ottomans alike to collaborate with each other and, to the degree that it may be possible to ascertain, to identify causes for their failures. The dissertation opens with an analysis of long-promised reform efforts, ostensibly to benefit Armenian inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire after the Treaty of Berlin (1878), and the skillful manipulations by Sultan Abdulhamid II to water them down. An effort is made to carefully assess the Palace’s reliance on the Kurdish Hamidiyye Regiments, which were used to sabotage reforms, to better understand Constantinople’s political intrigues. Because it was during this process that the Armenian Millet [nation]—hitherto known as the “Millet-i Sadika” (Loyal Millet)—was transformed into a “Millet-i Asiya” (Rebel Millet), the introduction examines how revolutionary agitations led to profound socio-political schisms. Much of this rich history is described and analyzed in the six chapters that follow. In Chapter one, the history from the “May Reform Project of 1895” to Abdulhamid II’s abdication in 1909 is thoroughly discussed, placing the agitations for reforms within the overall tensions that affected the Ottoman Empire. In fact, as the Armenian Millet faced its conundrum at a time when Turks themselves wished to establish a constitutional monarchy to unite the empire and its peoples, the roles played by Armenian subjects were especially important. In turn, this vital position attracted Armenian revolutionary movements to Young Turk leaders, who promised that their own revolution against the Sultan would open a new era in Ottoman history. Many assured critics that their objective was to restore the 1876 Constitution, which was promulgated at the same time Abdulhamid II acceded the throne. Several maintained that they were following in the footsteps of the reformist Midhat Pasha and his disciples, who became better known as the Yeni Osmanlılar (New Ottomans). Despite their enthusiasm, however, the initial path to establish cordial relations between Armenian revolutionary organizations and their Ottoman counterparts was marred with suspicions and mistrust. These important differences are assiduously discussed and analyzed in Chapter 2. By December 1907, Armenian and Young Turk forces managed to overcome political hurdles to form a united front, whose declared goal was to topple Abdulhamid II. How the two sides overcame their reservations and doubts of each other, which colored future ties, are assessed in Chapter 3. Inasmuch as one of the chief disputes between Armenian revolutionary and Young Turk leaders were the conditions of the Armenian inhabited provinces within the Ottoman Empire, Chapter 4 provides a thorough examination of the situation there, to ascertain whether misinterpretations or misrepresentations were justified. How the Armenian revolutionary movement was able (or at least tried very hard) to revolutionize the Kurdish and Turkish populations there, in accordance with the directives of the first anti-Hamidian conference held in Paris in 1902, are also addressed. Along the same lines, the study further tackles the issue of Armenian-Macedonian relations, which were blessed, and to a certain degree manipulated, by the fledgling state of Bulgaria for its own political and national gains. In fact, one could naturally speak about a Bulgarian connection vis-à-vis this cooperation, which is seldom addressed in scholarly sources. Finally, a reevaluation of the April 1909 Adana Massacres are covered in Chapter 6, to illustrate that the ARF continued to cooperate with the Young Turks despite the slaughters, if for no other reason than to give the fledgling constitutional-revolutionary movement an opportunity to succeed. The dissertation closes with an assessment of Armenian-Young Turk relations that shed light on how the CUP (Committee of Union and Progress, Ittihad ve Terakkı Cemiyeti) leaders were significantly weakened by their erroneous policies. Despite outrageous developments, the CUP leadership covered up the vagaries of bewildered officials, confused by the desire to investigate wrongdoings, while seeking Armenian political assistance against the Sublime Porte. Both at the official as well as the popular levels, Armenian ties with Ottoman leaders disintegrated, which planted the seeds for fresh animosities. By 1913, the gap that separated the two nations enlarged, and while few anticipated future catastrophes, revealing signs were present that tensions simmered. Regrettably, hardly anyone exercised the foresight to prevent new tragedies.