Pages from the Untold History of Caucasian Political Emigration; A FAR-FETCHED ALLIANCE

Türkçe Tercüme
The Russian Bolsheviks had invaded the Caucasus a couple of months ago. In exile in Paris, Caucasian politicians were debating Haydar Bammat's long-standing calls for "unity" and "confederation." Amidst fruitless debates, the politicians were futilely searching for a solution, mired in the question of whether first to become allies or resolve the Turko-Armenian issue.
Conversations between the Caucasian representatives gathered at the Azerbaijani delegation's headquarters on May 8, 1921, are crucial for understanding the period's dynamics and paradigms:

** MINUTES **
General Meeting of Representatives of the Caucasian Republics, May 8, 1921
In the premises of the Azerbaijan Delegation meeting, 37, Rue de Kami, Paris
Chaired by: A.M.b. Topchibashev.
Present were representatives of:
AZERBAIJAN: A.A. Sheikh ul Islamov, D.B. Hajibeyov, M. Magerramov.
ARMENIA: A.A. Aharonian, A.I. Khatisov, N.A. Bekzadyan.
GEORGIA: E.P.Gegechkori, N.S. Chkheidze, N.V. Ramishvili, K.B. Sabakhtarashvili, and M.A. Sumbatov.
NORTHERN CAUCASUS: A.M.b. Chermoy[ev].
Secretary: A.B. Atamalibekov.

The CHAIRMAN [A.M.b. Topchibashev] opens the meeting and, in his opening remarks, points out that the idea of the need for Caucasian activists to work together for the independence and welfare of their peoples is not a new idea and that attempts have been made in this direction many times, unfortunately, for one reason or another, without results. Our deviation from this unity has led us to the fact that today we must think twice and admit this deviation and perhaps even a mistake. We have lost sight of the fact that taking such an important step as separating from the former Russia and gaining independence will not come cheap. Fate has reminded us of this in the person of Russia. During our three years here, we have heard many times, both at conferences and separately, that it is a mistake for each small nation to come separately with its own affairs and claims. After the disaster with Azerbaijan, we have heard these reproaches even more often. But we hoped that there were still two neighboring republics that were free and, in the name of their own interests, would help Azerbaijan to become free. This did not happen, and, unfortunately, our neighbors Armenia and Georgia suffered the same blow, not to mention the Northern Caucasus, which had already been invaded before us, and now the entire Caucasus is under the power of the Russian Bolsheviks. Now we are faced with the question of what to do next, and in connection with this, another question involuntarily arises: has the moment come for us to unite and act together to restore the independence of our peoples and free ourselves from the Bolshevik yoke? This goal, we must hope, will provide grounds for our further friendship and joint work. Is there any doubt that the expediency of such an alliance cannot be disputed, since even the great powers of Europe and the states of America cannot rely on their own strength and are forced to resort to concluding alliances among themselves? If this is so, and the need for an alliance is visible everywhere and everywhere, then can there be any doubt that for us, the peoples of the Caucasus, such an alliance is especially important and necessary? For these purposes, we, the Azerbaijanis, have had to speak more than once with representatives of neighboring peoples. The representatives of Georgia and the North Caucasus considered it essential to conclude such a union between the Caucasian republics, and that, without dwelling on its details, it was necessary to immediately decide the main features of this union, bring them to the attention of the Allies, and then begin working together to liberate our peoples. But since the Armenian representatives were absent from Paris, it was decided to wait for their return to begin discussing this important question together with them. In recent days, I had a conversation on this issue with the Representative of the Armenian Delegation, Mr. Aharonian, who expressed his sympathetic attitude to this idea. The issue to be discussed at today's Conference of Representatives of the Caucasian Republics can be expressed in the following theses, offered to your attention, namely:
1) The unification of four independent Republics in the Caucasus: GEORGIAN, AZERBAIJANI, MOUNTAIN, and ARMENIAN into one UNION OF CAUCASIAN REPUBLICS with
a/ complete independence of each of them in internal affairs,
and
b/ resolution of all disputed territorial and border issues by ARBITRATION.
The union is initially expressed:
1/ in a military-defensive union,
2/ in a customs union,
3/ in the general conduct of foreign relations.
2) Attitude to Russia.
3) Also, to Turkey
4) The Armenian question
5) Appeal for help to Europe /allies/.

I have finished and I ask those who wish to express their opinion on the above theses.

A.M. b. CHERMOY[EV]: I would like to inform you about the meeting about what hopes can be placed on assistance to this union. We had 23 conversations on this matter with prominent leaders of French politics. General Veigham also participated in one of these conversations. The possibility of moral support from France to this union was really taking shape, and the possibility of material support is not excluded.

A. AHARONIAN: Apparently, the question is being put to us, the Armenian representatives. We have no difference in this matter with others, and, of course, our place is next to you, and even the program of our party speaks of a federation of Caucasian peoples. With regard to Russia, the question is clear, and the first two theses do not cause disputes. But there is a question regarding Turkey. Indeed, there have been statements in this regard that this issue will be resolved favorably, but, unfortunately, there is a huge difference between the statements of the leaders of Turkish politics and the facts, and by the time we get to the ideology of Turkish leaders, the sincerity of which is beyond doubt, there may be nothing left of us: ideology alone, principled agreement alone is not enough, practical steps, real deeds are needed. That is why the question of Turkish Armenia must first of all be resolved, since it is part of our common Armenian question. Azerbaijan, the North Caucasus and most of Georgia are occupied by the Russians, and Armenia is occupied by the Turks, and to leave the Turco-Armenian question, to say that we will resolve it after the previous unsatisfactory resolution of the issue for us.

CHAIRMAN [A.M.b. Topchibashev]: When you demand practical steps, it is necessary that they could be implemented under the proper conditions, i.e. when, having concluded an alliance, we could appear on behalf of the union of Caucasian peoples, and not each one separately.
A.A. AHARONIAN: Imagine that we came from the Caucasian Union and are active in Turkey, and Bekir Sami Bey asked for a resolution of the Armenian question, we were refused, they said no. What then? If the idea is correct that the existence of the Caucasian Federation as a barrier state between Russia and Turkey is beneficial to Turkey, it must make compensation and go along with the formation of this Federation.
N.V. RAMISHVILI: I would like to ask one question to the Armenian Delegation: Does this mean that they assume that we will come and tell the conference that we will create a Caucasian Federation if you resolve the issue of Turkish Armenia?

A.A. AHARONIAN: We do not necessarily want our issue to be resolved by the conference. It would be even better if we could resolve it directly with the Turks, but if this does not happen, then, of course, we will have to wait for the decision of the conference.
E.P. GEGECHKORI: At our private meetings with Azerbaijani and Mountain representatives, the Armenian question arose, and we all agreed that without its resolution, there could be no confederations, since this question is a thorn in our flesh and it must be removed. A.M.b. Topchibashev is right that while there is no union, i.e., while there is no legal entity, we cannot turn to Turkey and raise this question for resolution. But Mr. Aharonian is also right that until we resolve this question for ourselves and among ourselves, there cannot be a union, and only after this question is clarified for us can we talk about a union. Perhaps, during the discussion of this question, such disagreements will arise between us and will turn out to be such that a union will be impossible. In principle, we therefore recognize the need for such a union and will raise the question of the relationship between Russia and Turkey for discussion.

A.M.b. CHERMOY[EV]: The question here is to resolve Turkey's attitude to the Armenian question before our confederation is created. We did not imagine that this confederation would exist without Armenia. We, the Muslim republics of Azerbaijan and the North Caucasus, spoke to Turkish representatives specifically on the Armenian question. I had a conversation with Bekir Sami Bey, and he said that they had no claims to Caucasian Armenia. I raised the question of the Turkish Armenians and received the answer that we would resolve this question favorably, but all this on the condition of creating a Caucasian confederation. What we could do separately has been done so far; now, confederation is needed so that we can raise this question again. A new phase is needed.
A.I. KHATISOV: I would like to approach the question practically and draw conclusions from the past for the future. The main thing in which we, Armenian activists, have been mistaken up to now is that we considered all external circumstances as favorable to us and based our positions on this. We thought that the European powers were always busy thinking about us, that Russia had fallen apart, and that Turkey had been completely defeated. But all this turned out to be wrong. Now, when we talk about the future, we must try not to repeat these mistakes and assume that external conditions are the worst for us.

