Abstract: This article takes a comprehensive look at the recent policies and statements of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and analyzes them from a geopolitical perspective.
In the complex arena of international relations, the experiences of one nation are carefully monitored by other countries, shaping the strategies and decisions of its leaders. This is also true for Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Among the intricate web of geopolitics, Pashinyan closely monitors the complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. When tensions between these neighboring states reached a boiling point, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's efforts to counter Russian influence, Pashinyan took careful note. However, it was not just the rhetoric and showmanship that caught Pashinyan's attention, but rather the sudden withdrawal of what was touted as unlimited support and the harsh realities that followed. This left Ukraine suddenly alone with its powerful neighbor. In the wake of this geopolitical drama, Pashinyan drew valuable lessons from Ukraine's fate to shape Armenia's delicate relationship with its regional power Turkey.
On the geopolitical stage, promises are often made with grand gestures and resounding declarations. This is the case for Ukraine, a country that has become a target of great power rivalry, and for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who finds himself in the midst of growing tensions with Russia. In the face of Russian aggression, the imperialist states have promised token aid, military support and endless solidarity with Ukraine and its struggling leader. However, as the conflict unfolded and the stakes rose, once prominent allies faded into the background, their promises of support ringing hollow in the ears of Ukrainian officials. As Ukraine was abandoned by those who once promised unwavering support, it found itself alone in the face of a growing existential threat, and the disappointment was all the more palpable. This betrayal left a lasting mark on the international stage and became a cautionary tale for countries in the region, such as Armenia. As he watched Ukraine's alliances unravel, Nikol Pashinyan highlighted the dangers of relying too heavily on the promises of imperialist powers.
Before moving on to Pashinyan's major shift in Armenian policies, let us take a look at the historical perspective of the issue. Otherwise, a change in policy more than 100 years after the events could be explained by economic difficulties, geopolitical imperatives or shifting alliance relations. But the geopolitical situation before the events took place and the words of the political leader of modern Armenia, who witnessed the events with his own eyes, can only be based on facts. Let us therefore allow history to bear first-hand witness.
The Armenian race is known throughout history as a people inhabiting various parts of Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Armenians, the heirs of the Urartu Kingdom in ancient times, established the independent Armenian Kingdom in the 6th century BC. In 301, it became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as the state religion. In the Middle Ages, Armenians lived under Byzantine, Persian and Arab rule, and after the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia in the 11th century, Armenians lived under the patronage of various principalities and kingdoms. From the 16th century onwards, they came under the rule of the Ottoman Empire.
During the Ottoman Empire, Armenians were one of the loyal nations known as "millet-i sadıka (the faithful nation)", a Christian minority that generally lived in various parts of the empire. Armenians played important roles, especially in the fields of trade, crafts and education. However, towards the end of the 19th century, under the influence of nationalist movements, some Armenian groups demanded independence. During this period, there were tensions and rebellions between the Ottoman administration and some Armenian groups.
Before the First World War, the Ottoman Empire was weakened by economic problems, nationalist movements and territorial losses. While demoralized after the Balkan Wars, reform efforts and the search for alliances continued. While struggling with these difficulties, the Empire entered the war against all objections, or more accurately, was forced to enter the war by Britain and Germany.
During the years of the First World War, the Ottoman Empire faced serious challenges on both domestic and foreign fronts. In 1915, the invasion of Eastern Anatolia by the Russian Empire and the attacks on Ottoman soldiers and civilians by some Armenian gangs collaborating with the Russian occupation caused great turmoil in the region. These attacks led to civilian organization and acts of revenge among the Muslim population. The Ottoman government took the decision of deportation (forced migration), which aimed to remove the Armenian population from the war zones, in order to control this situation, to ensure the safety of all people and to ensure internal security. The realities of war, poverty, hunger and disease along the route that Armenians had to follow during this deportation were the most formidable threats to this migration. During the deportation, the Empire was unable to provide adequate assistance and thousands of Armenians lost their lives due to malnutrition, disease and harsh conditions. Among the places of displacement were the desert regions of Syria. This process seems to have laid the foundation for historical traumas in Turkish-Armenian relations.
But could what actually happened have been manipulated by imperialist states in order to foment enmity between the two peoples and prepare a favorable environment in which they can realize their own ambitions? Let us seek the answer to this question together below.
