Along with the pandemic and the economic, humanitarian and other challenges it poses to Armenia, two issues topped the agenda of the Armenian society this week: the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Sevres and the immigration of non-Armenians into Armenia. These might seem two unrelated issues to an outside observer, but in fact they contain some elements that give important insights into Armenia’s policies concerning Azerbaijan’s internationally-recognized territories and the Azerbaijani community of the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
For introduction, the Treaty of Sevres, signed on August 8 1920 was an attempt by the Allies of World War I to liquidate the Ottoman Empire and share its territories. According to the treaty, north-eastern parts of modern Turkey were planning to be given under the control of Armenia. If realized, the Republic of Armenia would have covered a territory of over 160 thousand square kilometers. The treaty, however, never came into force as, according to its 443rd article, ratification by all the signatory sides, including the Ottoman Empire, was a prerequisite for its entry into force. The Armenian delegation signed the treaty and thus acknowledged also the 443rd article. The treaty was never ratified by the government of Turkey and was soon replaced by another treaty – the Treaty of Lausanne – by which the international borders of the modern Turkey were officially recognized.
Hence, the Treaty of Sevres does not bear a legal relevance today and is only a theme of history books, but not for the government of Armenia. Addressing a “scientific conference” on 100 years of the signing of Treaty of Sevres, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan declared that “Although the Treaty of Sevres was never implemented, it continues to be a historical fact, which reflects our long journey to restore our independent statehood. We are bound by duty to remember it, realize its importance and follow its message.”
A similar approach was demonstrated also by the President of the country Armen Sarkissian who stated in an interview with a Syrian newspaper Al-Azmenah that “The Treaty of Sevres is a legal, interstate agreement which is de facto still in force” and “remains an essential document for the right of the Armenian people.”
The immigration of non-Armenians was another issue attracting significant political and social attention in Armenia. This was provoked by Zareh Sinanyan, the Armenian Republic’s High Commissioner for Diaspora Affairs. Speaking on a teleconference with a group of Armenian officials, he proposed a solution to the dire demographic situation challenging social stability of the country:
“…We should create such a reality in Armenia that not in the distant future we can think about not only the repatriation of Armenians, but also making Armenia the homeland of, how do I say this, for nationalities like us. I am talking about Christian Arabs, Assyrians, those nationalities that do not represent a national security danger to Armenia and can be easily integrated in Armenia. Because in such [a]… manner, we can change the demographic situation in Armenia. We should not be embarrassed by that. That is a correct step...”
The proposal on the immigration of non-Armenians caused extensive criticism by the society and media even though Sinanyan proposed to allow the immigration of the “nationalities like us [Armenians]” not others. According to the Armenian news agency Panorama, “the overwhelming majority of the critics are Armenians who do not wish non-Armenians to immigrate to Armenia.” Supporting this approach, Panorama added that “the immigration of non-Armenians to Armenia is a very sensitive issue for most Armenians with serious national consequences which go far beyond Sinanyan’s authority and responsibilities. The genocide of 1915 which decimated 1.5 million Armenians makes all Armenians extra protective of the remnants of their people and the diminished homeland.”
These two issues, i.e. the remarks by the leaders of Armenia about the Treaty of Sevres and the societal opposition towards the immigration of non-Armenians serve as revealing examples to get a clear understanding of Armenia’s foreign policy and the attitude of its people vis-à-vis foreigners.
The government of Armenia, recalling a long dead treaty that has no legal standing in modern day, discloses its underlying irredentist goals concerning the internationally-recognized territories of its neighbors. Demonstrating an appalling disrespect to the principles of the contemporary international system and the documents adopted at the international level, Armenian leaders call for “remembering” and “following the message” a “document” which was historically a product of colonialist policies. Against this backdrop, Armenia’s occupational policies concerning Azerbaijan and its disregard to the international documents calling for the withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan prove itself as only one element of Armenia’s Greater Armenia dreams.
The societal objections against the immigration of non-Armenians underscore another aspect of the Armenia’s views regarding the neighboring countries and their people. Having established a strikingly monoethnic country, Armenia has failed to confront the xenophobic sentiments widespread in the country. According to one of the few studies analyzing these trends in Armenia, Armenia is one of the most antisemitic countries in Europe. Conducted by the Pew Research Center, this study concluded that Armenia is among the few countries “least willing to accept Jews as their fellow citizens”.
This is an important fact in the context of peacebuilding efforts in the South Caucasus, since it is one of the most multi-ethnic regions in the world where peace and stability would be achieved only if ethnic diversity is respected by all regional people and xenophobia and racism are defeated at large. This appears to be unattainable as long as some ethnic groups maintain hatred and antipathy against others even when their authorities propose the intake of foreigners “like locals” as a remedy to domestic demographic challenges.
Against this backdrop, reconciliation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, the establishment of peace and security in the region, and the triumph of goodwill and friendship over interethnic/interstate animosities and hostilities are hard, if not utterly impossible, to be achieved in the near future. Having forced up to a million people to flee their homes in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and surrounding districts of Azerbaijan and consistently declined Azerbaijan’s proposal of co-existence, Armenia makes these ideals improbable between the two nations.
