AN EVANESCENT INDEPENDENCE

17.01.2017

ARMENIAN INDPENDENCE

AN EVANESCENT INDEPENDENCE

Armenia’s First Republic

Armenia became independent in 1918 following five centuries of absence of own statehood. Albeit short-lived, that independence left a deep impact on the fate of Armenia, having its implications also in the current history of the country.

Text: Tigran Zakaryan 

 

It would have been an exaggeration to say that the Armenian people and even its intellectual and political elites were ready for that independence by 1918. The Armenian political parties, which were preoccupied with national issues, spoke of a “free” rather than an “independent” Armenia. After the 1917 February revolution in Russia Armenian leaders started to think about autonomy under the protection of a democratic Russia which would defend Armenians against an imminent threat in case of a Turkish incursion into the Caucasus.



However the course of history went a different direction. The Armenian leaders, or, it would be more correct to say the ARF leaders in Tiflis (today’s Tbilisi) – who undoubtedly enjoyed the support of the majority of the Armenians in the Caucasus – were forced to declare independence. Its sole alternative was the perspective of a division of the Armenian-populated areas between the newly independent states of Georgia and Azerbaijan or a final absorption into Turkey. Even under those circumstances there were Armenian politicians, mostly left-wing, were dissatisfied with the decision, some even going so far as calling it a “betrayal”. Those people firmly believed that Armenia’s future was within a democratic soviet Russia that would defend Armenians from Ottoman Turkey as well as will prevent conflicts with other neighbors. Their allegiance to Soviet Russia proclaimed the so-called Baku commune – a self-proclaimed entity composed of Armenian soldiers, formerly in Russian imperial service, ARF leaders in an odd alliance with the local Bolsheviks. The lead was followed by the renowned military figure Andranik Ozanyan, who, engaged in defending Armenian civilians in the south of Eastern Armenia from Caucasian Tatar bands, hoped that the Soviet Russian support would prove more efficient than Yerevan’s which had by that time already signed a peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire. .

Before reaching the costly peace however, Eastern Armenia and its centre Yerevan had to mobilize all their forces with utmost efforts to repel a fierce Turkish onslaught in the battle of Sardarabad and became de-facto independent even before a formal declaration.

The Armenian independent statehood had a short life and fell under a combination of external challenges – mostly represented by Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey – but also to a large degree, due to internal moral bankruptcy. The Bolshevik propaganda found a fertile ground among those who believed in 1920 that it was pointless to lead a war against the republican Turkey – even if it much too weak in comparison with its Ottoman predecessor – if Russia, Red or White, was not an ally. A contemporary’s memoir conveys the spirit of time, describing how a group of MPs were singing the Russian Empire’s anthem inside the Armenian parliament building and this was only an expression of the prevailing conviction that ultimately Russia would take over the Caucasus.

Regardless of all those shortcomings and blunders, it is hard to overestimate the role of the first Armenian republic the leaders of which handed over the power to the soviet regime through a formal agreement signed on 2 December 1920. The existence of an independent Armenia and its agreement with Soviet Russia became legal foundations for the existence of the smallest Soviet republic, Armenia. The 1921 February rebellion, provoked mainly by the new authorities’ exactions and extreme violence, showed that the idea of Armenian independence still had taken root in the popular masses who readily took up arms against Bolshevik usurpers and their Soviet Russian overlords. 

The ideological centre of the Armenian independence following the final suppression of the 1921 rebellion moved to diaspora for quite obvious reasons. A staunch supporter of Armenian independence was the renowned writer and political figure Levon Shant who penned a number of articles on this topic in 1920’s. In one of them entitled “Independence as a matter of national existence” he urged not to be discouraged by the greatness and strength of Soviet Russia. He suggested that the independent spirit of revolt rather than docility would enable Armenians to achieve some concessions from Moscow as well as its friendship. “Why would the Russians ever make an effort to win ‘friendly’ – i.e. loyal Armenians, who already have lost their will and linked their future to the protection of the Russian arms?”

In spite of such efforts the idea of Armenian independence was waning not only in Armenia but also in diaspora with the “normalization” of the Soviet regime in the homeland and the possibility, even if limited, of touristic visits and wholesale repatriation. Yet it would be an oversimplification to assume that the independence agenda was totally discarded from the Armenian political scene. Prominent examples such as Garegin Nzhdeh, who tactically chose to cooperate with Nazi Germany and later with Soviet Union, and the clandestine political group National United Party founded in 1960’s attest to the contrary. Their intellectual legacy, memory of those figures kept and transmitted through decades served as beacons for the new mass movement for independence that started in 1988.