In April 1923, the Dashnaktsutyun Party's report "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do" was presented to the Dashnaktsutyun Party's Conference Abroad in Bucharest under the signature of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime minister of the Armenian government and leader of the Dashnaktsutyun Party. In his report, Katchaznouni discusses the state's struggle against the systematic attacks of Armenian gangs on the local population and the forced migrations in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, but does not use the term "genocide" to describe these events. While the report usually describes the events in question with terms such as "catastrophe" or "tragedy", it discusses in detail what happened during this period. Instead of the "Armenian genocide", it emphasizes the great losses and sufferings of the Armenians and the strategic mistakes of the party in this process. Although the tragic consequences of the events are emphasized in this report, in which Katchaznouni is self-critical and questions the party policies, it is very striking that the term "genocide" is not used directly.
An English edition of this book was published in 1955 in New York by the Armenian Information Service (Armenian Intelligence Service) under the title "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaksoution) Has Nothing To Do Any More". However, this English publication did not contain the entire book. The Armenian intelligence service had removed the parts that they found objectionable. In the same way, the originals of the book were collected from European libraries by the Armenian diaspora. Interestingly, in these libraries, the name of the book appeared in the catalogs, but there was no trace of the books on the shelves. It is only natural that this historical report of the first Armenian prime minister was banned in Armenia, and later, in the form of books published in various languages, it was collected from European libraries and made a banned publication in Armenia. It is also known that the publications were collected from European libraries by the Dashnak Party. However, the Russian edition of the book that the Dashnaks forgot to destroy was found in the Lenin Library in Moscow and translated into Turkish by Dr. Arif Acaloğlu. As we always encounter, the truth has a way of coming out one day!
In the following years, Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv's English article introducing this report was published in French, German and Spanish translations.
[Prof. Dr. Türkkaya Ataöv, An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Une Source Armenienne: Hovhannes Katchaznouni: Eine armenische Quelle: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Fuenta Armenia: Hovhannes Katchaznouni; Second Printing, Ankara, March 1995]
Now let us examine the content of this report. In his report, then Prime Minister Katchaznouni says; "The British occupation had raised the hopes of the Dashnaks again. Because the British had occupied Istanbul at that time and had established a 'Dashnak dictatorship' in Armenia. We were unconditionally oriented towards Russia. Without any justification, we were in a triumphal mood. We were sure that in return for our loyalty, our work and our help, the tsarist government would grant us the independence of Armenia. In the summer and fall of 1915, the Turks subjected the Armenians to a forced deportation. The Turks knew what they were doing and today they have nothing to regret. We participated in military operations. We were deceived and tied to Russia. The deportation was right and necessary. We failed to see the facts, we are the cause of the events. The Turks' national struggle was justified. It was a big mistake to refuse peace and take up arms. We revolted and fought against the Turks. Our rebellion was based on the dream of a great Armenia promised to us by the Entente powers. It was as if our short-sightedness was a heroism, because everyone who wanted to, the French, the British, the Americans, the Georgians, the Bolsheviks, the whole world, easily deceived, dodged and betrayed us, while we were naively convinced that this war was being fought for the Armenians. We were now all in the camp of the Allied Powers, the enemies of the Turks, demanding 'Armenia from sea to sea' from the Turks. Finally, there is the fact that as long as we have existed, we have been fighting, killing and dying with the Turks non-stop. What confidence can we inspire in the Turks now? Do not look for blame outside the Dashnak leadership..."
It is noteworthy that the term "genocide" does not appear anywhere in these words, which were uttered while the events were still fresh. Why did Katchaznouni, the head of the Armenians, carefully choose his words and take most of the blame, even though he felt the full power of imperialism behind him at the congress, which took place at a time when the new Turkish state was still in its infancy and weak, and Armenian nationalism was on the rise? This is a great virtue as well as the ability to look at events objectively despite all the circumstances.
At this stage, I would like to talk a little bit about Hovhannes Katchaznouni. Katchaznouni was the first prime minister of the Armenian state established in July 1918. He led the Dashnak government for 13 months until August 1919. He was one of the founders and an important leader of the Dashnaktsutyun Party. He is the highest authority of Armenia and the Dashnak Party. He was born in 1867 in the Meskhetian region of Georgia. After studying architecture, he worked as an architect in Baku. There he joined the Dashnak organization. In 1917, he became a member of the Armenian National Council. Until 1918, he was a Dashnak representative in the Caucasus parliament (Seym). He took part in the Armenian delegation during the peace negotiations with the Turks in Trabzon and Batumi. When the Caucasus state disintegrated, he became the first prime minister of independent Armenia in July 1918. He remained in this position until August 1919. In 1920, after the Bolshevik government was established in Armenia, he was arrested. In 1921, during the counter-revolution against Bolshevik rule, he fled the country after the suppression of the uprising. Years later, he returned to Soviet Armenia and worked as an architect until his death in 1938.
