On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military offensive against the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh). This attack followed a ten-month blockade imposed by Baku, which had already led to a humanitarian crisis for the approximately 100,000 residents. After the self-proclaimed republic’s capitulation, the Azerbaijani government opened the Lachin corridor. Ethnic Armenians fled Nagorno-Karabakh for Armenia, driven by fear of potential pogroms.
Among others, two major factors facilitated these events: (1) historiographical revisionism (typical of the Azerbaijani side), and (2) the manipulation of war-related political discourse to legitimize its authority (typical to both sides of the conflict). As will be shown below, mainstream historiography in Azerbaijan has denied the longstanding presence of Armenians in the region. Leaders on both sides have been embedding animosity in their speeches for decades. These factors, along with a broader lack of reliable information on both sides, contributed to the forced displacement of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
This policy paper focuses on academia, while also drawing from testimonies of journalists, policy makers and NGOs. Promoting scholarly rigor and intercultural exchange is essential to prevent politicized historical revisionism. Six key recommendations are offered:
- Strengthen scholarship and encourage research.
- Translate well-grounded, reliable work into Armenian and Azerbaijani languages.
- Adapt scholarly and empirical findings for broader audiences.
- Foster collaboration between academia, civil society, and journalists.
- Monitor, document, and condemn instances of hate speech and historical manipulation.
The body of this paper explores how revisionism and manipulation of historical facts have played a role in facilitating recent events. This analysis is grounded in several research articles that examine the speeches made by the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the past 30 years.[1]
Use and Abuse of History: The Case of Nagorno-Karabakh
The use and abuse of history is a recurring theme in international relations. Few cases exemplify this more vividly than the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Situated in the South Caucasus, this region has been at the heart of a protracted and deeply entrenched dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Historical narratives, myths and memories have played a pivotal role in shaping the perceptions of both nations and fuelling the conflict. While history can serve as a means of legitimizing territorial claims, solidifying national identities, and rallying support for political objectives, it can also be manipulated, distorted, or selectively weaponized to manipulate public opinion and perpetuate animosity. This complex interplay between historical narratives and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict highlights the intricate ways in which history can be both a tool for reconciliation and a source of discord. It illustrates the broader implications of the use and abuse of history in international disputes.
a. Mainstream historiography in Azerbaijan has undergone revision, denying the longstanding presence of Armenians in the region. This can be evidenced by examining the sources.
The historical discourse sponsored by the Azerbaijani state has consistently denied the presence of Armenians in the region. This transformation can be attributed to Ziia Buniiatov, a pioneering figure in Azerbaijani historiography and the architect of Azerbaijani territorial-based nationalism.[2] Azerbaijani historiography and educational textbooks have made efforts to eliminate references to the Armenian presence in the Caucasus. For instance, Buniiatov consistently omits all mentions of Armenian attributes while relying on Dowsett’s article (some historians even consider this plagiarism, as Buniiatov did not acknowledge Dowsett) on Mkhitar Gosh’s Albanian Chronicle.
Furthermore, by representing Mkhitar Gosh as an Albanian (and under that Bunyatov means Azerbaijani), Bunyatov also omits parts that portray Turks as oppressors.
In addition to Bunyatov, modern Azerbaijani authors also tend to omit references to the pre-Turkic invasion of the Armenian inhabitants of Karabakh. Another notable case identified by Hratch Tchilingirian is the recent edition of Mirza Jamal Javanshir’s 19th-century chronicle, Tarikh-e Qarabagh. In this revised version, statements acknowledging that “in ancient times [Karabakh] was populated by Armenians and other non-Muslims” have intentionally been excluded, along with the majority of references acknowledging the historical Armenian presence in Karabakh.[7]
This revisionist methodology has had a significant impact on Azerbaijani historical publications.[8] The deliberate omission of Armenians from historical texts is especially prevalent in Azerbaijani history textbooks. For example, Azerbaijani authors replace “Armenian Meliks of Karabakh” with “Christian Meliks of Karabakh.” Although this phrasing is technically accurate, as the Meliks were indeed Christian, it is clear that the main intention of Azerbaijani authors is to conceal their Armenian ethnicity and instead emphasize their religious identity.[9]
The fact that the omission of references to the Armenian presence in Karabakh extends beyond historiography and also appears in history textbooks suggests a deliberate and systematic state policy. The deliberate exclusion of historical facts in these textbooks, a carefully curated narrative is created that aligns with specific political objectives. The manipulation of the historical discourse allows the state to shape perceptions and construct a version of history that supports its narrative. This can potentially be used as a tool to legitimize territorial claims and consolidate a particular national identity. The strategic manipulation of historical information in educational materials emphasizes the profound impact that such narratives can have on collective memory and the understanding of shared histories.
b. Leaders on each side used the narrative of the conflict to legitimize their rule.
