YEREVAN — As members of Armenia’s ruling party continue to question and downplay warnings that Azerbaijan is preparing demands for the “return” of more than 300,000 Azerbaijanis to Armenia, Baku has advanced the same agenda through another state-backed event: the third “Return to Western Azerbaijan” festival-conference, held June 18-19 in Ordubad, Nakhichevan.
The event was organized with the involvement of Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Science and Education, the presidential plenipotentiary office in Nakhichevan, Nakhichevan State University and the Western Azerbaijan Community. It focused on the so-called return of Azerbaijanis to “Western Azerbaijan,” a term Azerbaijani officials and affiliated organizations use to refer to the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia.
The timing underscored a widening disconnect between public debate in Yerevan and the policy language now being institutionalized in Baku. While Armenian opposition figures have warned that Azerbaijan is attempting to insert new demands into the peace process, representatives of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party have dismissed or questioned those warnings as politically motivated. In Azerbaijan, however, senior officials are increasingly treating the issue not as rhetoric, but as a formal element of state policy.
The “Western Azerbaijan” agenda has developed rapidly since Azerbaijan’s victory in the 2020 war. In 2022, the Azerbaijani Refugee Society was renamed the Western Azerbaijan Community, giving the campaign a dedicated institutional platform. In 2023, the group adopted a “Concept of Return,” which calls for the “peaceful, safe and dignified return” of Azerbaijanis it says were expelled from the territory of present-day Armenia.
The document presents the issue as a matter of human rights and displacement. But its political implications are broader. It calls for international guarantees, monitoring mechanisms, security arrangements and negotiations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia, effectively seeking to place the issue of Azerbaijani resettlement inside any future Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement.
Aziz Alakbarli, a member of Azerbaijan’s parliament and chairman of the Western Azerbaijan Community, told journalists during the conference that Armenia must create conditions for the “safe, dignified and peaceful return” of Western Azerbaijanis. He said the issue was consistent with fundamental human rights and international law and argued that the “new realities” in the region made such a return unavoidable.
Azerbaijan’s science and education minister, Emin Amrullayev, also described the issue as a strategic direction for Baku. Amrullayev said the Western Azerbaijan theme had become part of Azerbaijan’s public diplomacy and that systematic organizational, educational and research work was being carried out under Aliyev’s policy.
The minister’s remarks pointed to the extent to which the campaign has moved beyond advocacy by a single organization. It is now being advanced through state institutions, academic programs, cultural events and diplomatic messaging. The Ordubad conference included reports on the “historical heritage” of Western Azerbaijan, discussions about the prospects for return and public presentations designed to reinforce the campaign’s legitimacy.
For Armenia, the issue presents a direct challenge at a delicate stage in the peace process. Baku is raising the matter publicly and suggesting that it should be included in negotiations with Yerevan. This demand could function as a new precondition, expanding the scope of talks from border delimitation and a peace treaty to questions involving Armenia’s internal territory, demographics and sovereignty.
The campaign has drawn sharp criticism from former Armenian officials, opposition lawmakers and regional analysts, who argue that the issue should be treated as a national security challenge.
Former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said the question of Azerbaijani resettlement in Armenia should be placed at the center of Armenia’s foreign policy agenda, rather than dismissed as an opposition talking point.
“My message is to the authorities: do not turn the issue of the return of Azerbaijanis into a government-opposition dispute,” Oskanian said.
He warned that dismissing the issue as a political exaggeration would repeat what he described as past mistakes in Armenia’s handling of Artsakh.
According to Oskanian, the risk is not immediate mass resettlement, but a long-term process that could alter Armenia’s demographic and security environment if left unanswered.
Oskanian also rejected efforts to draw a parallel between the return of Armenians displaced from Artsakh and the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia. He said the right of Artsakh Armenians to return has a clear international legal basis and broad international support, including court decisions and statements by foreign parliaments and officials.
Azerbaijan specialist Tatevik Hayrapetyan said Azerbaijan is advancing a territorial-political agenda and conducting a psychological campaign against Armenia. She noted that the Ordubad event was held in Nakhichevan, where Armenian cultural heritage was destroyed in the early 2000s, and said the symbolism of staging a “Western Azerbaijan” event there was deliberate.
Tigran Abrahamyan, an opposition lawmaker, made a similar argument, saying Baku “does not even conceal” that the “Western Azerbaijan” theme is a strategic objective. He said the discourse is being encouraged across Azerbaijani institutions and warned that maps used in Azerbaijani military and public messaging have depicted all of Syunik and Vayots Dzor, and parts of Gegharkunik and Tavush, as Azerbaijani territory.
Political analyst Suren Surenyants was more direct in his criticism of the Armenian government, accusing Pashinyan’s administration of underestimating or enabling Azerbaijan’s agenda. He argued that the Ordubad conference, Alakbarli’s statements and Amrullayev’s description of the issue as a strategic direction all show that Baku is seeking to turn the “Western Azerbaijan” narrative into a negotiating demand.
The criticism reflects a broader concern that Azerbaijan is moving the “Western Azerbaijan” campaign into institutional policy, while Yerevan has yet to formulate a clear state-level response.
