Category Archives: APPENDIX

According to modern historical science of the Republic of Armenia (1991-2021)

Summary

Lilit Hr. Hovhannisyan
The history of the treaties of Alexandropol on December 2, 1920, Moscow on March 16,
and Kars on October 13, 1921, logically related to each other, is the most disputable and the
most difficult in terms of evaluation in the series of the international diplomatic documents on
the Armenian question.

Nevertheless, the most discussed of the above three treaties in Armenian
historiography is the Treaty of Moscow, and the most underestimated – the Treaty of Kars,
although the Armenian-Turkish relations have been regulated by this treaty since October
13, 1921. The military-political conditions and goals of signing the Kars Treaty are
examined in scientific works of G. Galoyan, H. Avetisyan, A. Melkonyan, A. Hakobyan, H.
Hakobyan and in joint study of K. Khachatryan, H. Sukiasyan and G. Badalyan. They
emphasize that the Kars Treaty is not an independent document not only in its essence and
content, but also from the point of view of political and international legal norms because
of repetition and fixation of Moscow Treaty in it. Therefore, since the latter in its turn was
signed in violation [the signatories of the treaty without any authority had interfered in the
territorial integrity of the non-signatory sovereign state (states)] of the basic principles of
international law, so the Kars Treaty does not create any legal obligation for Armenia in the
issue of territorial demarcation.

Historians St. and K. Poghosyans, A. Melkonyan, A. Marukyan and A. Papyan
analysed the Kars Treaty from the historical-legal point of view. According to them, the
Armenian part of the Soviet-Turkish border passing through the Akhuryan and Araks rivers
is just a dividing line. It does not have the status of an Armenian-Turkish state border, as
there is no any international treaty on it having legal force. The historians emphasize that
the only de jure border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey is the
Wilsonian border, and the illegal treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars cannot be the
basis of a legal border. They also note that in case of a new Russian-Turkish
rapprochement, the «confirmation» of the former USSR border’s Armenian part as an
Armenian-Turkish border will mean from a legal point of view a change of the border
because the de jure border between Armenia and Turkey drawn by W. Wilson still in 1920
differs significantly from the Soviet-Turkish border.

The above-mentioned issues have not only scientific but also political significance, as
at present Russian-Turkish relations continue in the Kemal-Bolshevik spirit, keeping
Armenia in the shackles of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars treaties.

After the joint aggression of Turkish-Azerbaijani armies and international terrorist
groups against the Artsakh Republic in 2020, the Armenian side, appeared in the Turkish-
Azerbaijani-Georgian-Russian «tongs», is facing the imperative of adopting a new
negotiation strategy with the mentioned states having as a primary task the avoidance of
repetition of the Kars Treaty. The Armenian diplomacy must be able to refrain from
excessive haste, to act from the position of the Armenian claims under international law,
also defend the Armenian state interests in direct and mediated discussions in the legal field
on issues related to the borders, territorial integrity and status of the Republic of Armenia
and Republic of Artsakh. And this is possible only in the case of restoration of the
international personality and economic-military potential of the Republic of Armenia got
loose by the Artsakh 44-days war, also the unity and comprehensive cooperation between
the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh and Armenian Diaspora Javakhk.

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Kars “Treaty” of 1921 was signed with a gross violation of the norms and
principles of international law. The document signed in Kars made an attempt to “legalize”
the previous Bolshevik-Kemalist deal in Moscow, which gives reason to consider the
document signed in Kars as an annex to the illegal Moscow Treaty.

The issue of the final recognition of the document signed in Kars by Armenia still
remains topical for Turkey. It is no coincidence that this issue in a veiled form was reflected
in the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed on October 10, 2009 in Zurich, which were later
rejected by Armenia. The protocol “On the establishment of diplomatic relations between
the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” states that “the signatories reaffirm
the mutual recognition of the border existing between the two countries, established by the
relevant treaties on the basis of international law”.

The signing of the Kars document led to significant losses of the Armenian
territories, caused serious security problems, demographic problems and psychological|
complexes, the consequences of which Armenia and the Armenian people continue to feel
to this day. Before taking any steps to neutralize the grave consequences of the Kars
document, Armenia should carry out consistent political and diplomatic work, taking into
account geopolitical and regional processes.

It is no secret that influential powers use the norms and principles of international
law in their interests and goals, sometimes violating or interpreting them in their favor.
Even if influential actors of international relations try to justify their actions by the norms
and principles of international law, the Republic of Armenia, as a subject of this law, is
simply obliged to take advantage of the possibilities of international law, defending not
only its own interests, but also the legal rights of the entire Armenian people.

