CC BY
39ARMENIAN QUESTION AND STAGES OF ARMENIAN SOCIETY SELF-ORGANIZATION PROBLEM
Vahan Melikyan1
In the course of their development different nations have displayed different means and ways of self-organization. Not always the liberation struggles had been a priority factor heading towards creation or restoration of a sovereign independent statehood. In the old times different economic-trade systems of values and sometimes rough material and resource systems of values were dominant. Very often a comparatively fair social, i.e. communal and later city-state structures, as well as civilization, spiritual and religious values and etc. played a decisive role. For example, the recreation of the State of Israel became possible only as a result of the Holocaust.
One of the main specifics of the Armenian civilization and the history of our people is that being closely connected to its geographical environment and establishing rather powerful state entities on those territories for thousands of years, the inherited historic memory of the people when occurring in favourable conditions tries to rediscover the essence of the loss. During the centuries the aspiration to reach the maximum turned into a process of trying to achieve the minimum, basically through national-liberation struggle or through the assistance of a third party.
After the two partitions in 1555 and 1639 Armenia, from administrative point of view, was divided between Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Persia and the two notions came into being – Western and Eastern Armenia. This period was a crucial one for the Armenian reality, in the sense that beginning in the 14th century three hundred years decline period reached its climax from the point of view of human recourses’ decomposition and degradation. Probably, the millennial history of Armenian people could have been interrupted there. From this very historical moment the helpless situation, in which Armenians occurred, was used by the Ottoman Empire to perpetrate a pre-genocide. First, mass immigration of Kurds to Western Ar-
1 The head of the chair of World politics and International relations at the Armenian-Russian (Slavonic) state University; the Candidate of Historical Sciences; Assistant professor.
81
V.Melikyan
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
menia was organized to change radically the Empire’s demographic pattern in favour of the Muslims and later on, there was an attempt through devshirmeh (systematic collection of non-Muslim children and their involuntary conversion to Islam - Va-han Melikyan) and various anti-Armenian activities to vacate Western Armenia from Armenians. The only remaining Armenian institutions were the four Catholi-cosates, which were also used to disrupt the Armenians, and to weaken the unity between church and ordinary people.
As for the immigration organized by Shah Abbas, it is worth mentioning that the Armenian Community in Nor Jugha was established under his protection and, being economically powerful, became the symbol of new upsurge and selforganization of the Armeniancy.
The ideology of liberation of Armenia, which started in the 16-17th centuries after going through two long-lasting stages of European and Russian orientations under the influence of Russia’s advanced foreign policy in the line of Asia Minor had finally led to the joining of Eastern Armenia to Russia. The liberation of Eastern or Russian Armenia from the rule of Persia, in contrast to Western Armenians, created for this segment of the Armenian population a tendency for a relative development and state of stability.
The radical social and political changes in Western and Eastern Armenia as well as in the Diaspora, which occurred in the 50-60s of the 19th century, resulted in the creation of the Armenian social-political environment where three social-political trends appeared, which tried to bring together the centuries-old political experience and marked the ways of self-organization. When there was no statehood it was first of all expressed by an attempt to preserve the Armenian ethnic identity as well as to unite around all-national goals.
In order to organize the internal life of Western Armenians the Constitutional movement of Western Armenians brought forward the idea of establishing Armenian legislative and executive bodies in Turkey -the National Assembly and National Central Committee, and it declared the development of the trading capital and economy as well as the economic cooperation between the Diaspora as a principle for self-organization.
As a result of the 1877-78 Russian-Turkish war the issue of reforms in Western Armenia was raised, which culminated in formation of the Armenian Question as an issue of International Diplomacy. The Armenian Patriarch of Istanbul Nerses Var-japetian refused the rooted idea of carrying out reforms exclusively with the help of Turkish government and on October 27, 1877, during the panel session of the National Assembly he decided to trust the solution of the Armenian Question to Russia
82
«21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
V.Melikyan
and this initiated the process of shifting the Armenian Question to the international level.
In the Armenian claims the expression “Ararat Marz’ and its joining to Mets Hayk (Western Armenia) was emphasized, which in 1919 became the issue for discussion during the Paris negotiations of the two Armenian delegations.
