The Armenian Question (1914-1923) Mim Kemal Oke K. Rustem & Brother
'This study is devoted to the investigation of the nature of the “Armenian Question” which erupted in the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century. It was possible to approach this subject from a number of viewpoints. However, I decided that the evaluation of this phenomenon from the viewpoint of inter-national relations would afford a better framework for analyzing the complex set of events which seemed to be interrelated and which were known as the “Armenian Question”. Consequently, in the introduction I made a theoretical presentation of the approach to be used. Then in the first chapter, I made a general analysis of the context in which the Armenian File was opened and attempted to place the subject of this study in a wider perspective. It became clear that approaching this subject solely as an internal problem of the Ottoman Empire and viewing the Armenian movement only as a nationalist movement would be inadequate both historically and theoretically. The analysis of the measures taken by Ottoman rulers and aimed at the internal structure of the state clearly demonstrated that when the diag-nosis is wrong, the proposed solutions are doomed to remain ineffective. In the course of this study, we saw that the efforts of Ottomans both towards modernization and towards “becom¬ing a nation” proved to be useless in overcoming the counter- cultural opposition in the Armenians and in integrating them into the main social structure. Thus, the Armenian Question emerges not only as a minority problem which concerned the Ottomans, but as a problem of an international nature that concerned all nations which had aspirations and interests in the Middle East …’
Dr. Oke’s original contribution to the historical perspective of the Armenian Question emerges not only from his masterly employment of methodology; but also his evaluation of first-hand archival material hitherto unknown to all scholars in the field.
Contents
Preface / 1
Notes to the Preface / 5
Introduction: The Theoretical Approach / 9
I. The Area of International Relations: Problems of Terminology and Mode of Approach / 9 II. The Theory of Political Realism / 11 a. The Means of Foreign Policy Available to the State / 12 b. The Goals of the State in Foreign Policy / 17 III. The Moralist School and its Critique / 19 IV. The Balance of Powers System / 20 V. An Example of Transnational Powers and of Their influence in the International Political System; the Armenian Question / 21 Notes to the Introduction / 23
Chapter One: The International Environment in which the Armenian Question Arose / 25 I. ‘Universal’ Nationalism and the Balance of Power System in Europe / 26 II. The Great Powers in the 19th and 20th Centuries and their Expansionist Policies in the Middle East / 32 III. The Great Powers and their Methods of Colonizing the Ottoman State / 37 a. Military Methods: Partitioning and Occupation / 37 b. Economic Methods / 38 c. The Capitulations as a Means of Exerting International Political Pressure / 39 IV. The Situation of the Minorities in the Ottoman Empire: the Millet System / 45 V. The Protectorate System and the Rise of Separatist Movements / 50 VI. The Ottomans and Their Efforts to preserve the Unity of the Country: Ideas and Practices / 54 VII. Western Reactions to and Expectations from the Ottoman Reforms / 67 Notes to Chapter One / 69
Chapter Two: The Anatomy of the Armenian Question / 77 I. The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in Light of the Theories of Nation and Nationalism / 77 II. Factors that Contributed to the Rise of Armenian Nationalism / 81 III. The Organization of the Armenian Separatist Movement; the Revolutionary Committees and their methods of Struggle / 86 IV. The Transformation of the Armenian Cause into an International Issue: Interventions and Reforms / 89 V. The War Goals of the Allies, Secret Treaties and the Armenians / 94 VI. The Place of Separatist Movements in England’s Propaganda System / 99 VII. The Contribution to the Arab, Zionist and Armenian Movements to the War Effort of the Allies / 108 VIII. The Activities of the Armenian Organizations During the First World War / 112 Notes to Chapter Two / 119
Chapter Three: The Solution of the Armenian Question / 126 I. The Road Leading to the Decision of Relocation and its 1915 Implementation / 127 II. Developments in Caucasia Following the 1917 Russian Revolution and International Struggles / 136 III. The Ottomans take the Initiative in the Caucasus and the International Reaction to the Order they Establish / 143 IV. The Beginning of the 1919 Peace Talks and the ‘Armenian Policy’ of the United States of America / 151 V. Conflicts Among the Great Powers and the Problem of the Partitioning of Turkey 166 VI. The Beginning of the Turkish National Struggle Against the Armenian Invasion of Eastern Anatolia / 178 VII. The Eastern Policy of the Ankara Government and the Eastern front / 184 VIII. VIII. The Western Policy of the Ankara Government and the Southern Front / 193 IX. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s Views Concerning the Minorities in Turkey / 197 X. The Great Powers and the Closing of the ‘Armenian File’ at the Lausanne Peace Conference / 202 XI. The Turkish Armenians’ Interpretation of, and Response to the ‘Armenian Question’ / 208 XII. The Discussion of the Minorities Problem in Lausanne and an Analysis of the Decisions Taken / 215 XIII. The Great Powers’ Efforts in Lausanne to Revive the ‘Protectorate System’, and Reactions in Turkey to these efforts / 220 XIV. England’s Plans for the Future and her Political Investments Concerning the Mosul Problem / 230 Notes to Chapter Three / 238 Conclusion: On the Tools of Foreign Politics / 250 I. Subcultures in the Ottoman Empire, Socialization and Political Participation / 250 II. An Analysis of the Designs over Turkey within the Framework of the Place of Supranational Powers in World Politics / 254 III. Facts Regarding Self-Determination, Human Rights and the Minorities Regime in the 20th century / 256 IV. The Truth About the Armenian events that Occurred in the Ottoman Empire and in the Republic of Turkey / 267 V. Can the New Inter-State Political System Provide a Solution? / 271 Notes to the Conclusion / 274
Bibliography / 277
PREFACE
Due to the phenomenon of ‘Armenian terrorism’ which has grown like an avalanche in the past decade, the ‘Armenian Question’ in the Ottoman Empire has become an inescapable subject for Western academic circles. With great determination, insistence and ceaseless efforts, Armenian ‘scholars’ have been advancing claims for over sixty years to the effect that Eastern Anatolia was an Armenian homeland, that Turks seized this area by force from its rightful owners, and occupied it, that they systematically resorted to massacres to drive Armenians from this area, and finally, that they executed a planned genocide in 1915 to achieve their ultimate goal.1 In an environment which, for centuries, has been used to evaluating Turks and their place in world history, through the image of ‘the Terrible Turk’, Armenian accusations gained credence and eventually achieved a ‘moral’ dimension to justify Armenian terrorism in the eyes of Western public opinion. Some Armenian intellectuals have even gone to the extent of claiming that Turks are keeping the Armenian community within Turkey under pressure even today.2
On the other hand, Turkish intellectuals have preferred to keep quiet and avoid becoming embroiled in historical and contemporary controversies. However, it was finally realized that this ‘noble silence’ was beginning to mislead the world public opinion and thus a number of valuable works began to be produced.3 These studies helped to establish that the telegrams ordering a genocide which were attributed to Talat Pasha were fake, and, furthermore, that they had been forged by Armenians to serve their own purposes.4 The science of history and politics are separate areas of endeavor; when one attempts to put one of them in the service of the other, the efforts expended will obviously be short-lived. No matter how deeply rooted and complex some lies may be, they are doomed to topple eventually in the face of the irresistible winds of truth. Indeed, this is how it has always happened in history; only the theses which conformed to truth have resisted to the test of time in any area of study. Today, the Turkish thesis based on scientific and objective criteria has begun to make itself heard in international forums with enough force to disturb Armenian commentators. Ironically, Armenians who are troubled by this development are protesting it even in the streets of Europe and America, and are asking the political authorities of the countries they live in, to endeavor to prevent Turks from ‘rewriting their history.’ What is remarkable is that some states and international organizations continue to ignore the Turkish thesis and maintain their commitment to distorted Armenian claims in spite of objective scholarly findings. It should be borne in mind that the theses of Copernicus and Galileo were rejected by their contemporaries and that they were punished for their ideas. However, time ultimately demonstrated where the truth lay. Similarly, it is obvious that the lasting historical interpretation regarding the Armenian question will eventually emerge as a result of objective scholarship based on the written records of the Ottoman archives.
In this book, my goal is to study a past which has been misused to support Armenian political aspirations. My purpose is to investigate the ‘Armenian question’ in the time-frame I have chosen and to share with you the results of this investigation. As indicated above, my purpose is not to criticize any thesis, work or point of view, but to approach the Armenian question between 1914 and 1923 as it really occurred in history under the light of new documents and studies, and by using contemporary methods of scholarship.
