When we talk about the political history of various countries, the most famous personalities always come to mind: America – George Washington, France – Napoleon Bonaparte, Germany – Otto von Bismarck, Israel – David Ben-Gurion. These names are known not only to historians, experts and analysts, but also to many people around the world. The greatness and historical gigantism of these personalities are undeniable, but their achievements would not have been possible without those who undertook the worthy and difficult mission of technical support of their accomplishments. Nation-building passes through three fundamental stages. At the first stage, theoretical philosophers compose an ideology. It is understood as a set of principles that are designed to create a unified value base. The second stage is the formation of a layer of activist-passionaries, who, based on this ideological foundation, develop a practical roadmap (specific goals and objectives). At the third stage, a cluster of the national bourgeoisie – the financial elite – is formed, which undertakes to support the implementation of this roadmap.
The three groups described above put together are the aristocracy – people who have taken on the mission of nation- and state building and are responsible for its security and development. The national bourgeoisie should not be confused with classical merchants, for whom the earning of capital and its multiplication is an end in itself. It (the bourgeoisie) is distinguished by a clear understanding of its place and role in historic processes. At the very least, they realise that business and politics are two completely different worlds and therefore do not set the task of buying ideology and subjugating passionaries through financial influence. Most ordinary businessmen look at complex philosophical and political categories very superficially, not realising the tragic consequences of such an approach.
Suffice it to note that in business the price of a tactical or strategic error is lost profit or bankruptcy, while in the case of politics it is real lives and destinies of people, nations, and states.
Businessman aristocrat is not devoid of material ambitions and should not be perceived as a person who is ready to mindlessly and fanatically give everything for the sake of a sole idea. In contrast to the conventional merchant, they understand the critical need for careful study of the subject, with which they will have to deal with. In this case, the formula “I am rich, therefore, I know everything” is not just unacceptable, but deadly dangerous. Another distinguishing feature is conscientiousness. They are not involved in the process for reasons of clearing their conscience or in search of complacency (“I am doing something”), but because they realise that material wealth, regardless of its quantity, is only a temporary form. Capital must be filled with substance and assist in the formation of a system of influence that will assume the function of its protection. Only then will materialism with a short shelf life be transformed into an immortal legacy and become part of the national patrimony.
The national bourgeoisie has been at the origin of many great nations. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams would not have dared declare war on the British Empire without the support of the Van Rensselaers, Van Rosenvelts (Roosevelts), and Morrises. King George III of England threatened all the noble families that the Crown would regard financial and other support for the “rebels” as treason, with all the consequences that entailed. Most of the richest men of the 13 North American colonies either adopted neutrality or supported the British. Stephen Van Rensselaer, the head of the richest clan at the time, risked not only his fortune but also the lives of his entire family. His father – the founder of the family – taught that money and social status should serve noble purposes, and their bearers have the greatest privilege – to help build a general future. Few people remember the greatest feat of these three families, but therein lies their true greatness.
They did not do it for fame or to have squares and cities named in their honor, nor did they treat the struggle for independence and the building of the American nation as a business investment. Therefore, they succeeded in creating the greatest legacy and their family members still hold a prominent and special position in society today.
Theodor Herzl’s Zionism would have remained on paper without the financial support of the Rothschild family. Edmond de Rothschild believed in the ideology of the return of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel and began buying land in Palestine as well as supporting the creation and functioning of Jewish organizations. He financed the Zionist movement until the end of his life, considering it his moral obligation. Moreover, a key condition for the transfer of inheritance was the commitment of all family members to continue this endeavor. Baron Rothschild himself described his contribution as follows: “Without me Zionism would not have succeeded, but without Zionism my work would have been stuck to death”. Obviously, he considered his life’s work not to make money, but the fulfillment of the thousand-year dream of the Jewish people – the construction of their own nation-state. Today only one country in the world – Israel – remembers, appreciates, honors, preserves and protects the legacy of Edmond de Rothschild. The O’Mara and Kennedy families played a similar role in the formation of Irish statehood. The same path, the same principles and the same outcome.
What do the Van Rensselaers, the Morrises, the Rothschilds and the O’Mara’s have in common? Different families with different backgrounds from different eras. What they have in common are fundamental principles and values.
Armenian history shows that financial elites often played the role of executioners of the people and the state. Great Armenia fell not so much because of the military and political miscalculations of its leadership as because of the internal intrigues of certain princely houses seeking new sources of personal enrichment. The state became a subject of bargaining for them. Most were ready to sell it cheaply and quickly, so that it would not go to the clan coming to replace it. Hundreds of years of vassalage in their own land had completely deprived the Armenian people of meaningful values. Armenians considered as true elite those who achieved financial success in the service of outsiders (including their own oppressors) and could afford a luxurious life. Such people were role models, and it was the highest honor to see and welcome them into their homes. Not surprisingly, the same Ottomans willingly allowed Armenians to achieve considerable financial prosperity. They posed no threat, obeyed the will of the ruling elite and sought to stay as far away from their Armenianness as possible, considering it a hindrance to their wealth.
