Turkish-Armenian Relations in the Shadow of 1915

Keywords: Turkish-Armenian Relations, So-Called Armenian Genocide, Ottoman Empire, Revolutionary Armenian Committees

Öz: Bu makalede Ermeni meselesinin Türk-Ermeni ili?kilerinde nas?l önemli bir etmen oldu?u üzerinde durulmaktad?r. Bu çerçevede, özellikle bu sorunun ortaya ç?kt??? on dokuzuncu yüzy?l sonlar?nda, o zamana kadar bar?? ve uyum içerisinde yürütülen toplumlar aras? ili?kilerin nas?l bozuldu?u incelenmektedir. Dahas?, d?? müdahaleler ve bu sorunun ilerlemesinde Avrupa Devletleri’nin rolü de son derece önemlidir. Bu nedenle bu makalede Ermeni sorununun tarihsel geli?imi ve bu sorunun günümüzdeki Türk-Ermeni ili?kilerine yans?malar? incelenecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Türk-Ermeni ?li?kileri, Sözde Ermeni Soyk?r?m?, osmanl? imparatorlu?u, Devrimci Ermeni Komiteleri.

The relations between Turkey and Armenia are laden with problems. The European Parliament has referred to the Armenian question in the decision it accepted in 2000 vis-à-vis the inspection of Turkish membership to the EU by repeating its former decision of 1987, which reflected the Armenian point of view[1]. The Italian parliament in 2000, and the French National Assembly on 18 April 2001, adopted laws recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide. These can be seen as obstacles created in front of Turkey, which single-mindedly continues in its quest for EU membership. Also in 2001, the EU member-states have asked of Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift the embargo they imposed on Armenia and claimed that insisting on the pursuit of the embargo was to harden Turkish membership to the EU, in the wake of the EU – Armenia parliamentary cooperation meetings which took place in Brussels. With partial influence of this meeting, political dialogue between Turkey and Armenia began in 2002; the foreign ministers of the two countries came together in different occasions.

One of the crucial steps in the normalisation of the relations between the two countries is the establishment of the “Turkish-Armenian Peace Commission”. The future of the two countries’ interrelation is discussed more frequently after Turkey has been granted with the commencement of negotiation process by the EU for accession. Article 20 of the decisions taken on 17 December 2004 demands Turkey to improve relations with its neighbours, and that the existing problems should be solved by peaceful means. To have good relations with its neighbours is also desired by Turkey. In its relations with Armenia, Turkey is presented to the world public opinion as the side, which refrains from any solution. However, Turkey was one of the first few countries, which accepted independence of Armenia without any pre-conditions, and even sent some humanitarian aid to Armenia in the wake of its declaration of independence as well as inviting it to become a founding member of Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization. 

In response to the Turkish behaviour, the Levon Ter Petrosyan administration had waved aside the genocide claims even for a while. Considering that Turkey is the only gateway for Armenia in its opening to the West and in the solution of the country’s economic troubles, Petrosyan had refrained from bringing the expression “the Republic of Armenia will continue to support all efforts in the international acceptance of the Armenian Genocide committed in 1915 in the Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia” which is written in the Article 11 of Armenian Parliament’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed on 23 August 1991, into international arena. Later on, Petrosyan resisted the pressure from the nationalists in his country and managed to have the same quote omitted in the text of Armenian constitution. In addition to this, when becoming a member of OSCE in 1992, Armenia has also accepted the membership requirement of not to ask any changes in the existing borders.[2] Petrosyan has even removed the foreign minister Raffi Hovannissian from office in October 1992 after one year of service for his speeches criticising Turkey. He also attempted at nullifying the impact of the Diaspora organisations on Armenia and imposed a ban on the activities of the Tashnaks known with their radical anti-Turkish attitudes and who thought that he, himself, was not tough enough against Turkey and Azerbaijan.

What brought Turkish-Armenian relations to a diplomatic break was the Armenian policy towards Nagorno-Karabakh, or, to better put it, its attempt to change borders by force and with Russian assistance. The Armenian attack on Nakhichevan after Karabakh and the Hocal? Massacre were the point when Turkey’s patience was stretched to the limit. The words of the then Turkish president Turgut Özal, implying Turkey might enter to war, were harshly replied by CIS chief of joint staff Shaposhnikov who implied Turkish involvement might lead to Third World War.  As can be seen, the problem is not only the Azeri-Armenian struggle, but it is Russian attempt at staying in the region and Turkish protection of its borders in Caucasia.

