Kars Conference: Known and Unknown Facts

Our history Kars conference: Known and unknown Jamil HASANLI facts Doctor of History, Professor

The Russian-Turkish treaty signed in Moscow on 16 March 1921 was an important victory for Turkish diplomacy. Under this treaty, not only did Turkey not lose territory as a member of the bloc defeated in the First World War, it also managed to recover some of the territory it had lost.

The Treaty of Moscow signified the that in the best case scenario, the So- should take a single position at the failure of the Treaty of Serves, which viet republics of the South Caucasus forthcoming conference. The deci- Western states had imposed on Tur- would endorse the Treaty of Moscow sion said that the Treaty of Moscow key. As far as Azerbaijan’s fate is con- as a legal document during the Kars should form the basis of the talks to cerned, the Treaty of Moscow was a conference.1 Moscow was using all be held with Turkey and the treaty to political-legal solution to the issue of means to ensure that the South Cau- be signed.2 This idea was later con- Nakhichevan. casus republics act as a single team firmed by the RFSFR Commissar of Having lost hope after the Treaty of at the conference. To this end, the Foreign Affairs Chicherin in an official Moscow and the discussions in Baku foreign ministers of all three republics note to the Turkish ambassador in and Tiflis in April 1921 that Azerbaijan were summoned to Tiflis on 7 May Moscow. In his opinion, the treaty had will be conducting an independent 1921. At these discussions, Azerbai- to be signed not just between Turkey, policy, Turkey was not very interested jan was represented by M. D. Husey- Azerbaijan and Georgia, but between in holding a new conference with nov and Behbud Shahtakhtinski. The Turkey and all three Caucasus repub- the Caucasus republics. They saw this meeting chaired by G. Orjonikidze lics, including Armenia, and “supple- conference as a direct extension of and B. Legran adopted a decision that ment the treaty signed in Moscow”.3 the Moscow conference and believed all three South Caucasus republics Although Turkey secured Azer-

1 See: USSR Foreign Policy Documents. T. IV, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 227-228 2 The meeting of representatives of the South Caucasus republics on talks with Turkey. 07.05.1921 // The State Archive of the Azerbaijan Republic (SA AR), f.28, s.2, i.27, v.30

10 www.irs-az.com baijan and Georgia’s consent to hold received the telegram, he informed the South Caucasus republics. Re- the conference in Kars during nego- Chicherin about it on 5 July.5 On the garding the venue for the conference, tiations in Baku and Tiflis, Yusif Ka- same day, Yusif Kamal sent invitations Yusif Kamal returned to the prepara- mal, who led the Turkish delegation to the leaderships of Georgia and Ar- tory period of the Moscow confer- during the Moscow talks and was menia on the holding of the conference and wrote: “Considering the im- appointed foreign minister after his ence in Ankara.6 He sent the same mediate response of my government return to Ankara, now suggested kind of note to Chicherin on 9 July. to your 19 December 1920 statement holding the conference in Ankara. To The note reached Moscow on 12 July. on changing the venue for the confer- this end, he sent a telegram to M. D. He wrote that in order to resolve all is- ence from Baku to Moscow, I would be Huseynov on 3 July. Yusif Kamal, who sues between Turkey and the South personally grateful to you if you could invited Azerbaijan to the Ankara con- Caucasus states and sign an agree- use your influence among the South ference, asked Commissar of Foreign ment with each of them under the Caucasus republics and persuade Affairs M. D. Huseynov to appoint rep- provisions of the Treaty of Moscow them to hold the conference in Anka- resentatives of Azerbaijan in order to concerning these republics, Ankara ra rather than in an Eastern Anatolian regulate relations between the Grand requested that the governments of city as was verbally agreed between National Assembly of Turkey and the those states appoint their represen- me and the government circles of fraternal Azerbaijan Republic and tatives to the conference. Yusif Kamal Azerbaijan and Georgia. The reasons sign an agreement between the two asked Chicherin that under the Treaty that make this request necessary are countries on legalizing the part of the of Moscow, Soviet Russia should also the same as the reasons shown in your Treaty of Moscow concerning Azer- send its representative to the confer- telegram of 19 December 1920.”7 Yusif baijan.4 As soon as M. D. Huseynov ence to be held between Turkey and Kamal explained that he could not