The Armenian world was not ready for the historical opportunity to build an independent Armenia after the First World War. There were thinkers (e.g., Shahan Natali), but no fundamental ideology emerged; there were also passionary practitioners (Aram Manukyan, Garegin Nzhdeh), but state-building failed; there were influential financial families, but they did not become the national bourgeoisie. The last cluster is extremely important, as a significant part of the responsibility for the failure of the Armenian national project lies with them. In the four regional capitals – Constantinople, Tehran, Tiflis and Baku – the capitalists of Armenian origin were calling the tune, among whom the oil magnate Calouste Gulbenkian was particularly prominent. In the most tragic period for the Armenian people (genocide and deportation of Armenians from Western Armenia), the gods of history gave a chance to set things right, and the keys to the necessary geopolitical doors were in the hands of this man.
Historical background
Calouste was born into the family of a wealthy industrialist, Sarkis Gulbenkian, who made a large fortune importing kerosene from the Russian Empire to the Ottoman Empire. He conducted this business with the support of Alexander Mantashev, a Russian oil magnate of Armenian origin. Sarkis not only brought cheap kerosene, which played an important role in the reset of the Ottoman economy, but also gave it free of charge for the needs of the Ottoman armed forces. The Sultan highly appreciated Gulbenkian’s activities, awarding him the position of the port manager of Batumi on the Black Sea. Calouste received his education in the best universities of Europe and upon completion returned to continue his father’s work.
Ironically, the authorities, to whom the Gulbenkians gave their time, energy and talents, overnight ordered the arrest of all wealthy Armenians during the pogroms of 1896 (the Hamidian Massacre). Calouste had to flee to Egypt, where he was taken under his protection by Poghos Nubarian, son of Egypt’s first Prime Minister Nubar Nubarian. Their family originates from the legendary commander Nubar – the closest associate of David Bek, who led the liberation war in Syunik (1722-1730). The Nubarians, head and heart, have always been oriented towards Armenian stateness, so the obligation to support an Armenian was part of their internal code of honor. Unfortunately, as in the case of another Armenian statesman, Aram Manoukian, the leader of the First Republic, they were deprived of a unified nationwide ideological compass, which caused unacceptable confusion in different directions. Each saw the salvation of the country and the people in his own way, while Gulbenkian thought of only one thing – preservation and multiplication of capital.
After the Young Turk revolution and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Calouste got back in the saddle. The new Turkish leadership (the same ones who would decide on the final extermination of the Armenian people), through their representatives in London, asked him to participate in the creation of a new state bank and attract European capital to Turkey. Gulbenkian accepted the offer. By 1914 he already owned 30% of the Turkish National Bank, which provided him with 15% of Turkish Petroleum. Gulbenkian was in fact the father of all Mesopotamian oil, with enormous influence on the political and economic elites of Europe, including the British-Dutch Deterding family, owners of the oil giant Royal Dutch Shell. Oil has gone far beyond commerce to become a key factor in global geopolitics. Gulbenkian could not fail to realise this, as the leaders of the then great powers – British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Clemenceau – personally negotiated with him.
The postwar architecture of international relations depended on Britain and France, the victors of World War I, and the energy security of postwar Europe depended on Calouste Gulbenkian (along with the Armenian clans of the Mantashevs, Aramiantses and Lianozovs). Could they have used their influence and capital for the benefit of the nascent Armenian statehood and the weakening of its main adversary, Kemalist Turkey? Of course they could, but their priorities were different.
As the largest shareholder of Turkish National Bank, Calouste Gulbenkian brought together the British (50% – Anglo-Persian Oil Company (future British Petroleum)), the Germans (25% – Deutsche Bank), the British-Dutch alliance (25% – Royal Dutch/Shell), and the Turks.
Historical background
The history of the struggle for Iraqi oil began in 1904, when the Turkish sultan granted the German Anatolian Railways community (owned by Deutsche Bank) the right to build the Baghdad Railroad. The Turks also promised to give the Germans future authorization to develop and exploit minerals (primarily oil) in Mosul. The British were concerned about German activities in the Middle East and through intelligence conducted secret negotiations with Sultan Abdul Hamid’s confidants. Britain’s lobbyists were proxies of the Ottoman Sultan’s closest favorite, the Minister of Finance and Minister of the Secret Treasury, Hagop Kazazian (Hagop Pasha). It was Kazazian who in his time introduced Sarkis Gulbenkian to the Sultan and achieved his appointment as the head of Batumi port. Hagop Pasha sympathized with the British and for a long time was the main barrier to the expansion of Ottoman-German relations. Kazazian died at the age of 55 under bizarre circumstances. Negotiations with the British were halted after the overthrow of Abdul Hamid and the rise to power of the Young Turks, who saw Turkey’s future in an alliance with Germany. The British were left with only one option: force. During World War I, the Mosul vilayet was seized by the British. In 1926, London consolidated its victory politically. Turkey lost control over Mosul, which came under the control of the Kingdom of Iraq, a British Mandate.
