A sit-in protest and hunger strike in opposition to the protocols was initiated yesterday by the ARF-Dashnaktsutiun. So far about 75 party members are camped out in front of the government building on Republic Square. They are expected to stay on site until the date of the protocols’ signing which will be in about a month.
The party has already made several draft changes several points of the protocols that it has distributed to parliament members, particularly to those of the pro-government block. Unsurprisingly they were dismissed as being “unacceptable” by Galust Sahakian, the head of the Republican party majority, and not “very serious” by Orinats Yerkir’s Heghine Bisharian, who has been very enthusiastic about the protocols in public. Naturally the ARF is opposed to the forming of a historical commission to study the events that amounted to genocide, which Turkey fails to recognize. Also they are adamant about changing the point that calls for Armenia’s recognition of the current Turkish-Armenian border. The party is scheduled to meet the president with members of other parties on Thursday to discuss the proposals. Why he didn’t meet with them two weeks ago is anyone’s guess.
The ARF in Armenia has been calling for the protocols to be signed without preconditions—in other words anything that Turkey is expecting, such as Armenia’s recognition of the current border, should be omitted or revised. However, the party has been sending mixed signals as the ARF bureau is insisting that preconditions should be attached by the Armenian side, namely Turkey’s recognition of the Genocide. In that case, since that stipulation is certainly not in the protocols, it doesn’t make sense for the party to submit its revisions to the Armenian government for consideration. We know there is nothing in the protocols about Turkey’s required recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which means that they should be categorically rejected by the party according to its statements, not revised. So it’s not exactly clear what the ARF expects, particularly from the hunger strike. Many Armenian citizens do not take the ARF seriously, considering its influencial members sell-outs. The fact that they left the government didn’t seem to impress non-supporters.
Based on statements that pro-government politicians are making, especially by Bisharian, it seems they are quite positive about the protocols as they stand and the Armenian parliament will be sure to ratify them once they are signed. I don’t expect any progress to be made tomorrow during the meeting with the president, which means the Armenian opposition is going to have to be a lot more active and vocal in protest to the protocols. The Armenian National Congress has been fairly silent recently, with no rallies being held in Yerevan to activate its followers, so it’s not clear why they are asleep. No one from that opposition block has been facilitating any kind of public protest to date.
Things will be clearer on Friday or even Monday (politicians usually take the weekend off) about where the opposition really stands. But one thing’s for sure—the ARF cannot follow the route they have chosen alone; they need the backing of other political parties to stop the signing of the protocols, if the party is indeed intent on doing just that.
It seems in all this historical retrospective that we are forgetting the signing by Khatisian (for the 1st Armenian Republic) and General Karabekir (Kemalist Turkey) of the much notorious Treaty of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920 just as the Dashnaks were handing over power to the Bolsheviks.
The treaty consists of 18 clauses, the first of which states that war between Turkey and Armenia is ended. The boundary between the two states is similar to today’s Soviet–Turkish border, that is, roughly, along the Araxes river in the south, then north along the Arpa Chai, to Mount Akbaba. Nakhichevan, Shakhtakhti and Sharur were to be disputed land, whose future was to be decided later by a plebiscite* (article 2); likewise too the region between the old 1914 frontier and the new one, if Armenia requested it (article 3).
Now let’s jump to Vratsian’s asking for Turkish aid during the late stages of the 1921 February Uprising by the Dashnak leadership. This was when the forces of the Red Army had reorganized its forces and was tightening the noose around Yerevan.
We read on Page 325 of Christopher Walker’s “Armenia-Durvival of a Nation” that:
The following day Yerevan was shelled, and on 1 March a Soviet attack was repulsed with heavy losses.263 The same day Vratsian, clutching at burning straws, asked the Turkish political agent in Yerevan to pass on a request for Turkish military aid.264 Armenia stood by the treaty of Alexandropol, he said. No reply came from Ankara; the Turks were keener on getting good terms from the Russians at the forthcoming Moscow conference than giving aid to the anti-Soviet rebellion in Armenia which would jeopardise their position.*
NOW HERE’S THE MAIN POINT WHICH ARMENIAN ANALYSTS SEEM TO GET MUDDLED.
The Treaty of Moscow was signed one week later by Turkey and Soviet Russia – NO ARMENIAN REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDED.
The frontier between Turkey and Armenia was exactly the same as for the treaty of Alexandropol; if there were any differences, they were minimal. Kars and Ardahan went to Turkey, and the new frontier was to be from Mount Akbaba south along the Arpa Chai (Akhurian) and then east along the Araxes. Surmalu, with its main town Igdir, never Turkish except intermittently in the eighteenth century, went to Turkey, as did Mount Ararat. The district of Nakhichevan was to be autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan.
The Kars Conference, ended on October 13, 1921, and the subsequent Kars treaty RATIFIED the Treaty of Moscow.
KARS WAS SIGNED BY SOVIET AREMENIA – Askanaz Mravian
But the real spokesman for the Caucasian states was Yakov Ganetzky (or Hanecki), Chicherin’s own representative.
On the two matters of Armenian concern – the frontier with Turkey and the status of Nakhichevan – the Kars and Moscow treaties were the same (and the border itself was the same as that laid down in the treaty of Alexandropol).
Thus, if the 1st Armenian Republic signed the Treaty of Alexandropol, even though the ARF had effectively handed over power to the Bolsheviks, and Soviet Armenia signed the Treaty of Kars which ratified the Treaty of Moscow…
ARE WE NOW SAYING THAT THE 3RD ARMENIAN REPUBLIC REJECTS THESE DOCUMENTS AND IN FACT DOES NOT VIEW ITSELF AS THE LEGAL SUCCESSOR STATE TO THE 1ST AND 2ND ARMENIAN REPUBLICS??