History

FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF THE KARABAKH ARMENIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL

FROM THE MEMORANDUM OF THE KARABAKH ARMENIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE HISTORICAL-GEOGRAPHICAL, POLITICAL, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS OF KARABAKH’S AFFILIATION TO THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE May 5, 1919

I. Introduction

In early 1918, when Russian authority in the Transcaucasus was dismantled by Russian forces themselves as they withdrew from the region, new national-based state entities began to emerge, grounded in the principle of self-determination. One of these formations, established in Eastern Transcaucasia (encompassing the Caspian lowlands and the adjacent Kura River basin), adopted the exclusively Turkic name “Azerbaijan” and sought to incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh—an area that has historically and rightfully belonged to the Armenian people, who continue to inhabit it overwhelmingly to this day.

This claim from Eastern Transcaucasia is the sole origin of the now sharply escalated issue surrounding Karabakh. Given the possibility that inattentiveness to this matter in its current form could lead to undesirable complications and place the region’s peoples under severe trials, it is vitally important to clarify the cultural-historical, ethnic, economic, and geographical conditions on which the Armenian people base their rightful claim to this region as an inalienable part of their heritage.

This document serves precisely that purpose, within the limits of a strictly objective study—one that alone can be considered authoritative for the just resolution of interethnic disputes.

II. Geographical Environment

Armenian, or Mountainous, Karabakh encompasses the entire mountainous region to the east of Lake Sevan (Gokcha), bounded to the north and south by the Ganja range descending into the Kura River valley, and the Bargushat range descending toward the Araks River valley. While Nagorno-Karabakh borders the expansive Karabakh plain to the east, this plain represents an entirely distinct geographical realm and thus can be readily separated and rejoined with its native environment—namely, the Kura-Araks lowlands, to which it naturally belongs.

In its topographic, orographic, and physical attributes, Armenian Karabakh forms an inseparable whole with the mountain systems stretching westward from Lake Gokcha to the Alexandropol plain. This is the terrain of the high Armenian plateau, which imparts a uniform character to life across this vast mountain region and creates similar conditions for economic and cultural development. In this respect, Karabakh constitutes an integral part of the broader highland Armenia—its native habitat.

Throughout the entire stretch from Karabakh’s eastern frontier to Erzurum, only alpine forms of culture are viable, fostering consistent patterns of local labor, communal psychology, and economic organization. Owing to these conditions, Karabakh—though geographically fragmented into numerous isolated mountain pockets—remains, in its ethnographic, economic, and linguistic aspects, a unified whole.

Forcibly detaching Karabakh from its native mountainous environment and artificially annexing it to a foreign and culturally alien realm—namely Azerbaijan, with its exclusively lowland economy and distinct economic structure, which often runs counter to the interests of alpine cultures—would constitute an inexplicable act of injustice. Such an imposition would only disrupt the foundation of communal life and hinder the region’s economic and intellectual growth by inciting friction between opposing cultural systems.

III. Karabakh as an Economic Entity

Karabakh serves as the northeastern province of Armenia, through which the Armenian population has historically attempted to extend into the Kura River valley. These aspirations were repeatedly obstructed throughout history, compelling Armenians to firmly settle in the mountainous region and to cultivate a self-sufficient economic life tailored to the natural environment. This distinct economic character of Armenian Karabakh remained intact even under Russian rule.

Russian governance failed to establish guarantees of property security or to resolve land issues. This deficiency imposed a sharply defined national character on the two parts of Karabakh, shaping patterns of settlement and diverging economic interests. The administrative arrangement of the territory, coupled with the construction of roads across the Kura lowlands, artificially directed attention toward centers such as Yelizavetpol and Baku. However, historically, Karabakh maintained links with the Armenian heartland—specifically the Ararat region—therefore, any political revival of that center has the potential to restore past connections.

IV. Historical Right

Present-day Karabakh encompasses two provinces of major historical significance to the Armenian people: Artsakh and Syunik, as well as a portion of the equally renowned province of Utik. These lands have played such pivotal roles throughout Armenian history that each possesses its own localized historical narrative, chronicling the cultural and historical developments unique to the region.

For instance, the history of Artsakh was documented between the 7th and 10th centuries by Movses Kaghankatvatsi, while the history of Syunik was recorded in the 14th century by Stepan Orbelyan (notably translated into French by Academician Brosset as “Histoire de la Siounic”).

Beyond these literary sources, the mountainous regions of the Yelizavetpol, Jevanshir, Shushi, Jebrail, and Zangezur districts are richly adorned with monuments of Armenian architecture, which speak to the intense political activity and flourishing culture that graced these territories for centuries.

