In the first place, though both England and France are
perfectly willing to have the United States accept a mandate for
European Turkey, Armenia and even Anatolia, I doubt if England would
welcome with enthusiasm a proposal that she should evacuate Palestine
and Mesopotamia, the conquest of which has cost her so much in blood and
gold, or whether France would consent to renounce her claims to Syria,
of which she has always considered herself the legatee. As for Italy and
Greece, I imagine that it would prove as difficult to oust the one from
Adalia and the other from Smyrna as it has been to oust the Poet from
Fiume. Secondly, such a mandate would mean the end of Armenia's dream of
independence, for, though she might be given a certain measure of
autonomy, and though she would, of course, no longer be exposed to
Turkish massacres, she would enjoy about as much real independence under
such an arrangement as the native states of India enjoy under the
British Raj. Lastly, nothing is further from our intention, if I know
the temper of my countrymen, than to assume any responsibility in order
to resurrect the Turk, nor are we interested in preserving the integrity
of Turkey in any guise, shape or form. Instead of perpetuating the
unspeakable rule of the Osmanli, we should assist in ending it forever.
And now we come to the question of accepting a mandate for Armenia. In
order to get a mental picture of this foundling which we are asked to
rear you must imagine a country about the size of North Dakota, with
Dakota's cold winters and scorching summers, consisting of a dreary,
monotonous, mile-high plateau with grass-covered, treeless mountains
and watered by many rivers, whose valleys form wide strips of arable
land.
Pages:
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164