At the Berlin Congress the Armenian delegations had introduced two documents; 1. N. Varjapetyan’s “Programme” demanded for the autonomy for Western Armenia; in Erzurum, Van, Diyarbakir, Kharberd vilayets with the port Rize. 2. Pog-hos Nubar Pasha’s programme rejected the autonomy and was contented with reforms. The example of Yerevan province was brought where in 30 years after joining of Eastern Armenia to Russia Armenian population doubled. He admitted the historically dictated differences between two parts of the Armenian population and emphasized that the reforms were considered only for Western Armenians and advised the Sublime Porte to follow Russia’s example and to create favourable conditions for Armenians. By the way, M. Khrimyan was inclined to accept P. Nubar’s programme.
The Balkan Wars reopened the issue of Armenian reform. In October 1912 in Tbilisi at the Congress of representatives of Armenians from Armenian-populated regions of the Russian Empire the National Bureau was elected. A similar body - the Security Commission – was created also in Constantinople. Though being separated those two bodies should deal jointly with the same Armenian Question. P. Nubar was appointed the Head of Armenian National Delegation in Europe. The latter intended to include in the delegation only the Western Armenians so that nobody speculates the issue of Russia’s interference into the matter.
On May 1-2, 1915, in St. Etchmiadzin the Congress of “exiled” was held, which had as its goal to unify all Armenian institutions and benevolent organizations to help the refugees from Western Armenia. The Congress, which was chaired by all-Armenian Catholicos Gevorg the Fifth, adopted a programme of coordinated activities.
It was decided to turn to the Great Powers so that International law provisions on the compensation of the war damages extended also to the Armenian refugees.
According to the Declaration of the Allies, it was suggested to file evidence on the barbarities of the Turks and reveal the accessories to that crime. At the end of the Congress it was decided to meet again either in Yerevan or in Tbilisi
On May 10-13 1916, the Petrograd Armenian Congress took place. It was probably the first Armenian Congress, which had the opportunity of revealing and talking about the Armenian Question. It revealed the lack of experience, insufficient preliminary organization, helplessness of the presidency, in one word, all what in-
83
V.Melikyan
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
evitably accompanied the first steps of that great public initiative. At the same time the Congress pointed out another very important aspect – the perspicacious attitude of the 150 delegates to the Congress representing the Armenian organizations on the issues under discussion. The first important outcome was that the Russian society became aware of the great sufferings of the Armenian people both in Turkey and in Russia where the Western Armenian refugees had found shelter. Later on, measures were taken to unify the efforts to support Armenians and it was decided to establish a central coordinating body.
But the most important achievement of the Armenian Congress was that it was almost devoid of party disagreements typical to the Armenian society; everybody did a common task and realized that political disagreement would only create obstacles to the cause they are involved in and where minor disagreements might irretrievably discredit the achievements that were so valuable to everybody. A famous Armenolo-gist Alexei Jivelegov is of the opinion that: “The joint work took place, and now a decisive step is to be taken in that direction. It is in the interests of the Armenian people” [1].
The Petrograd First Armenian Congress is important from the point of view of the organizational issues discussed there. At the Congress it was decided to establish a commission of 9 members in order to call a Central Committee of Armenian Congresses. The latter had the right of cooptation i.e. the right to invite the representatives of the national organizations abroad with the right to vote. The Central Committee of Armenian Congresses should act in accordance with its Charter. They also “called on all Armenians to realize the importance of the moment and to join the common task and the solution of the National Issue” [2].
In December 1916 in Baku a document on “The Organization of Self-Help of Armenians” was published, which by summarizing the results of the two years of World War I and foreseeing the growing revolution in Russia suggested new approaches and challenges to be ready for the drastic convulsions.
In 1917 and 1919 in Yerevan two Congresses of Western Armenians were convened. Those two Congresses were the natural outcomes of the new manifestations of WWI, the Armenian Genocide and Armenian Question. The first Congress was the result of the February revolution and the second one was the result of the creation of the Republic of Armenia.