First of all, I will dwell on the fact that our neighbors, Azerbaijan and Georgia, have always suspected us of Russophilia. If you like, this Russophilia exists in our people, as well as in the Georgian and Azerbaijani people. But this Russophilia manifests itself when pressure is exerted on the people from another side. So, during the Turkish offensive on Armenia, the population greeted the arrival of the Bolsheviks with tears in their eyes and hugs, and the Armenian peasants themselves handed over the hands of the Chairman of the Government, Oganjanyan, to the Bolsheviks. And after a while, the same peasants who arrested Oganjanyan secretly brought three of our ministers to Georgia and drove out the Bolsheviks. Now there are battles with the Bolsheviks in Armenia, and there is even a telegram about this asking for help. Why is this happening? Because the Turks left us relatively alone, and the population is grateful to them for this, and is fighting against the Bolsheviks. But if the Turks now move on Zangezur, I will not be surprised if the same Armenians who are fighting against the Bolsheviks today join forces with the Russians. When you know all this, you can see that these two tasks must be accomplished simultaneously. We have no other plan. We must make peace with the Turks and come to a resolution of the issue with them. We do not have the same chimerical projects as before. Our projects are now very modest, but an agreement must be reached. If our people learn that the Turks will continue to press them, the idea of ​​confederations will not be popular among them. On the other hand, if it is known that the Turkish question is finished, of course, our people will go for it. We must and will talk to the Turks to reach an agreement, and if you join in, then things can be successful. We cannot be accused of Russophilia. If our position with respect to the Turks is not clarified, our leaders will not agree to an uprising against the Bolsheviks. We must therefore exercise caution regarding confederations, not of a principle but of a practical nature. I remember that back in Constantinople, Talaat Pasha advised me, as an old and experienced diplomat, never to sign in the evening a paper that was to be sent the following morning, but that it was better to wait until the morning, since much could happen during the night, and to sign it just before sending it. This is very wise advice. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that this union must be harmless to Russia, so that Russia does not see it as a challenge to itself. You know that the policy of intervention has now been rejected by all powers. Therefore, we must first be convinced of how realistically we can count on the help of the allies. Therefore, it would be opportune now to take a common step: to file a common protest against the occupation of our territories by the Bolsheviks and the Turks. Then we can create a common information organ for the exchange of opinions. In addition, there must be some kind of project for a proposed alliance to have an objective for discussion. We look at this idea with full sympathy, but there must be real guarantees from the Turks and the allies.
M. MAGERRAMOV: There was no accusation of Russophilia against the Armenians. They were neither Russophiles nor Turkophiles, but Armenophiles, because they wanted to realize certain national aspirations and, not having sufficient power, sought it outside. As for the issue under discussion, I believe that it must be posed realistically, and conditions for the implementation of real provisions must be set. But from the speech by A. I. Khatisov, it is clear that the situation remains the same, and we are following the old paths. We are not called here and cannot defend here either the interests of Turkey or the interests of Russia. A. I. Khatisov raises the question so that Russia does not look at this union as directed against it and therefore would not be hostile to us. Russia, whatever it may be, already views the fact of our declaration of independence as a hostile phenomenon to it; therefore, this union will not be a more hostile phenomenon, and Russia's attitude will not be better under any circumstances. As for the uprising, no one suggested that we should immediately conclude an alliance and organize an uprising. But that for the salvation and independence of our peoples we should unite and act together, I believe there should be no doubt about that.