Another prominent approach in the conflict involves using a discourse of war to legitimize the authority of specific leaders. This strategy is employed by political figures in both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
In the case of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev became president in October 2003, immediately succeeding his father, Heydar Aliyev, who had been the third president of Azerbaijan since October 1993. The protracted rule of the Aliyev family in the resource-rich Caspian nation, as well as Ilham Aliyev’s victory in the 2003 elections, generated controversy both domestically and internationally. Monitors from the OSCE and the Council of Europe (COE) assessed the election on October 16, noting that while the election was adequately administered with an active campaign, it did not meet international standards overall. They expressed concerns about biased state-owned media, government-controlled electoral commissions, violence against the opposition, and irregularities in vote counting. However, some critics argued that the preliminary report downplayed electoral issues.[10] In response to opposition and the potential for nationwide unrest against his leadership, Ilham Aliyev has actively crafted narratives to legitimize his rule.
Ilham Aliyev created an image of his father, Heydar Aliyev, as the savior of Azerbaijan, thereby legitimizing his own rule. In his speeches, Ilham Aliyev frequently highlights the role of Heydar Aliyev in the history of independent Azerbaijan, portraying him as a national hero who prevented the collapse of the country. This also positions Ilham Aliyev as someone who continues the policies of Heydar Aliyev. One example of this is his speech during the 94th anniversary of Heydar Aliyev’s birth:
Aliyev attributes Armenia’s victory in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War not to the Armenian military force, but to the internal problems in Azerbaijan during the 1990s. He argues that these problems were resolved when Heydar Aliyev came to power, and later himself, leading to an era of development and stability. Aliyev’s reign began in 2003, continuing his father’s rule and policies. He believes that the Azerbaijani people showed wisdom by initially asking Heydar Aliyev to take power, and then supporting his son’s mandate.[12]
These speeches,[13] which aim to create a positive image of Heydar Aliyev, consist of five main components.
First, they argue that Azerbaijan’s development from backwardness during the Soviet years was attributed to Heydar Aliyev coming to power.
Second, they claim that the removal of Heydar Aliyev led to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, as anti-government forces took control in Azerbaijan in the early 1990s and were supported by Armenian nationalists. It is often stated in Ilham Aliyev’s speeches that “if Heydar Aliyev was in power, there would be no Karabakh issue.”
Third, they suggest that if Heydar Aliyev had not been in Nakhichevan, the same fate that befell Nagorno-Karabakh would have awaited Nakhichevan.
Fourth, they emphasize that the people of Azerbaijan made a wise decision by bringing Heydar Aliyev to power, which initiated the restoration and development of stability in Azerbaijan.
Fifth, they highlight that in 2003, the people of Azerbaijan elected Ilham Aliyev with the intention of continuing Heydar Aliyev’s policies.[14] This point is crucial as it legitimizes Ilham Aliyev’s long-lasting rule.
In Armenia, former presidents Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, and Serzh Sargsyan, along with Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, all exploited the conflict in their quest for political power. Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Armenia’s first president, strategically utilized the conflict as a central theme during the 1996 electoral campaign. Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan, who served as the second and third presidents of Armenia from 1998 to 2018, used the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to strengthen their rule. TThey portrayed themselves as strong and determined leaders who would protect the interests of Armenians in the conflict. In the first two years of Nikol Pashinyan’s administration, prior to the 2020 Karabakh War, his rhetoric aligned with that of his predecessors. Although all three presidents could claim victory in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, Pashinyan, during the first year of his rule, linked that first war with the Velvet Revolution of 2018 as two manifestations of the Armenian spirit of triumph.[15]
These leaders maintained their image as unwavering defenders of Armenia’s sovereignty and the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh. They emphasized that the rule of Nagorno-Karabakh is essential for Armenia’s security and stability amid the ongoing conflict. This discourse aimed to legitimize their leadership by presenting each leader as the guardian of Armenia’s interests and the vanguard against external threats. However, their position is not expressed as explicitly as seen in the case of Ilham Aliyev. Additionally, understanding their perspective often requires reading between the lines.
