The Treaty of Sèvres Remains an Important Document, Says Armen Sarkissian

The Syrian influential newspaper Al-Azmenah has published an exclusive interview with the President of the Republic of Armenia, Armen Sarkissian. "Mr. President, on August 10th, we mark the 100th anniversary of the Treaty of Sèvres, which was signed at the Paris Peace Conference after the end of World War I between the victors of the 13 Allied countries and the defeated Ottoman Empire. The treaty aimed to resolve the long-standing Armenian question and put an end to the suffering of the Armenian people. What do you say about this?"

The Treaty of Sèvres was, by nature, a peace treaty, and in this regard, it could have radically resolved one of the most complex issues in our region—the Armenian question. Prior to the Treaty of Sèvres, the first conference took place in London between February and April 1920, where a political decision was made to create a single, unified Armenian state. Meanwhile, the Republic of Armenia, recognized de facto by the Paris Conference on January 19, 1920, was acknowledged as a cornerstone of Armenian statehood, with certain territories of Western Armenia under Ottoman control to join it.

According to the Treaty of Sèvres, Turkey recognized Armenia as a free and independent state. Turkey and Armenia agreed to leave the delineation of borders between the two states in the provinces of Erzurum, Trabzon, Van, and Bitlis up to the decision of the USA (to President Woodrow Wilson's arbitration decision, which also marks its 100th anniversary on November 22), and to accept both his decision immediately and all proposals regarding Armenia's access to the sea and the demilitarization of all Ottoman territories adjacent to the border. However, the Treaty of Sèvres remained on paper...

In fact, the Treaty of Sèvres did not receive full ratification (hence remains unperfected), and while the decisions related to Armenia were not implemented due to changes in the international political situation, it has also never been nullified. The Treaty of Sèvres is a legal, inter-state document, and also a de facto operative one, since several Middle Eastern countries' statuses or situations following World War I are based on or derived from this document, particularly Syria (currently Syria-Lebanon), Mesopotamia (currently Iraq-Kuwait), Palestine (currently Israel and the Palestinian Authority), Hejaz (currently Saudi Arabia), Egypt, Sudan, Cyprus, Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya. In this context, the Treaty of Sèvres could have contributed to resolving the Armenian question and unifying the Armenian people on their historical lands. It could have partially healed the damages caused to the Armenian people due to the 1915 Armenian Genocide by creating conditions for the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey and establishing lasting peace among the peoples of our region.

However, in September 1920, the attacks launched by the Kemalists against the Republic of Armenia ended with the elimination of Armenian statehood and the Sovietization of Armenia. Thus, the centuries-old struggle of the Armenian people to unite the divided parts of Armenia into one state was not crowned with success. Nevertheless, the Republic of Armenia and the entire Armenian diaspora around the world remain the heirs and masters of their millennia-long history and civilization. No matter what they do or say, no matter how much they deny the obvious facts, no matter how much they destroy and erase the material monuments of Armenian history and civilization in the territories of historical Armenia, they cannot erase the memory of the Armenian people.

The Treaty of Sèvres remains an important document today regarding the right of the Armenian people to achieve a just resolution of the Armenian question.

There is a widespread view that the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 annulled the Treaty of Sèvres. This is not true and could not have been so. The Treaty of Lausanne not only does not contain such an annulment, but there is not even a mention of the Treaty of Sèvres. The Republic of Armenia did not sign it, therefore it is not a part of the Treaty of Lausanne. Consequently, it does not create any obligations for the Republic of Armenia. In this context, the principle of Res inter alios acta (you are not a party, you have no obligation) in international law applies. The Treaty of Sèvres and the Treaty of Lausanne are two different legal documents.

Returning to our days, the Middle East, which is in close proximity to the countries of the South Caucasus, is once again boiling with armed clashes, civil wars, the fight against terrorism, and territorial disputes. In mid-July, border clashes occurred in the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact zone, claiming lives and creating extreme tension between Yerevan and Baku. Yes, during this time, as the whole world and we fight against a common enemy—the COVID-19 pandemic—and despite the fact that conflicts around the world have ceased, our neighboring country—Azerbaijan—tried to take advantage of this situation by inciting aggression along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, using this ‘window of opportunity’ negatively. It is fortunate that the Armenian armed forces demonstrated high combat readiness and were able to restrain the adversary's ambitions within literally two or three days, thus saving our region from the fire of large-scale clashes.

Various capitals, including the UN, EU, and OSCE, made statements about these extremely dangerous developments, calling for calm and dialogue among the parties. Only Ankara maintained a belligerent tone, fully supporting Baku in its actions. Yes, the international community reacted widely to the events. This specifically relates to Moscow, Washington, and Paris concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. However, the Tavush incidents showed that there are very serious concerns.

My first point of concern pertains to the quite aggressive rhetoric of our southern neighbor—Turkey. Turkey uses language inappropriate for international relations towards Armenia. This is done without any justification, irresponsibly. Let us not forget that this is the country that has also been the site of a great human tragedy, where genocide was committed against our people 105 years ago. Instead of building a bridge with Armenia by recognizing its dark pages of history, they use a rhetoric that, in reality, exhibits their intent to continue what happened 105 years ago.

My second concern is that Azerbaijan is trying to create the impression that Armenia poses a threat to the international infrastructures running through Azerbaijan's territory. This is absolutely absurd. Those infrastructures exist, have been in place for over 20 years, and Armenia has never shown any intention to destroy them. My message is that Armenia has never been, is not, and will never be a threat to anyone, as we are the descendants of those who went through genocide and survived. Therefore, we know very well what it means to suffer; we understand what human values represent. I am concerned that while the whole world is fighting the pandemic together, some are planning inhumane acts.

My next concern is related to official statements from the Azerbaijani government or relevant departments indicating that Azerbaijan could strike the Metsamor nuclear power plant. I myself am a physicist and understand very well the actual consequences that could occur if they were to decide to strike the power plant. Thus, I view this statement as an intention for a terrorist act, which in international relations is defined as nuclear terrorism. God forbid, if that were to happen, we would have a Caucasian Chernobyl. Not only Armenia would suffer, but everyone would—including Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia, and the Middle East... Whatever issues exist between countries, between neighbors, playing with fire on a nuclear issue is unacceptable.