3 USSR Foreign Policy Documents. T. IV, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 287 4 Yusif Kamal’s telegram to M.D. Huseynov. 03.07.1921 // SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.49, v.8 5 M.D. Huseynov’s telegram to G. Chicherin. 05.07.1921 // SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.49, v.8 www.irs-az.com 11 Our history

delegation to sign an agreement with Turkey and appointed Behbud Shahtakhtinski chairman of the delegation.13 At the end of August, he set off for Tiflis with a delegation of 13 people in order to participate in the Kars conference.14 At the end of Au- gust, Soviet Russia was also engaged in correspondence concerning the Kars conference. As a result of this correspondence, the Russian Com- missariat of Foreign Affairs picked its plenipotentiary representative in Latvia, Yakov Ganetskiy, and he represented the Moscow government at the Kars conference as a mediator. As leave Ankara in the then conditions. M. D. Huseynov said, “I cannot give a result of correspondence between However, Soviet Russia did not agree my consent to hold the conference the foreign offices of Soviet Russia to hold the conference in Ankara.8 On in Ankara”.10 At the same time, in its and Turkey, the opening of the Kars 8 August, Chicherin confirmed that note to Turkey on 21 July, the Geor- conference was scheduled for 26 Sep- 15 Soviet Russia would participate in the gian Commissariat of Foreign Affairs tember. M. D. Huseynov sent a tele- Caucasus conference and informed also protested at the holding of the gram to Yusif Kamal on 21 September Ali Fuad Pasha about it. He wrote that conference in Ankara and proposed and said that Azerbaijan agreed to 16 the Russian government did not think holding the Turkey-South Caucasus open the conference on that date. At it expedient to change the previous conference in Batumi.11 After all this a meeting of the Central Committee agreement on holding the confer- correspondence, the Ankara govern- of the Communist Party of Armenia ence in Kars. Chicherin asked the Turk- ment made a decision on 26 August on 26 August, Askanaz Mravyan was ish government to inform him about to hold the conference in Kars in mid- put in charge of preparations for the the possible date for the conference September.12 On 29 August, Yusif Ka- Kars conference. He was supposed to scheduled in Kars.9 mal sent a note to Soviet Russia and receive instructions about the confer- After such a response from Russia, the South Caucasus republics, inviting ence through B. Legran from Moscow the South Caucasus also defended them to the Kars conference. and establish contacts with the Azer- the same position. Thus, as dictated Serious preparations were under- baijani and Georgian delegations sent 17 by Russia, the Soviet republics did way for the Kars conference in the to Kars. not back down on the agreements summer of 1921. On 26 August, a On 3 September, the Caucasus Bu- reached in Baku and Tiflis in April 1921 meeting of the bureau of the Central reau of the Central Committee of the on the holding of the Turkey-South Committee of the Communist Party Communist Party of Russia (Bolshe- Caucasus conference in Kars. In his of Azerbaijan (Bolsheviks) discussed viks) discussed “the issue of the Kars telegram to Yusif Kamal on 21 July, the issue of sending an Azerbaijani conference” in a meeting. An eight-

6 The main moments of Turkey’s political life (From November 1920 to November 1921). Historical Outline.// RSSPHA, f.5, s.3, i.630, v.51 7 Yusif Kamal’s codified telegram to G. Chicherin. 09.07.1921. // RSSPHA, f.5, s.1, i.2203, v.109 8 See: USSR Foreign Policy Documents. T. IV, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 227-228 9 G. Chicherin’s note to Ali Fuad Pasha. 08.08.1921. // Russian Federation Foreign Policy Archive (RF FPA), f.132, s.4, q.4, i.2, v.63 10 M.D. Huseynov’s telegram to Yusif Kamal. 21.07.1921.// The Archive of Political Documents at the Office of the President of the Azerbaijan Republic (APD OPAR), f.276, s.5, i.1, v. 26 11 See: USSR Foreign Policy Documents. T. IV, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 228 12 S. Nararenus’ telegram to G. Chicherin. 27.08.1921. // RSSPHA, f.17, s.84, i.104, v.101 13 Protocol 15 of the session of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan (Bolsheviks). 26.07.1921.// APD OPAR, f.1, s.2, i.16, v.85 14 See: B. Shahtakhtinski’s letter to the CC of the CPR, August 1923.// RSSPHA, f.85, s.2c, i.3, v.49 15 See: M. Gasimov. Azerbaijani-Turkish diplomatic-political relations (April 1920 – December 1922). Baku, 1998, p. 102 16 M.D. Huseynov’s telegram to Yusif Kamal. Copy to A. Mravyan. 21.09.1921.// SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.133, v.19 17 See: Minutes of the session of the CC of the Communist Party of Armenia (Bolsheviks). 26.08.1921// RSSPHA, f.64, s.1, i.105, v.23