Let us now turn to Pashinyan's statements that form the basis of his new policies. Regarding Armenian policies and the genocide allegations, Pashinyan said the following: "We became victims of intrigues and false promises. This large-scale tragedy took place during the First World War, and the Armenian people, who had no state, who had lost their state centuries ago, and who had essentially forgotten the tradition of statehood, became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises, first and foremost because they lacked a political mind capable of making sense of the world and its rules.”
So, what was Pashinyan's main emphasis when he said this? Clarifying Armenia's borders and pursuing a realistic foreign policy by accepting these borders, rejecting the historical dreams of "Greater Armenia" and focusing on protecting and developing the existing borders. Pashinyan also emphasized that he has put an end to the dreams of "Greater Armenia" and that such dreams cannot be realized. While stating that the focus should be on Armenia's existing borders and territories, he argues that Armenia has created an unlivable environment by establishing hostile relations with its neighbors. While stating that Armenia cannot be enemies with millions of Turks and other neighboring countries, he emphasizes that Armenia should focus on protecting and developing its existing borders. In his recent rhetoric, Pashinyan explains that Armenia's current borders are determined by maps from the Soviet Union. This statement means that Armenia's borders have been clarified and disputed territorial claims have ended. Moreover, the Prime Minister argues that this clarification will end Armenia's hostile relations with its neighbors and create a more peaceful environment. On the other hand, Pashinyan, like Katchaznouni, argues that the events of 1915 should be characterized as a "great catastrophe" and that genocide allegations should be put aside, stating that the Ottoman Empire did not commit genocide against the Armenians and that this claim was used by the Soviet Union as a policy tool against Turkey and furthermore, that it was put forward by the Soviet Union to advance its policies against Turkey. This approach aims to improve Armenia's modern relations and end ideological conflicts based on the 1915 events. Stating that the ideological framing of the 1915 events is detrimental to Armenia's modern development and that this issue should be consigned to history, Pashinyan also emphasizes that Armenia should open up to the West and build good relations with Turkey to enhance its efforts to ensure regional peace and stability. Pashinyan thus aims for Armenia's independence and the ability to make its own decisions by getting rid of the influence of the diaspora. In this context, he also states that Armenia has taken further steps towards resolving its relations and border disputes with Azerbaijan.
Let's analyze the issue in more detail. Pashinyan, as an intelligent, successful politician who cares about the future of his people, saw the game being played early on and found the future of his people in maintaining good relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan rather than throwing himself in front of the front line by falling for the fancy lies of the "organizers" in order not to fall into the same situation, which already means a policy in line with Turkey's calls for many years.
Pashinyan's bold and revolutionary statements reveal the need to build a new paradigm of relations for Armenia's future. Challenging Russia and trying to set a new direction in Caucasus geopolitics, Pashinyan loudly expresses the truths that his people will hardly accept and aims to back up these truths.
These events and rhetoric are very similar to what Zelensky has been facing and what he has been saying lately, right? The difference, of course, is that for Zelensky the end seems to be in sight.
As a result, for the first time in history, Pashinyan seems to have made an effort to define Armenia's borders, to put an end to the dreams of a "Greater Armenia" and to ease tensions with radical and bold statements on the 1915 genocide allegations. The reality is that these statements give the opportunity to elaborate on their possible positive impact on Armenia's future and its efforts to open up to the West.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's revolutionary policies and statements, which include significant changes for the future of Armenia, reflect Armenia's efforts to clarify its borders, which were disputed in the past, and the concrete steps taken in this regard, and draw a new road map for the future of Armenia.
Turkey is endeavoring to transform its relations with Armenia from an environment of hostility and turmoil to an axis of friendship, partnership and trade according to the geopolitical realities of the 21st century. This seems inevitable given the gains that the regional geography will realize in the long run. In line with the policies of Turkey and neighboring countries, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan seems to see common regional development within the framework of friendship. Unfortunately, this situation does not seem to be to the liking of the imperialist states that are trying to create chaos among the regional states.
Who knows, there may be more political assassinations in the region in the coming period.
