Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement not guarantee of peace - experts

ArmInfo. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has never been perceived solely as a territorial dispute in Azerbaijan, especially by its political elite. This is stated in a  joint article by Iranologist Artem Tonoyan and Turkologist Levon  Hovsepyan, published on Tandfonline.

Experts are inclined to believe that until 2020, or perhaps until  September 2023, the conflict served as the main basis for the  construction of the Azerbaijani nation and the difficult task of  crystallizing Azerbaijani identity in the post-Soviet era.

"The definition of a "common and unifying ontological threat" remains  essential for the creation of a "primary other" or "enemy" in the  person of Armenians. On the one hand, this has contributed to  interethnic consolidation in a multi-ethnic state by uniting against  a "common enemy". On the other hand, it has allowed the regime to  manipulate the notion of "martyrdom in the fight against a common  enemy" in order to maintain unity among the non-Turkic peoples of  Azerbaijan and prevent potential independence movements, as  exemplified by the proclamation of the Talysh-Mughan Republic in 1993  - an event that is still vividly remembered by the political elite of  Azerbaijan," they are sure. According to them, the new status quo  established after the 2020-2023 wars, along with the potential  prospect of peace, has created new problems for the ruling elite of  Azerbaijan.

"In their opinion, the change in the role assigned to Armenia and  Armenians - especially as the "main source of common threat" - poses  a new ontological danger. This change may disrupt both the process of  identity formation and nation-building, and slow down the  assimilation of indigenous peoples. The prospect of changing the role  attributed to the "Armenian other" forces the Azerbaijani authorities  to develop and implement new strategies. These strategies are  designed to maintain anti-Armenian sentiments in Azerbaijani society,  adapting to new situations and realities," the experts believe.

Hovsepyan and Tonoyan are confident that, in general, the ongoing  anti-Armenian propaganda led by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev,  coupled with the creation of pseudo-historical narratives such as the  so-called "Western Azerbaijan" thesis, shows that the nation-building  process in Azerbaijan remains a work in progress. According to them,  the elimination of the concept of the "main enemy" could potentially  leave this process unfinished, with far-reaching consequences.

"At this stage, any form of peace with the Armenian people is  logically and reasonably perceived by the political elite of  Azerbaijan as an "ontological anxiety", forcing it to perpetuate the  conflict with Armenia and develop new anti-Armenian theses and  strategies. These factors indicate that even if a peace agreement  between Armenia and Azerbaijan is reached, it does not guarantee a  lasting peace. Instead, the conflict is likely to continue in waves.  The ongoing and actively created narratives against Armenia and its  people serve as evidence that the nation-building project in  Azerbaijan is still not complete and is far from achieving its  goals," the experts concluded.