CC BY
666
HISTORICAL SCIENCES / <<€©LL©MUM~J0U®MaL>>#26í7®),2©2©
HISTORICAL SCIENCES
Safarov Sehran Iktiyar Doctoral student of the Institute of History named after A.A. Bakikhanov, Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences DOI: 10.24411/2520-6990-2020-12181 BRITISH POLICY IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE XX CENTURY: "POSITION ON THE ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI ISSUE"
Abstract.
Like other European empires in economic, political and military competition, Britain was actively involved in the redistribution of the world. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as a result of wars of occupation, In addition to being the country with the largest land area, the UK, but also the world's largest economic powerhouse. In the article The rise of the United Kingdom in the region for that period, increasing national interests in the South Caucasus, policy of aggression against territorial states and the struggle for hegemony with Tsar Russia comprehensively researched and analyzed. The article deals with Armenia's territorial claims against Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan in 1918-1920 and as a result, the failure to ensure peace among nations in the South Caucasus. The article examines and analyzes the interests of the allied states in the South Caucasus and the Armenian issue. Moreover, instigation of the national interests on the political life of the South Caucasus and their compliance with the interests of Great Britain and patronage of the Armenian issues by the British was commented in the article.
Keywords: South Caucasus, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, Dashnak forces, genocide, gangs, Armistice of Mudros, National Council, national-democratic forces, Armenian separatism, Armenian issue.
Principal text:
In 1918-1920 the aggressive policy of Armenia towards its neighbors such as Turkey, Georgia and especially Azerbaijan failed to ensure peace between nations in the South Caucasus. After declaring its independence Armenia began to lay territorial claims against Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
While Azerbaijan tried to put in order its neighborly relations with Georgia, Armenia didn't give up its hostile position and attempts to make peace with it were unsuccessful [5, p. 160].
Notwithstanding the official statements of the Armenian government in 1918-1920, the wide scope of the anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric of the Armenian nationalists and all the actions of Andranik and other gangs were the carriers of the idea of creating a "Greater Armenia" and led to pursue the policy of genocide against civilians in Muslim villages and settlements in order to realize this idea. According to the French researcher of "Armenian events" George de Malevili, "Armenia Republic founded in 1918 continued its claims to independence over the ruins of the tsarist empire not paid attention by Great Britain and was registered as the only independent Armenian state in history in 1918-1921" [ 9, p.46].
The APR government always stood firm in its democratic position and trying to resolve all disputes "between the peoples of the Caucasus through agreement and arbitration" noted that "all statements contradicting this situation create responsibility for the world democracy as these statements are unacceptable for democracy". However, as the attempts to settle the conflict peacefully failed, the note of the Foreign Office (February 1919) forced the government of Azerbaijan to make an ultimatum statement: "If the Armenian gov-
ernment doesn't ensure the implementation of more decisive measures to eliminate the cases of conspiracy against the sovereign rights of Azerbaijan, our government will not be responsible for the resulted events" [7, p. 49].
The British came to Baku on behalf of their allies and therefore all the calls of the British command expressed the general position of their allies.
The statements and calls on "united and indivisible" Russia of the General Thomson led to the activation of the Russian and Armenian national councils. The members of the Russian national council spoke with the slogan of "United and indivisible" Russia, felt themselves as the real owners in the city and said that those representatives would not participate in the new composition of the Cabinet of Ministers of the local government. Therefore, there was a conflict between general Thomson and the Russian national council. On the contrary, representatives of the Slavic-Russian alliance re-entered the Cabinet of Ministers of Fatali Khan Khoyski organized on December 22, 1918.
The presence of British troops in Baku was not a serious obstacle to the activities of the national government of Azerbaijan. The meetings of the government were held as before and new laws were adopted. Among these laws the law on formation of the Parliament of Azerbaijan Republic adopted on November 19, 1918 took a special place. It was stated in the law adopted by the new government that "Not only the Turks live in Azerbaijan, therefore the composition of the National Council of Azerbaijan must be Multinational". At the same time, real conditions were established in the Republic for achieving inter-national reconciliation. The leadership of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and its work towards the building of a true democratic state also affected the British command.
«C@yL@qyiym-J©yrMaL»#26I7®),2©2© / HISTORICAL SCIENCES
7
Recalling the statement of the Allies that the British troops would ensure the security of the Caucasian peoples, the APC government constantly informed the Command of the British Armed Forces about the actions of the Armenian gangs and provided copies of all government statements and notes addressed to the Foreign Ministry of Armenia.
As to the Armenian National Council in Baku, its leaders worked hard to gain General Thomson's trust. The Armenians of Karabakh and Zangazur submitted their remarks and demands to the British general alleging that their rights had been violated by the government of Azerbaijan. However, General Thomson didn't take a great interest in the intrigue of the Armenian figures and made a statement on the transfer of control of Karabakh and Zangazur to the government of Azerbaijan. In the first days of December 1918 Thomson sent telegrams to the Armenian leaders in Ganja, Gazakh and Javanshir regions urging them to put an end to lawlessness and pillage against the Azerbaijani people. "Instruct all Armenians to stay peacefully in their homes. If this command is not obeyed, they will be held accountable for the bloodshed and lawlessness" [11, p.44].
On April 3, 1919 the British supported the decision of appointment of Khosrov bey Sultanov as the governor-general of Shusha, Zangazur, Javanshir and Jabrayil regions by the Azerbaijani government on January 15 of the same year. As a result of productive activity of Khosrov bey Sultanov aimed at ensuring stability in the region, the VII Congress of Karabakh Armenians held in the summer of 1919 recognized the power of the Azerbaijani government.
The official position of the British command was aimed at supporting the Azerbaijani side condemning the Armenian aggression and maintaining peace in the region. Following the statement of the government of APR about the ungovernability of Andranik's gangs, an Anglo - Armenian and Muslim delegation was sent to Karabakh on the initiative of General Thomson and telegrams were sent to the leaders of the Armenian gangs ordering them to stop aggression against the Muslim population. Thomson's letter with the same content was presented to Andranik. However, as the measures taken by the British command had little effect, the Armenian terrorist activities in the bordering areas stopped only for a short time.
The documents of that period obviously confirm the double position of the British government on the "Armenian issue" [11, p.45].
Nevertheless, Britain didn't want to get involved in the national conflicts in order to maintain its position in the South Caucasus differing by its ethnic composition. I. Vakilov who was the governor of Ganja in 1919 wrote: "The British command stated that they would send a special commission to resolve the conflict peacefully with the intervention in the Tatar - Armenian relations. However, the Armenians continue to mobilize and are openly supported by the British". The Dashnaks continued their actions mainly in agreement with the British.
This policy of Great Britain was based on its fear of Armenian organizations in Europe, especially Christian missionaries. Britain abstained to take any action against Armenians in the Caucasus in such a situation, especially in 1915, when the influence of "Armenian deportation" in Anatolia (Armenians in Europe propagated this as "genocide") was strong. Moreover, at that time the Armenians found a strong supporter like the United States. In general, Christian missionary organizations from Western countries always protected the Armenians. In short, the "Armenian sensitivity" of the United States and the European countries caused them to ignore the tyranny of Armenia in the Caucasus [10, p.491].
On the other hand, after the Armistice of Mudros Great Britain began to gather the committers of the so-called "Armenian genocide" and judge them in an international court. It was stated in the telegram sent to the Foreign Office of Britain on January 3, 1919 by Somerset Gough Colthorpe, the British High Commissioner in Istanbul: "To me, the best way is to arrest people about whom we have clear evidence and to charge me to hand them over to allied military authorities." [12, p. 80].
Great Britain used Dashnaks very extensively in pursuing its expansionist policy and following the scenario drawn up in London. The sharp excitement of the national relations in the political life of the South Caucasus was in the interests of the British and was regulated by them. At that time the British command acted as a jury focusing on the leaders of the Dashnaks, entrusted them with the role of initiator and executor of bloody clashes and conducted the escalation and calming of these events [2, p. 178].
The British command first of all relied on the representatives of the Armenian organizations and the Russian officers of the former tsarist army in carrying out the South Caucasus policy of its government and united their efforts in the confrontation with the local Muslim population. However, according to the principle forming the basis of the British policy, "no province shall be independent enough, otherwise it can create a strong state" and just this principle determined the dual attitude of British diplomacy to Armenia [1, p.74].
The execution of Muslim Turks in the bordering areas of Azerbaijan and Anatolia with Armenia continued in full force in this period and these events were not taken into account by the European states. "The number of Muslims killed by Armenians around Kars in April 1919 exceeded 30,000 people. The number of innocent people killed as a result of Armenian attacks on defenseless villages and settlements of Nakhchivan in June-July and August of the same year was more than 70,000 people" [3, p.57].
Using diplomatic and military means Great Britain sought to control the conflicts between the independent republics as much as possible by using cunning and persuaded them that it adhered to the national-democratic ideas and would support their independent course. However, it is impossible not to take into account the prestige of the Armenian foreign diaspora in these cases. According to a British correspondent in Tbilissi (Georgia), "An Armenian bureau functions in London
8
HISTORICAL SCIENCES / <<€©LL©(MUM~JOy®MaL>>#26I7®)),2©2©
and such offices exist in France and the United States too and their favorite method is using the word 'Christian' as a cheap advertising tool," it, of course, led to the pro-Armenian tendency of the British foreign policy pursued in favor of Armenia. However, the growing aggression of Ararat Republic against sovereign Azerbaijan weakened the position of Great Britain among its allies and caused to increasing the demands of the American government in the South Caucasus. At the meeting of the Council of Heads of Delegations held in Paris in July 1919, American Colonel Gaskel was appointed as High Commissioner of Armenia by the allies, but the US held behind-the-scenes talks with the Armenian side before this appointment.
"Armenia undertook again the role of "landing strip" for the infiltration of a foreign state like the United States, which this time tried to suppress the British" [4, p.284]. I would like to emphasize once again that the strong blow inflicted on Azerbaijan by the British command with the support of the Armenian Dash-nak terrorists also weakened its position in the region. At the same time, it should be noted that some representatives of the British command in Azerbaijan, such as General D. Shatelwort did not allow the Armenian separatists passing all bounds to tear Karabakh from Azerbaijan in order to achieve their goals. Thus, as a result of the attempt of the Armenian separatist to prove to the British officer "that Azerbaijan is generally incapable of establishing order in its own country, that Muslims are uncivilized compared to Armenians and that it is wrong to subjugate civilized people to uncultured people" during the incident between the Armenian separatist leader A.Shakhnazarov and General D.Shatelwort, General Shatelwort replied harshly: "I don't agree with you. Armenians and Muslims share the same level of culture. In other words, your nation doesn't want peace and intends to take a risky step such as violating the order." Furthermore, General D. Shatelwort warned the Armenian nationalist and stated that any step taken against Azerbaijan and its governor-general in the direction of violating the order in relations with Azerbaijan would be considered as anti--British act. "We are so strong that we would force you to obey" [8, p.187].
Issues related to the implementation of the British commitments to normalize the situation in the region, as well as the measures taken by the authorities of Azerbaijan in this direction were considered in detail in the course of conversation held between the Governor General of Karabakh and Zangazur Khosrov bey Sul-tanov and General D.Shatelwort on June 25, 1919. A six-point plan was prepared during the negotiations held between the parties:
1. Removal from siege of Aghdam - Fuzuli and Shusha - Fuzuli roads intensively fired by Armenian gangs;
2. Realization of the formula "modus vivendi (method of existence)" developed by the British mission together with Sultanov in Shusha and rejected by the Armenian National Council;
3. Restoration of official power of Baku in Mountainous Karabakh;
4. Withdrawal of Andranik's gangs from the territory of Azerbaijan to Armenia;
5. Entry of British troops into Gorus in order to maintain the authority of the Azerbaijani government in Gorus;
6. Implementation of measures aimed at the intervention of the Government of Armenia Republic in the internal affairs of Karabakh and taking practical measures against it [6, p.412].