The mild policy pursued by Levon Ter-Petrosyan towards Turkey left its place to an environment of complete mistrust after the 1998 election of Robert Kocharian to presidency. Kocharian, who reinstituded Tashnak political activities, also did not refrain from bringing the ‘genocide claims’ to the scene with his words “… let us make peace but let us not forget the past”[3] Kocharian adopted a tough policy towards Turkey and kept mentioning old enmities and historical events. He has also adopted an uncompromising attitude towards the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. He prompted the Armenian Diaspora for Turkish acceptance of the genocide as a move against Turkey’s focus on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue in its relations with Armenia.  As mentioned above, although there was a rapprochement in the first stages of Turkish-Armenian relations, no Armenian leader including Ter-Petrosyan ever clearly gave up the aims of the “Greater Armenia” project towards Turkey and the demands of compensation for the so-called 1915 Armenian genocide. In contrast, the head of the Armenian State Presidency’s Human Rights Commission Paruyr Hayrikyan asked Russia on 12 March 2001 to abolish the 1921 Moscow and Kars Treaties and that Armenia should have Kars and Ardahan left to Turkey with these agreements.[4] What drives Armenia to this presumptuous and uncompromising stance against Turkey despite the incomparable difference in power is the Western and Russian support it feels to have. The intensity of the accusations towards Turkey have intensified from April 2005 as it was the 90th anniversary of the Armenian relocation of 1915, and escalated to the point of the arrest of the head of the Turkish Historical Society in Switzerland for his rejection of the genocide allegations. The Armenian problem and Turkey’s relation with Armenia are used as a means of political pressure in the orientation of the Turkish-EU relations.

The roots of the claims of the so-called Armenian genocide that Turkey has to face remain in the clash of interest in the past and the present. It would be more suitable to relate the Western support to the Armenian genocide with a wish to obtain a part of the rich Caucasian underground resources rather than human rights issues.[5] In fact, the words of Atatürk “the Armenian problem is wished to be solved according to the economic and political interests of world capitalists instead of the real interests of the Armenian nation”, dated 1919, are still valid at our time. It is necessary to analyse the events that led up to 1915 in order to understand the relations of Turkey –presented as the uncompromising party- with Armenia, the claims of genocide which constitute a major element in the point this relationship came to at the moment, and the attitude of the West, because the past affects the present and the future of the relations.

The right to preserve their own ethnic and religious identities was granted to the minorities living in the Ottoman Empire through the “millet system”. At the time of Mehmet II the Conqueror, significant religious rights were granted to the non-Muslims in the empire; the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate was given more legal and religious rights than under the Byzantine rule. 

The Armenians were scattered around the Empire without a country and without independence when Ottomans stepped into the stage of history, so they were never a majority in any region, and lacked supremacy in any region as to claim it was taken from them.  They lived in even better conditions than the Turks who ruled the empire during Ottoman era, attending significant political posts.[6] Just like other minorities, they were exempt from some duties the Muslims were to carry out, thus were successful in commerce and crafts. At the 18th century, the Düzyan family of Divrik provided jewellery for the Palace; members of the Dadyan family had appointed as ministers for arsenal[7].  In 1879, Artin Dadyan was appointed as the secretary of the Ottoman Ministry of Interior.[8] During the period of the First Constitution, Maksutyan Sebuh and Yaz?c?yan Rupen became deputies, and again in the same century, key positions were held by Krikor Margosyan in the Foreign Ministry, by Krikor Papazyan at the Ministry of Interior, by Çamiç Ohonnos at the Ministry of Finance, by Tomas Terziyan at the Ministry of Education, by Saris Karakoç at the Ministry of Justice. There were also deputies at the time of the Second Constitution period such as Krikor Zahrab, and Agop Bab?kyan. In 1912, all the forty registered bankers in Istanbul were non-Muslims and twelve of them were Armenians.[9] The value attributed to the Armenians can be understood from the Millet-i Sad?ka (Loyal Nation) definition of the Armenians who were always seen as favourites among the non-Muslims. There were Armenians who supported this view. The Armenian Patriarch Gevond Turyan once said “the Armenians lived with Turks in the Turkish lands for six hundred years enjoying a vast social and religious liberty no other nation has seen”.[10] So, what was the process that turned the Turkish-Armenian friendship –which went well into the 19th century- into the enmity of the Armenians towards the Turks?

The decline of the Ottoman Empire, which began with the Treaty of Karlowitz in the 17th century, has given way to the imperialist strategy implemented by the Great Powers, which started their ascendancy at the same period which was known as the “Eastern Question”. This imperialist policy made the Armenian question an integral part of the Eastern Question.