In Soviet secret documents of the 1920s

Summary

Avag A. Harutyunyan
For the Communist Party of Armenia ARF Dashnaktsutyun was an ideological-political opponent, and the struggle against it during the years of Soviet rule was of a multifaceted and widespread nature. The Communist Party of Armenia, with almost all its party decisions (especially: congress, plenum, bureau), regularly discussed the ARF issues of struggle.

Most of such documents covering the years of the 1920s were compiled and published in time by Professor V. Ghazakhetsyan. The current publication presents the documents that were left out of the mentioned collection.

Minutes of the Chairmanship of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia, the Presidency of the Caucasus Bureau of the Communist Party of Russia and the Transcaucasian Regional Committee are published. Special folders with the code “Top Secret” are used separately from the documents after named “Special Case”.

The documents are kept in the Fund of the Communist Party of Armenia of the National Archives of Armenia.

All documents are published from Russian translation, in chronological order, with appropriate footnotes if necessary.

A retrospective view from a distance of 100 years

Avag A. Harutyunyan

A century after the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, in the conditions of the current dangerous military-political developments around Syunik, the revelation of its heroic history and the assessment of Garegin Nzhdeh’s role in that context are of great actual importance.

In Syunik-Artsakh, Great Britain especially stood out with its anti-Armenian policy. The vision of British policy was first and foremost to implement farreaching anti-Russian programs. In order to solve this priority problem, it was in their interests to expand the territory of the Republic of Armenia including the Kars province, and with the donation of Syunik-Artsakh, to more strengthen Azerbaijan against Soviet Russia.

Syunik, led by Nzhdeh, struggled without even breathing։ in the conditions of the military-political blockade, many enemies came and went, the events had changeable ups and downs and with some refluxes, Mountainous Armenia withstood. Nzhdeh acted not only as a military commander in Syunik, but also as an ideological leader and organizer.

Fighting in and for Syunik, from strategic perspective Nzhdeh had always kept in his field of vision the collective interests of the statehood of entire Armenia and the Armenians . If the Armenians of Syunik had not fought heroically under Nzhdeh, the safe existence of the Republic of Armenia in the Azeri-Bolshevik hostile tongs would have been greatly questioned, and later Soviet Russia would have ceded Syunik to Baku. After that, the circumstance of Soviet Armenia to be a separate union republic would be endangered. At best, it would simply be included as an autonomous entity within the borders of the Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan, which would divide the Cis-Caucasus into two parts. Thus, the heroic Syunik ensured the possibility of preserving the Armenian state entity for both the Soviet and the present and future times.

Given the current resonance of the history of the heroic battle of Mountainous Armenia, today we must learn the relevant lessons and draw necessary conclusions.

On the occasion of the first publication of his memoirs

Yervand G. Pampukian (Beirut)

The letters of the Armenian avenger Soghomon Tehliryan, published in this article, were written on the occasion of the first publication of his memoirs. Soghomon Tehlirian’s autobiography is also kept in the same folder, unfortunately in an unfinished state.

The letters were written between 1951 and 1953, when S. Tehlirian moved from Serbia to the Moroccan city of Casablanca, where he worked at a European commercial establishment. His letters are addressed to Cairo, as in those years the editorial board of “Husaber” daily undertook the publication of S. Tehlirian’s memoirs. The memoirs of S. Tehlirian – the author of intimidation of the main organizer of the Armenocide and the Ottoman Turkish Prime Minister Talaat Pasha, were written by Vahan Minakhorian in 1942-1943, when both Tehlirian and Minakhorian were in Serbia. V. Minakhorian was already dead (1944), but Tehlirian had, in addition to the original, copies made by him, one of which was sent to S. Vratsyan for editing and preparation for publication.

There was a need to re-edit the memoirs for more than one reason, and S. Vratsyan had done so in good faith, diligently maintaining the originality of the original version.

First of all, it was the case of Shahan Natalie – one of the main organizers of the intimidation against Talaat, who was expelled from the ranks of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun and took a hostile stance towards the party. Then the Special Case – other figures involved in “Nemesis” operation who were still alive and some of whom were in important public positions could be endangered or prosecuted. S. Vratsyan had found the solution to these complicated issues: the historical reality
should be respected. Shahan Natalie’s name and role in the Special Case would be kept unchanged. And the other important actors were “baptized” under pseudonyms. Thus, Hrach Papazian became Hrap, Vahan Zakarian became Vaza, Hagop Zorian became Yazor, Hayk Ter Ohanian became Hayko.