In April 1916 the representatives of the traditional Armenian national-democratic parties following the joint initiatives of the Catholicos of all Armenians Gevorg the Fifth and Poghos Nubar decided to call a Congress of “Western Armenian intelligentsia and other public figures”. The equal participation of all political
84
«21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
V.Melikyan
parties was chosen as the fundamental principle. It was decided to hand over “the external aspect” of the Armenian Question to Poghos Nubar’s National Delegation and to leave “internal aspect”, i.e. Transcaucasia national and territorial problems to the representatives of Eastern Armenia and Armenians from the Caucasus.
The first Congress of Western Armenians was held in Yerevan on May 2-11, 1917. It elected the National Council and National Assembly. One of the central decisions of the Congress was to entrust the solution of the Armenian Question to the Armenian Delegation in Europe, which was to be staffed by Western Armenians. The main contradictions of the first Congress were caused by the fact of whether the Congress was authorized to declare itself as the mouthpiece of the will and aims of all Western Armenians.
The Congress revealed the deepening clash between the Western and Eastern Armenians, which was expressed by establishing National Council of Western Armenians, were the ARFD members were dominant. It is quite clear that after the fall of the Tsar Regime the authority and influence of the Dashnaktsutyun was a natural phenomenon, on the other hand, being very powerful it isolated other national organizations by turning them into irreconcilable adversaries. Artak Darbinyan expressed their worries concerning the opinion of Andranik that “the Caucasian Dash-naktsakans will oppose to any initiative of Turkish Armenians, if they do not become the leaders” to Aram Manoukyan [3, p. 208]. It is noteworthy that Aram also did not want the Caucasian Dashnaktsakans to intervene into the refugee matters, moreover, he was of the opinion that the Western Armenian Dashnaktsakans also wanted to stay apart from their Caucasian Armenian colleagues.
After the October coup d’etat the liabilities of the Western Armenians National Council were transferred to the National and Safety Councils in Yerevan, which were established on the initiative of A. Manoukyan and which organized and leaded the Armenian self-defence movement, in particular, the Heroic Battles of May 1918 and thus also the process of establishing the Republic.
The second Congress of Western Armenians differs from the previous one first of all by the fact that it expressed the will of that part of Armenians who declared their independence.
The new Congress was viewed by the Western Armenian representatives of the Organizational Committee as the Western Armenians’ representative and political body of the Republic of Armenia. Taking into consideration the abovementioned fact, the Organizational Committee elected the delegates based on non-party two-stage principles. In the places 300-500 Western Armenians were to elect district deputies.
85
V.Melikyan
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
The second Congress of Western Armenians was held in Yerevan on February 6-13, 1919. Together with other crucial decisions the Congress decided to declare the Independence of the “Free and United Armenia”. In its “Political Resolution” the Congress expressed confidence to the first administration of the “Free and United Armenia”- Poghos Nubar’s Cabinet, declared the unity of common political and state will and goals and obliged the newly elected “Executive Body” to be in close relations with the RA Government.
The Congress elected also “The Executive Body of Western Armenians living in Ararat Republic”. The Executive Body had to be formed in accordance with the state principles and the Chairman and the members were equalized to ministers.
On February 25 the RA Government approved that document. The RA Council of Ministers passed a law, according to which the Council of Armenia was staffed by 12 Western Armenian representatives.
For the first time the Armenian Question had been introduced in a form of allArmenian political programme since 1878 Berlin Congress.
The first Armenian National Congress, convened on the eve of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, had as its goal to bring together the standpoints of Western and Eastern Armenians and the Armenian Diaspora on the united national claims and to elect a body responsible for their implementation.
On October 15, 1918 and January 1, 1919 Poghos Nubar distributed circular letters. 8 Western Armenians, 8 Eastern Armenians (Caucasian Armenians) as well as 22 other representatives from 10 countries were invited to participate in the Congress. Through this representation Poghos Nubar tried to call an All-Armenian Congress, to form a more authoritative delegation, a common programme for Armenian Claims and to create All-Armenian Government in Paris.
