Meeting with a European Ambassador
Digression
A few days before this incident, I was introduced by a friend to an
ambassador
of one of the Great Powers countries friendly with the
Ottoman government at
the “Summer Palas” in Tarabya. Like all
of
his other colleagues, this man was getting information from many
sources
about the internal situation in the country but he was skeptical
of most
of the information he was most
interested in. He was eager to
separate
the good from the bad information he was paying for but more
for humane reasons
than to satisfy his embassy’s duty. The
people he
had been introduced to always gave him information that had been
“corrected”, told him about events he found hard to believe and described
the
declining state of “Securite Publique” in the country over the course
of
time. As an example of this situation,
he said that he had heard that a
patriotic citizen out of favor with the
government could be slandered by
someone hoping for some money, an award or
rank, or impetus for his
own career. In
consequence, the slandered individual
could be subjected
to cruelty beyond what is seen even in despotic
countries like Russia and
banished to the farthest reaches of the country,
deprived of his family and
perhaps even his life.
In response and after a brief
introduction, I told him that “in our country,
there are two reasons why
ambassadors suffer from falling into this abyss
of misinformation. The first is the fault of the ambassadors and
the
second is ours. Ambassadors get
information from many people but all
of this information really comes from just
one source. In other words,
any ambassador might get information from an interpreter or from
“Levantines, easternized Europeans” whom the interpreter knows.
These singular sources parcel out the
same information to many others.
Consequently, whenever an ambassador wants to
find out about
something, he ought to go to the government for the essential
story.
This fault lies with the ambassadors. The other fault, though, lies with
those who
know foreign languages. Each day they hear rumors and pass
them on to their
friends, but not to ambassadors, with the rumors finding
their way to people
who hold grudges and don’t shy away from using
the information for their own purposes.
Consequently, the example you have just
given is nothing more than a
malicious slander that oozes out from these
sources. Because if you say
to the
person who gave you this information “I would be pleased if you
would tell me
who your sources are!” then you will see how he reacts
with trepedation and
labors to explain away the matter by referring
vaguely to one friend or
another.
In
response, the ambassador said to me “okay, so in order to avoid the
faults of
both sides, from now on whatever I hear, no matter how trivial,
I should
understand that the information essentially comes from the
government. I am someone who has the habit of holding
back from
telling my own government anything until I am sure that it is
correct.
For this reason, I choose most
of my acquaintences from among
Moslems, who are the true sons of this country.
The friend who referred
me to you has spoken well of you to me for quite some
time and the
basic reason that I wanted
to talk with you was about the faults you have
spoken of and to get
confirmation of them from a genuine patriot like
you so I can avoid falling
into the abyss of misinformation.”
“You have made clear what the fault is
among your citizens and you have
confirmed my feelings on this point. But, you know of course that smoke
cannot
ever rise from a place where there is no fire.
With regard to the
example that I related to you, even if we suppose
that its essence has
been lost along the way, there is no doubt that there is a
kernel of truth
there. Can you claim
that all these incidents spring from manufactured
slander? Of course you
can’t!”
In response, I told the ambassador that
“In our country, there is a group
that trades in scandal and, for whatever
reason, this group is increasing
in boldness and in its membership. But an innocent man cannot be exiled
from his
country and family on the word of just one person, no matter how
trustworthy he
may be. On the contrary, when such
slanders are revealed
the perpetrators are banished. Let me give you a personal example: two
years ago I was the head of a state
school ((Mekteb-i Sanayi/ School of
Industry)). Two of my subordinates who
were involved in corrupt practices
were irritated by my presence so they
conspired to have me removed.
They
created “journals” ((incriminating information)) about me designed
to shock the
Sultan in regard to my character. I was
called to account and
presented with the contents of the “journals”. So I gave my opinion of the
originators of
the “journals” and asked to meet with them face-to-face.
These low fellows were brought in and I
rejected all their accusations,
leaving them with no alternative but to confess
their slander. Apparently,
they had a
history of doing such things. As a
result, they were shipped off
to duty far away.
So you can see that by the time these stories reach you
they have
undergone many twists and turns.”
The ambassador asserted that the fact that
these scoundrels, who had no
connection to the police, were able to have me
summoned for interrogation
without any court proceedings was indicative of the
break-down in
“Securite Publique” in the country. He proceeded to relate the proper legal
procedures required in a nation of laws and I listened politely.
//END of PART TWO, section four//
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder