With each passing day, the government of Azerbaijan is tightening the screws on Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in an effort to extort more concessions from Armenia.
Pashinyan and Aliyev have two different reasons for raising the issue of the so-called peace plan.
Pashinyan’s goal was to secure Armenians’ votes in the June 7 parliamentary elections and hold on to power by misleading them into thinking that he had achieved peace.
Aliyev, on the other hand, has a completely different objective. He is in no rush to finalize a peace deal with Armenia. Seeing that Pashinyan is eagerly accepting all of his demands, Aliyev is pressing for additional concessions, such as the return of the former Azerbaijani enclaves within Armenia, the acquisition of new Armenian territories under the guise of “delimiting and demarcating” the border between the two countries, changing Armenia’s constitution and securing the resettlement of 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Armenia.
To carry out the resettlement of Azerbaijanis, Aliyev has taken several important steps:
- Formed and funded an organization called the “Community of Western Azerbaijan.”
- Insisted that Armenia has no choice but to accept the return of 300,000 Azerbaijanis.
- Promoted the resettlement plan by arranging for visiting foreign officials to meet with the “Community of Western Azerbaijan” board.
- Organized conferences around the world, including one held last week in the halls of the U.S. Congress.
However, most Armenians are not aware that Aliyev has initiated a much more significant effort by circulating two “Community of Western Azerbaijan” appeals to all members of the United Nations on Jan. 17, 2023 (three pages), and March 14, 2023 (nine pages), seeking the support of the international community for his resettlement plan.
In the Jan. 17 appeal, Azerbaijan asked the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to pressure “the Government of Armenia to enable, within an international process, the safe and dignified return of ethnic Azerbaijanis to their homes in Armenia,” and to guarantee “their collective and individual rights after their return.”
Azerbaijan’s appeal accused Armenia of committing “violence, massacres, and other crimes against humanity and human rights violations,” claiming that “this process was especially violent and cruel in 1905-06, 1918-21, 1948-53 and 1988-91.”
How can Azerbaijan accuse Armenia of committing mass violence against ethnic Azeris in 1905-06, since the Republic of Armenia did not exist at that time. The other listed periods are also based on false claims, as Azerbaijan is accusing Armenia of atrocities that were, in fact, committed by Azeris against Armenians in Baku, Nakhichevan, Sumgait, and Artsakh. Azerbaijanis living in Soviet Armenia between 1988 and 1991 left the country voluntarily after selling their houses and belongings. The Azerbaijani appeal also accuses Armenia of demolishing mosques and graveyards. Azerbaijan itself destroyed thousands of ancient khachkars, churches and other Armenian monuments in Nakhichevan, as well as dozens of religious and cultural monuments in Artsakh.
However, instead of criticizing the government of Azerbaijan for its hostile “Western Azerbaijan” agenda, Pashinyan has claimed that the Armenian opposition provoked Aliyev to raise the issue of the resettlement of Azerbaijanis in Armenia by talking about the right of Armenian refugees to return to Artsakh. Pashinyan is wrong because Azerbaijan confirmed in its U.N. appeal that the “Community of Western Azerbaijan” was initiated in 1989 as “Society of Azerbaijani Refugees,” long before the expulsion of Artsakh Armenians in 2023.
Incredibly, Pashinyan dismissed Aliyev’s plan to bring 300,000 Azerbaijanis to Armenia. However, it is hard to trust the words of someone who once declared, “Artsakh is Armenia, period,” and later stated, “Artsakh is Azerbaijan.”
Moving 300,000 Azerbaijanis to Armenia would be a total disaster for the Republic of Armenia. Here is why:
- Any minor altercation between a resettled Azerbaijani and a local Armenian could be used as a pretext for Azerbaijan to send its troops into Armenia under the guise of protecting its own people. The appeal to the U.N. stated that the Azeri “Community does not trust this State [Armenia] in security matters.” It seeks protection for Azerbaijani settlers from Azerbaijan’s military or other foreign troops, possibly including Turkey.
- The Azerbaijani appeal to the U.N. also stated that, after the Azerbaijanis settle in Armenia, they must “have equal rights [to] enable them to study in their mother tongue and use the Azerbaijani language in the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the Government.” They would demand their own schools, mosques, community centers and police force. As a result, a large number of Azerbaijani language teachers and imams would be brought to Armenia. The U.N. appeal added that “Azerbaijanis shall be entitled to form local security forces and take an appropriate role in courts.”
- The resettled Azerbaijanis would have the right to vote and elect their own representatives to the Armenian parliament, resulting in laws that would protect their interests.
- Armenian history books would be altered so as “not to offend” the sensitivities of Azerbaijani students regarding the history of Artsakh and Christianity.