The currents of nationalism spread after the declarations in America that “everyone was created equal” and of the “Human and Citizen Rights” in France in the 18th century, have shown their impact on the Ottoman minorities, too, giving way to the Great Powers to claim guardianship over the non-Muslim minorities in the Ottoman Empire and to their pressures asking for reform in favour of these minorities.  As a result of the rampant nationalistic ideas among the minorities, there were insurrections over the imperial territories and the Ottomans had to grant independence to Greece, greater autonomy for Moldova and Wallachia, and accepted the establishment of an autonomous Serbian principality. The beginning of the attempts for an Armenian uprising can be traced back even prior to the conclusion of the 1774 Kuchuk Kainarji Treaty. With this treaty, Russia assumed guardianship for the Christian minorities of the Empire, especially of the Orthodox Christians. The policy Russia pursued on the Ottoman Empire gave way to the 1853 Crimean War, and the Sultan had to proclaim that he would not distinguish between his subjects whatever their belief might be in the 1856 Edict of Reform. A decision concerning the Edict of Reform was added to the Article 9 of the Paris Peace Treaty of 30 March 1856, which ended the Crimean War so that Russia could not intervene in Ottoman internal affairs as the guardian of the Christians.[11] However, the following events proved just the opposite of these expectations and although Russian intervention was prevented, now the intervention of the six countries has come into being. Despite all these developments, there was no serious Armenian problem in the Ottoman Empire.[12]

The Ottoman-Russian War gave way to new opportunities for the Armenians of the Empire. As they supported the Russians during the war, they asked them to have an article in the peace treaty about Armenians, and they were granted this wish with the 16th Article of the Treaty of San Stefano.[13] As it became evident that if the treaty were to be implemented, international balance of power in the Balkans and Caucasia would change in favour of Russia, a new treaty was signed under British influence in July 1878 in Berlin. The Berlin Treaty has become a milestone in the Turkish-Armenian relations. It has been decided in accordance with Article 61 of the treaty that reforms were to be carried out in six East Anatolian provinces where Armenians lived, under the supervision of the Great Powers.  With this treaty, for the first time in history, issues about the Armenians that directly concern the Ottoman State were included in international law and again with this agreement Armenians began to dream about an “Armenian homeland” in Anatolia. To realise this dream, they established the Armenakan (in 1885 in Van), Hinchak (in 1897 in Switzerland), and Tashnak (Tashnaksutyun, in Tblisi in 1890) committees.[14] Louise Nalbandian describes the reason for the establishment of the Committees with the words “Terror and provocation were needed to set the feelings of the Armenian nation in motion. The [Armenian] populace was to be provoked against its enemies and the retaliation of the enemy was to be used”.[15]

These committees started about 40 insurrections which began with the 1890 Erzurum rebellion and which went on till the 1909 Adana rebellion, and even went so far as to attempt a failed assassination against Sultan Abdulhamid II.  Even though since the Berlin Congress Russia, and then Britain and even France made pressure on the Ottoman Empire for reforms in favour of the Armenians and supported the Armenians.[16] Even as Bogos Nubar Pasha was negotiating to realise the dream of Armenia, they were sharing the Ottoman lands among themselves including the regions promised to the Armenians with a secret agreement (Sykes-Picot agreement, 26 April 1916) during World War I.[17] Against the Armenians who joined the Russians and invaded Eastern Anatolia at the beginning of the World War I and who therefore got into treachery against its own state’s army, the Ottoman government has issued warnings that in case of the continuation of this treason and subsequent disorder harsh measures were to be implemented, and these warnings were even delivered to the Armenian Patriarch. As a result of the continuation of the Armenian brigands’ destructive and separatist activities, the Ottoman government issued a decree to 14 provincial governor’s offices and 10 district officer’s offices at the same time as the Dardanelles Campaign was going on, and asked for the break up of the Armenian political organisations which led to rebellions at different provinces, created voluntary regiments to support the Russian forces, and which therefore threatened the Ottoman army from behind; and in relation to these activities, demanding the closing of all the branches of Hinchak, Tashnak, and similar organisations and the arrest of the members of the committees as well as Armenians who disturbed peace. Upon this decree dated 24 April 1915, some 2,345 Armenians were arrested and as there were no changes in the position adopted by the Armenians, the government referred to relocation as a last move. [18]

It is necessary to analyse each period according to its conditions. If the historical developments are considered abstractly without taking events leading to them in the past, the relocation decision of the Ottomans may seem harsh, however, when the process is considered within the framework of the events described above, one can see how justifiable the decision actually is. Besides, the Ottoman Empire had not much choice, either: It was either to deport the Armenians or send them to a remote region. In fact, possibly the kindest decision available within the conditions of the day was taken and on 27 May 1915 the “Dispatch and Lodging Law” was adopted.[19] The reasons for the taking of this decision which was contemplated as provisional were: The Armenians living at regions near the war zones hinder the movements of the Turkish armed forces; harden the logistical support to the soldiers; share the same goals and collaborate with the enemy; attack the troops and innocent civilians within the country’s boundaries; and show the fortified regions to the enemy forces.

The decision of relocation was not put into operation for all the Armenians living in Ottoman lands, but to those living in certain cities in East and Central Anatolia. The Armenians made to migrate from these places were not deported to a different country but were relocated to Syria, Lebanon, and Northern Iraq, which were still Ottoman soil. In addition, after the decision of relocation, the Ottoman administration demanded that the Armenians and their belongings were to be kept secure during transportation, their needs should be met, and they should be helped to settle down when they arrived to their expected destinations. As can be understood from archive documents, those who acted against regulations and those who attacked the Armenians were identified and then punished. The number of those punished, including the cases of capital punishment, is 1,397. For instance, 32 from the province of Ankara, 27 from the province of Syria, 189 from the province of Urfa were sentenced with different punishments.[20] On 31 December 1918, after the end of World War I, the government issued a decree allowing those Armenians wishing to return to their former lands to do so, and many Armenians returned to their previous homes. Nonetheless, those Armenians who had collaborated with the French forces during the war carried on with their attacks on local people forming military troops and militia in Antep, Mara?, and Adana.[21] Those who were back from relocation were given their former belongings and were compensated.

To conclude, both sides had suffered great losses; that is an experienced reality and cannot be denied. Even Talat Pasha who was held responsible for the Relocation decision had written in his memoirs that the events of 1915 have “turned into a disaster in the hands of people without conscience”.[22] However, what happened then is not a systematic, preconceived genocide, and nor the number of those who perished is anywhere near 1,200,000 as claimed.

The Genocide Convention was accepted on 9 December 1948 and entered into force in 1951. According to the 2nd Article of this convention, genocide has to have intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. There are those who categorise the events of 1915 in par with the Jewish Holocaust committed by the Nazis. However, it is known that there was no racial hatred towards the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. When compared to the Armenians, the Jews of Germany have not fought for their independence from Germany, have not referred to terror and violence, have not asked for land, have not cooperated with Germany’s opponents in war and betrayed German forces, have not hindered the logistical support routes, and have not murdered German civilians through their terrorist organisations. They were killed just because they were Jewish, in a pre-meditated, well-organised effective manner, systematically and on a personal basis.[23]  Hitler rose to power with a programme based on pan-German views and which was completely anti-Semitic. “Holocaust” is a result of this programme. On the other hand, the Party of Union and Progress came to power embracing the Armenians, and never developed an anti-Armenian doctrine even if they turned to Turkism in time.[24] In the wake of the Mudros Armistice of 30 October 1918, the British who wanted to punish war criminals had arrested and exiled some 150 people including some high-rank officials to Malta, and had the Sevres Peace Treaty have the remark “The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1, 1914.” in Article 230. The British who fastidiously tracked the witnesses and documents to condemn those arrested, despite their elaborate search of the American archives as well, could not find any solid, clear, and convincing evidence to show a genocide. [25]

The 30 October 1918 the Armistice of Mudros enabled the occupation of Ottoman lands by the Entente powers. The words “vilayet-i sitte” (“six provinces”) mentioned in the 24th Article of the agreement enabled the necessary medium for the establishment of Armenia.[26] Bogos Nubar Pasha, heartened by this article, applied to the Entente Powers and asked for the establishment of an independent Armenia and that this independent state is protected under Entente Powers.[27] Nubar Pasha’s attempts came to fruition with the Sevres Peace Treaty and Articles 88, 89, and 93 of the treaty established the roots of Greater Armenia.[28] However, the Ankara government took back the lands lost with the Sevres Treaty with the 3 December 1920 Gümrü Treaty. In spite of this agreement, the Armenian problem was not solved. The Sovietisation of Armenia on 5 December 1920 led to the continuation of the problem between Soviet Union and Turkey for a while more. The problem was finally solved by the 16 March 1921 Ankara and 13 October 1921 Kars Agreements.[29]  By the time of the Lausanne Treaty, there was no more an “Armenian problem”. That is the truth, but those who wanted to refuse this truth, became active from 1970s on and where in public display with the activities of Armenian terrorist organisations.

Beginning with the Santa Barbara assassination of 1973, in 27 attacks, more than thirty Turkish diplomats and their families were systematically murdered. These assassinations were claimed by the terrorist organisations “Armenian Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia” (ASALA) and the “Armenian Genocide Commandos”. These organisations which claimed there was a genocide in 1915 against the Armenians, were after making Turkey and the global public opinion accept their claim, ask for reparations, and to create an “Armenian State” in Eastern Anatolia.[30] Turkey, despite all these sufferings it had in recent years, had accepted Armenian independence without any conditions.

In history, the Armenian question has been a tool of pressure against the Ottoman State and it is proven that there is no scientific basis for the genocide claims legislated in some parliaments. What is attempted today is reminiscent of the pressure diplomacy from 1878 to 1914. These attempts are to be understood as a reliving of history, which only serves to encouraging the Armenians to deny existing borders and ask for new territory.