The U.S. Proposal, Sovereignty, and the State of Play
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
EVN Report
15 hours ago
- EVN Report
New Coalitions for a Dying World
A week after Azerbaijan's 2023 attack on Artsakh that led to its fall, Israel's assault on Gaza began. Politically engaged Armenians had little time to catch our breath between our tragedy before the next. The urgency to hold Azerbaijan accountable and advocate for Artsakh Armenians' rights still remains. But with Israel's indiscriminate and brutal force against Gaza's starving, unarmed civilian population, and the shocking visibility of it, our appeals to international law and human dignity for our own people seemed to dissolve in the face of this violence against another group making the same pleas. A friend, whose family is from Karin Tak, Artsakh, said: 'It's when I realized how f*cked we are.' Those who speak out against Israel's violence in the countries most complicit—the U.S., Germany, and the UK—are being silenced: students targeted for deportation , professors fired , advocacy groups criminalized , protesters beaten and arrested . Western media maintain what a friend called 'a collective agreement to sudden stupidity.' Is it genocide? Can we even be sure? This Orwellian pretense of uncertainty continues, and with it, the human misery, dehumanization, and destruction of an entire society. Human rights and international law, when it comes to Israel, bend like reeds, revealing a system functioning as designed: to extract, destroy, obscure its violence, and shield its executioners from accountability. These frameworks, built to serve empire and capital, were never designed to prevent violence—they were meant to manage and legitimize it, as seen in this era of mass atrocities against civilians. Artsakh taught Armenians this lesson. But instead of cynical paralysis or viewing these struggles as disconnected, we must recognize shared patterns of state violence. Even Colombian President Gustavo Petro points to these broader connections, calling Gaza 'an experiment of the mega rich trying to show all the peoples of the world how to respond to a rebellion of humanity.' One of the more unfortunate ways the 'Armenian cause' has been framed and understood is in isolation—Armenian suffering treated as unique and detached from the broader context of global injustice. Yet, we are not alone in facing military violence, occupation, and settler colonialism. Precisely because we know what it is to be besieged, starved, bombed, expelled, and dehumanized we have a responsibility to stand with others facing the same horrors. Internationalist solidarity—rooted in mutual respect, shared goals, and a commitment to dismantling the root causes of violence like imperialism and capitalism—offers a way forward. Some Armenians are already building these bridges. In the U.S., groups like Armor and Yerazad Coalitions are building transnational networks built in shared struggle. The Lernazang Dance Ensemble brings this into the cultural sphere, hosting Assyrian dance instructors and participating in Southwest Asia and North Africa focused workshops. History offers examples too: Missak Manouchian's resistance group fought Nazis alongside Jews; Monte Melkonian was an internationalist committed to struggles beyond his own. Today, Armenians are part of the multiethnic, multiconfessional fabric of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, also known as Rojava. In contrast, projects like the Aurora Prize may signal solidarity, but their top-down structure and elite curation feel detached from the struggles they claim to champion. True solidarity starts with horizontal connection—organizers, artists, musicians, historian—not branding or philanthropy. Start small, but start now. Like many Armenians, I once complained about the lack of support when Artsakh was under attack. But since then, I've seen different people, including Afghans and Kurds , advocacy groups like City Kurds , as well as media initiatives like The Funambulist , consistently work with and include Armenians and Armenian issues in their work. At From the Periphery , the media collective I'm part of alongside individuals from various backgrounds, we platform Armenian perspectives alongside others as a matter of principle. Of course, these are individuals without the power to stop the existential threats that Armenia faces. But have states—those with that power—done any better? To dismiss this popular solidarity is to erase real work. Could it be more? Absolutely. But just as urgently: What have we done for them? Building coalitions among peoples who've survived historic and ongoing state violence should be an obvious impulse. Yet many Armenians still fail to act on these shared struggles—most glaringly with Palestine. Historian Taner Akçam draws a direct link between denial of the Armenian Genocide and the silencing of criticism around the genocide in Gaza. Western charges of antisemitism now serve a similar function to Turkey's Article 301, which criminalizes 'insulting Turkishness': both are tools to suppress dissent and shield state violence from scrutiny. Similarly, narratives that deflect critique by invoking national security—from Ottoman