Among the most prominent Armenian cultural monuments are two majestic monastic complexes that for centuries stood as centers of intellectual and political life: Tatev Monastery and Gandzasar Monastery, built in the 9th and 13th centuries, respectively. Meanwhile, throughout all of Nagorno-Karabakh, there is not a single monument of Tatar culture that merits serious attention.

The history of Karabakh begins with the earliest phases of Armenian political life and is remarkably extensive. Its most significant role in the fate of the Armenian people emerges with the collapse of the Armenian kingdom under the blows of Central Asian armies, when political life began to concentrate in the mountainous regions of Northern Armenia. It was there, under the leadership of the lords of the Lori province, that a powerful federation of Armenian princes formed, continuing resistance against the Turks and Mongols.

Following the disintegration of this federation, the mountains of Karabakh remained the sole bastion of national independence throughout Armenia. A complex network of small feudal domains emerged, known collectively as melikdoms, whose rulers acknowledged only the nominal authority of the Persian shah. These local Armenian leaders, acting in alliance and mutual coordination, became the sole bearers of the national idea and defenders of Armenian freedom during centuries in which Armenian sovereignty was utterly extinguished in central regions of Armenia.

This federated Karabakh waged continuous resistance against Muslim rulers attempting to subjugate them. The guerilla battles they fought permeate the entire history of this corner of the Armenian highlands and infuse Armenian oral traditions—legends, heroic tales, and folk literature.

Far from limiting themselves to the defense of their own hearths, the Armenian federation of Karabakh engaged, beginning in the late 17th century, in diplomatic relations with several Western European powers and later with Russia, aiming to resolve the Armenian question in the Persian-controlled part of Armenia—that is, across the entirety of southern Transcaucasia.

Correspondence and Sovereign Recognition of Karabakh’s Armenian Meliks

There exists a collection of documents exchanged between the Armenian meliks of Karabakh and various European powers, especially Russia. These numerous records leave no doubt that the monarchs regarded the meliks as sovereign rulers. Among such documents are the decrees of Emperor Peter the Great.

A representative example of imperial correspondence with the meliks is found in a rescript issued by Emperor Paul at the very end of the 18th century, which begins with the following salutation: “To the noble meliks of the mighty and renowned Karabakh region—Jemshid Shahnazarov, lord of Varanda, and Fridon Beglaryan, lord of Gulistan, and to all other ruling meliks and yuz-bashis of this celebrated province, and to all their people.”

Other official records of the Russian government confirm that negotiations were held between the Russian court and the meliks regarding the establishment of an Armenian kingdom that would include both Karabakh and the neighboring province of Karadagh (then under Persian rule).

Until the mid-18th century, the northern part of Armenian Karabakh (the mountainous regions of the Jevanshir and Shushi districts) was completely devoid of Tatars and Muslims; the entire area was inhabited exclusively by Armenians. This fact is substantiated by Russian official sources. In the scholarly work of Academician Butkov (published by the Academy of Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 385–386), we find the following account—clearly not derived from Armenian sources:

“Karabakh is a region situated between the left bank of the Araks and the right bank of the Kura River, above the Mugan plain, in the mountains. Its principal inhabitants are Armenians, governed hereditarily by their meliks, or native princes, according to the number of cantons. Each can field up to 1,000 military men. These meliks, by decree of Nadir Shah, are directly subordinate to the shah. The strongest settlement by location is Shusha. It belonged to Melik Shahnazar of Varanda, who, having quarreled with the other two meliks—Adam of Tchrapert and Yusup of Igermidort—formed an alliance with Panakh Khan, an obscure chieftain of the nomadic Jevanshir Tatar tribe near Karabakh. Upon the death of Nadir, Shahnazar yielded the village of Shushi to Panakh and submitted to him with his canton, jointly waging war against his former rivals for twenty years.”

IV. Continuation of the Conflict and Russian Involvement

The war did not cease even during the reign of Panakh Khan’s son, Ibrahim Khan. The Armenian meliks made every effort to expel the hostile and alien element that had invaded Northern Karabakh, seeking Russia’s support in this endeavor. Yet the opposing side worked tirelessly as well.

Ibrahim Khan sought to dilute the unified Armenian population by introducing, if not Tatar, then at least Muslim elements. In this, he was partially successful. It is well documented that the Ayrum people—of Kurdish origin—who now inhabit the western parts of the Jevanshir district, were relocated by him from the Erivan plain. This account comes from a traveler who witnessed the migrants in 1780 on the shores of Lake Gokcha, en route to Karabakh.

The meliks’ war against the usurping khan continued with mixed success until the early 19th century, when Karabakh was occupied by Russia (1805). The Armenians welcomed this outcome to their long and bloody struggle. Though Karabakh did not fall completely under Armenian control, neither did it fall to the enemy. A third external force brought tremendous authority and the means to establish long-desired order and peace.

