This is about much more than a “peace” treaty

The March 13 joint announcement by the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan that they had reached an agreement on the terms of a peace deal was met with endless congratulatory comments from the United States and Europe. Given the “historic” label attached to the responses, one might conclude that all has been forgiven and peace will prevail. But the wheels of diplomacy move slowly. Before actual peace is achieved between warring nations, each side battles to control the narrative—one largely defined by self-interest. The larger nations in the West have little interest in a lasting peace agreement. They bubble over a document held together by Armenian concessions and Armenia’s commitment to peace, while Azerbaijan, buoyed by its military victories in 2020 and 2023 and their criminal resumé, offers little in the way of compromise. For Western nations, a peace agreement in the South Caucasus is merely a footnote—one that clears the path for economic manipulation and trade agreements, free of the threat of political and military instability. This has been the problem from the beginning. While Europe speaks of peace and justice, Britain maintains long-term energy relations with Azerbaijan through BP. In their efforts to punish Russia over Ukraine, Europe signs massive gas deals with the Azeris. The hypocrisy—rooted in self-interest—is fueling the criminal aggression of Azerbaijan towards Armenia. While we correctly criticize Israel for its brazen support of Azerbaijan, the Europeans conduct a duplicitous campaign that also funds aggression. There is little difference between selling arms or buying energy to enable military aggression. In this environment, we must look to each other for support. Within the diaspora, criticism of the peace negotiations is often directed squarely at Armenia’s ruling government. We relentlessly criticize the concessions and seeming one-sidedness of the process. There is no doubt that we are all sincere in our concern for the future of Armenia, but it is unfair for any of us to challenge each other’s motivations simply because we disagree. Democracy is a complex process that starts with a civil exchange of ideas, where the hope is that the best solutions will emerge. I would suggest that, before criticizing, we should attempt to put ourselves in the other person’s shoes. Endless criticism is not a solution or alternative. What would we do differently in this process with Azerbaijan? Armenia understands that living under a continuous threat of war is not in its interest. As we learned when Artsakh was attacked, starved and depopulated, empathetic notes from Western democracies were useless. If the West stands by while Turkey massacres U.S.-allied Kurds in Syria or Israel kills over 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza, what do you think their response will be if dictator Ilham Aliyev decides to attack Armenia? We tend to forget geography. The neighborhood is inhabited by Turks, not Europeans or Americans. Even Ukraine’s much-vaunted “security guarantees” are rooted in protecting Europe’s own borders. Russia looms as the war in Ukraine winds down. Iran remains an important player but is under considerable pressure from the West. The Armenian government lives with these realities every day. Do we? Living in that reality influences our perspectives. Armenia has no choice but to play the role of the “good guy” in the peace process, hoping to expose Azerbaijan’s lack of commitment. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, has no natural interest in peace. If such a treaty were to be implemented and relations improved with Armenia, Aliyev would lose one of his most important weapons: anti-Armenian hatred. For a dictator who represses his own people, diversions are important to maintaining popular support and, ultimately, power. His campaign of unrelenting attacks, institutional racism and historical revisionism is a calculated effort to protect his own security with offensive fabrication. Aliyev’s ever-growing list of absurd pre-conditions, false border accusations and historical lies is an orchestrated process to justify his criminal acts. Continued demands of additional concessions are insulting but rooted in his desire to delay the peace process indefinitely. For example, his demand that Armenia amend its constitution to remove any references to “territorial integrity” is not based on a fear of losing Artsakh. He has already committed genocide—murdering civilians, starving the population and forcing a complete depopulation of the territory. This is a page out of the Turkish playbook that ethnically cleansed Western Armenia. The constitutional demand would require a referendum and, if perceived as Azerbaijani meddling, would likely be rejected—despite scholars agreeing that the constitutional language does not create a problem. A rejection by Armenia or internal delay would be used by Aliyev to claim that Armenia refused to abide by the spirit of the peace process, thus opening the door to more aggression. Aliyev has violated