kryzys bułgarski (6)

192 CHAPTER 9

the Imperial Govemment łs willing to conclude with the British Govemment a secret agreement to the end of reassuring [the Iatter] in this regard.

—Sumner, Russia and the Balkans, 649

Anglo-Ottoman Cyprus Conrention, 4June 1878

Art. 1: If Batoum,Ardahan, Kars, or any of them shall be retained by Russia, and if any 1 attempt shall be madę at any futurę time by Russia to take possession of any further] territories of His Imperial Majesty the Sułtan in Asia, as fixed by the Definitive Treatyj of Peace, England engages to join His Imperial Majesty the Sułtan in defending thend by foree of arms.

In return, His Imperial Majesty the Sułtan promises to England to introduce necessary] reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two Po wers, in the govemment and for the] protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte in these territories.

And in order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing hol engagement, His Imperial Majesty the Sułtan further consents to assign the island ofl Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England.,..

—Hertslet, 4:2722; Hurst, 2:54

9.9

SALISBURY AND SHUYALOY ON THE STRAITS

Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin • Salisbury at tbe Congress of Berlin,

11 Juty 1878 • Shuvalov at the Congress of Berlin, 12 July 1878

In one of the last sessions of the Congress of Berlin, the second British delegate, the Marqr

of Salisbury, read into the record a British declaration on the regime of the Straits. Salisl

interpretation exasperated the Russian representatives, who on the next day countered declaration of their own. From the Russian vantage point, Salisbury's maneuver showed British policy in the Straits question had become unpredictable. This concern about British! tentions haunted Russian diplomacy throughout the 1880s and set the stage for the Russiaai sistence on addressing the Straits ąuestion in the Three Emperors' League of 1881 and Russo-German Reinsurance Treaty of 1887 (Documents 9.14 and 9.28).

Article 63 of the Treaty of Berlin

The Treaty of Paris of 30 March 1856, as well as the Treaty of London of 13| 1871,¹¹ are maintained In all such of their provislons as arc not abrogated or mc by the preceding stipulations.

—Hurst.

''Article 1 of the Ireaty ot London abrogated articles 11, 13, and 14 of the 1856 Paris treaty ment 5.7), Article 2 affirmed the principle of the closure of the Straits, but 'with power to His Maiesty the Sułtan to open the said Straits in time of peace to the vessels of war of friendly and all ers, in case the Sublime Porte should judge it necessary in order to secure the execution of the sŁ of the Treaty of Paris" See also Documents 8.16 and 10.8.

THE SEARCH FOR A NEW INTERNATIONAL STABILITY, 1871-1890

193

Salisbury at tbe Congress of Berlin, 11 Juty 1878

I declare on behalf of England that the obligations of Her Britannic Majesty on the ire of the Straits are limited to an obligation to the Sułtan to respect in this mat-His Majesty’s independent determinations in conformity with the spirit of existing

ies.

—(source attributions below)

Sbuvalov²² at the Congress of Berlin, 12 Juty 1878

Russian plenipotentiaries, without ąuite understanding the proposal of the Sec-British plenipotentiary on the closure of the Straits, for their part limit themselves and insertion of the following remark into the protocol: in their view, the prin-of the closure of the Straits is a European principle, and the pertinent stipula-of 1841,1856, and 1871, now confirmed by the Treaty of Berlin, are obiigatory po wers, conforming to the spirit and letter of existing treaties not only towards Sułtan but also towards all signatories of these agreements.

—Protocols 18 and 19, SP, 69:1070-76; Imanuel Geiss, Der Berliner Kongress: Protokolle und

Materialien (Boppard, 1978); Hurst 2:549-50

TREATY OF BERLIN, 13 JULY 1878

iustion of Russia's armies and the opposition of Britain and Austria to the Treaty ofSan •nade the revision of that instrument at the Congress of Berlin a foregone conclusion. all, "Big Bułgaria*—the centerpiece of San Stefano—was to be dismantled. But what been particularly gal ling to the Russian plenipoteniaries (who them se/ves had no for the architect of San Stefano, Count Nicholas lgnatiev) was that Britain and Aus-ny, neither ofwhich had expended a single soldier in the great eastern crisis, proved mctors—Britain under the terms of the Cyprus convention, Austria-Hungary under ar-and 29 of the Berlin treaty.

tempting to see the Congress of Berlin as the finał episode in the great eastern crisis 1878. Perhaps a morę accurate depiction might be that the Treaty of Berlin merely crisis to a new, albeit less dangerous, piane. The powers delegated many of the de-settlement to commissions whose work could be expected to drag on for years (for tfie commission on the northern border of Creece only completed its task in 1881). ~3sr»ent kept open old wounds: disagreement among the commissioners could eas-Ae relationship of governments toward one another; conversely, discord among the j affect the way in which each government would instruct its commissioners to

Andreev ich, Count Shuvalov (1827—18891. fiuuun ambassador in London, 1874-1879; sec-deJegate at the congress.