1921 Kars Treaty and Turkish-Armenian Relations

[Guest]

The following material I think is of extraordinary interest. I think this is the culmination point of the Turkish-Armenian issues. The Genocide issue in my view is a derivative issue, not obviously in the sense of the significance of the tragedy or in the chronological sense. I think legally and politically speaking, this is the primary card in the hands of the Republic of Armenia. You can see how nervous the Turks are...

 

But the interesting thing is they have brought it upon themselves in the last 10 years. The LTP regime principally had decided to circumvent this issue.

 

_____________________________________________

ANKARA: Turkey Said Preparing To Harden Position Against Armenia

23 Sep 2000

Istanbul Milliyet (Ankara edition)

Report by Barcin Yinanc: "Tactic Used Against Syria To Be Also

Pursued Against Yerevan"

 

[FBIS Translated Text] Convinced that Yerevan is behind the steps

taken in connection with the Armenian bill based on the genocide claims,

Ankara is said to be gearing up for a hardening of its policy toward

Armenia. It is also noted that a stance similar to the strong warning

sent to Syria might be adopted by extending the warnings, thus far

confined to the diplomatic level, to the political and military levels.

Sources say that the first option being weighed is the suspension of the

charter flights between Yerevan and Istanbul by closing the air corridor

opened for flights to and from Armenia.

 

"Armenia did not respond to our request for a confirmation of the

Kars Agreement, signed in 1921. How can a government that does not even

recognize the Turkish-Armenian border expect an overture from us?", said

a Foreign Ministry official in response to calls for contacting Yerevan,

which seeks a dialogue, in order to thwart attempts relating to the

genocide claims. He emphasized that a normalization of relations with

the Kocharian administration would be even more difficult after the

recent events.

 

They Do Not Even Recognize Our Borders

 

"Everybody expects a goodwill gesture from Turkey. Why should we

open the border gates with a country that does not even recognize our

borders? We asked them to confirm the Kars Agreement, signed in 1921,

and they did not do it. They did not hesitate to include their claims

on our eastern provinces in their constitutions. They want to slander

us in connection with an event in which many Turks were also killed.

How can we be expected to make an overture under these circumstances?", a

high-level Foreign Ministry official said in response to criticisms that

the recent attempts could have been avoided had the border gates been

opened and a dialogue been established with Yerevan.

 

Yerevan Policy To Be Reviewed

 

Sources say that the Foreign Ministry is preparing to review next

week its policy toward Yerevan, which it believes to be the mastermind of

the steps pertaining to the Armenian bill.

 

The absence of political, commercial, and economic ties between the

two countries due to non-existence of diplomatic relations narrows

Ankara's maneuvering options against Yerevan.

 

Turkey has been applying a blockade against Armenia since 1991.

After receiving some positive signals from Levon Ter Petrossian,

Kocharian's predecessor, Ankara permitted several years ago the use of

its airspace for flights to and from Armenia, together with a permission

given to Armenian charter planes to transport passengers between Istanbul

and Yerevan.

 

Apart from suspending flights by closing the air corridor, Turkey has

no other means available to it to impose a direct sanction against

Armenia.

 

However, suggestions for sending a serious warning to Yerevan,

similar to the one given to Syria, started to find more supporters in the

Foreign Ministry, which did not close the door to a normalization of

relations with Yerevan during Ter Petrossian's term in office, after

attempts to have the genocide claims recognized gained momentum following

Kocharian's rise to power.

[Guest]

Turkey's fear- If the Genocide bill passes, it may garner int'l support for Armenia to secure 'more fit' borders. Armenia will never be liberated until Cilicia and Kharpert are liberated. Hopefully, Armenia and Syria will unite over this- Turkey will only gain more and more enemies, their demise is coming soon. 'cast your bread upon the water and to you it will return 1000 times'- Turkey's getting the negative impact of that.

[Guest]

At the risk of sounding offensive, but not intending so, let me just say that we have heard these types of declarations from the Diaspora for close to 70 years, now. But when the time came to fight in Karabagh, however exemplary, only about 25-30 young Diasporan men were found to volunteer out of about 4 millions...