There were other survivors among the participants of the operation of intimidation against Talaat, or their family members still living in Turkey, who could also be in danger. It was decided to erase such names completely or to mark them only with initials.

There were other survivors among the participants of the operation of intimidation against Talaat, or their family members still living in Turkey, who could also be in danger. It was decided to erase such names completely or to mark them only with initials.

Tehlirian returned the editions by making corrections or additions. He also often suggested corrections in his reply letters or attachments. To what extent these corrections have been applied or not to the printed copy, we have included this case and, by means of footnotes, have indicated each of them. The unfulfilled corrections are generally the result of the fact that sometimes the editions sent to Casablanca were already printed. Nevertheless, on some printed samples, there are observed erasures with thick black ink. Therefore, in connection with the future republishing of S. Tehlirian’s memoirs, it is necessary to take into account the remarks made by us.

The purpose of publishing the present letters is to pay tribute to the immortal memory of Soghomon Tehlirian, the just and vengeful Armenian who shot down Talaat Pasha on March 15, 1921 in Berlin.

Retrospective economic and political comparisons in տhe context of the Second Artsakh War

Atom Sh. Margaryan
2020 was, by far, one of the most turning and fatal years of the millennium of the permanent flow of Armenian history. The plague that started at the beginning of the year and turned into a global evil from March (COVID-19), which was a destructive and deadly threat to human lives and the normal life of the country, hit Armenia with all its might. At first, the underestimation of that great threat by the Armenian “velvet” authorities and the unimpeded spread of the fire because of it, and then the application of panic and monstrous restrictions by the sameauthorities was just ridiculous. At the same time, 2020 had much more terrible and destructive consequences. The large-scale Azeri-Turkish attack on the entire front of Artsakh on September 27 and the 44-day heavy war that followed, which led to heavy losses – human, territorial, military-technical, communication, etc. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the effects of these two crucial factors.

The article develops the provision according to which the 30-year history of the newly independent Republic of Armenia is, in fact, a story of imitation of the reforms aimed at modernizing the institutional and economic systems of the country and, ultimately, their failure. In fact, the country’s elite-guided and antinational electoral elites have not been able to create emerging security, diplomatic, legal-political and economic emerging systems capable of withstanding external and internal challenges and crises. This is confirmed by its continuous social and economic failures, and, finally, by the heavy defeat suffered by the country after the Second Artsakh War, with huge territorial and human losses.

According to the study reflected in the article, the main determinants of the behavior of the ruling elites of the Third Republic of Armenia were based not on the realization of national interests, visions of strategic development and realistic and viable programs anchored on them, but on corrupt groups in practice. In fact, one and a half dozen successive governments in the country have served the interests of these groups and their paramilitaries, regardless of the areas in which decisions are made, their implementation, the rule of law, defense, security systems and the military, economic resources, income distribution, goods or social policy. The main precondition for success in politics, advancement in the public service, and significant income in business and economic transactions over the past decades has been for people to be loyal to the top leaders of the highest bureaucracy, to serve this or that leader, to be part of the government, and so on.

The above-mentioned realities and factors have overwhelmed the reforms in Armenia for decades, and instead of modernization and development, the society has witnessed stagnation and failures. As a result, the country has not been able to accumulate sufficient resources over time, both in terms of neutralizing external military threats and effectively enduring other emergencies, on the contrary, it has largely squandered the existing and previously accumulated development potential. As a result, corruption, illegality, mass violations of human and civil rights flourished, the income and property burden of the society, poverty and emigration expanded and deepened.

In the articles of the Treaty of Sèvres

Summary

Armen Ts. Marukyan
The Treaty of Sèvres was considered by Armenian socio-political thought exclusively in the context of Articles 88-93, which are directly related to Armenia. This was quite natural, as these articles restored the right of the Armenian people to their homeland, a part of Western Armenia. Mentioned articles of the Treaty of Sèvres de jure recognized not only the Republic of Armenia including the Armenian provinces of Transcaucasia, but also the United Armenia uniting Eastern and Western Armenia. The signatory states, including the Turkish state that was defeated in the First World War, recognized the independence of the United Armenia and agreed to expand the borders of Armenia by annexing most of the territories of the provinces of Erzurum, Van and Bitlis, as well as part of the province of Trabzon, thus ensuring the exit of Armenia to the Black Sea.