Yet it took only one hundred years for Russia to withdraw from Karabakh’s mountainous regions—leaving the two peoples to themselves—for the Armenian spirit of freedom and national independence to reawaken once more.

This spirit was vividly displayed in the summer of 1918, when all Transcaucasia bowed in terror before the Turkish invasion, and Karabakh alone met the merciless enemy with weapons in hand. A Turkish detachment of 400 men was annihilated by Armenians near the village of Msmna, with two artillery pieces and machine guns captured. A new Armenian–Turkish war in the mountains of Karabakh seemed imminent. Yet at this very moment, General Allenby’s decisive victory shattered Turkey’s military power and ended its dominance in the Caucasus.

Thus, the political reality that had existed prior to Russia’s arrival was reestablished: a regime of Armenian self-rule.

V. Demographic Reality

The principle of actual population distribution strongly demands resolution of the Karabakh question in favor of the Armenian people’s aspirations, as they constitute the overwhelming ethnic majority in the mountainous part of Karabakh. According to official Russian government statistics published before the onset of the European war, Armenians in Mountainous Karabakh numbered approximately 280,000, while Tatars and other Muslim populations numbered about 75,000. It is unacceptable that the vital interests of hundreds of thousands should be sacrificed to a minority.

VI. Conclusion: The Inviolable Rights of the Armenian People

From all the foregoing, it is evident that Azerbaijan’s claims represent an arbitrary and crude encroachment on the sacred rights of the Armenian population of Mountainous Karabakh. Nothing justifies such a claim—not the nature of the land, nor its economic structure, nor its ethnic composition, nor the great principle of national self-determination, and certainly not the two-thousand-year history marked by blood and suffering that forged the Armenian people’s unshakable right of ownership over their ancestral territory.

This consciousness has always remained alive and active in the soul of the Armenian people of Mountainous Karabakh. It cannot be extinguished—especially now, after humanity has endured the immense trials of the 1914–1919 period.

A sea of human blood has been shed during this time in the struggle between two opposing forces: brute power and the rule of law. Law prevailed. The genius of the British people, who for centuries shaped immortal slogans of human freedom, paved the way for this great triumph of justice. England entered a mortal struggle with German militarism, inspired by principles clearly and beautifully articulated by Prime Minister Asquith in his historic speech in Cardiff on October 2, 1914:

“What do we want? What are we striving for? What do we hope to achieve?” Asquith asked, and answered: “The war has now lasted two months… and we clearly see the true aims and methods of this long-prepared and well-organized conspiracy against Europe’s freedom—written in bloody letters of massacre and plunder… The new German school of thought has taught the last generation that morality has no place in relations between nations. Only force determines right… We old-fashioned folk still believe in the sanctity of treaties, that the weak have rights and the strong have responsibilities, and that small nations possess exactly the same rights to existence and independence as large ones.”

Such profound lessons are never forgotten by peoples. Even more so, they remain vivid for the Armenian people, who stood by the Allies from the outset and proved their devotion to the cause of freedom with the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of lives and the transformation of their homeland into a vast cemetery.

To this day, the Armenian people reverently honor the Allies. It is with great sorrow that they observe the British high command in the region encouraging Azerbaijan’s unjust and expansionist ambitions toward Armenian Karabakh.

Declaration of the Armenian People of Karabakh

The Armenian people solemnly declare their profound respect for every nation’s right to self-determination, and they likewise demand that this principle be honored in regard to themselves. Armenian Karabakh acknowledges and welcomes Azerbaijan’s self-determination and expresses its readiness to cooperate in a spirit of good neighborliness—for the benefit of both peoples and in service to civilization.

However, when Azerbaijan regards the principle of self-determination as applicable only to itself, such a mindset must be firmly and unequivocally opposed.

The British command in the Caucasus, as a neutral and authoritative power, we dare to hope, must assertively remind every nation of the inadmissibility of expansionist ambitions. The principle of “live and let live” must form the foundation of its policy, through which it can safeguard the interests of the Armenian people—who have defended themselves for centuries against powerful adversaries.

Chairman of the Karabakh Armenian National Council A. Shakhnazaryan Members: A. Babakhanyan N. Sarkisov D. Ter-Danielyan S. Akhumyan M. Karabekyan K. Arutyunyan

Central State Historical Archive of Armenia, Fund 200, Inventory 1, File 244, Folios 38–44. Original. Typescript. Published in the journal “Vestnik Arkhivov Armenii,” 1989, No. 1, pp. 103–109. (Emphasis ours – Y.B.) 302

Yuri Barsegov “Nagorno-Karabakh in International Law and Global Politics”