The first stage in the artificially manufactured problem between Turks and Armenians, who had lived brotherly together for centuries, was provoking the Armenian community against the Ottoman Empire. During the 1878 Berlin Congress, the parties discussed defending Armenians as leverage against Russia, and Lord Salisbury proposed securing the rights of Armenians and an urgent improvement of their situation. These suggestions were made the 61st clause of the Treaty of Berlin. Needless to say, improvement of all communities, not just the Armenians, is and should be the wish and ambition of every conscientious person. However, the British deep state is not concerned with the well being of Armenians or any other people. It is concerned about its own interests only.
At the same time, lobbying efforts sped up in Britain, and Armenian writers were encouraged to write against the Ottomans and join in the anti-Ottoman propaganda.
For instance, an Armenian named Agopyan, acting upon instructions of Lord Salisbury, started publishing a newspaper in London called Haiasdan, while famous papers like the Truth, which was owned by Henry Labouchère, started spreading the false news that Armenians were oppressed by the Ottomans due to their Christian identity. Although the Ottoman government applied to local courts to prevent such news, the defamation campaign continued under the pretense of freedom of speech.
These were deliberate actions intended to build negative public opinion in Europe against the Ottoman Empire in a bid to increase pressure on the Government. Certain British politicians, particularly Gladstone, made inflammatory speeches in the House of Commons against Ottomans, and claimed with no real evidence that ‘Christians were being persecuted’. So much so, the Times began disseminating lies like Christians being killed, churches and other Christian buildings being looted and things getting more dangerous by the day.
Ottoman diplomat Salih Münir Pasha, in his report sent to His Majesty’s Administration Office in Yıldız Palace, described the propaganda as follows:
When the current developments are carefully examined, it becomes clear that Britain is working hard to achieve certain goals that will be detrimental to Ottoman Empire’s interests. Gladstone’s party’s actions and the publication of newspapers linked to Salisbury group are deliberately designed to make their evil intentions acceptable in the public eye.(T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet Arşivleri Genel Müdürlüğü, p. 197) (London, September 4, 1889, Salih Münir)
The British deep state also used the Sasun riot started by some Armenians in 1894 to bolster its black propaganda. Suddenly, the European media was flooded with articles spreading the lie of the alleged massacre of Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Anti-Ottoman and anti-Muslim rallies began breaking out in various European cities, as a result of this one-sided, inaccurate news. The European public was being familiarized with the so-called idea of ‘saving the Armenians from the Turks‘. However, the facts were shielded from the public eye: the British deep state was planning to bring down the Ottoman Empire and divide Anatolia and the Middle East into smaller parts that it hoped would be easier to control. All these efforts were designed to help the cause.
The British deep state propaganda machine made sure to benefit from every incident. Small incidents were grossly overstated, and every issue was turned into news with exaggerations and inaccurate interpretations. British newspapers like the Times, the Standard, Daily Telegraph, and Daily Chronicle were full of biased commentaries and articles against the Ottoman Empire and the Turks. Gladstone on the other hand, with his fiery yet empty speeches, continued to rally British politicians and the public against the Ottomans.
The reports of Gerald H. Fitzmaurice, who worked as an interpreter in the British embassy of the time, were allegedly based on his observations during his journey across Anatolia and were used as the imaginary ammunition for the black propaganda war. His reports, -most of which were fictitious- published in the name of British diplomacy, were influencing some other foreign ambassadors as well. Now the British deep state was gaining the support of not only its own public, but other European countries too, making them players in the implementation of its plans. A century later, similar fake evidence methods would re-appear in the occupation of Iraq, as a way of forming public opinion in favor of mobilization of international military forces.