[Guest]

Yes, you're right. The Diaspora has just been sitting around crying 'GENOCIDE!! GENOCIDE!!'. There is a much more real CURRENT problem with Artsakh. I'm just saying that a Genocide resolution may generate int'l sympathy for the expansion of Armenian border. Does that seem too outlandish? Why do you think the US Gov't doesn't recognize their crimes against Native Americans? LAND.

[Guest]

Just three question:

 

1. Why do you assume that the rcognition of Genocide is going to lead to liberation of historic Armenian lands?

 

2. Who are you going to populate the liberated lands with?

 

3. What are you going to do with the population residing currently on those lands?

[Guest]

Dear MJ,

 

While raising Kars Treaty issue, Armenia will heavily depend on Russia's stance on this matter, because they were a part of that treaty.

 

Despite all this, I also think that the treaty is our only chance.

 

[This message has been edited by Berj (edited October 01, 2000).]

[Guest]

Berj,

 

Russia was just an observer in the Kars Treaty. Clearly they were a signatory in the predecessor of that treaty signed between Russia and Turkey, and the Kars Treaty cannot be explained without this one.

 

I would agree with you that without Russia’s support it would be hard to move on with the revision of this Treaty. But I have to bring to your attention that in 1991 the Russian-Turkish Treaty was renewed for 5 or 10 years (sorry – have forgotten), and they agreed to automatically renew it after each 5 years, unless one of the parties gives a note to the other side about its cancellation. At the time, I had seen the renewal protocol. Have forgotten the details, now. But the Foreign Affairs Ministry of Armenia is in possession of the document.

 

As Turks indicate in the article I have pasted before, they have appealed to the Government of Armenia to reconfirm the Kars Treaty, and Armenia has not replied.

 

Clearly, Russia is as guilty, or even guiltier in the context of this Treaty, and per my personal knowledge, some high level Russian official have acknowledged it in the recent past.

 

As you remember, in one of my postings i have said that I am not claiming that Armenia has to move heads-on with this issue, I just have said that theoretically speaking, this is the only robust framework to advance the Armenian agenda. Everything else seems to me mix of history and emotions leading nowhere.

 

P.S. Now that I think, I have a feeling that the previously mentioned treaty between Russia and Turkey was renewed for 25 years.

 

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 01, 2000).]

[Guest]

http://xecutrix.usc.edu/news/msg21830.html

 

SNARK

 

SERZH SARKISSIAN: NEGOTIATIONS WITH IGOR SERGEEV LIFTED ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN MILITARY RELATIONS TO A MORE QUALITATIVE LEVEL

 

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 30. The recent negotiations between the Armenia's Defence Minister Serzh Sarkissian and the Russia's Defence Minister Igor Sergeev raised the Armenian-Russian military relations to a more qualitative level, Sarkissian told, having returned to Yerevan from Moscow.

 

On a commission of the Armenia's President Robert Kocharian and the Russia's President Vladimir Putin, Sarkissian and Sergeev signed three documents on September 27 to strengthen the Armenian-Russian military cooperation. Particularly, an agreement has been signed to jointly plan the armed forces' application, considering the Armenia's and Russia's interests' assurance. The agreement envisions to create mutual armed forces and mutual command by them in case of threat to the both countries' security . To estimate the security level is the prerogative of the Presidents. "I think, these documents will allow to start a new stage of the Armenian-Russian military cooperation", Sarkissian said.

 

The Ministers also signed a protocol to introduce changes and additions into the Sep 27, 1996 intergovernmental agreement on the order of assignment and use of the Armenia's territory for the Russian military base's dislocation and functioning.

 

Sarkissian and Sergeev also signed an agreement between the two countries' Defence Ministries to manage the air communication and provide a right for the Armenia's military planes' flies in the Russia's air territory and the Russia's military planes' flies in the Armenia's air territory.

 

Sarkissian said that he left for Moscow from Sochi where the meeting of the Committee of the states' security Councils' secretaries was held, during which an agreement on the collective security of CIS was signed and negotiations between Sarkissian and Sergeev continued.