claims of 'Armenian terrorists' in 1915 to Israel's justification of atrocities as self-defense—both function to erase memory and deflect accountability. These are not new tactics; they are tools of empire, rehearsed and redeployed to mask systematic violence. This pattern demands action, yet Armenian institutions like the Genocide Museum-Institute, Germany-based Institute for Diaspora and Genocide Research, the ANCA, and the Society for Armenian Studies, and others have remained silent on the genocide in Gaza. That silence isn't just disappointing—it betrays the core principle behind Armenian Genocide Studies and Armenian advocacy: 'never again'. Institutions built to prevent future atrocities through knowledge have abandoned their own moral foundation. Where is Armenian civil society? Not a single organization in Armenia has spoken out. Whether this silence is due to ignorance, moral cowardice, or the belief that anything beyond Armenia is irrelevant, this detachment is no longer defensible. Perhaps it's a posture of feigned neutrality—but if so, isn't that then complicity in the very logic of disposability we claim to oppose? If we refuse to name and resist state violence elsewhere, especially when it echoes our own history, then what exactly have we learned from that history? I understand why many Armenians hesitate to engage in broader struggles. We are exhausted—betrayed by shortsighted, undeserving leaders across government, opposition, and the diaspora. I feel it, too. With limited resources and the urgency of our own survival, solidarity can seem like a luxury. Yet, this cannot become an excuse for silence. Our history of erasure gives us not just a moral imperative but a strategic one: to build alliances with others who know this pain. Silence in the face of occupation is how the framework for genocide is laid. In my own more discouraged moments, I try to remind myself: did I think this was going to be easy? Just last night, I saw that the Veradardz Folk Ensemble was banned from performing at an international folk festival in Dersim—for flying the Armenian flag. The incident wasn't just about a performance—it was about erasing a shared history of resistance and survival. This is Dersim (known in Turkish as Tunceli), where Alevi Kurds sheltered 40,000 Armenians in 1915, only to face their own massacre in 1937–38, with Islamized Armenians fighting alongside them. The festival organizers had made a very conscious effort to celebrate the diverse peoples of Anatolia, but the backlash reveals the enduring fear of 'separatism' and its rejection of pluralism. This suppression of shared histories demonstrates the need for solidarity among marginalized peoples. Armenia cannot rely on a broken global order or the geopolitics of capital—arms deals, extractive interests, and power games that crush small nations. This must be our wake-up call, because it is going to get worse. We also need to think seriously about horizontal forms of self-defense in this new era of mass atrocities against civilians. Of course, the Armenian state—flawed as its institutions and as misguided as its current leadership may be—is part of why we still exist as a people. The goal isn't to abandon the state; it's to refuse the trap of thinking it's all that matters. That illusion drives some towards alliances with colonizing, ethnonationalist powers—be it pro-Israel groups or other segments of the American and French far right—under the guise of shared civilizational or religious values. In practice, these have been appeals to Christian supremacist frameworks or Zionist lobbying networks by reductively presenting Armenians as a 'Christian people' under siege. I recognize that states may form tactical partnerships to counter existential threats like Turkish supremacy—especially when the stakes are about survival in a hostile world. These are pragmatic, state-driven calculations diplomats may need to make. But when the private sector or civil society pursues these as allyships, it's a different story. With them, it doesn't feel like survival, it feels like they're imitating state pragmatism without the same stakes. These alignments are—like the state ones—transactional, not protective. They reinforce the very systems that endanger us. What looks like pragmatism is, in truth, a deep compromise that undermines both our credibility and our cause. We have to act not by relying on their power, but in spite of it. That means building reciprocal, principled connections with people who know what it means to be marginalized, erased, and made to survive. People who act on principle, not shifting geopolitical interests. Internationalist solidarity with other oppressed communities isn't idealism; it's strategic. This isn't about replacing the state, it's about complementing it—building an added layer of protection that doesn't depend on the goodwill of imperial powers. It positions the Armenian cause within a broader network of mutual support, amplifying our voice and resilience in a global system that routinely sidelines us and other small nations. This isn't just a moral stance—it's about survival. To isolate ourselves is to misread the world. To look away is to lose our place in it. We can't afford either.