Sustaining Scrutiny: Reasons to Revisit the Causes of Conflict
Some may argue that there is no need to revisit the causes of conflict after ethnic cleansing has taken place. However, I present two compelling arguments to keep examining this issue:
c. Maintaining a Balance of Power: Valuing Intellectual Academic Work
Academia plays a crucial role in balancing political power. Through research, analysis, and critical examination of leaders’ narratives and language, academics provide a system of checks and balances. This helps ensure that leaders are held accountable for their rhetoric and reduces the risk of unchecked manipulation and abuse of historical facts.
The proactive response of academia to dehumanizing narratives, falsifications, and history manipulation helps establish clear boundaries for acceptable discourse in the public sphere. When leaders and “historians” supported by these leaders are aware that their rhetoric will be scrutinized and condemned, they are less likely to engage in inflammatory language or historical manipulation. This, in turn, fosters a more respectful and constructive public discourse regarding the conflict.
d. Citizens deserve to have access to better information. Strengthening the resources available for teachers and students in universities is an important step towards enhancing the production and dissemination of reliable knowledge.
When academia actively responds to leaders’ narratives and language, they empower the public with alternative perspectives and information. This encourages critical thinking among citizens, enabling them to make more informed judgments about the conflict. Informed citizens are less susceptible to manipulation and more likely to engage in constructive dialogue.
In countries with a strong tradition of a free press and active civil society engagement, citizens are more likely to be critical consumers of information. They are better equipped to distinguish between biased or manipulative narratives and credible reporting, which promotes informed citizenship. For example, during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, independent media outlets and civil society organizations provided fact-based reporting, offering an alternative narrative to the government narratives on both sides. This enabled citizens to access diverse perspectives and make informed decisions about the situation. However, the consequences of such actions differed between the two countries, as those opposing war and advocating for peace were imprisoned in Azerbaijan. A similar crackdown occurred just before the ethnic cleansing in September 2023, when Azerbaijan arrested more anti-war activists.[20]
Recommendations
If it is accepted that better historiography and communication are necessary, there are several steps that researchers, funders, and others engaged with civil society can take. The key recommendations are:
1. Strengthen scholarship and stimulate research.
Promote research articles, books, and policy papers on the topic that are based on unbiased research and academic integrity. Organize workshops, establish programs in Western universities and in the countries involved in the conflict (if feasible), provide opportunities for the younger generation, and make academia more appealing.
2. Translate well-grounded, reliable scholarly work into Armenian and Azerbaijani languages.
While works in English, Russian, and other languages are accessible for scholars, the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan face language and academic access difficulties with this work. Translating this work will make them accessible to students and the general population of these countries. These translations will also facilitate the inclusion of these works into university course syllabi, giving new generations of students access to read high quality works in the university and engage in critical thinking.
3. Make academic findings more accessible to a wider audience.
The findings of academic research should be modified in order to be understood by the general public. This may require scholars setting aside time to consider how to distill their findings for a broader audience and actively working on developing the required skills. It may also involve a willingness to engage in discussions about research with professionals in relevant fields. In fact, collaboration between academics and journalists is particularly important.
4. Create collaboration between academia, civil society, and journalists.
Promoting collaboration between academia, civil society, and journalists involves fostering mutual understanding. Academia can contribute by offering expertise and initiating joint research projects. Civil society can act as intermediaries and provide resources. Journalists play a crucial role in engaging with academics, fact-checking collaboratively, and establishing open channels of communication. Moreover, collaboration between academics and journalists can help “translate” complex academic works into more accessible language for a broader audience.
5. Monitor, document, and condemn instances of hate speech and historical manipulation.
It is important to have mechanisms in place to monitor and document instances of hate speech and manipulation of history. These initiatives can take various forms, ranging from collaborative monitoring efforts to the creation of fact-checking networks involving historians. One effective approach is to create a global network of historians and scholars dedicated to examining historical claims made by governments. This network would promptly respond to such claims and conduct thorough assessments of their historical accuracy. The results of these assessments would be publicly available, Collaborating with human rights organizations can further enhance the effectiveness of these fact-checking endeavors.
