The article published in The National Interest presents a deeply one-sided view of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, disregarding key historical, political, and legal factors that shape the narrative. While the author emphasizes alleged human rights abuses and accuses Azerbaijan of “ethnic cleansing,” the reality is far more nuanced, and framing the conflict solely through the lens of “one side’s victimhood” misses an important context. 

First, it is crucial to recognize that Nagorno-Karabakh (a short name for the former “Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region”) is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, a fact acknowledged by the United Nations and every country around the world, including Armenia. The author’s claim that the region had been governed independently by its Armenian population disregards the fact that this governance was the result of an illegal secessionist movement that arose during the collapse of the Soviet Union and an ensuing “ethnic cleansing” of the region’s more than 600,000 Azerbaijani population. The separatist campaign was supported by Armenia, which led to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories beyond Nagorno-Karabakh itself, in direct violation of international law, as established by the European Court of Human Rights in its landmark case Chiragov v. Armenia.

The 1992 Khojaly massacre inflicted immense trauma on all Azerbaijanis worldwide: 613 civilians were brutally murdered on the cold night of February 25–26, 1992. This wound never healed, and Armenia did not do anything to listen and accept responsibility. While the wars have never been the best instances of a display of chivalry, the Khojaly massacre went beyond brutality—it was a display of hate and vengeance. Unfortunately, the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was not an exception in the occurrence of war crimes on both sides, and the article neglects those committed by the Armenian army personnel.

The article also fails to mention Azerbaijan’s commitment to resolve the conflict diplomatically through negotiations facilitated by the OSCE Minsk Group. Instead of seeking a peaceful resolution, Armenia entrenched itself militarily in the occupied territories and commenced a program of illegal settlement of these regions contrary to international law. The author’s portrayal of Azerbaijan as “an aggressor” ignores the fact that Azerbaijan’s military actions in 2020 were in response to these ongoing violations and Armenia’s refusal to negotiate in good faith.

The use of the term “ethnic cleansing,” too, is highly problematic. No international body has characterized the exodus of the Karabakh Armenians as such. In the preceding months, the Azerbaijani government’s repeated calls for meetings with the representatives of Karabakh Armenians were ignored. As the continued presence of unconstitutional military units was posing an imminent threat to the security of civilians and the state in general, Azerbaijan took action after a landmine explosion killed emergency workers and police on September 19, 2023. 

While this military operation was intense, it was conducted within the context of restoring Azerbaijan’s sovereignty—a right enshrined in international law (Article 51 of the UN Charter). To characterize Azerbaijan’s efforts to regain control over its own land as “a campaign of extermination” is a gross misrepresentation. The UN Mission visiting the region found no evidence of “violence against civilians” following the September 20 ceasefire agreement. In the immediate aftermath of the military operation, Azerbaijan announced that the civilian population could stay provided that they applied for Azerbaijani passports. 80 percent of the entire Armenian population chose to leave for Armenia, for which Azerbaijan created necessary conditions of passage over the border.

The article further accuses Azerbaijan of engaging in “genocidal rhetoric,” pointing to statements allegedly made by President Ilham Aliyev. These statements are taken out of context and misinterpreted: they were directed at those who have sought to undermine Azerbaijan’s sovereignty through violence, not at Armenians as an ethnic group. President Aliyev has repeatedly affirmed that Azerbaijan has no animosity towards ethnic Armenians, provided they respect the country’s laws and sovereignty. 

This year, Azerbaijan will be hosting the high-level UN Climate Change Conference COP29. It is a forum to address the most pressing challenge of our time—climate change. Azerbaijan’s hosting of such a high-level event was a result of a compromise between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Therefore, it should be viewed as an opportunity for constructive engagement, not as a chance to derail progress on climate action by focusing on unrelated geopolitical disputes, as the author suggests.

As Azerbaijan and Armenia still trade accusations, both parties are working hard to agree to the final points of the peace treaty. A short length of a border has already been marked and agreed upon. The good news is that we are living through the most peaceful period in the history of the two nations. The opportunity and political will are there, and the parties need to make one final leap to end the decades-long enmity. Peace is within our grasp, and this time, we cannot afford to slip it through our fingers.

Anar Jahangirli is a Lecturer on Public Policy at ADA University in Baku, Azerbaijan. Anar has served as a Chairman of the Board of the Network of Azerbaijani Canadians, a grass-roots organization advocating for Azerbaijani Canadians. Anar has worked in the fields of diplomacy, international development, communications, and public affairs and holds a degree in public administration from the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Follow him on X: @AnarJahangirli.

Image: Zulfugar Graphics / Shutterstock.com.