The Congress started its activities on February 24, 1919. It had 43 meetings and was closed on April 22. Among the 38 delegates to the Congress were Levon Shant, Mikhael Vardanyan, Gabriel Noradunkian, Vahan Tekeyan, Armen Garo, Mi-hran Tamatyan, Vahan Papazyan, Hovhannes Khan Masehyan, Arshak Chopanyan and others.
A. Aharonyan and H. Ohanjanyan waived to participate in the Congress with the right to vote mentioning that they were authorized to participate in the Peace Conference only. The absence of the authorized representatives of Eastern Armenians made it impossible to call the Congress an All-Armenian one, it was declared as National Congress and was to represent the Western Armenians and the Diaspora.
On April 24, 1919, A. Aharonyan in his letter addressed to the RA Minister of Foreign Affairs S. Tigranyan spoke about the attitude of the Western Armenians and
86
«21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
V.Melikyan
P. Nubar towards the Republic as an expression of “fear”. First of all, this “fear” is expressed in the fact that “The Turkish Armenians surrender to the Russian Armenians as the latter are very powerful from the economic point of view, they are knowledgeable and big in number”. It is also mentioned that the ARFD is merely of socialist nature and tends to lead, and the most important thing is that finally Soviet Russia will become more powerful and will take possession of Caucasian Armenia, thus it is not right to let Western Armenia join it. At first the state of Western Armenia is to be established and later Caucasian Armenia will join it [4].
The Ramkavars didn’t underestimate also the fact, which came from the April 1920 Declaration of the US President W. Wilson, in which welcoming Armenia’s Independence he mentioned that the decision on final frontier between Turkey and Armenia would be made with the approval and participation of Russia. Probably, their scepticism concerning “United and Free Armenia” and the decision to vacate their seats in Parliament was grounded by this very fact.
As a result, the National Delegation was assigned to solve with the RA Government the problem of establishing a new United Government and Parliament. At the Conference the National Delegation was to represent the Western Armenians and the Republic of Armenia was to be represented by the RA Delegation. At the same time it was decided to join them together in the United Delegation of Armenia.
In mid October, 1919 in order to establish the Government of the United Armenia the mission of National Delegation arrived in Yerevan headed by V. Tekeyan. This issue was at the same time discussed by the ARFD 9th General Meeting. For about one month the Delegation (N. Stepanyan - independent, S. Harutyunyan -ADP) had negotiated with the RA Government, conceded in the issue concerning P. Nubar and left him the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. But all that was in vain. The proposals of the National Delegation were not admitted by the Government and the Congress of Dashnaktsutyun.
Samson Harutyunyan also tried to come to a common ground on the creation of a coalition government. On March 25, 1920 he represented not the Paris but the Tbilisi opinion. But it became clear that the ARFD had changed its attitude towards coalition. There was also a contradiction on the issue of Armenia’s mandate; the Dashnaktsutyun was against this idea: “The way we establish today’s Independent Armenia in the same way we must establish the United and Independent Armenia and we must preserve it” [3, p. 253].
Then it was to be followed by Sevres and a big disappointment.
Nowadays in the context of the restoration of independence of the Republic of Armenia and liberation of Artsakh, the issue of Armenian Claims still faces the
87
V.Melikyan
<21-st CENTURY», №2 (6), 2009
problem of the Armenian’s self-organization, which acquires new and various solutions. In this series the convention of the Third Congress of Western Armenians can serve as a starting point by joining together all the capable forces around the all-national ideology. The prevention from assimilation as well as new developments can serve at the same time as guarantee for the security of the Republic of Armenia and all Armeniancy.
April, 2008
Reference Sources and Literature
1. Armyanski vestnik (Moscow), May 22, 1916. Reference according to G. Kirakosyan, “Aleksey Djivelegov and his historical and essay heritage” (in Russian)
2. All-Armenian Conference (1912-1920), The Collection of documents and materials, Yerevan, 2004, p. 122-123 (in Armenian).
3. Artak Darbinian, “The Memories of Armenian Liberation Movement in 1890-1940”, Yerevan, 2003 (in Armenian)
4. Armenian National Archive, f. 282, c. 1, g. 56, t. 18-19 (in Armenian)
88