nearly every protocol of diplomacy. Good faith negotiations are not in his value system. While announcing the “historic” agreement, he immediately demanded further concessions before it could be signed. What kind of a “good faith” negotiator would talk of peace and then call Armenia a “fascist” nation that is part of “Western Azerbaijan”? These surreal distortions are not just absurd—they are strategic. Money buys influence in a world filled with self-interest and deceit. The latest abomination is the conference sponsored by a prestigious Catholic institution, entitled “Christianity in Azerbaijan.” These audacious attempts reflect no limits to destroy all that we consider the foundation of our civilization—our nation, history, culture and identity. It reflects a despot’s belief that his regime can survive by deceiving his own people and extorting the international community. This broader perspective must be taken very seriously. The threat goes beyond Armenia’s sovereignty and security. Aliyev and his supporters seek to destroy the very core of our identity. Without a sovereign nation state, the diaspora would be left to survive the impact of this destructive campaign. His hatred fuels the continuation of his despotic regime. It is rooted in racism, deceit and lies of diversion. Given the totality of Aliyev’s criminal intent, the diaspora can be very effective in diminishing his impact. The global Armenian nation must be united in resisting this aggressor. The complexity of the threat requires full engagement—minimizing redundancy, maximizing cooperation and building a common vision. Azerbaijan’s revisionism, cultural genocide and fossil-fuel corruption must be countered by our significant and talented academic community worldwide. In the past 50 years, Armenian Studies has flourished—with more university chairs, research organizations and academic programming than ever before. Armenian scholars have joined their colleagues in advancing our language, history, arts and architecture on a global stage. This infrastructure must be used to fight revisionism and denialism. Scholastic organizations such as NAASR (National Association for Armenian Studies and Research) and SAS (Society of Armenian Studies) should organize international conferences to respond to disgraceful activity such as the aforementioned symposium on “Christianity in Azerbaijan”—a country that expelled 300,000 Christians, destroyed its Christian legacy in Nakhichevan and continues that practice in ethnically cleansed Artsakh. We are well equipped for this challenge, but do we have the will? Aliyev continues to sabotage the peace process. His demand that all “foreign” resources be removed from the border—specifically referring to the EUMA unarmed monitors on the Armenian side—is part of a broader plan to eliminate oversight. These observers play a critical role in documenting activity on the border that can separate fact from fiction, preventing “false accusations.” In an attempt to keep the negotiations alive, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan suggested that in areas where the border demarcation and delimitation is complete, the observers would no longer be needed. If Pashinyan were dealing with a reasonable adversary, it would have been an opportunity to move forward—but Aliyev is not a reasonable adversary. He continues to distort and blame, using the peace process to justify further aggression. To Aliyev and his rogue regime, the peace process is merely another pawn to disrupt and destroy our identity—our sovereignty, culture, history and art. We are confronted with a well-financed revisionist campaign that will use this diversion to keep attention away from his domestic policies. This is where the diaspora can play a critical role. By helping shape third-party perceptions and responses, we become active participants, not passive critics. Labeling everything a concession does not help. Has that approach worked? Perhaps we should attempt another approach. The diverse skills of all Armenians in finance, diplomacy, academics and activism are required to defeat this vile attempt by Azerbaijan. We must respond not only to the Azeris but to their collaborators. Following the Catholicos’ statement, the Armenian legate to the Vatican should demand an explanation and retraction regarding the recent conference. It is time for us to take these attacks seriously and respond continuously—with the truth. The peace process is important for Armenia, but it is just one element of a larger equation. Aliyev’s campaign seeks to eliminate our identity. We must continue to find common ground among all Armenians to resist.

This is about much more than a “peace” treaty

This story is FREE for you...

Stepan Piligian

One Comment

This story is FREE for you...

Stepan Piligian

One Comment

Related Articles

Pashinyan’s pointless speech at the Global Armenian Summit

Enemies abroad, Pashinyan within: Armenia faces threats on both fronts

In Armenia, migration is changing the language of daily life

Turkish and Azerbaijani media respond to my article on diaspora vs. Pashinyan