Under the agreement, Anglo-Persian Oil Company and Royal Dutch/Shell gave Gulbenkian a “beneficiary share” of 2.5% each for a total of 5% (hence his nickname Mr. “Five Percent”). However, Calouste did not use the energy factor in any way to lobby for British or French, with whom he signed a secret agreement to transfer a significant part of his stake in Mosul oil production, support for Armenia. He also left an extremely unpleasant impression on the American side, which sought access to Middle Eastern oil through full support of the Armenian national project.
Historical background
The White House was also worried that between 1911-1918, America’s demand for oil increased by 90 percent, and the number of registered cars from 1.8 million to 9.2 million. Experts predicted that the explored American reserves were expected to be exhausted in 10 years. These predictions influenced the price of oil and forced the government to support oil companies in their search for foreign supplies.
The then U.S. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover (future president of the country) proposed to create a syndicate to work together to explore and produce oil in Mesopotamia. This mission was entrusted to Standard Oil, an oil giant created by John Rockefeller. Walter Teagle – CEO of Standard Oil NJ (New Jersey) – was sent as a negotiator with the Deterding (Royal Dutch/Shell), Greenway (Anglo-Persian Oil), Merciers (France), and Gulbenkian families. The British and the French told Teagle that they were only willing to make a deal that Gulbenkian would approve and support. Though he agreed to negotiate, he did not hide his irritation that he would have to talk to someone other than Rockefeller himself. Gulbenkian did not even allow Teagle to present the essence of the American plan, making it clear that he was not interested in the strategic plans of the United States and did not need new business partners either.
This conversation cost Armenia too much. The position of American strategists was based on the fact that support for the Armenian project was objectively in the national interests of the United States. Armenians were non-Orthodox Christians, had substantial economic potential, and enjoyed serious support from the influential Christian lobby within America itself. Coupled with the support of Rockefeller, who financed every 3rd influential federal politician in Washington, the Greater Armenia (Wilsonian Armenia) project had a serious chance of success. However, further events (bizarre escapades of the Armenian elite in different capitals and Gulbenkian’s refusal to support the American initiative) led to the opposite result: Congress blocked all of President Wilson’s initiatives (the United States did not even become members of the League of Nations, within the framework of which they were supposed to get under the Treaty of Sevres a mandate for Armenia), Armenian elites in Spyurk (would-be Diaspora) could not work out a unified strategy, and in Yerevan there was a struggle between supporters of independence and communists.
Rockefeller still managed to push through the resistance of the British, with whom the Americans began to negotiate directly, bypassing Gulbenkian. In 1928, the American syndicate Near East Development Company (Standard Oil, Socony, Gulf Oil, the Pan-American Petroleum and Transportation Company, Atlantic Refining) received its share in Turkish Petroleum, which would later become Iraq Petroleum. As a result, the shares in Iraq Petroleum were distributed as follows: Great Britain (Royal Dutch/Shell – 23.75%, Anglo-Persian Oil – 23.75%), France (Compagnie Francaise des Petroles – 23.75%), USA (Near East Development Company – 23.75%), and Calouste Gulbenkian – 5%. In the same year, the owners of Royal Dutch/Shell, Standard Oil, and Anglo-Persian Oil signed the Achnacarry Agreement for the sale of raw materials, which de facto marked the creation of the International Oil Cartel. This cartel pragmatically saw an opportunity to make strategic investments in Turkey, which had defended its independence and demonstrated its readiness to modernize the country according to Western standards (Ataturk’s reforms). None of the great powers ever stood up for Armenia. As a result, the Turkish statesman Kemal Ataturk, who did not have Gulbenkian’s wealth and connections, negotiated with the Soviet Union, Britain, and France, while the Americans, who did not send an official delegation to the Lausanne Conference, concluded bilateral agreements with Turkey dealing with politics, economy and trade. The “legacy” of Gulbenkian and other Armenian capitalists was given away to foreign countries (Turkey, Portugal, Soviet Azerbaijan, Soviet Georgia, France) and the successors of that wealth were consigned to oblivion. Ataturk’s legacy is one of the strongest world powers of our time, which played a decisive role in the successful aggression of Azerbaijan against Artsakh and the final expulsion of the Armenian population from there.