- The U.N. appeal demanded that “the Government of Armenia ensure the return of property and community lands belonging to Azerbaijanis and pay compensation for property damage and losses caused by preventing the use of such property.”
- The Azerbaijani appeal also demanded that “Armenia cease its policy and practice of instilling hatred and discrimination against Azerbaijanis, hand over those who have committed crimes against Azerbaijanis to the court of justice, immediately cease glorifying them, demolish monuments to military and political figures and terrorists who took part in crimes against Azerbaijanis, and reverse the changes to toponyms.”
No one should be surprised if Aliyev soon adds the return of 300,000 Azerbaijanis to his long list of preconditions for signing a peace agreement.
Azerbaijan’s “Western Azerbaijan” Campaign Is Serious – But Fearmongering Is Not Strategy
To the Editor:
Harut Sassounian’s article on Azerbaijan’s demand to resettle 300,000 Azerbaijanis in Armenia raises a real and serious concern. Azerbaijan’s so-called “Western Azerbaijan” campaign is dangerous, hostile, and clearly intended to place long-term political and psychological pressure on the Republic of Armenia.
But the article frames the issue in a misleading way.
Much of what is presented as a new escalation is not new. The Azerbaijani appeals to the United Nations cited in the article date back to January and March 2023. Their circulation through the UN system does not mean the UN endorsed Azerbaijan’s claims. It means Azerbaijan placed its propaganda into the international record.
That distinction matters.
Armenians should absolutely take the “Western Azerbaijan” narrative seriously. It is part of Azerbaijan’s broader effort to manufacture historical claims against Armenia, create false equivalence with the rights of displaced Armenians from Artsakh, and keep pressure on Yerevan during the peace process.
But serious threats require serious strategy, not recycled alarmism.
Instead of using every Azerbaijani provocation as another opportunity to attack Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Armenian commentators should be asking what Armenia’s national response should be. How should Armenia document the facts? How should it counter Azerbaijan’s false claims internationally? How should it distinguish between humanitarian rights and manufactured irredentism? How should it build support among the European Union, the United States, France, India, Iran, and other partners?
Those are the questions that matter.
The “Western Azerbaijan” campaign did not begin because of one statement by Pashinyan, nor will it be defeated by another round of diaspora outrage against Armenia’s government. Azerbaijan’s territorial narratives predate the current election cycle and are part of Baku’s long-term state policy.
That is precisely why Armenia needs disciplined diplomacy, legal preparation, historical documentation, strategic communications, defense strengthening, and international coalition-building.
Fear alone is not policy. Blaming Pashinyan for every Azerbaijani move is not analysis. And presenting old UN submissions as though they are a sudden new development does not help readers understand the actual challenge.
Armenia faces a serious adversary in Azerbaijan. It also faces a serious information war. The answer is not panic, fatalism, or domestic political point-scoring. The answer is a sober national strategy that defends Armenia’s sovereignty, exposes Azerbaijan’s manufactured claims, and keeps the international focus on peace, territorial integrity, and the rights and security of Armenia’s citizens.
Armenia deserves vigilance, not fearmongering.
I am glad the Armenian Weekly allows Berge to continue spewing his pro-Pashinyan and pro-Azerbaijan propaganda. By doing this, he is exposing himself as a Diasporan who blindly backs Pashinyan’s anti-Amenian statements and actions.
Your reply did not add anything new to my column. I did say that Azerbaijan presented the letter to the UN in 2023. Did you know about it? I don’t think you. So you should thank me for educating you, despite your protests.
You say that I should have suggested how Armenia should handle Azerbaijan’s demand. By doing so, you are making two baseless assumptions:
1) You assume that Pashinyan is competent enought to implement any pro-Armenian advice;
2) You also assume that pashinyan listens to anyone’s advice, let alone mine. Pashinyan is a one-man dictatorship. No one else matters, not even his own closed servile circle.
Mr. Sassounian,
I did not defend Azerbaijan. I did not dismiss Azerbaijan’s “Western Azerbaijan” campaign. I called it dangerous, hostile, and part of Baku’s long-term pressure campaign against Armenia.
My point was different.
Azerbaijan’s UN submissions were from 2023. Circulating propaganda through the UN system does not mean the UN endorsed it, and presenting old material as a new escalation can mislead readers.
You are also mistaken to label every disagreement with your framing as “pro-Pashinyan” or “pro-Azerbaijan.” I have not argued that Pashinyan is beyond criticism. I argued that Armenia needs a serious national strategy: documentation, legal preparation, diplomacy, strategic communications, defense strengthening, and international coalition-building.
Personal attacks do not answer that point.
Azerbaijan’s threat is real. That is exactly why Armenians need sober analysis, not political labeling or fear-driven rhetoric.
Respectfully,
Berge Jololian