161
alienate Caucasian peoples, and was utilized by the Kavkaz group to criticise
Prométhée.
This declaration of the League caused a significant discord between the
Caucasians centred on territorial problems. First of all, this group initiated a debate
on the delimitation of the borders of the Armenian and Georgian republics with
Turkey. In response, the Caucasian Confederation Council issued a decree after its
meeting on 16 June and made this explanation.
“1-Neither the Caucasian Confederation Council nor the national centers
included in it, was previously informed of this declaration. The composition
of the organisation propagating this declaration is still unknown to us.
2-The Caucasian Confederation Council, in principle, is in favour of
friendship and rapprochement between the Caucasian nations, but
politically the existence of one single political organisation is a must. The
Caucasian Confederation Council is already functioning, and of course the
Armenians have a place in it.
3-Forming political alliances between some of the nations of the Caucasus
was a detrimental enterprise and could not be permitted by the Caucasian
Confederation Council. It is evident that this kind of an enterprise will cause
the collapse of the Caucasian union and create enmity between the nations.
4-Moreover, the Caucasian Confederation Council reminds all the
Caucasian nations that border problems and other conflicting issues will be
solved by reciprocal agreements or forced arbitration following the
salvation of the Caucasus.”
414
Moreover, in an article published in Severnyi Kavkaz, the North Caucasian
emigres lobbied the Armenians and Georgians. They made a correlation between
the policies of the Bolsheviks and the League, and described the declaration as the
fabrication of the Bolsheviks.
415
413
For the text of the Declaration see Almanak, 55-58.
414
This text was published in Severnyi Kavkaz/Şimali Kafkasya, 26, June 1936 and, Kurtuluş 20 in
June 1936. It was reprinted in Vesikalar, 45-46, and Kafkasya (Der Kaukasus), (Munich), 14,
September 1952.
415
“Ermeni-Gürcü Birliği,” May 1936. Severnyi Kavkaz/Şimali Kafkasya, 25.
162
Haydar Bammat and Kavkaz also took this issue seriously and examined its
connections with the ‘Brussels Pact’. With this declaration of the League, Bammat
asserted that the arguments of the Kavkaz group were being verified. The Georgian
Mensheviks, by taking sides with the Armenians made the validity of the Pact
ambiguous. The Pact became null and void. As a result, the Kavkaz group
advanced as a real organ representing the Caucasian confederation.
416
From the 1937 and 1938, war was in sight and the Caucasians, having no
doubt on the collapse of the Soviet Union, started to deal with the issue of the
border delimitation. While the Armenians and Georgians were dealing with their
republics’ borders with Turkey, the fantasy of Greater Azerbaijan encompassing
Iran Azerbaijan found adherents among the Azeri groups. Haydar Bammat started
to criticise these ideas severely. He pointed out that, the situation and balance of
power was changing throughout world. European states were separating into blocs
and tremendous events were taking place in the Far East. All these events have to
be analysed reasonably. The second chance for the Caucasians after 1918 was
knocking on the door. Therefore, in order not to loose this chance, once again the
Caucasian intellectuals had to be awake and organised.
417
The mistakes of the past
would not be repeated. From these mistakes new and reasonable path to
independence has to be constructed. The key point in this way was the necessity to
act in a unified structure.
416
Haydar Bammat, “Ermeni-Gürcü İttihadı,” Almanak, 58-60 and F. Daryal, “Yanlış Yol,”
Almanak, 63-67.
417
Haydar Bammat, “Yine Kafkas Hududları Meselesi,” Yazılar Dergisi II, 3-8.
163
Because of its geography, history, economics and ethnography, the only
chance for Caucasian independence was Turkey and Iran’s exigency to see the
Caucasus as a buffer between Russia and themselves. In order to utilise this
exigency and to obtain the support, the Caucasians had to remove all obstacles
between these countries and establish close neighbourly relations. Therefore, the
most critical issue was the delimitation of borders. According to Bammat, the
activities of some Georgian, Armenian, and even Azeri emigres from this issue
were a big mistake. This just caused the interference by the Russians. More than
that, solving the issue, essentially in line with the Caucasians’ demands became
impossible.
Bammat in his articles, in fact, indicated indirectly that some of the
Caucasian territories were in the hands of Turkey. However, he said that the only
possibility for agreement entailed the renunciation of these territories by Turkey.
This could be painful but was necessary to attain sovereignty.
In response to these arguments of Bammat and Kavkaz, the other group
blamed them for giving Kars, Ardahan and Batum to Turkey and being pro-
Turkish. Bammat and the Kavkaz group in response defined Turkey and Iran as the
partners that have common interests with the Caucasians.
418
The existing cultural
bonds and race connections attach these two nations to the Caucasians. Therefore,
Bammat asserted relations with Turkey and Iran could only be friendly and cordial.
Then he frankly stated that, he had never felt it necessary to conceal his
Turkophilizm. He pointed that, for the all-Caucasian patriots who had a desire to
418
Haydar Bammat, “Türkiye ve Kafkasya,” Almanak, 67-70. Azerbaycanlı Mehmed Zade,
“Kafkasyayı, Türkiye ve İrana Bağlayan Tarihi, Etnik ve Kültürel Rabıtalar,” Almanak, 76-80.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |