Armenian PM: Embrace Peace, Shed Historical Burden for Future with Baku

YEREVAN – Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan continues to champion a pragmatic and often controversial path towards peace with neighboring Azerbaijan, urging his compatriots to accept the reality that there is “no alternative” to normalizing relations. His stance, articulated during the international forum “Building Peace and Multilateral Cooperation” in Yerevan on November 4, includes a call for Armenians to relinquish any aspirations of returning to Karabakh and even describes past attempts to repatriate Azerbaijanis to Armenia, viewed by some as their historical homeland, as a “mistake.”

Pashinyan underscored the imperative for Armenia’s political leadership to choose between being “consumers of history or creators.” He argued that while history should not be forgotten, dwelling on past grievances or attempting to “reproduce” historical narratives ultimately hinders the pursuit of peace. The Prime Minister reflected on Armenia’s long history under various empires – Persian, Ottoman, Russian, Arab, Mongol-Tatar – suggesting that each era imposed its own “Kirovakans and Kirovabads” (referring to Soviet-era name changes of cities reverted to Armenian names), cautioning against letting these historical layers dictate present-day policies and potentially impede reconciliation.

Metaphorically describing the fragile peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan as a “newborn child,” Pashinyan posed a critical question: “Do we want to take care of it or not?” He contended that the return of Armenian refugees to Karabakh could threaten this nascent peace, while the swift conclusion of a peace treaty between Yerevan and Baku, along with comprehensive border delimitation, would bolster its chances of survival. This perspective directly contrasts with the deeply held sentiments of many displaced Armenians and nationalist factions.

Pashinyan’s remarks resonate against the backdrop of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s recent focus on historical narratives. Addressing the 80th anniversary of Azerbaijan’s National Academy of Sciences, Aliyev emphasized the need for state structures, public organizations, and scholars to extensively research and promote the history of Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur, highlighting the persistent historical claims and counter-claims that underpin the conflict.

Despite the profound historical and emotional chasms, signs of shifting perceptions are emerging. Johnny Melikyan, an expert from the Orbeli Center, observes progress, citing the agreement on lifting transit restrictions and increased dialogue among civil society representatives. He stresses the need to accelerate the delineation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, particularly in southern Armenia, where the so-called “Trump Road” is reportedly planned to facilitate trade for Azerbaijan and other nations. Melikyan acknowledges that while the process of normalization will not be swift, its continuous momentum is crucial. He praises Pashinyan’s diplomatic restraint in safeguarding the peace process, with Yerevan ultimately aspiring to deepen not only diplomatic ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey but also broader economic relations across the region.

Political scientist Ilgar Velizade concurs, believing that economic cooperation can catalyze reconciliation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. However, Velizade cautions against the potential for revanchist forces in Armenia to derail the fragile peace process, underscoring the delicate balance of domestic politics and regional aspirations. The path to lasting peace remains complex, requiring sustained political will and a willingness to confront historical narratives in pursuit of a shared future.