In addition to these articles, the Treaty of Sèvres contains a number of important articles on the restoration of the violated rights of the non-Turkish population of the Ottoman Empire. Although the words “Armenia” or “Armenian” are missing in Articles 125, 142, 144, 285 and 288 of the Treaty of Sèvres, it is obvious, that they also directly refer to the restoration of the violated rights of the Ottoman Armenians, their descendants, as well as the Armenian communities. According to Articles 226, 228 and 230 of the Treaty, criminal liability was provided against high-ranking Turkish officials not only for war crimes, but also for crimes against humanity, which primarily meant genocide against Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire. A comprehensive analysis of these articles will make it possible to clarify the international obligations undertaken by the criminal Turkish state under the Treaty of Sèvres, as well as to discuss the prospects for implementing the mechanisms proposed in the document to restore the violated rights and property damage of the Armenian population who became victims of the crime of genocide.

Although the Treaty of Sèvres was not ratified, some of its provisions were partially implemented by the signatory states, and that the Treaty of Sèvres was not replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne, since both the parties to these two documents, also their subject matter, are not identical.

Part IV: National-public activity in 1914-1917

Summary

Sargis R. Melkonyan-Candidate of Historical Sciences
In the previous parts of our study dedicated to Garegin I Hovsepyan, which were published in the issues of 2018 (N 1 (61), 2 (62), 3 (63)) of journal “Vem”, we thoroughly presented his student years and the programs of the great scholar and church leader for the reformation of the Armenian Church. The current publication, continuing a series of our articles on Hovsepyan, we present to the reader the national-public activities of Garegin Hovsepyan in 1914-1917 as the Head of the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance of St. Etchmiadzin and as the rector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary.

ector of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary. During the years of the First World War, due to genocide and deprivation of the homeland of Armenians organized by the Turkish government, many refugees from the western provinces of Armenia found their salvation in St. Etchmiadzin. For organizing the salvation and care of these refugees and orphans in December 1914, by order of Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants, the General Committee of Fraternal Assistance was established in Etchmiadzin, which from September 1915 to August 1916 was led by Archimandrite Garegin Hovsepyan. Under his leadership, the committee implemented the following activites.

1. From the staff of the Teaching Department of Gevorgian Seminary a separate department of specialists was organized, which was supposed to deal with the salvation and research of the cultural values of the Armenians preserved during the genocide.
2. For providing refugees with clothing the Work House was opened, thanks to which many refugee women were provided with jobs.
3. A school for refugee children was opened adjacent to the parish schools of Vagharshapat.

In the article, we presented especially in detail the travel and collection of donations of Garegin Hovsepyan in St. Petersburg and Moscow in the spring of 1917 for preserving Gevorgian Seminary and taking care for orphans. In this regard, we have published an unpublished document, in which Hovsepyan presents the results of his trip to Catholicos Gevorg V Surenyants.

During this journey for the first time to St. Petersburg and for the second time to Moscow, Garegin Hovsepyan was able to collect the necessary amount, with the help of which it was possible to ensure the work of the Gevorgian Theological Seminary before its closure due to the war, and then due to the revolution.

Summary

Gevorg S. Khoudinyan-Doctor of Sciences in History
In our opinion, Covid-19 is actually not a cause, but a consequence of the current global crisis. The crisis is deeper and multilayered, and the pandemic only reveals the deep layers of the real problems that human civilization is facing with. On the synchronous plane, they shine through the impasse of the existing social system, and on the diachronic plane – the fact of a civilization crisis.

The dead end of the existing social system is a deep crisis of capitalism in the postindustrial era, which has obviously bent under the weight of economic and political problems that have accumulated over the past decades, and which have reached a critical point in a pandemic.

On the basis of the civilizational crisis beginning in parallel with this is the apparent discrepancy between the planetary challenges of individual attempts by the superpowers to become distinct civilizations, which leads to the formation of global regions, that is, the universalization of globalization.

The pandemic that marked the beginning of the current crisis is the first intermediate point of the deep changes awaiting us, but not its culmination. Obviously, the next point will be the financial and economic crisis, more severe than in 1929, in parallel with which wars will also rage.

In the new competitive environment, which is emerging as a result of the spread of the pandemic, quality finally and irrevocably wins the number, causing a three-level stratification of states with different political aspirations; on its first scale are the AngloSaxon countries and China, accusing each other of the spread of the deadly virus, and continental Europe, which still retains its traditional Atlantic preference. On the second scale are the states with a resource economy, the welfare of which is built on the almost inexhaustible reserves of energy and industrial and agricultural raw materials. But on the third scale are small countries, like ours, trying to turn from simple tools into factors of politics, or at least “to eke out an existence”.

