UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan Rezvani, B. Publication date 2013 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Rezvani, B. (2013). Ethno-territorial conflict and coexistence in the Caucasus, Central Asia and Fereydan. Vossiuspers UvA. http://nl.aup.nl/books/9789056297336-ethno-territorial- conflict-and-coexistence-in-the-caucasus-central-asia-and-fereydan.html General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:02 Oct 2021 Chapter Six 6 Ethno-Territorial Conflicts in the Caucasus and Central Asia Eight out of the 129 ethno-territorial encounters are, or were until recently, afflicted by ethno-territorial conflict. All these encounters are located in the (post-)Soviet space: the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts in Georgia; the North Ossetian-Ingush conflict over Prigorodny and the Chechen conflicts in Russia; the Armenian-Azeri conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan; the Osh conflict between the Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in Kyrgyzstan; and finally the Tajikistani Civil War, with the participation of Uzbeks and Pamiris in alliance with and against Tajiks. There were no ethno-territorial conflicts in Fereydan. The aim of this chapter is to provide an analytical description of these cases of conflict. As the recent political, and more so territorial, histories of these region prior to the conflicts are important, these histories are also discussed. Although attention is paid to the histories of these ethno-territorial conflicts, chronological discussions of these conflicts are not within the scope of this chapter.129 There will be a focus on the explaining conditions that were introduced in the previous chapters. However, the analytic descriptions are not restricted to these. The case study character allows for more in-depth analysis and provides opportunities to explore and discuss nuances and additional explanations. 129 One can consult many sources in order to read more in depth about the histories of these conflicts and the regions in which they have occurred. History, for obvious reasons, has taken an important place in the understanding and explanation of the ethno-territorial conflicts in the Caucasus in many authors’ works (e.g. Cornell 2001; Cornell 2011; Cheterian 2008; Hille 2010; King 2008a; De Waal 2010; Zürcher 2007). In addition, those who discuss the conflicts and political situations by focusing on the course of the current conflicts, whether in a chronological order focusing on the present or reporting from the field, do not fail to refer (occasionally) to past events and history (see e.g. Goltz 1999; Goltz 2003; Goltz 2009a; O’Ballance 1997; De Waal 2003). Even though Central Asia is not as much afflicted by ethno-territorial conflicts as the Caucasus is, many studies do discuss history and historical factors in the explanation and understanding of (post-)Soviet-era politics, which also include conflicts there (see e.g. Atabaki & O’Kane [eds] 1998; Bergne 2007; Jonson 2006; Khalid 2007). 169 Political-Territorial History of the South Caucasus The South Caucasus has been an arena of power struggle between the great powers for a long time. The Iranian, Ottoman, and later Russian empires have competed for dominance in this region, and periods of direct imperial rule, suzerainty, and local rule have followed each other in a disorderly manner. Russia conquered the South Caucasus in the first half of the 19th century, and its conquest and sovereignty in the South Caucasus was confirmed by two treaties with the Qajar Iran, which had lost a rather large part of its territory to Tsarist Russia (Bournoutian 1998: 59-67; Cornell 2001: 37; Hunter 1997: 437-438; Hunter 2006: 112). These two treaties, the Golestan (Gulistan) (1813)130 and Torkamanchay (Turkmanchay) (1828),131 were a beginning point for the new political realities in the region, and as they were very humiliating are referred to in Iran as Nangin or Shum, two Persian words with very negative connotations (see e.g. Hunter 1997: 437-438; Takmil Homayun 2001: 29- 39). These two treaties were manifestation of a new geopolitical and ethno-political order. They marked the beginning of colonization of the South Caucasus by Russia and changed the demography and ethno- political power relations in the region. While Shi’ite Muslims were the favorites in the Iranian times, Orthodox Christians became the favorites of the Russians. Although after the Russian conquest the number of Armenians in the South Caucasus increased, the ethnic map of the region until the early 20th century was still very different from what it was at the end of the 20th century—and from what is now. In the 19th century, Armenians lived mainly in the urban centers all around the Caucasus, in Georgia, and in the territories of the modern-day republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The predominantly rural Azerbaijanis, who at that time were called Tatars, Muslims, Shi’ite Turks, or even Persians by different people(s) and sources (see. e.g. Bronevskiy: 2004 [19th century]; Tsutstiev 2006), lived scattered throughout the southern part of Transcaucasia.132 130 Treaty of Golestan. (Russian) (other spellings are also possible). Available online at the Khronos website: http://www.hrono.ru/dokum/ruper1813.html (Accessed 12 May 2011). Treaty of Golestan. (English) (other spellings are also possible). Available online at The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) website: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Iran/golestan.htm (Accessed 12 May 2011). 131 Treaty of Torkamanchay. (Russian) (other spellings are also possible). Available online at the Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov, Faculty of History website: http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/FOREIGN/turkman.htm (Accessed 12 May 2011). Treaty of Torkamanchay. (English) (other spellings are also possible). Available online at The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies’ (CAIS) website: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Iran/torkmanchai.htm (Accessed 12 May 2011). 132 The Turkic-speaking, predominantly Shi’ite Muslim people in Transcaucasia, who are now called Azeri or Azerbaijani, were before called Tatar, Turk, Muslim (Musalman), or Persian by different 170 The territory of modern-day Armenia was inhabited predominantly by Muslims, but changed rather rapidly in favor of Christian Armenians. From the mid-20th century until the end of 1989, however, there evolved a nearly ethnically homogeneous Armenia, in which Armenians constituted more than 93% of the population, in addition to Azerbaijan and Georgia, in which the titular groups constituted, respectively, more than 82% and 70% of their total populations, according to the last Soviet census (1989). The Russian conquest of the Caucasus was an important event and needs more discussion, because it clearly shows the allegiances based on religions, but also qualifies this simple black-and-white picture. First, although Orthodox Christians were subordinated to Shi’ite Muslims, they were still tolerated and could get along rather well with their Shi’ite (and Sunni) neighbors, who shared similar culture. Russia was a foreign power and sought its own interests, which in some cases coincided with those of Christians and in other cases did not. As will be seen below, a significant part of the Christian Georgian population, both the nobility and peasants, were not quite happy with the Russian supremacy in their native lands. At the end of the 18th century, Iran was weak, while a strong vital Orthodox Christian Russia was approaching Transcaucasia. The Georgian king, Erekle (Irakli) II of Kartli-Kakheti (Eastern Georgia), whose authority was also recognized by the west Georgian dynasts (Gachechiladze 1995: 26), signed a treaty by virtue of which his kingdom was to become a protectorate of Russia. His exact motive can be speculated about. In the context of a chaotic political succession in Iran and the devastating consequences of political rivalries in Iran, protection from an emerging Orthodox Christian and powerful Russia was a sensible choice. That does not necessarily mean, however, that Erekle II was anti- Iranian or anti-Muslim. Despite religious differences, the Georgian culture had a strong Iranian flavor (see Soudavar Farmanfarmaian 2009). He himself had served as an Iranian general in Nader Shah’s conquest of India. Georgian rulers had many Muslim subjects and were generally tolerant and kind to them (Muliani 2000: 193 and 240). Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar,133 the Iranian king of the time, who was establishing his sovereignty over all the Iranian territories, had waged wars in many regions with success. In his Caucasian campaign, he people and sources (see e.g. Bronevskiy: 2004 [19th century]; Tsutsiev 2006). It is true that their Turkic language is similar to that of the Azeris in Iran, who have been called Azeris for centuries, but the ancestors of the modern-day Transcaucasian Azeris were not called such; they were called Tatars in the Russian empire. Although there are a few references to them with ethnonyms similar to Azerbaijani at the end of the 19th century, the ethnonym Azerbaijani gained prevalence after the collapse of the Russian empire.