This work was supported by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of EVN Report or of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Footnotes:
[1] Sahakyan, Naira. “Framing the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: An Analysis of the Narratives of the State Leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey, 2002-2022.” Central Asian Survey (Upcoming); Karamyan, Sevak, Sahakyan, Naira. “Armenia.” In Yearbook of Muslims in Europe v. 15, Brill, 2023/4 (Upcoming); Sahakyan, Naira. “Change or Continuity? The Official Discourse over the Karabakh Conflict in Armenia, 1991- 2020.” In What Went Wrong in 2020 and What Comes Next? (Preliminary title) (ed. Vicken Cheterian). I.B. Tauris, 2024 (Upcoming); Sahakyan, Naira. “The Rhetorical Face of Enmity: the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and the Dehumanization of Armenians in the Speeches by Ilham Aliyev.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (November 2022), DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2022.2153402; Sahakyan, Naira, Brutian, Anush. “Islamic Solidarity on Sale: the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict in the context of Azerbaijan’s Nation-Branding Endeavors.” International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, 7(2), (2022); Sahakyan, Naira. “Searching for Democracy, Finding Nationalism: The First Republic of Armenia in the Post-Revolutionary Discourse of 2018.” Caucasus Survey. 10: 1 (2022): 76–99.
[2] Sara Crombach. Myth-Making and Nation-Building. Ziia Buniiatov and the Construction of the Azerbaijani Past. Pegasus, 2023.
[3] C. J. F. Dowsett. The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit’ar Goš // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Vol. 21, No. 1/3. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies. — 1958, pp. 472.[4] Ziia Buniiatov. “Mkhitar Gish. Albanskaia Khronika,” AN AzSSR. Baku 1960, 27-37.
[5] C. J. F. Dowsett. The Albanian Chronicle of Mxit’ar Goš // Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Vol. 21, No. 1/3. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies. — 1958, pp. 473.
[6] Ziia Buniiatov. “Mkhitar Gish. Albanskaia Khronika,” AN AzSSR. Baku 1960, 27-37.
[7] Hratch Tchilingirian. “Christianity in Karabakh: Azerbaijani Efforts At Rewriting History Are Not New.” EVN Report https://evnreport.com/spotlight-karabakh/christianity-in-karabakh-azerbaijani-efforts-at-rewriting-history-are-not-new/
[8] Christianity in Karabakh: Azerbaijani Efforts At Rewriting History Are Not New https://evnreport.com/spotlight-karabakh/christianity-in-karabakh-azerbaijani-efforts-at-rewriting-history-are-not-new/
[9] For example, Azərbaycan tarixi – 11. Ümumtəhsil məktəblərinin 11-ci sinfi üçün Azərbaycan tarixi fənni üzrə. Dərslik https://www.e-derslik.edu.az/player/index3.php?book_id=272#books/272/units/unit-1/page15.xhtml ; История Азербайджана 11. Учебник по предмету История Азербайджана для 11-го класса общеобразовательных школ https://www.e-derslik.edu.az/player/index3.php?book_id=273#books/273/units/unit-1/page15.xhtml
[10] Azerbaijan’s 2003 Presidential Election and Succession: Implications for U.S. Interests https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20031105_RS21661_570c3c421017c3fde4f458768ca76cb9c9478806.pdf
[11] Aliyev, I. 2017f. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at Solemn Ceremony to Mark 94th Anniversary of National Leader Heydar Aliyev and 13th Anniversary of the Establishment of Heydar Aliyev Foundation,” May 10. https://en.president.az/articles/23618
[12] Aliyev, I. 2016. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the meeting with a group of Azerbaijani youth,” January 29. https://en.president.az/articles/17701; Aliyev, I. 2016. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Official Reception on the Occasion of the Republic Day,” May 27. https://en.president.az/articles/19986; Aliyev, I. 2016. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Official Reception to Mark 25th Anniversary of Azerbaijan`s Independence,” October 17. https://en.president.az/articles/21414; Aliyev, I. 2018. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Inauguration Ceremony,” April 18. https://en. president.az/articles/28071; Aliyev, I. 2019. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Opening of New Residential Complex for IDP Families in Kurdakhani Settlement, Baku,” April 5 https://en.president.az/articles/32631; Aliyev, I. 2020. “Opening Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Meeting on Results of 2019,” January 13. https://en.president.az/articles/35608; Aliyev, I. 2020. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the 6th Ministerial Meeting of Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council,” February 28. https://en.president.az/articles/36019.