A.M.b. CHERMOY[EV]: Turkish statesmen can agree to the transfer of Kars and Ardahan only on condition of the creation of a Caucasian confederation. And this is quite understandable if we take into account the strategic position of these points and the fact that they are the key to Turkey. They cannot transfer these important points to any of the individual Caucasian republics, since individually they are weak. Whereas the Caucasian confederation will be quite strong and, of course, will be able to defend its neutrality if Russia desires to go to Turkey through the Caucasus. Therefore, Bekir Sami Bey definitely stated that Kars and Ardahan can be given only on condition of the creation of this confederation, and thus there will be a buffer state between Russia and Turkey. From this point of view, I do not envision any general actions without resolving this basic question of an alliance, and we cannot move forward a single step without this. I do not refuse to take general actions, but in making them, I will not believe in them.
E.P. GEGECHKORI: A.I. Khatisov made his own decision in his speech, and all the considerations given in his speech prove that this question of an alliance has not yet been a lie for the Armenian Delegation. The consideration that our unification might cause repressions from the Bolsheviks is unfounded, since repressions already exist and will exist without this, and it is unlikely that they will manifest themselves in a more severe form if we have an alliance. On the other hand, of course, it will be taken into account that our union will not be understood as a challenge to Russia, not to Bolshevik Russia, but to Russia in general, and for this, during the discussion, it is possible to find appropriate formulas that can guarantee the vital interests of Russia. As for the Armenian question, it is necessary to resolve it for ourselves, and, of course, the decision taken will be binding on all members of the alliance. But if you refer us to the time when your question of borders is resolved, you isolate yourself and refuse the opportunity to resolve your question, which this union gives you. It is hardly in your own interests. That's why I asked you if you had any other policy in mind? You answered that you do not. Such formulas that would not cause fears and inconveniences cannot exist in the existing situation. We once had unification under the Transcaucasian Sejm, but it was purely formal; it lacked content. Then we tried to live separately and independently. Now we want to rebuild and take a new flag. It must be stated that there is no other flag. Therefore, if what A. I. Khatisov formulated the decision of the Armenian Delegation, then it is unlikely that we will come to anything. Nothing will come of protests now; facts are needed, and Europe will reckon with the fact of the unification of the Caucasian republics, and Turkey and Russia will be forced to reckon with it. If you think that you first talked about the facts and then the results, then I think that this is a big mistake. I think that I first need the facts, and then you will be a factor that must be taken into account. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss all the questions raised. With regard to the Armenian question, establish for us what we consider necessary for resolving this issue. Then it is necessary to establish our attitude towards Russia and Russian interests and find forms so that our union is not understood as a challenge or war against Russia's vital interests. It is necessary to indicate our borders and clarify the form of the agreement. If we can resolve these issues and find appropriate forms for us, then real results can flow from this. If not, and you consider this unrealizable, then in this case, this is a refusal on your part, and we will have to regretfully state once again that our agreement has failed.
A.A. SHEIKH UL ISLAMOV:  Concerning the Armenian issue, our Delegation and all our figures in general have always expressed the view that this issue with Turkey must be resolved, and our Delegation spoke with the Angora Delegation in the same sense. But the fact is that in this issue, as I said during the meeting with the Angora Delegation and with Bekir Sami Bey, two maximalisms meet, on the one hand, Turkish maximalism, on the other, Armenian, and therefore it is very difficult to reconcile them and find an agreement in these conditions. We do not have any illusions in this issue in the sense that, without resolving this issue, Armenia's policy will be Russophile and will pull towards Russia, which can only reach Armenia through Azerbaijan and Georgia, and thus there will be no possibility of confederations. Therefore, in the negotiations with the Turkish Delegation, we spoke about resolving the Armenian issue. This is our common issue, but if we pose it separately, then we cannot act on it, whereas if there is a confederation, then we can act in the matter of resolving the issue of one of our members. Therefore, it is necessary to create a union so that the members of the union, who are not directly involved in this issue, can take on the role of mediators. If this fails, then, of course, it is clear that Armenia will seek power outside, in the person of Russia.

On the other hand, if we conclude such an alliance, it will certainly have a positive effect on the psychology of our peoples, who will be informed about it, and this will influence the rise of people’s spirit.
N.S. CHKHEIDZE: Some of my comrades were optimistic about the situation, but I must admit that I was pessimistic from the very beginning. From what we heard here from the Armenian representatives, in their opinion, the time has not yet come for concluding an alliance, and A.I. Khatisov even cited a wise saying of a Turkish dignitary that one should not sign in the evening but rather wait for the morning. This saying is certainly wise, but for us it sounds ominous, since we are now in the middle of the night and the morning is not yet in sight. We must have decided to think about how to hasten the arrival of the morning. The Armenian representatives advise us to be cautious. Is caution good for hastening the arrival of this morning? The caution recommended by our friends, in other words, is complete inaction. They have come to conquer us. What are we going to do? We are advised to wait; we are told that caution is needed, that a rash step may save us from the face of the earth. We cannot move without being taken into account from the north or the south, so is inaction necessary? This inaction can be understood in such a way that we have reconciled ourselves to the existing situation. Can we do this? And if we remain inactive, can and will you, Armenian activists, who are not accustomed to inaction and who have already worked for so long before us, remain inactive? I believe not. In the past, we made attempts to act together and failed to agree. Should we make this attempt again? I understand that it is difficult for Armenians to pose their big question, to partly share it. You feel today more strongly, perhaps not because you have suffered more than we have, but because you had more hope. If we raise the issue and you prove that the question of an alliance practically separates you from resolving the issue with Turkish Armenia, then I will understand and bow down. But if the posed problem is viable, then it must be implemented. Perhaps the lessons learned are not enough? I think that we need even more severe blows so that we understand. To talk about objective conditions, to take them all into account, to take into account what Russia will do, what Turkey will do, we cannot do all this. We cannot meet everyone halfway at once. For us, the issue is a matter of life and death. We do not want anything foreign; we want our own. We cannot take everything into account. We can do one thing - focus on ourselves. I took part in the Russian revolution, and I can say one thing: no matter what Russia becomes, it will be worse in relation to us than the old tsarist Russia. There is no way to take into account now, and many years in advance, all the complex issues that may arise and build anything on them. Therefore, either offer us such new tactics and such a course of action that we could follow them and act, or prove that what we are proposing is inexpedient, and then we will part ways.

