Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr. Dikran Kaligian Analyzes ARF and Ottoman Relations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr. Dikran Kaligian Analyzes ARF and Ottoman Relations

    Dr. Dikran Kaligian Analyzes ARF and Ottoman Relations
    Asbarez
    Feb 5th, 2010


    BELMONT, Mass. - Dr. Dikran Kaligian presented a lecture entitled `The
    Armenian Revolutionary Federation Under Ottoman Rule, 1908-14,' on
    Thursday, January 21, 2010, at the National Association for Armenian
    Studies and Research (NAASR) Center, 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, MA.
    The lecture was the first of the year for NAASR.

    Kaligian is a historian who has taught at Clark University, Regis
    College, and other institutions, as well as the managing editor of the
    Armenian Review and a former chairman of the Armenian National
    Committee of America, Eastern U.S. He is the author of Armenian
    Organization and Ideology Under Ottoman Rule, 1908-1914 (Transaction,
    2009), which provides a comprehensive picture of relations between the
    Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and the Committee of Union and
    Progress (CUP) both before and after the CUP reached power in the
    constitutional revolution of 1908.

    Kaligian explained that his reason for undertaking this particular
    research was that there is a lot of research that has been done on the
    Armenian Genocide `but the years immediately before are critical...The
    party that will end up implementing the Armenian Genocide is the CUP,'
    and yet the CUP had been allied with the Armenians and in particular
    the ARF. `How do you go from two parties, both revolutionary parties,
    both working to overthrow Sultan Abdul Hamid, to just a few years
    later one committing genocide against the people of the other,'
    Kaligian asked. `That's the question I wanted to look at.'

    An `Armenian Uprising'?

    He briefly described the Turkish state-aligned historiography, which
    generally describes `how there was no genocide and why it was
    justified,' and places blame for violence against the Armenians,
    including the 1909 Adana Massacres and the Armenian Genocide, as a
    natural response to an Armenian uprising. The ARF is often portrayed
    as leading this uprising and its long-term alliance with the CUP is
    seen as entirely insincere.

    In his book, Kaligian `traces ARF policies and initiatives to answer
    the important question of whether or not the party and the Armenian
    community in general largely remained loyal to the constitutional
    regime and only resumed their appeals to Europe after the government's
    repeated failures to implement promised reforms.' Making extensive use
    of the ARF archives in Watertown, Kaligian was able to give a detailed
    picture of the inner workings of the party and its internal debates
    and discussions.

    Backtracking to the turn of the 20th century, Kaligian explained, the
    ARF and Verakazmial Hnchakian Party entered into a dialogue with
    Turkish opposition groups and both parties took part in the First
    Congress of Ottoman Opposition Forces in 1902 along with Turkish,
    Arab, Greek, Kurdish, Albanian, Circassian, and Jewish
    representatives. At the end of 1907, the Second Congress of Ottoman
    Opposition Forces met in Paris. This congress resolved to overthrow
    the Sultan and to restore the Ottoman constitution using radical
    means, including refusal to pay taxes, propaganda, and armed
    resistance, if necessary.

    When the Sultan was indeed overthrown in 1908 and the Ottoman
    constitution reimplemented, there was jubilation among all of the
    opposition parties, including the ARF. The ARF published a program
    which recognized the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire and
    called for a federal, decentralized government that would allow a high
    degree of local autonomy. Parliamentary elections held late in the
    year brought a multi-ethnic governing body which included 11 Armenians
    into existence.
    Adana Crisis

    However, in the spring of 1909 a counterrevolution temporarily drove
    the CUP from power and in April 1909 the Adana massacres took place,
    claiming upwards of 20,000 Arme-nian lives in and near Adana. Kaligian
    stated that this `created the first major test for ARF-CUP relations,'
    and the ARF was faced with a decision: to continue or to break off
    their cooperation with the CUP.

    The party, Kaligian explained, had to weigh the degree of CUP
    culpability in the massacres against the benefits of continuing to
    work with the CUP toward a true constitutional regime. The party was
    `torn between solidarity with the progressive elements within the CUP
    and their revulsion at the murderous acts of its chauvinistic
    elements.' While the ARF clearly wanted to assist the progressive
    elements within the CUP, they were forced to gamble on whether Adana
    was an aberration or a sign of things to come. This, Kaligian said,
    with their credibility at stake, was `a serious political gamble by
    the ARF.' The decision made - to con-tinue cooperation under certain
    conditions - may have been determined partly by self-interest, insofar
    as the ARF `may not have wanted to admit their policy of cooperation
    was a failure.'

    Although there was heightened distrust after Adana, Kaligian stated,
    apart from that major incident conditions did, indeed, improve for
    Armenians under the constitution, with acts of violence substantially
    decreased. However, less headway was made on the other issue most
    critical to the ARF, that of land reform. While the CUP never
    officially retreated from its prom-ises to restore lands confiscated
    from Armenians under the Sultan and to improve conditions for the
    peasants, neither did they take any action, ultimately convincing the
    ARF that their pledges had not been made in good faith. The CUP's
    failure to act proved to be a `crippling blow' to relations with the
    ARF, said Kaligian.

    Kaligian explained that in a joint CUP and ARF meeting in
    Constantinople on April 1, 1911, in response to worsening security
    conditions `the CUP agreed to take steps to control persecution by
    having the government arm all villages, Armenian and Kurdish.'

    Impatience with Unfulfilled Promises

    In the summer of 1911, the ARF held its 6th World Congress, with the
    main item on the agenda being relations with the CUP. The congress
    passed a resolution stating, among other things, that `despite a
    series of hopeful initiatives ... the CUP has gradually withdrawn from
    constitutional and democratic principles' and `failed to take steps to
    combat and cleanse itself of right-wing elements which, increasing
    their numbers over time, have developed a preponderant influence.'
    Therefore, `if, after the party's appeal, the CUP and the cabinets
    drawn from it do not show through their deeds that the realization of
    their repeated promises are imminent, the Western Bureau is authorized
    to cease its relations with the CUP.'

    Kaligian noted that it was not simply a clear case of the CUP's being
    uninterested in carrying out promised reforms. The CUP, in fact, was
    struggling to maintain control and was con-fronted with a series of
    crises, culminating in the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. The year 1912 would
    be critical for the two parties: disagreements over the parliamentary
    elections that year, in which the CUP sought to limit the number of
    potential Armenian elected representatives, combined with ongoing
    frustration over un-kept promises, led the ARF to break off relations.

    In the wake of the Balkan Wars, the European powers sought to place
    inspectors to oversee the Armenian provinces and institute the
    promised reforms. Such a measure was bitterly opposed by the CUP and
    the Ottoman leadership in general. For various reasons, the inspectors
    did not arrive in Constantinople until May 1914 - only months before the
    outbreak of World War I and too late to have any impact.

    With the outbreak of war, Kaligian explained, a final breach came when
    the CUP offered the ARF a deal it could not accept: to organize an
    uprising among the Armenian population in the Russian Empire (roughly
    in today's Republic of Armenia) in exchange for autonomy after the
    war. The ARF refused, saying that Armenians in Russia would do their
    duty as Russian subjects and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire would
    do their duty as citizens. Talaat Pasha and the CUP leadership
    seemingly regarded this as a final act of betrayal.

    Kaligian ended his presentation with the outbreak of World War I.
    Following his lecture there was a lengthy discussion period and he
    signed copies of Armenian Organization and Ide-ology Under Ottoman
    Rule, 1908-1914.

    More information about the lecture is available by calling
    617-489-1610, faxing 617-484-1759, e-mailing [email protected], or writing
    to NAASR, 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, MA 02478.
Working...
X