Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
In a recent statement, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan equated Armenian references to “Western Armenia” with Azerbaijan’s claims to “Western Azerbaijan” (referring to the territory of today’s Republic of Armenia). This comparison is not only deeply flawed but also perilously irresponsible. It distorts history, undermines Armenia’s legitimate historical and cultural claims, and lends dangerous credence to Azerbaijan’s expansionist rhetoric.
The term “Western Armenia” has deep historical roots. It refers to the eastern provinces of modern-day Turkey, the ancestral homeland of Armenians who cultivated a vibrant civilization over millennia. This land was not only home to Armenians but also a cradle of cultural, architectural, and spiritual contributions that enriched the region. Despite centuries of foreign domination, Armenians maintained a significant presence until the Armenian Genocide of 1915–1923, when the Ottoman Empire systematically annihilated 1.5 million Armenians and forcibly displaced countless others.
The international recognition of Western Armenia’s Armenian identity was codified in the post-World War I Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which awarded substantial portions of the region to the Republic of Armenia. Although the treaty was ultimately unimplemented due to Turkish resistance and shifting geopolitics, it remains a historical testament to the world’s acknowledgment of Armenians’ legitimate claims to their ancestral lands.
In stark contrast, Azerbaijan’s invocation of “Western Azerbaijan” is a recent political fabrication aimed at justifying territorial revisionism. The state of Azerbaijan only emerged in 1918 with significant external support, notably from Ottoman Turkey. Prior to this, the territories of present-day Azerbaijan were part of Persian and Caucasian polities, lacking any distinct Azerbaijani identity or statehood. The concept of “Western Azerbaijan” is a state-driven narrative designed to erase Armenia’s historical presence and legitimize future territorial claims.
Standing in the westernmost plains of Shirak, near the Turkish border, one can still witness the remnants of the glorious city of Ani—a testament to Armenia’s deep-rooted history. In contrast, one wonders what Azerbaijani remnants the Azeri guards see from the recently conquered and usurped mountains of Armenia.
Pashinyan’s false equivalence ignores the fundamental difference between these narratives. When Armenians refer to Western Armenia, we are invoking a tragic history of dispossession and genocide, as well as an international legal document—the Treaty of Sèvres—that recognized Armenian claims. Azerbaijan’s use of “Western Azerbaijan,” however, is a tool of denial and aggression, aimed at erasing Armenia’s sovereignty and cultural identity.
This flawed analogy risks emboldening Azerbaijan’s already aggressive posture. Over the past decades, Azerbaijan has engaged in open hostilities, including the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent ethnic cleansing of Armenians from their ancestral lands. By lending legitimacy to Azerbaijan’s narrative, Pashinyan not only weakens Armenia’s position but also undermines the historical and moral foundations of his nation.
As Armenia’s leader, Pashinyan bears the responsibility to safeguard his nation’s history, identity, and territorial integrity. He must defend historical truth, not dilute it with misguided pragmatism or self-imposed guilt. Armenians have every right to speak of Western Armenia—not as a call for territorial revisionism but as a solemn acknowledgment of the injustices they have endured and the heritage they strive to preserve. By contrast, Azerbaijan’s rhetoric is rooted in denial, aggression, and destabilization. To conflate these two narratives is not just a distortion of history but a dangerous abdication of leadership.
The post Pashinyan’s Dangerous False Equivalence: A Betrayal of Armenia’s History appeared first on CIVILNET.