N.V. RAMISHVILI: The world war brought great changes to the international situation, and if until now the Armenian question was an international question, now the Caucasian question has become one as well. Do you really think that now, when the European powers are busy thinking about oil in Mesopotamia and other places, they will ignore Baku oil?
Since the matter concerns the vital interests of Russia, we have this in mind, and, of course, we will outline them. But we must first resolve the main question - the question of an alliance.
Beginning in 1918, Turkey has been upsetting our plans; there is no doubt about that. I am not talking about Russia; that it will interfere and will be clearly hostile - that is clear. But, of course, for our part, we will try not to interfere with its vital interests. What we propose is in the interests of all the Caucasian republics and, first of all, Armenia, not to mention Turkey, which is interested in the creation of such a barrier state between it and Russia. The question arises: Is a favorable resolution of the Armenian question not connected with the conclusion of this union? After all, by proclaiming the borders of 1914, we already stopped all claims to the Kars region and other territories, which is certainly favorable for the Armenians. There remains the Armenian question in Turkey, the demarcation with Turkey. And in this regard, what is better: if the Armenians act alone, or together with us on behalf of the union? It seems that an isolated action by Armenian representatives would be a mistake and disadvantageous for the Armenian people.
Therefore, I believe that we need to accept the union, proclaim the borders of 1914, and declare our union to the Supreme Council, and say that we assume the entire "bon office" between Turkey and Armenia in resolving the Armenian issue.
A.M.b. CHERMOY[EV]: Our Caucasian Confederation, if it exists, the European powers will defend it in their own interests from the onslaught of both Russia and Turkey, especially since it will be defended on the part of Turkey by the statesmanship of the Turkish leaders, in whose interests the existence of this confederation is. In addition, after the adoption of the confederation, a common bureau will be formed, which can work in French circles in the sense that the assistance provided by France and Turkey will be made dependent on Turkey's attitude toward our confederation.
A.A. AHARONIAN: Everything that A.I. Khatisov said, he said sincerely. N.V. Ramishvili put an end to the “and”s - our plans were constantly being thwarted by Turkey, and that means we must turn our main attention to it. It is enough to point to 1918, when Turkey reached Baku. We have two enemies, Russia and Turkey, and we must first at least eliminate one enemy. Now Turkey is sitting in Kars and refusing to leave. What can we do? Therefore, it is better for us to first of all deal with Turkey, because without resolving this issue, as A.K. Khatisov said, our people will not understand confederations. Isn't it painful for us not to enter this union and remain on the sidelines? But without resolving the issue with Turkey, at least in an incomplete form, our entry will have no meaning.
A.I. KHATISOV: In my previous speech, I pointed out all the difficult aspects that the issue under discussion has. I admit that there are positive aspects of the union. For example, of course, the Turks will be more accommodating in the Confederation than separately to the Armenians; the allies will also treat us better if we are all together. But in any case, I want to say that we did not come with biased decisions, as E.P. Gegechkori said, but I sincerely expressed my thoughts regarding the difficulties that may be encountered. Therefore, I think that we should not end everything with today's meeting and should get together again and think about practical forms in order to eliminate all the minuses in our relations with Turkey.
CHAIRMAN [A.M.b. Topchibashev]: The existing minuses must be reduced by one more. Here it was said that the Turks are our enemies, but they are not enemies at all to us, Caucasians, and if we look at them as such, then we will not be able to enter into discussions with them for a long time on the settlement of the Armenian question, since by considering them as enemies, we will not come to anything. I believe that since the Armenian delegation states that they have not discussed the issue with the delegation of Turkish Armenians, they should be allowed to further familiarize themselves with the issue and discuss it before the next meeting.
A.M.b. CHERMOY[EV]: We need to at least finish the question of whether we are going together or not before the conference.
The meeting decides to schedule the next meeting for May 15 in the premises of the Georgian Delegation.
The meeting is declared closed.

To be continued... Stay tuned with us to read the minutes of other meetings and the memorandums published by the committees…

Cem Kumuk
Istanbul, 2 August 2 2025