12 www.irs-az.com point resolution on the issue was adopted at the meeting. The resolution on the forthcoming Kars conference said: “1. The negotiations shall be held within the framework of the Treaty of Moscow; 2. The Caucasus republics shall demonstrate solidarity with An- kara in the fight against the Entente; 3. Strong assistance (financial and other) shall be given to this fight; 4. In the current situation, the signing of military treaties between the Cau- casus Republics and Ankara is impos- sible, however, if this issue is proposed by Ankara representatives, the South Caucasus republics shall not avoid closer political contacts with Turkey, Pasha. A few days prior to the open- tween the two nations; The govern- Iran and Afghanistan; 5. During the ing of the Kars conference, on 17 ments of Azerbaijan and Turkey shall negotiations, it is necessary to raise September, the foreign minister of reject any agreement or international the issue of using pastures and salt the Ankara government, Yusif Kamal, act being thrust upon one of them; mines in Kagizman district and cop- gave a clear instruction to the Turkish The Azerbaijani side shall guaran- per concessions in Chorokh district; delegation. The instruction contained tee that it will never grant anyone 6. No South Caucasus republic shall individual important provisions on the right to patronize Nakhichevan be allowed to act individually and each of the South Caucasus republics which was handed over to it under solidarity shall be demonstrated on separately. First of all, Yusif Kamal de- the Treaty of Moscow; The agreement all issues; 7. The delegation itself is scribed the Moscow conference and shall contain a separate provision on authorized to define the date for the the talks of the Turkish delegation in Turkish immigrants in Azerbaijan and negotiations and prepare the agenda Baku and Tiflis after the conference Azerbaijani immigrants in Turkey; The 18 of the conference.” and commented on the parties’ posi- Turkish government shall be free to Immediately after the meeting of tions in these meetings and talks. He grant citizenship to Azerbaijani im- the Caucasus Bureau on the Kars con- reminded Kazim Pasha that if each of migrants on its territory according ference, the Georgian and Armenian the South Caucasus republics protests to their wishes; The agreement shall delegations were identified as well. at the parts of the Treaty of Moscow contain a provision that some of Baku Georgia was to be represented at the which concern them, a policy aimed oil will be handed over to Turkey; Kars conference by Commissar of For- at forcing the Russian delegation to Education shall be free in Azerbaijan; eign Affairs and Finances A. Svanidze honor its obligations should be con- The provision on Batumi in the agree- and Navy Commissar Sh. Eliava and ducted and no provision of the Treaty ment to be signed with Georgia shall Armenia by Askanaz Mravyan, who of Moscow signed on 16 March 1921 not be mentioned in the agreement was appointed commissar of foreign should be allowed to turn into a sub- to be signed with Azerbaijan and the affairs in the Council of People’s Com- ject of discussion between Russia and provision on Nakhichevan shall not missars established in late May 1921, us. The document recommended that be mentioned in the agreement to be and Commissar of Internal Affairs Po- the following issues should be taken signed with Georgia. Other parts of gos Makinsyan. into account in the agreement to be the instruction pertained to the talks The government of the Grand Na- signed with the Azerbaijan Repub- with Georgian, Armenian and Russian tional Assembly of Turkey was to be lic. Yusif Kamal wrote: The text of the representatives.19 The most impor- represented at the Kars conference by treaty to be signed with Azerbaijan tant point of Yusif Kamal’s instruction a delegation led by a member of par- shall be clearly written in Turkish and was that it specifically stressed that liament from Edirne and commander the preamble shall contain enough Turkey will sign an agreement with of the Eastern Front, Kazim Karabekir phrases on true brotherhood be- each of the three South Caucasus