I think it advisable to begin this process with a discussion of methodology. In a work published in 1919 (which I believe deserves more attention than scholars have given it), the author argues that if researchers on diplomatic history armed themselves with specialized areas of information generally commanded only by practitioners in international relations and foreign politics, the findings of their research would be more reliable.5 In point of fact, under the impact of the ‘behaviorist school’ which became influential in the social sciences after the Second World War, scholars began to focus upon the shortcomings of studying the past by stringing together a series of dry historical events. In the meantime, it was also argued that even the most comprehensive works on diplomatic history were not analytic, and that their authors were careless even about the terminology to be used. Further, that history, as social science, had to renew itself in compliance with recent developments in the social sciences.6 Disputes on methodology began to emerge and history as an academic discipline became polarized between the ‘traditional’ method dominated by the emphasis on history, international law and philosophy on the one hand, and the ‘scientific approach’ pioneered by the behaviorists on the other.7
Stated briefly, the scientific school held that ‘theoretical’ studies could be supported with applied studies in the social sciences just as in the natural sciences.8 In contrast, traditionalists were agreed that the approach proposed by the scientific school would not make any contribution to the subjects covered. Bull wrote that the scientific approach would make a negligible contribution to the theory on international relations and that it would even be harmful to this area of study if it attempted to replace the traditional method.9 According to Bull, those who attempted to use the ‘scientific approach’ in studying international relations deprived themselves of the most important concept (or tool) they needed to be in command of. This tool was, according to Bull, ‘guessing on the basis of common sense.’ Making the following comparison to support his view, Bull wrote that the admirers of the scientific method who deprived themselves of this tool were condemning themselves to a sort of intellectual innocence similar to the innocence of nuns avoiding sex in conservative Victorian England, and that they were thus incapable of understanding international relations.
Secondly, Bull argued that adherents of the scientific method imprisoned themselves in a sort of intellectual prison, because they became lost in quantitative considerations and consequently sold themselves to a measuring fetishism.
The third disadvantage the scientific method had according to Bull was the use of ‘models.’ Emphasizing that the use of models to represent reality led to over-simplification which cut off the subject from its fundamental character¬istics, Bull argued that this method could lead to erroneous diagnoses and solutions by misleading the researcher, the reader, and possibly also the decision maker intending to make use of the information. Making generalizations was dangerous according to him — especially concerning phenomena like international relations effected by complex causes; each phenomenon had to be studied within its own special conditions by taking cognizance of its special characteristics. In spite of these criticisms by the traditionalists, adherents of the scientific method emphasized the broader view a researcher obtained by studying a subject from different angles. Secondly, they emphasized the advantages of ‘systematic thought’ in explaining their approach.
According to them, the introductions of more original definitions and the ordering of concepts would put an end to conceptual confusions and researchers would be able to avoid confusion in utilizing data. Furthermore, systematic thought would raise questions that had been overlooked and diverse phenomena would become more crystallized through comparative studies. Stated differently, the theory of the scientific school was not only going to be of use in the stages of collecting and cataloguing information, but it would also facilitate reaching conclusions and formulating generalizations through the use of hypotheses. Thirdly, the scientific school promised to establish relations between events through the mechanism of stimulus and reaction thanks to the method it employed. It followed from this that, as long as the same assumptions were held, it would be possible to make predictions in similar situations regarding the future development of events. Needless to say, prediction and projection into the future are what a scientific activity cherishes most. The importance of this last point is evident for the social sciences which constitute the laboratory of history:
History, which begins with the birth of man in the world, is a river whose source is not known. This river, whose bed is time, flows to the present governed by certain concrete laws. And this river which flowed from the past to the present will flow to a foreseeable and concrete future. This being the case, if man can study ideationally and philosophically the unchanging laws of history flowing in that bed and discover them properly, he can know the present and consequently also the future. ... He can interfere with the bed of history after this capacity for prediction is achieved. A historian who achieves this capacity can direct as he wishes not only himself, his past and present, but, relying on the same laws, also his and his society’s future… The imperialist Western world which began to regard history in this way towards the end of the 18th century obtained the means of exploiting and even governing societies which did not know history.10
Ataov, who studied books published in several languages on the Armenian question and compiled a bibliography, expresses more concretely the validity of the last sentence of the above quotation:
… There is no doubt that those in the last century who were interested with various aspects of the Ottoman State which was spread in a large territory were involved in a dynamic situation shaped by large world empires, that is, by their interests. It would not be scientifically accurate to assume that such authors could dwell upon any problem without being under the general influence of those interests, or to consider their publications independent of the imperialist policy which was dominant at that time. There was a mutual interaction at that time between imperialism and authors ranging from historians to novelists.11
After having thus pointed out the extremely important scientific reason for Turks to engage in the study of their own history, I would like to emphasize that the two approaches summarized above are actually complementary. Knorr and Rosenau argued that scholarly progress lay not in traditionalism or in the scientific approach alone, but in making these two approaches serve each other.12 Prof. liter Turan gave me the following advice at the beginning of my career: ‘A research on international politics which ignores history is far from being convincing. On the other hand, a research on political history which does not take advantage of the findings of studies on international politics is doomed to remain unproductive to the extent that it is not made part of a larger whole.’13 A subject can be studied more carefully and thoroughly if both methods are used. The adherents of both views became more moderate in their attitudes after the 1970’s. While the defendants of the traditional approach improved their analytical writing by taking advantage of concepts, theories and analytical frameworks developed by the scientific school, the adherents of the scientific school stopped dwelling upon abstract subjects entirely cut off from the realities of the world and tried to conduct more normative (or modern) studies by putting their methodology in the service of contemporary subjects. This rapprochement is called ‘the post¬behaviorist period.’ In this study, I will endeavor to use this interdisciplinary approach and will attempt to take advantage of the findings of studies on history, political science and international relations.
A brief explanation concerning the sources used in this work is also called for. If the reader looks at the bibliography, s/he will notice immediately that in addition to general works, official publications and primary documents have also been used. Documents from the British, French and American archives are frequently used and cited. I would also like to take advantage of this opportunity to underline the manner in which the sources have been utilized: they were evaluated solely on the basis of objectivity. However, nor did I fail to take into consideration Ataturk’s observation concerning the attitude of Orientalists (Western scholars) noted above in evaluating documents; as is known, Ataturk made the following comment to Turkish scholars: ‘Do not adopt any opinion without subjecting it to the test of your own knowledge and beliefs simply because some European author pronounced it. You see that their judgments, especially on us Turks (and) our history . . . are often based upon mistaken principles.’ Furthermore, I have sought to obey Ataturk’s dictum, ‘Above all, rely upon documents you yourselves will carefully select. Use your own initiative and yOur national view point above everything else and above everyone else’s views in your studies of these documents.’14 I have relied in my research primarily on documents preserved in the Ottoman - Turkish archives. These documents clearly establish that the starting point for the Ottomans was the principle of the union of all the various elements in society (Ottomanization), that, in contrast with the Ottomans, the Armenians engaged in activities against the state, that the government took protective measures in the face of a general Armenian uprising, that care was taken to obey the principles of law in the execution of these measures, and, more importantly, that the humanitarian approach governed the measures which were taken. All the details regarding both the archival documents cited and the other sources used are provided in the bibliography.