The indisputable unity of world civilization at the present stage of its forward and backward movements on the limited territory of planet Earth has led to the formation of enormous imbalances, which externally are divided into several large groups: financial, economic, environmental, demographic, etc., but all of them are the result of deep contradictions that arose as a result of the loss of balance of material and spiritual worlds and harmony between a rational person and a child of nature. An uncontrolled accumulation of such threats would sooner or later lead the globalizing world to the idea of a global revolution, which can only be realized as a new turn back, to the cradle of humanity, with the help of a return to the Promised Land.

Recognized in the world history of the fall and splitting of civilizations, their accompanying crises and epidemics and other misfortunes of mankind, were decisive conditions for the success of the Turkish tribe, therefore when an overly materialized humanity shows a desire to return to its spiritual fundamental principle – the Promised Land, in Turkey they realize that they will gradually be squeezed out of the cradle of world civilization. For this reason, the Promised Land necessary to overcome the global crisis, which, through its history, culture and way of life, should become a valuable prototype of humanity striving for harmony, faced real threats emanating from becoming more and more aggressive Turkey every day.

Although Russia is the richest country in the world with raw materials, the unbroken burden of Soviet totalitarianism brought it to civilizational agony, which at any moment can turn into a repeat of 1917. An inevitably deepening crisis in Russia leads to an understanding of its civilizational image, but a pandemic, accelerating this process, will at the same time serve to resolve it peacefully. All this shows that soon we will be left alone in the face of serious external dangers, so it is time to look at the events in our country through other points.

After the revolutionary upheavals in Armenia in the spring of 2018, its political field from a limited subject gradually turned into an almost integral object of an irreconcilable confrontation of external forces. Given the existence of such a confrontation, it is quite natural that the pandemic that kills the lives of Armenians is also turning into an instrument of internal political struggle. As a result, the remnants of the former empire disseminate among the ignorant people the hypothesis of the falsity of Covid-19, sentencing them to certain death. But the populist authorities see the geometric progression of the pandemic as an opportunity to distance the moment when it will be necessary to answer for failures. As a result of the aggravation of the confrontation of external forces within Armenia, our country registers records in the field of the spread of the pandemic, because not one of the external forces is interested in the life and health of the inhabitants of Armenia.

The weakening of the Armenian segment of the political field of Armenia reached the dangerous point when the modern perception of “we” and our identity, has almost completely disappeared. During each world shocking historical turning point, the Armenian people survived due to their integrity – a clear awareness of “we”. In the Middle Ages, it was a spiritual home – the Armenian Apostolic Church, leading us to Avarayr. In modern times, it is imperative to have a “piece of land”, that is, a nation-state leading us to Sardarapat. And today, we urgently feel the need for those who transform the process of turning the cradle of world civilization into a civilized territory into a formula for the expansion of Armenia. Since the matter of overcoming the threats emanating from Turkey – the sworn enemy of civilization, first of all, requires harmonization of the universal ideal and national goals.

Summary 

Karen P. Hayrapetyan
From the first days of their formation, the authorities of the Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) faced the problem of Western Armenian refugees. In the matter of its resolution, both the purely socio-economic aspects of the problem and its political, fragmentary features should be taken into account. With the goal of overcoming fragmentation with its negative manifestations, the republican authorities, together with the solution of directly refugee issues, needed to take appropriate steps to overcome in the minds of Western Armenian refugees the distrust and alienation that existed in their attitude towards the authorities and the population of the newly formed Republic of Armenia. For this purpose, it was necessary to take certain steps to integrate the Western Armenian refugees into the socio-economic and socio-political life of the Republic of Armenia, to create conditions for involving Western Armenians in the creation of the independent Armenian state. Ultimately, republican authorities intended to overcome the negative manifestations of fragmentarity.

The authorities of the first Republic of Armenia considered fragmentarity an obstacle to the creation of a state. The overcoming of fragmentarity as the main goal of the republic’s authorities was first voiced from the rostrum of the Second Congress of Western Armenians.

The policy of the republic’s authorities to overcome the fragmentarity was carried out before the Second Congress of Western Armenians. The policy of accommodating Western Armenian refugees, the liquidation of medical and educational institutions created for them, also had the goal of overcoming fragmentarity. In itself, the Second Congress of Western Armenians for the authorities of the republic was the implementation of the policy of overcoming fragmentarity. At the congress, the political goals and ideals of the Western Armenian refugees who found refuge in the Republic of Armenia were formulated. The congress was a milestone in a positive change in the negative attitude of the Western Armenian refugees towards the Republic of Armenia. The Second Congress created political grounds for starting cooperation with the authorities of the republic. For this reason, the Second Congress of Western Armenians actually had a breakthrough value in overcoming fragmentarity.