18 Protocol 17 of the session of the Caucasus Bureau of the CC of CPR(b). 03.09.1921.// RSSPHA, f.64, s.1, i.1, v.144 www.irs-az.com 13 Our history republics separately.20 However, the ence.24 In order to gain the trust of Ankara and give impetus to the fight principles on which the delegations the Soviet representatives during the against the common enemy.26 Kazim of the South Caucasus republics were Kars conference, the Grand National Pasha regarded the arguments of the formed and the instructions that So- Assembly of Turkey adopted an act to Russian representative as groundless, viet Russia gave to these republics amnesty imprisoned communists at stressing the importance of signing clearly showed that Turkey’s desire to the proposal of Mustafa Kamal Pasha a separate treaty with each republic. sign individual agreements with these in late September.25 After contacting Ankara, he informed republics would meet with serious re- The first session of the confer- the conference that a separate agree- sistance. The 3 September resolution ence determined its agenda and set ment should be signed with each of of the Caucasus Bureau shows that up a commission to study economic the three South Caucasus republics. At these republics followed Russia’s will.21 and border issues at the proposal of the session of the conference held on Setting off from Tiflis, the Russian, South Caucasus representatives. Dur- 28 September, Kazim Pasha stressed Azerbaijani, Georgian and Armenian ing the first session of the conference, once again that he insisted on his po- delegations reached Kars at 1130 on the form of the treaty between Tur- sition. Discussions on this issue gradu- 26 September. They were met with a key and the South Caucasus repub- ally became tense and the debates festive ceremony in the city. The con- lics turned into a serious subject of continued until 30 September. At the ference opened at 1930 on the same discussion. Kazim Pasha suggested fourth session of the conference on 30 day with a congratulatory speech by signing a separate agreement with September, Kazim Pasha suggested Kazim Karabekir Pasha at a ceremony each of the South Caucasus repub- that the treaty should consist of two in a special building prepared for the lics. Stressing that this was the inten- parts. In his opinion, the first part of conference on Ordu Street.22 After Ka- tion of the Turkish government, he the agreement was to reflect general zim Pasha, the Russian representative said that our government has given issues concerning all three South Cau- Ganetskiy and Mravyan, on behalf of us an instruction to sign a separate casus republics and the second part – the South Caucasus republics, made treaty with each republic. However, separate trade and border issues with congratulatory speeches. Ganetskiy the Russian representative Ganetskiy each republic. However, this proposal figuratively said that “they will prove was against signing a separate agree- by the Turkish side was met with re- to the whole world that they have giv- ment with each republic. He said that sistance.27 Kazim Pasha’s assumption en up the hostility between the great the situation in the South Caucasus that he could win over Azerbaijan Turkish and Armenian peoples not in had undergone substantial changes in these discussions proved wrong. words, but in deeds. They are moving since the signing of the Treaty of Mos- Speaking on 30 September, the head towards each other not with swords, cow and all three fraternal peoples of the Azerbaijani delegation, B. but with warm feelings of brother- were moving towards integration Shahtakhtinski, supported Ganetskiy’s hood”.23 Mravyan said that the South from a political and economic point position. He said: “On behalf of the Caucasus peoples “wish the fraternal of view. Ganetskiy was trying to sub- Azerbaijan Republic, I suggest that Turkish people victory in the fight stantiate the fact that the signing of a this treaty should be unified and not against imperialism and violence” and joint agreement between all three re- contain special chapters concerning called for this to be noted and consoli- publics and Turkey would lead to the each republic separately.”28 After this dated even further during the confer- establishment of a close alliance with speech by Shahtakhtinski, Kazim Pa-