Notes
1 D. H. Boyajian, Armenia: The Case for a Forgotten Genocide (New Jersey, 1972); J. Nazar, The First Genocide of the XXth Century: The Story of the Armenian Massacre (New York, 1968); A. Hartunian, Neither to Laugh, Nor to Weep (Boston, 1968). For disputes, see G. Dyer, ‘Turkish “Falsifiers” and Armenian “Deceivers”: Historiography and the Armenian Massacres,’ Middle Eastern Studies, v. XII/1 (January 1976), pp. 99-107 and R. G. Hovannisian, ‘Forum: The Armenian Question,’ IJMES, N. 9 (1978). 2 Armenian Review, v. XXVI11 (Spring 1975), p. 16. 3 K. Giiriin, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1985); E. Liras, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi (Istanbul, 1975). 4 Ş. Orel/S. Yuca, The Talat Pasha Telegrams: Historical Fact or Armenian Fiction? (London: K. Rustem & Bro., 1986). See also: S. Sonyel, The Ottoman Armenians: Victims of Great Power Diplomacy (London: K. Rustem & Bro., 1987). 5 D. P. Heatley, Diplomacy and the Study of International Relations (Oxford, 1919), pp. 86—87, 4—5. 6 G. A. Craig, ‘The Historian and the Study of International Relations,’ The American Historical Review, (April 1983), p. 7. 7 For disputes, cf. J. E. Dougherty/R. L. Pfaltgraff, Jr., Contending Theories of International Relations (Philadelphia, 1971). 8 For the scientific school, cf. J. C. Farrell/A. P. Smith, eds., Theory and Reality in International Relations (New York, 1967); W. I. R. Fox, ed., Theoretical Aspect of International Relations (Notre Dame, 1959); H. V. Harrison, ed., The Role of Theory in International Relations (Princeton, 1964); S. Hoffman, ed., Contemporary Theory in International Relations (New Jersey, 1960); R. E. Platig, International Relations Research: Problems of Evaluation and Advancement (Santa Barbara, 1967); A. Said, ed., Theory of International Relations: The Crisis of Relevance (New Jersey, 1968); R. Tanter/R. H. Ullman, eds., Theory and Policy in International Relations (Princeton, 1972). 9 H. Bull, ‘International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach,’ K. Knorr/J. N. Rosenau, eds., Contending Approaches to International Politics (Princeton, 1969). 10 I. S. Sirma, Islam ve Tarih (Istanbul, 1984), pp. 37-39. M. Siddiqi, Kur’anda Tarih Kavramu (Istanbul, 1982). Another author makes the following interpretation: ‘ ... it (Orientalism) is ... a certain will or intention to underestand, in some cases to control, manipulate, even to incorporate, what is a manifestly different. . . world. (...) Orientalism, then, is knowledge of the Orient that places things Oriental in class, court, prison, or manual for scrutiny, study, judgment, discipline, or governing.’ E. Said, Orientalism (New York, 1978), pp. 12 and 41. 11 Ermeni Sorunu: Bibliyografya (Ankara, 1981), p. ix. 12 Knorr/Rosenau, op.cit^ pp. 18—19. 13 M. K. Oke, Osmanlt Imparatorlugu, Siyonizm ve Filistin Sorunu, 1880-1914 (Istanbul, 1982), p. iii. 14 U. Kocatiirk, ed., Atatiirk'un Fikir ve Dii§iinceleri (Ankara, 1982), p. 116.
Introduction The Theoretical Approach
This section is devoted to a discussion of ‘the alternative means available to the state in foreign politics.’ However, a general panorama of foreign politics and of international relations is a necessary prerequisite to this discussion. Academic disputes over studies in diplomatic history were discussed in the Preface. After these essentially formal disputes, this chapter will present arguments regarding the starting point and the approach — or content. Secondly, the concept of ‘supra-national forces’ will be discussed in this chapter. I believe that unless definitions are made regarding these two areas, and, more importantly, unless a general framework of analysis is given, it would be impossible to study the Armenian Question, to put it into a meaningful whole, and to develop some generalizations.
I. The Area of International Relations: Problems of Terminology and Mode of Approach We mentioned above that there are different methodological approaches to international relations which is an interdisciplinary area of study, and we referred briefly to the methods of analysis of the ‘classical’ and ‘scientific’ schools. In addition to the careless use of terminology which can be observed in their writings, the defendants of the traditional or ‘classical’ school also restricted themselves to the study of original, isolated events by limiting their work in time and space. Because they were trapped in their narrow specialized areas, they became incapable of developing universal definitions and models. As for the representatives of the scientific school, they acknowledged that they had to proceed deductively for some time before they would be able to develop a theoretical model, but found themselves up to their necks in the quicksand of methodology in the very first step of the process which was designed to help them reach the framework of universal analysis because they yielded to the attraction of the fetish of quantitative analysis. For this reason, the development of adequate theories in studies on international relations proved to be a difficult process. The methodological confusion that derived from this affected negatively the process of determining the subject matter of the area and ascertaining the main theme governing the network of relations and interactions within the general framework. .....
Mim Kemal Oke
The Armenian Question (1914-1923)
K. Rustem & Brother
K. Rustem & Brother The Armenian Question (1914-1923) By Mini Kemal Oke
Published by K. Rustem & Brrother
First published 1988
This book is copyright under the Berne Convention. All rights are reserved by the author. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1956, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the publishers: K. Rustem & Brother, PO Box 239, Nicosia, Northern Cyprus.