[Guest]

Dear MJ,

 

I don't have information on the current status of Kars Treaty, so I can't debate on secific points and future developments. The Treaty was signed on Kars, Ardahan and Sourmalu, as well as on Nakhichevan and Karabagh. As you mentioned, there were 2 treaties signed on this on March 13 and October 16, 1921 in Kars and Moscow (or the other way round). And the Bolshevik government undermined not only Armenia's but Russia's interests as well, hoping that Turkey will become a part of "world socialist revolution". Ataturk fooled the Bolsheviks, or more likely Lenin fooled Russia.

 

What I can clearly see now is that after angering Turkey again, we're again turining to Russians for national security guaranties.

[Guest]

MJ, a good article:

http://www.ng.ru/cis/2000-09-29/5_zakavkaz.html

[Guest]

Berj,

 

Indeed it is interesting, but also very troublesome.

[Guest]

Berj,

 

Two technical points:

 

1. the two treaties mentioned above are in no way related to Karabagh, which from the legal point of view is good. From the legal point of view, I might argue that Karabagh has never been part of Azerbaijan, since it has been annexed to it by Stalin's decree on behalf of the Communist Party - I think the so-called Caucasian Buro, and not a legitimate governmental structure, even within the framework of the Bolshevik Russia, or whatsoever. There is no single document, other than this decree by a partisan organization not empowered by constitutional rights, which sheds any light on how did Karabagh wind up within the borders of Azerbaijan. Obviously, the later constitution of USSR, does recognize it within the territory of Karabagh, but there is a significant chronological and legal gap between the time of the acceptance of the constitution, of which Soviet Armenia is signatory, and the actual transfer - 1923 (I think);

2. The October treaty is signed in Kars, that's why it is called Kars treaty.

 

On the subject of the securities, I think that if there is no agreement with the Russians beyond the curtains, then there is not much rationale to stir the situation. But, again, how do we know, without knowing the details?

 

While I think your explanations of why did the Russians sign it are correct, I would like to know why do you think it was not reflective of Russian interests, at the time? From their point of view, having access to the port of Batumi was more important (which I personally think was a miscalculation, since they already had access to Poti), than the Armenian lands of Nakhidjevan, Kars, Ardahan and Surmalu. Basically, it was a territory swap at the expense of Armenia, and in the favor of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (Georgia got Adjaria from the Turks in the result of this Treaty). Obviously the Georgeans where not in a position of presenting demands during the treaty, and it was totally driven by the Russians.

 

But with it or without this treaty, it seems to me thate we are asking the Russians to guarantee our security, aren't we? Even if we are only going to pursue the Genocide venue...

 

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 06, 2000).]

 

[This message has been edited by MJ (edited October 07, 2000).]

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

While I think your explanations of why did the Russians sign it are correct, I would like to know why do you think it was not reflective of Russian interests, at the time?

---

MJ,

You asked the question, so I think you know the answer. Don't get me into this. It's a very good subject for a PhD degree.

[MJ]

I wonder if our Armenian politicians, especially those of ARF are going ever to learn anything?

_____________________________________________

 

Russian Ambassador To Turkey Says Impossible To Revise Kars Treaty

 

ISTANBULAccording to the Turkish Daily News, Russian Ambassador to Turkey

Alexander Lebedev stated that the Kars Treaty, which was signed by Soviet

Russia and Turkey in 1921 demarcating the border between the Soviet Union and

Turkey, could not be challenged. "My personal opinion is that I do not think

the Kars Treaty can be revised," said Lebedev in an exclusive interview to the

Turkish Daily News.

"Those border disputes were once more settled at Potsdam in the wake of World

War II. Legally, the Kars Treaty can not be challenged. I never heard that the

Armenian President Robert Kocharian has demanded Turkish territory." said

Lebedev. Referring to the statement of the Armenian Parliament's Human Rights

Commission, which demanded the cities of Kars and Ardahan to be returned to

Armenia, Lebedev said, "They would be better to concentrate on resolving the

Nagorno-Artsax dispute." Stressing that he could not comment on the internal

affairs of Armenia, Lebedev said similar demands were raised by former Soviet

leader Stalin after World War II and they were not satisfied. He added that

despite the fact that the Kars Treaty was signed between Moscow and Ankara,

Yerevan should discuss today's border problems directly with Ankara. "If I

were

Armenian, I would not raise those issues at all, it does not help at all,"

said

Lebedev.