19 See: Karabekir. Our Independence War. Volume 2, Istanbul, 2006, p.1112- 1116; V. Gafarov. The issue of Azerbaijan in Turkish-Russian relations. (1917-1922). Baku, 2011, p.409-410 20 See. Candar Azer. South Caucasus from Father to Son. Turkish-South Caucasus relations, p. 303-304 21 See: Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p.140 22 Ibid, p. 141-143 23 USSR Foreign Policy Documents. V. 4, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 372 24 See: USSR Foreign Policy Documents. V. 4, M.: Gospolitizdat, 1960, p. 373 25 S. Nararenus’ telegram to G. Chicherin. 29.09.1921. // RSSPHA, f.17, s.84, i.104, v.111 26 Minutes of the 1st session of the Kars conference. 26.09.1921.// SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.81, v.3 27 Minutes of the 4th session of the Kars conference. 30.09.1921.// APD OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.81, v.21; Nurcan Toksoy, The Last Days in Revan. From Turkish Rule to Armenian Rule. Orion publishing house, Ankara, 2007, p. 322 28 Minutes of the 4th session of the Kars conference. 30.09.1921.// APD OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.81, v.21; SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.81, v.30; For additional information, see: Karabekir. Our Independence War. Istanbul, 1988, p. 963; M. Gasimov. Azerbaijani-Turkish diplomatic- political relations (April 1920 – December 1922). Baku, 1998, p. 106; Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p.144; M. Gasimov. Azerbaijani-Turkish diplomatic-political relations (April 1920 – December 1922). Baku, 2011, p. 411

14 www.irs-az.com sha was forced to back off and agreed menia. As a result of these discussions, Caucasus republics. After lengthy de- to sign a joint agreement. Thus, the they came up with a special memo- bates, agreement was reached that tense moments of the Kars confer- randum that reflected a common po- the issue of Nakhichevan should be ence became a thing of the past. sition and presented it to the Turkish described in the following way in an During further discussions in Kars, representatives. Along with several appendix to the Treaty of Kars, which the parties came up with a number other issues, the memorandum envis- would reflect its borders: “The Turkish of political, economic and cultural aged “the establishment of an auton- government and the Azerbaijan and proposals. One of the most important omous Nakhichevan Soviet republic Armenian Soviet Republics agree to issues concerning Azerbaijan during within the Azerbaijan SSR” with some establish a Nakhichevan province as the Kars conference was related to border corrections in favor of Arme- an autonomous region under the pro- Nakhichevan. Turkish diplomats who nia. The main purpose of the memo- tection of Azerbaijan within the bor- specially focused on this issue sub- randum, which was prepared as a ders indicated in Appendix 3 to the mitted for discussion a draft on the result of the diplomatic steps ahead agreement.”31 The advantage of this Nakhichevan issue, which complied of the conference and the diplomatic formulation of the issue by Turkish with the Treaty of Moscow. Kazim discussions between Azerbaijan and diplomacy was that Armenia recog- Pasha, first of all, asked the Georgian Armenia with the “support” of Russia, nized the Nakhichevan province as an and Azerbaijani representatives to re- was to sideline Turkey from the issue Azerbaijani territory and undertook port on the autonomy of Ajaria and of Nakhichevan. The discussions at a political-legal commitment to sign Nakhichevan. Sh. Eliava made a short the conference clearly showed that in the treaty. report on behalf of the Georgian rep- Despite differences and disputes resentatives and B. Shahtakhtinski on on some issues, the Treaty of Kars, behalf of the Azerbaijani delegation. which reflected the foundations of He said: “Azerbaijan is a Soviet govern- mutual relations between Turkey and ment. The autonomy to be granted South Caucasus republics, was signed to Nakhichevan should be in line at 1400 on 13 October 1921. The Trea- with the system that exists in Russia. ty of Kars, which contained 20 articles Since Nakhichevan is situated too far and three appendices, was signed (from Azerbaijan – J. H.), the system of between Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia government that will be granted to and Armenia with the participation of it is more than just autonomy. There Russia. Under Article 1 of this agree- is a council of people’s commissars. contrast to the Treaty of Moscow, the ment, the parties “stated that, except Since there are few people with sci- Soviet representatives, including the for the 16 March 1921 Treaty of Mos- entific knowledge and education, Azerbaijanis, were trying to eliminate cow, all agreements on territories the language used in official circles is the possibility of a mixed commission, signed between the governments Russian. A law has been adopted on which would also include Turkish rep- that previously had sovereignty over the nationalization of enterprises and resentatives, being sent to the region the territories of the signatories, in- steps have been taken in this regard. and to turn the issue of Nakhichevan cluding all agreements concerning Azerbaijan runs the financial affairs into an internal affair that could be the South Caucasus republics signed of Nakhichevan. No decision has yet resolved without Ankara’s participa- in third states, were abolished and been taken on its army. Three-year tion.”30 However, Turkish diplomacy, considered invalid”. Article 2 of the primary schools are all in Turkic. Issues which had a very sensitive approach Treaty of Kars noted that the name of marriage, divorce and religious is- to the issue of Nakhichevan, did not of “Turkey” implied territories identi- sues are free as before.”29 Like all is- allow this to happen. In compliance fied according to the Turkish National sues were discussed in Tiflis ahead with the Treaty of Moscow, Kazim Pa- Oath (Misak-i Milli). Under this article, of the Kars conference, the issue of sha called for the issue of Nakhichevan the parties reached agreement not Nakhichevan was discussed between to be included in the agreement to be to recognize any peace agreement representatives of Azerbaijan and Ar- signed between Turkey and the South or any international document thrust