[13] Aliyev, I. 2019. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Solemn Ceremony to Mark 96th Anniversary of National Leader Heydar Aliyev and 15th Anniversary of Heydar Aliyev Foundation,” May 10. https://en.president.az/articles/33071; Aliyev, I. 2019. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Plenary SSession of 16th Annual Meeting of Valdai International Discussion Club,” October 3. https://en.president.az/articles/34358; Aliyev, I. 2020. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the 6th Ministerial Meeting of Southern Gas Corridor Advisory Council,” February 28. https://en.president.az/articles/36019; Aliyev, I. 2020. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Opening of Tartar Olympic Sports Complex,” June 3. https://en.president.az/articles/39844; Aliyev, I. 2020. “Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the Meeting of the 75th Anniversary of United Nations,” September 21. https://en.president.az/articles/42798
[14] Sahakyan, Naira. “The Rhetorical Face of Enmity: the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and the Dehumanization of Armenians in the Speeches by Ilham Aliyev.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies (November 2022), DOI: 10.1080/14683857.2022.2153402;
[15] Naira Sahakyan, ‘Searching for Democracy, Finding Nationalism: The First Republic of Armenia in the Post-Revolutionary Discourse of 2018’, Caucasus Survey 10, no. 1 (22 March 2022): 76–99, https://doi.org/10.30965/23761202-20220008.
[16] Levon Ter-Petrosyan. “Arajika tarinere linelu en shat aveli hesht, shat aveli anvtang, shat aveli apahov….” (“The coming years will be much easier, much safer, much more secure…”) Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, 24 September 1996.
[17] Robert Kocharyan’s speech at the first inauguration ceremony, 1998 http://news.president.am/arm/?sub=statements&id=39&from=8&year=1998
[18] Serzh Sargsyan, Banakts’ayin Arajnagtsum. Serzh Sargsyany Artsakhyan Hakamartutyan Kargavorman Masin (2008-2022) (Newmag, 2023), 265.
[19] Nikol Pashinyan, ‘Congratulatory Message by RA Prime Minister on Victory and Peace Day’, 9 May 2018, https://www.primeminister.am/en/statements-and-messages/item/2018/05/09/Prime-Minister-Nikol-Pashinyans-address/.
[20] Rasmus Canbäck. “Arrests of anti-war activists continue in Azerbaijan,” Blankspot, 23 September 2023, https://blankspot.se/arrests-of-anti-war-activists-continue-in-azerbaijan/; “Azerbaijan jails critics of Karabakh offensive.” Eurasianet, 22 September 2023 https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijan-jails-critics-of-karabakh-offensive.
Also see
Baku QAnon: The New High Armenophobia
While conspiracy theories and nationalist pseudohistories are a common phenomenon in the postsocialist space, something peculiar has happened in Azerbaijan; the eccentric ultranationalists, whose ideas are popular among the regime-aligned elite and are explicitly sponsored by the state, have proven triumphant.
Read more
Christianity in Karabakh: Azerbaijani Efforts At Rewriting History Are Not New
In the context of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the “Albanian connection” has become a politicized issue of irredentism, hijacking the rich Christian heritage of Karabakh. The roots of this historiography go back to the Soviet policy of “nativization".
Read more
Hats off to the author for this incredibly timely piece that not only touches on essential points but serves as a beacon for much-needed reforms.
The author’s keen insights into the independence of intellectual resistance struck a chord with me. Indeed, reclaiming the narrative from political circles aligned with what I call the “intellectual influencers” is a pivotal step toward fostering a more honest and transparent dialogue. Naira’s astute observation about the deliberate manipulation of the narrative over the Nagorno-Karabakh issue over the past few decades hits the nail on the head. It’s time for broader accountability for those who knowingly misled the public, and Naira’s call for this is both powerful and necessary.
Even following the shocking events that unfolded since 2020, the media landscape has been inundated with “experts” peddling fairy tales and nonsensical narratives. This disturbing trend extends beyond traditional media outlets, infiltrating countless podcasts and even official websites of governmental ministries. All of this contaminates the public opinion. This underscores the critical need for well-researched, objective, empirical, and provable backlash rooted in reason and critical analysis.
The article’s call for strengthening scholarship and promoting research becomes even more imperative in such a context. It serves as a beacon of hope, advocating for a return to evidence-based discourse amid the noise of unsubstantiated claims. The plea for collaboration between academia, civil society, and journalists is not just a suggestion. It’s a lifeline for those seeking reliable information in an era dominated by sensationalism, misinformation, and disinformation.
It is imperative to help the general public heal from the systematic propaganda and misinformation they’ve been subjected to. The role of education in this healing process cannot be overstated.
Thank you, Naira, for this enlightening piece that resonates deeply with the pressing issues surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Your commitment to shedding light on manipulation, fostering intellectual independence, and promoting accountability is truly commendable.