PRIMARY INITIATIVE

The issue of restoring the rights of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly expelled from what is now modern Armenia remains a significant focus in Baku. Recently, Baku hosted the Second International Conference titled "Right to Return: Ensuring Justice for Azerbaijanis Forcibly Expelled from Armenia". President Ilham Aliyev extended a welcoming message to the participants. Around the same time, discussions on this topic were also held in Azerbaijan’s Parliament, the Milli Majlis, which established an initiative group back in October. These developments underscore the importance of the Western Azerbaijan issue in Azerbaijan’s national agenda.

The Corridor Logic or a Question of Human Rights?

According to experts in Baku, the timing of the conference was deliberate, coinciding with International Human Rights Day on December 10. In his message to the conference, President Aliyev emphasized that "Armenia is deliberately misrepresenting the activities of the Community of Western Azerbaijan as a threat to its territorial integrity. However, the Community’s sole objective is to ensure the safe and dignified return of our compatriots to their ancestral lands in peace and security. This is fundamentally a human rights issue." Armenia’s portrayal of these efforts as a territorial threat distorts the reality and seeks to deny the internationally recognized right of return.

In Armenia, references to the Western Azerbaijan issue are often framed as territorial claims, with speculation about Azerbaijan's intentions to establish a corridor to Nakhchivan through Armenian territory. The so-called Zangezur Corridor, which stirs apprehension in Yerevan, involves plans for a railroad and highway rather than territorial annexation. Moreover, Armenia committed to facilitating this connectivity in the trilateral agreement signed on November 10, 2020. Azerbaijan has consistently offered Armenia a peace treaty rooted in mutual recognition of territorial integrity and borders. Yet, Yerevan continues to leverage this narrative to justify its policy of remilitarization. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan remains focused on addressing the rights of its displaced ethnic population.

A Historical Perspective

By December 1988, Azerbaijanis had been almost entirely expelled from Armenia. A celebration was planned to mark this event on December 10, but it was overshadowed by a devastating earthquake in Leninakan (now Gyumri). The ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis in 1988 was part of a broader strategy by Armenian nationalists during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, this was not an isolated incident. The expulsion of Azerbaijanis from Armenia dates back to Russia's resettlement policy, which relocated Armenians from Persia and the Ottoman Empire to Azerbaijani lands in the Erivan and Garabagh khanates. Historical evidence shows that these lands  were not uninhabited—there was no significant ethnic presence of Armenians in the South Caucasus before the signing of the Turkmanchai Treaty. Armenians in Persia and the Ottoman Empire were often settled on agricultural lands that had already been cultivated, displacing their original Azerbaijani inhabitants.

Throughout the 20th century, waves of ethnic cleansing and displacement intensified. Between 1918 and 1923, brutal purges targeted Azerbaijanis, orchestrated by figures like Garegin Nzhdeh and Andranik Ozanian—individuals later revered as national heroes in Armenia. These events culminated in the annexation of Zangezur. Subsequent deportations in 1944 and the 1950s uprooted thousands of Azerbaijanis from Vedibasar (now called Ararat Valley in Armenia), while Turkic place names were systematically erased, and Azerbaijani cultural landmarks destroyed. These actions effectively erased the historical Azerbaijani presence in Armenia. As a result, countless individuals and their descendants retain the internationally recognized right to return to their ancestral homes.

In the early 1950s, a new wave of resettlement ensued, with populations migrating to Azerbaijan and the Central Aran regions. Concurrently, a process that would be more accurately described as "toponymic aggression" took place, whereby Turkic names were systematically eliminated from the geographical landscape. In addition, a methodical destruction of historical buildings was carried out in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia, and in other cities. It is important to note that the territory of Armenia was created on the lands of the Azerbaijani Erivan Khanate.

The consequences of this policy have been profound, resulting in a significant number of individuals subjected to ethnic cleansing. These individuals were forcibly expelled from Armenia, thereby establishing a right of return for them and their descendants.

This right is recognized by numerous international instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Pinheiro Principles. This right does not entail the cession of territory; rather, it is an entitlement of the individuals who were forcibly expelled from their homes to return. This imperative is particularly pronounced in the context of indigenous populations, whose rights and cultural survival are intrinsically linked to their connection to their ancestral lands.

What Is Yerevan Afraid Of?

Although current Armenian leadership, led by Nikol Pashinyan, cannot be directly held accountable for the events of 1988, the state bears political responsibility. Moreover, the responsibility for the ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis in Armenia cannot be disregarded. This was carried out by the then-nationalist top brass in Yerevan, which subsequently transformed into the Armenian National Movement, the same organization in which the current prime minister launched his political career. It is evident that Nikol Pashinyan has already been unsuccessful in his attempts to gain control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which is currently under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Azerbaijan. If he were to lose the war over Western Azerbaijan as well, it would further exacerbate the already tense political climate in the region.

Another salient issue is the demographic shift in Armenia. The population of the country is currently less than 3 million, and it continues to decline, primarily due to migration. It is important to note that the 200,000–250,000 ethnic Azerbaijanis expelled during the last wave of purges will not have the right to return to Armenia. This figure is multiplied many times over when considering those deported since 1920. It is reasonable to assume that most of them will not want to return. It is reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of the expatriate community in Armenia has no personal connection to the region, having never visited cities such as Shusha, Kalbajar, or the Khudaferin bridge. This generation, having never experienced life under occupation, may not possess the same sense of urgency to repatriate.

In recent years, Armenia has become a mono-ethnicity state, accompanied by a notable escalation in the level of Turkophobia. A substantial segment of Armenian society exhibits a clear reluctance to consider the prospect of Turkic return, thereby effectively precluding the discussion of the issue. By perpetuating a policy of ethnic cleansing, Armenia risks further entrenchment in this trajectory.

International Law and Armenia’s Obligations

Theoretically, it is possible to posit the eventuality of Yerevan's judiciousness regarding the repatriation of the forcibly expelled ethnic Azerbaijanis, a development that could potentially lead to the amelioration of diplomatic relations with Baku. However, it is crucial to note that the international humanitarian legal framework remains in effect. But Yerevan has historically demonstrated a certain degree of indifference towards this legal framework. The precedent set during the previous quarter-century, during which Armenia disregarded international law, recognized borders, and acquiesced to UN Security Council resolutions, provides compelling evidence of this tendency.

In recent years, Yerevan has been a vocal proponent of various forms of international intervention, including the return of ethnic groups under international control and security guarantees, and even "humanitarian interventions." These advocacy efforts have been spearheaded by the Armenian lobby, with a particular focus on the ethnic Armenian community in Garabagh. However, it is important to note that the Armenian civilian population was not forcibly expelled from Garabagh. Azerbaijan has repeatedly emphasized, including at the highest levels of government, its willingness to grant Garabagh Armenians citizenship, political and civil rights, and ensure their security. However, the Armenians were reluctant to relinquish their desire to maintain their territorial integrity and, as a result, did not wish to remain within a territory over which Azerbaijan had reclaimed its sovereignty.  Moreover, Baku did not resort to the use of force to hold them. Conversely, it is evident that the Azerbaijani population experienced forced and brutal expulsion. The political idea, as experts are well aware, has begun to take on a life of its own, and it is not inconceivable that a scenario involving "humanitarian interventions" and return under international security guarantees may be implemented in Western Zangezur.

It is imperative to recognise that the principles of international law remain intact, and the establishment of agreements must be executed in a timely manner.