Commenting on the Armenian Genocide bill in the Russian Parliament Duma,

Lebedev said there was no resolution but a statement from the Duma and it had

been forgotten since then. "There was an attempt recently, influenced by the

French Parliament's decision and efforts in the U.S. Congress, by Vladimir

Zhirinovsky, the notorious political figure. Our Foreign Minister immediately

intervened and asked deputies not to proceed with the bill. The bill died away

and hopefully will not come again," said Lebedev.

Touching on the sticky issue of projects on energy routes from Central

Asia to

Turkey, Lebedev said all decisions should be taken on a commercial basis

rather

than with political considerations. Stressing that Russia is not against

Baku-Ceyhan or any other project, Lebedev stressed that no party should

politicize economic issues.

Lebedev indicated that some Turkish authorities have characterized the

relations between Turkey and Russia as an "advanced partnership" and added

that

they "fully agreed with that." He said, "A strategic partnership is

possible in

the future. We were rivals in the past but it is not the case anymore. We

recognize the role of Turkey in the Caucasus. We should work on joint

projects."

Lebedev stressed that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize the

Turkish republic with the Friendship Agreement signed on March 15, 1921. He

indicated that the prime ministers of Turkey and Russia have exchanged letters

to commemorate this important date.

Stressing that the two countries should develop their cooperation in every

possible field, Lebedev said they were ready to provide Turkey weapons with

high technology. He stressed that they were not like Americans and would not

hesitate to provide high technology to Turkey. "We are not like Americans.

They

give you the license and some spare parts but never the real high technology.

We trust modern Turkey," said the Russian Ambassador. Asked if he meant that

the United States did not trust Turkey enough to provide it with high

technology, Lebedev declined to comment further.

[Berj]

It's very dangerous situation. We have no allies in the region.

[MJ]

But doesn't it mean we have been doing something wrong for very long time?

The problem, I think, is not the region, but us - lack of realism.

[Berj]

MJ,
Why were you wondering about lack of experience in ARF politics then?
MJ, always consider that I'm an Armenian citizen who will deal with the possible war, clash etc. directly (which may involve my family). In the region we have 2 possible allies (Iran and Russia). Out of the region we have France, US, EU, Greece?, Syria?. Taking into account that THE HELP always comes very late (and my family), I think the realism is the thing we have been doing for very long time.

[MJ]

Berj,

I think we misunderstand each other.

[alpha]

It's not even funny but it's even anecdotal to mention about Kars treaty. Aren't there any decent diplomats who will take important positions. People who are realistic in their views, more pragmatic, and less dreamers. Let's not forget Khrimian Hayrik's words after the Berlin Congress in 1878. "Ayntex bolorn uneyin Yerkate Sherep. Isk im@ txtits er".

 

Officiall the Kars province passed to Turkey not by Kars treaty but by the Treaty of Alexandropol signed in December 2 of 1920 by Dashnak government. There is no legal ground to contest the treaty of Kars, which is simply a confirmation of the Treaty of Alexandropol.

[MJ]

Alpha,

I think your arguments are incorrect from historical and legal points of views.

First, Alexandropole treaty never was ratified, and at the time of signing that treaty there was no governement in Armenia - the Dashak governement had resigned at the time of signing of the document. It is a peace of worthless document.

From the historical point of view, the province of Kars had been surrendered to Turkey by in the result of the German demand at the Brest-Litovsk treaty signed between the Germans and the Bolshevik Russians. The Kars treaty basically has executed the agreements of Brest-Litovsk, as far as the geography is concerned.

From the legal point of view, Kars treaty is the most dispeakable violation of the elementary norms of international law. It has no legal merits.

With all this said, do I mean that the lack of legal merits of that document is a basis for acheaving any reuslts in reversing its outcome? Of coarse not - for the same reasons you have raised above.

However, it is the single most important document defining the parameters of independence of Armenia, or better to say, stripping Armenia off of some important parameters of independence.

It is a document way beyond territorial changes.

[Berj]

MJ,
Isn't realism based on calculations?

[MJ]

Berj,

 

Of coarse it is. But in our case, it turns to be based not on clalculations, but on the lack of professionalism and on a fake patriotic pathos.

