THE BALKAN WAR.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXIV, Issue 11509, 6 November 1912, Page 5

THE BALKAN WAR.

i AND THE EASTERN QUESTION. EXPLANATORY HISTORY.

IX.—THE FAILURE AT VIENNA

Wo have* seen that the Congress of "Vienna failed to settle tho Eastern ■Question. - The Sultan rejected the proposal to submit the issue between himself and tho Czar to England, Franco and Austria, with the offer of the Powers to guarantee tho integrity of Turkey. The result was that Russia still claimed an exclusive right to intervene in the affairs of the Christian provinces —a right which was calculated to facilitate the. ambitions of the Czar to encroach more and more on the Danubian provinces and to give effect to tho policy laid down in tho alleged Testament of Peter the Great. On the other hand, this claim was not likely to mako the task of preserving and controlling her aiorthern States aiiy easier for Turkey. Such, then, was tho position in 1815. Before proceeding to the history of this puzzling problem after that year, it wi&. be advisable to recapitulate the DCiAd factors in the Eastern Question, whjßi havo so far come to lightShe Factors of 1816.

Wo havo ascertained

(1) That the decay of Ottoman power gave rise to the question what to do with Turkey's Christian provinces. (2) That side by side with the decay of Islam Russian power grew, and with it the ambition to absorb Turkish territory and to advance to' an outlet for warships in tho Mediterranean. (3) That by the three treaties of Ivuchuk Kainarji, of Jassy, and of Bucharest, Russia did in fact gam considerable accessions of territory, and became a Black Sea Power. (4) That the Powers, • desirous of preserving the balance of power, and England in particular being fearful of an interruption in her communications with the East aud for the security of her Indian Empire, the policy of the nations of Western Europe Avas to check Russia's advance by protecting Turkey. (5) That tho Christian provinces desired not merely autonomy, but ac t_jd freedom from all outside control ■mmth-2T Turkish or Russian. With these facts in mind, let us ap-proach-the subsequent developments in this profoundly intricate Question —a question which, apart from the interests of the Powers, is to use tho well-known description of- John Morley, by "that shifting, intractable, and interwoven tangle of conflicting interests, rival peoples, and antagonistic faiths" which, even yet, is the despair of European diplomacy, and may well perplex mankind, as was once said, up till the Day of Judgment.

Russian Encroachments.

Russia continued to seek territorial expansion at the expense of Turkey. In the course of the war with Persia Russia had received permission from the Ottoman Government to use, for a limited time, the easy road from the Bh'ck Sea to Tillis, by way of the valley of tho Rion (Fhasis) for the transport of troops and supplies, and this permission had been several times renewed. Wishing to make this important privilege permanent, Russia by secret articles in the the treaty of Bucharest had secured the cession of this district in return for an undertaking to destroy certain forts on the Danube. But the Sultan refused to ratify these articles, and between Russia and Turwere determined by the patent.,..treaty 0n1y,,, which positively stipulat'ed-for the' evacuations by tho Russians of every spot occupied by them, on Turkish soil in Asia. But the Russians, in spite of a threat of war, refused to withdraw from the valley of the Rion. The dispute which ensued lasted for. some years, and became ser- \ ious owing to iiussia's avowed intcn- • tion, after having acquired all the high land between the Black Sea and the Caspian, of occupying all the low coast lands over which Turkey claimed sovereign rights. In all this business we find a further illustration of the disregard for treaty obligations which has beea all too frequent in the history of the Eastern Question, and has undoubtedly helped to complicate it and make it. more difficult to solve. The Servian Revolts. Meanwhile Turkey was distraught by internal troubles, and it seemed as if the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, so long expected, were indeed at hand. For some years Turkey had been faced with a serious revolt in Servia. The people of that province had for long been cruelly oppressed by the Janiss- « Goaded to desperation, they against the Turks in 1804, under the leadership of Kara George, a rich swineherd who enjoyed great influence in the country. By 1807 thoy had driven the Janissaries out of the country, and had stormed and captured Belgrade and other fortresses, and the struggle developed into a racial and religious war. 1809 and 1810 the Turks made strenuous efforts to subjugate the province, and did actually overrun the districts east of Moravia, but Russia came to the assistance of the Servians, and the Turks were beaten off. Eventually they had to call in the assistance of Mehemet Ali, Viceroy of Egypt, who gained considerable prestige from his successful campaign. By the treaty of Bucharest, as we havo already seen, Servia was restored to Turkey, but was to preserve local autonomy in internal affairs. The Turks disregarded this provision, and in 1813 made a vigorous attack on Servia, causing Kara George to fly to Austria. A fresh uprising of the Servians occurred in 1815 under the leadership of Milosh Obrenovich, who, in a single campaign, expelled the Turks and became the leading spirit in tho Servian movement for independence. In 1817 he caused Kara George f_M>e murdered, and proclaimed himsm^hereditary Prnice of Servia. At this stage we may postpone consideration of the later history of the relations between Servia and Turkey, and devote attention to the important campaigns which secured Greek Independence.

(To hf> continued.)