29 Karabekir. Our Independence War. Istanbul, 1988, p.963-964 30 Ismayil Mustafayev. The political situation in the Azerbaijani regions of Nakhichevan and Zangazur and the policy of foreign powers (1917-1921). Baku, 1998, p.350 31 Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p.145 www.irs-az.com 15 Our history upon any of the countries that joined Mount Dash-Burun (4,108) along the the port of Batumi. Under Article 7, the agreement. This article implied water divide, and crossing the Jahan- Turkey and Georgia undertook to sim- that all three Caucasus republics re- nam-Darasi River from the south of plify border crossing for the popula- jected the Treaty of Sevres signed on the signboard “Rod” (Spring), and from tion of the border region. The remain- 10 August 1920 and first of all, that Mount Bagirsag (6,607 or 6,587) along ing articles of the agreement focused the Armenian Soviet Republic rec- the water divide and along the ad- on travel by the population of border ognized the Turkish borders deter- ministrative border of the Iravan and regions, banned the activities of polit- mined by the Turkish “National Oath” Sharur-Daralayaz districts crossing ical émigrés who claimed power and and rejected “Greater Armenia” claims height 6625 to Mount Komurludag covered issues such as railways, tele- based on the Treaty of Sevres.32 Under (6,839 or 6,930), and then height graph, trade, economic, financial and Article 3, all three Caucasus republics 3,080, Sayatdag (7,868), the village of other issues.35 According to the last which signed the treaty “stated that Gurdgulag, Mount Hamsur (8,160), article, the Treaty of Kars signed be- the occupying regime did not fit into height 8,022, Kukudag (10,282) and tween the governments of Turkey, Ar- the national progress and full sover- the eastern administrative borders menia, Azerbaijan and Georgia was to eign rights of each country and pro- of the former Nakhichevan district.”34 be ratified and the ratifications were claimed that any activity and rights re- Under Article 6, Turkey gave up in fa- to be exchanged in Iravan as soon as lated to this regime were invalid and vor of Georgia its sovereignty over the possible.36 The treaty was signed by abolished”. Article 4 established the Askanaz Mravyan and Pogos Makinsy- border between the South Caucasus an on behalf of the Armenian govern- republics and Turkey from the Sarp re- ment, the commissar of the people’s gion along the line stretching to the workers and peasants inspectorate, mouth of the Ashagi Garasu River. A Behbud Shahtakhtinski, on behalf of clear description of the borders was Azerbaijan, Shalva Eliava and Alek- given in Appendices 1 and 2 to the sandr Svanidze on behalf of the Geor- treaty. Under Article 5, “the Turkish gian government, Yakov Ganetskiy government and the Azerbaijani and on behalf of the RFSFR government Armenian Soviet Republics reached and Kazim Karabekir Pasha, Veli bey, agreement that the Nakhichevan Memduh Shevket and Muhtar bey on province should be an autonomous behalf of the Turkish government. In territory under the protection of Azer- port of Batumi, the city of Batumi, as a number of cases, the Treaty of Kars baijan within the borders indicated in well as the territories which are lo- repeated some articles of the Treaty Appendix 3 to the treaty”.33 With this cated north of the borders envisaged of Moscow. However, despite that, the article, Armenia confirmed that Nakh- by Article 4 of the treaty and are part treaties of Moscow and Kars ushered ichevan was placed under the protec- of the Batumi province. Georgia was in a new stage in Turkish-Russian re- tion of Azerbaijan and that Azerbaijan supposed to secure the cultural and lations. This period, with little excep- accepted this protection. Appendix religious rights of the population of tions, lasted until the end of the Sec- 3 to the treaty entitled “The Territory these territories, grant them extensive ond World War. of Nakhichevan” determined its bor- administrative autonomy and adopt a Although it was signed on 13 Oc- ders in the following way: “The village law on land to meet the wishes of this tober 1921, the Soviet republics of the of Urmiyya and a straight line to the population. Apart from that, Turkey Caucasus delayed the ratification of Arazdayan station from there (incor- was to be granted rights of free transit the Treaty of Kars. They tried to explain porating it into the Armenian SSR), without hindrance and without cus- it mainly by the establishment of the then a straight line to western Mount toms duties on goods imported into South Caucasus Federation. For Tur- Dash-Burun (3,142), then eastern and exported from Turkey through key, the swift ratification of the treaty,