[Berj]

MJ,

The most famous patriots of the last war are all dead. The last one is in jail. Believe me, if the Diaspora lives with patriotism, Armenia already doesn't. People want professionalism badly. But all they see is corruption (internal and external), "professional" calculations based again on corruption and not on national security and economic imperatives. All the professionals are either out of the country or silent. Everyone is waiting for something to happen.

[MJ]

Berj,

 

We are talking in such general terms that I don't even know if we are arguing or agreeing with each other.

[Yervant1]

THE KARS TREATY--NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL

NCWA's legal advisory board examines the controversial treaty

The Kars Treaty signatories were the Soviet Union, the Armenian,
Georgian Soviet Socialist republics and Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist
Republic, as well as the Turkish Assembly in Angora (Ankara), prior
to the founding of the Republic of Turkey. The treaty is a crucial
event in modern Armenian history. It's also controversial and often
misunderstood. The legal advisory board of the National Congress of
Western Armenians explains the shortcomings of the treaty. --Editor.

The Treaty of Alexandropol was signed on Dec. 2, 1920 between Turkish
revolutionaries (before the declaration of the Republic of Turkey)
and the Government of the Republic of Armenia. Article 11 of the
treaty declared the Sèvres Treaty "null and void". The territory of
the Republic of Armenia was reduced by more than 50%. The treaty was
supposed to have been ratified within one month by the parliament of
the Republic of Armenia. It was, however, never ratified due to the
occupation of the RoA by the armies of the Russian Soviet Federative
Socialist Republic (RSFSR). It was eventually replaced by the Kars
Treaty as stipulated in Article I of the Kars Treaty.

The Treaty of Kars was signed on Oct. 23, 1921 and ratified in Yerevan
on Sept. 11, 1922. While all signatories had the necessary powers to
negotiate and sign the treaty, doubts have always been expressed about
its validity and applicability for two main reasons: at the time only
the RSFSR was a sovereign state in accordance with international law.

The three other entities, namely the Armenian Soviet Socialist
Republic, the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, Azerbaijan Soviet
Socialist Republic were not independent sovereign states and recognized
as such by international law or the international community (the League
of Nations). Furthermore, the Turkish delegation represented the Grand
National Assembly of Turkey (GNAT) founded in Ankara on April 23,
1920 and not the government of Turkey. The GNAT declared the Turkish
Republic in 1923, two years after the signing the Kars Treaty.

A treaty is valid if all of its provisions are put into effect and
implemented. Articles XIII, XIV, XV XVII XVIII and XIX , concerning
the relations between the Soviet Republic of Armenia and Turkey,
have never been implemented. Signatories cannot pick and choose which
provisions of a signed treaty will be implemented and which will not.

Hence the reference only to the borders provided for in the treaty
and not applying the remaining provisions is not in accordance with
international law.

In accordance with Article V the region of Nakhichevan constitutes
an autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan and not
an integral part of Azerbaijan. All inhabitants of territory that
was part of Russia before 1918, and over which the sovereignty of
Turkey is affirmed, shall have the opportunity, if they desire to
relinquish their Turkish nationality, to leave Turkey freely, taking
with them their possessions and goods, or the proceeds of their sale
(Article XIII). In accordance with the provisions of Article XVII the
contracting parties agree to take all necessary measures necessary to
maintain and develop railway, telegraphic, and other communications,
as well as to assure free transit of persons and commodities without
any hindrance.

Consular conventions were supposed to be concluded within three
months in accordance with Article XIX. None of the foregoing was
implemented. After the Second World War the USSR attempted to annul
the Kars Treaty.

On 7 June, 1945 the Foreign Minister of the USSR, Vyacheslav Molotov
requested, on behalf of the Armenian and Georgian SSRs, from the
Turkish ambassador in Moscow that the provinces of Kars, Ardahan and
Artvin be returned to the USSR. Ultimately Churchill convinced the
United States not to accept the request of the USSR. There was no
further follow up.

To ensure the validity of the Kars Treaty it is necessary either to
implement all the provisions of the treaty or negotiate a new one. A
non-implemented treaty remains null and void.

http://www.keghart.com/NCWA-Kars-Treaty