However, none of these obligations were fulfilled by the British. As a result, the situation in Karabakh and Zangazur has become aggravated and armed Armenian gangs have become more active in these regions. To some extent it was the practical result of the double, inconsistent policy of the British towards the settlement of interethnic conflicts in the South Caucasus [13, p.26].
In general, wanting to strengthen their position in the South Caucasus, the British prevented the escalation of territorial conflicts between Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the spring of 1919. Moreover, the change in the attitude of the British towards this merciless enemy of the Azerbaijanis played a major role in the expulsion of Andranik and his gangs from the territory of Western Azerbaijan. Andranik's de facto liberation from British control, his unimaginable ambitions, and the ferocity committed by his gangs against the Muslim - Turkish population of Karabakh and Zangazur were the reasons, as such facts stroke an obvious blow to prestige of Great Britain in the international arena. It is not accidental that Andranik was forced to disarm and flee beyond the borders of Azerbaijan at the request of the British command in March 1919. All the efforts of both the Armenian government and the local Armenian separatists to convince the British command that the territorial claims were well-founded faced the position adhering to principles of the British on this issue.
In spite of everything, we can note that Britain's position in the region has softened the Armenian side. An agreement was signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan on November 23, 1919. According to the agreement, the clashes were to be stopped and disputes, including border issues were to be resolved through negotiations. However, Armenia never complied with this agreement. In December, the pillage of Azerbaijani peasants and the brutal toture of civilians became widespread again. On December 14, 1919, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conference was opened in Baku at the initiative of the Azerbaijani government. However, the conference could not end its work due to the fault of the Armenians, unable to resolve the conflict between the parties.
Bibliography:
1. Arshiv belgelerine gore Kafkaslarda ve Anado-luda ermeni mezalimi, C. II (1919), Ankara 1995, 705s.
2. Chelik Kemal, Milli mujadelede adana ve hav-alisi (1918-1922), Ankara: TTK yayinevi, 1999, 560 s.
3. Erat M., "Kazim Karabekirin Nahchivan ve chevresindeki faaliyetleri (1918)", Kafkas Arashtirma-lari J. IV, istanbul 1998, 354 s.
4. Grabil Joseph L., The protestans diplomacy and the Near East, Minnesota 1971, p. 416
«C@yL@qyiym-J©yrMaL»#26î7®),2©2© / HISTORICAL SCIENCES
9
5. Hasanli J., Foreign Policy of Azerbaijan in the Soviet period (1920-1939), Baku: Adiloglu, 2012, 656p.
6. History of Azerbaijan, Baku: Science, 2001, Volume V, 608 s.
7. Johnston S.H., A history of the colonization of Africa by Alien Races, Cambridge 1930, p. 770
8. Kazimzadeh F., Russia and Britain in Persia 1864-1914, London 1968, p. 711
9. Kazimzadeh F.,The struggle for transcaucasia 1917-1921, London: Anglo Caspian Press 2008, p.360
10. Kieser Hans-Lukas, iskalanmish bansh, Dogu vilayetlerTnde misyonerlik, etnik kimlik va devlet, 1839-1939, Cheviren Atilla Dirim, istanbul: iletishim, 2010, 343 s
11. Mammad Amin Rasulzade, Azerbayjan Respublikasi, Baki 1990, 116 s.
12. Saray Mehmet, Ermenistan ve turk ermeni ilishkileri, istanbul: Edebiyat fakultesi yay., 2003, 505s.
13. The Statistical information about refugees and internally displaced people in Azerbaijan Republic, Baku 1999, p. 235
