Civilnet
Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s foreign minister 1998-2008
The primary obstacle to advancing the right of return for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh has, surprisingly, been the Armenian government. Despite the clear humanitarian and diplomatic benefits of championing this issue, Nikol Pashinyan has repeatedly refrained from addressing it. When questioned, he states that advocating for the return is not in Armenia’s interest yet provides no concrete reasoning. This hesitancy is confounding, given that numerous compelling arguments suggest otherwise.
Firstly, Armenia has a duty to advocate for the right of return. The Armenian government has a moral and diplomatic responsibility to protect the rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, forcibly displaced by acts of aggression and ethnic cleansing. If Armenia does not advocate for their right to return, no other country will take up this cause with the same urgency and conviction. Secondly, raising the issue would provide Armenia with a valuable negotiating tool. Currently, no pro-Armenian issues are on the negotiation table between Armenia and Azerbaijan, leaving Armenia without leverage. By asserting the right of return, Armenia could shift the diplomatic discourse in its favor and underscore the injustice faced by the displaced Armenian population.
Moreover, there is near-universal support for the right of return, and no neutral country objects to it as a principle. International law and diplomatic norms favor the right of displaced peoples to return to their homeland. This stance is fortified by a series of legal decisions and international resolutions, including the International Court of Justice’s ruling of November 17, 2023, and European Parliament resolutions of March 12 and October 25, 2024, affirming this right and urging Azerbaijan to facilitate a safe return.
Furthermore, all three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group—the United States, Russia, and France—have publicly supported the right of return. President-elect Trump recognized the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, affirming their right to return, while France has made similar supportive statements. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov recently cautioned Armenia against hastily signing any peace deal, suggesting that the November 9, 2020 declaration could still serve as a basis for resolving the conflict and potentially allow for an Armenian presence in Nagorno-Karabakh, including a corridor to ensure connectivity and safety. Lavrov’s position reflects a nuanced diplomatic perspective that recognizes Armenia’s interest in preserving pathways for return and maintaining its regional presence. Swiss parliamentarians are even considering a motion to establish a forum where representatives from Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan can discuss the issue. These international responses illustrate a broad consensus and make a strong case for Armenia’s active involvement. Even Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev does not object to the right of return, albeit under his terms and conditions.
Azerbaijan’s portrayal, of course, of the Armenian exodus as voluntary is both misleading and morally appalling. The exodus was precipitated by Azerbaijan’s aggressive actions, including a massive military offensive beginning in September 2020, followed by a blockade in 2023 that starved the population by restricting humanitarian access. This blockade led to severe deprivation and starvation, followed by another wave of military violence, creating an uninhabitable environment. Over 120,000 Armenians were left with no choice but to flee in order to survive. These actions amount to ethnic cleansing, not voluntary migration.
Luis Moreno Ocampo, the founding prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, condemned these actions as genocide, highlighting violations of the UN Genocide Convention in his 2023 report. Similarly, Freedom House’s 2024 report details Azerbaijan’s concerted efforts to depopulate Nagorno-Karabakh of its Armenian residents, documenting an attempt to erase their culture and heritage.
In light of these points, the Armenian government’s silence on the right of return is not only perplexing but reveals a troubling lack of moral conviction, strategic foresight, and courage. The people of Nagorno Karabakh, despite facing displacement and grave challenges, remains resolute in their determination to return, regain their homeland, and shape their political destiny. Championing the right of return is not just in Armenia’s interest—it’s a moral imperative. The government’s failure to act is a stain on its conscience, a betrayal of its people, and a cowardly concession that will haunt Armenia’s future.
Stories