32 Candar Azer. South Caucasus from Father to Son. Turkish-South Caucasus relations. Istanbul, Truva publications, 2011, p. 304-305 33 South Caucasus-Turkey Treaty, 13.10.1921.// PDA OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.94, v.112; Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p.146-149 34 South Caucasus-Turkey Treaty. 13.10.1921.// PDA OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.94, v.116 (end) 35 South Caucasus-Turkey Treaty. 13.10.1921.// PDA OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.94, v.112 (end)-114; Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p. 149-151 36 South Caucasus-Turkey Treaty. 13.10.1921.// PDA OPAR, f.609, s.1, i.94, v.114-114 (end); Betul Aslan. Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and Ibrahim Ebilov (1920-1923). Istanbul, 2004, p. 151-153

16 www.irs-az.com especially by Armenia, was of political tact Comrade Narimanov for taking munist Party of Azerbaijan on 14 Feb- importance. The meeting held be- measures in order to ensure that the ruary 1922 included the issue of rati- tween I. Abilov and Yusif Kamal on 26 Treaty of Kars is ratified by each re- fying the Treaty of Kars in the agenda January 1922 focused mainly on the public separately and to expedite this of the session of the Azerbaijani Cen- ratification of the Treaty of Kars. Dur- issue.”37 After such a frank explanation tral Executive Committee to be con- ing the meeting, Yusif Kamal decided by Yusif Kamal, I. Abilov said: “If you vened in early March. For this reason, to speak frankly and said: “The ratifica- are really so interested in this issue, I Azerbaijan ratified the treaty first on tion of the treaty by Azerbaijan is not will personally contact Comrade Nari- 3 March 1922, the Turkish Grand Na- urgent or important for us. We are not manov and ask him to try to resolve tional Assembly – on 17 March, Arme- so interested in it, and it is the same the issue of ratification in a way that nia - on 20 March and the Georgian with Georgia. However, the separate suits you.”38 government - on 14 June. Copies of ratification of the treaty by Armenia As a result of all this, after serious ratifications were exchanged on 11 is extremely important for us and we efforts by Turkey, a meeting of the September 1922 in the city of Iravan are very interested in it… Therefore, I Political and Organizational Bureau of and thus, the Treaty of Kars acquired am asking you not to refuse to con- the Central Committee of the Com- political and legal importance.

37 I. Abilov’s conversation with Yusif Kamal. 26.01.1922.// SA AR, f.28, s.1, i.68, v.17-20 38 Ibid, v.20