EVN Report
2 days ago
- EVN Report
Aliyev's Endgame: Holding Peace Hostage
The text of the peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan was agreed upon on March 13. However, despite calls and signals from different international partners, specifically from the White House, President Aliyev continues to refuse signing the agreement. He has openly raised the price of his signature, demanding not only additional concessions from Armenia but also specific actions from Washington and other partners interested in this 'peace treaty' and long-term regional stability. While Aliyev is clearly raising the stakes, recent developments reveal a deeply alarming reality: Aliyev appears to have no genuine intention of signing the treaty. His strategy suggests that he gains most from extending the process and introducing new demands. Several key indicators suggest Aliyev is not committed to finalizing a peace deal, recognizing Armenia's sovereignty and territorial integrity, or establishing normalized relations and lasting peace between the two nations and the broader region. Azerbaijan's Institutionalization of the 'Western Azerbaijan' Expansionist Agenda Baku is deliberately institutionalizing the expansionist concept of 'Western Azerbaijan,' a narrative that Ilham Aliyev began promoting in December 2022—just two months after the Armenian Prime Minister recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. At the time, Aliyev declared , 'Armenia was never present in this region before. Present-day Armenia is our land.' An examination of Azerbaijani textbooks and educational curricula, revised after the 2020 war against Nagorno-Karabakh, reveals Azerbaijan's entrenchment of an expansionist narrative, claiming the Republic of Armenia is historically 'Western Azerbaijan.' This once-fringe propaganda has gained momentum, particularly following the expulsion of more than 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh. Now actively taught in schools, Azerbaijani history textbooks portray Armenian territories as historically Azerbaijani, attempting to erase Armenia's history and its rich Christian heritage. Children's literature and fairy tales, such as 'Irevan for Children', depict cities like Yerevan as ancient Azerbaijani homelands, embedding this revisionist ideology from an early age. This campaign extends beyond the classroom to higher education and state institutions. In 2023, Baku State University established a 'Center for Western Azerbaijan Studies' to legitimize this narrative. Politically, this strategy serves multiple purposes: it provides a pretext to stall peace negotiations under the guise of 'peaceful return' initiatives, fosters national unity amid potential leadership changes, and subtly lays the groundwork for broader territorial ambitions. The institutionalization of this expansionist myth signals that without proactive resistance from Armenia and the international community—through diplomatic, legal and educational means—these expansionist claims could become normalized and pose serious threats to Armenia's sovereignty. Criminalizing Peace: Reconciliation Framed as Treason in Azerbaijan Recently, Bahruz Samadov , a prominent peace advocate, was sentenced to 15 years in prison on charges of treason and alleged ties with Armenians. 'Aliyev has openly admitted why Bahruz is being punished: because he 'mingled' with Armenians. Because he refused to hate. Because he dared to love peace in a country where peace has become a crime,' wrote Azerbaijani historian Altay Goyushov on his X page. Goyushov, a vocal critic of President Aliyev, currently lives abroad. After the verdict, Samadov gave an interview to journalist Ulviyya Ali , who was arrested in the 'Meydan TV case' and is currently held at the medical facility of the Baku Pretrial Detention Center. During the interview, Samadov called his harsh sentence contradictory to the ongoing peace talks: 'From the beginning, I said this charge contradicts the state's own interests. Charging an academic with treason and subjecting him to torture damages the country's reputation and undermines the so-called peace agenda.' When addressing accusations of being 'pro-Armenian,' Samadov clarified that his writings actually focused on the traumas of Azerbaijani society caused by war. 'To those accusing me of being 'pro-Armenian,' I suggest they actually read my articles. I've written openly about the traumas suffered by the Azerbaijani people,' he said. Samadov expressed hopes of surviving prison but said he would never forget the trauma or the punishment he received for advocating peace: 'I hope I'll get out alive, but I'll never forget the trauma, the way the state treated me like a terrorist, or that I was punished for my peaceful stance.' Bahruz is not the only alleged Armenian 'spy.' Research published by Cambridge University Press this April confirmed that anti-war narratives—those that contested the war and rejected hatred toward Armenians—came from only a minority of individuals and political activists. These anti-war voices faced severe societal backlash, often being stigmatized as 'traitors to the homeland,' 'Armenian-lovers,' or simply 'Armenians.' This deliberate silencing of dissent and suppression of peace discourse carries serious implications for regional stability. By eliminating space for critical voices, Azerbaijan constrains public imagination and reinforces a rigid nationalist identity built on a dangerous expansionist narrative that resists diplomatic engagement. This environment severely undermines the potential for meaningful dialogue and sustainable peace. Azerbaijan's state policy of suppressing peace efforts and upholding a post-2020 ban on normalizing relations with Armenia further erodes prospects for reconciliation. This reflects Aliyev's apparent unwillingness to foster a peaceful environment. While some observers may have once considered this stance 'understandable before 2020,' it has become increasingly difficult to justify its continuation after the war in Artsakh and the forced displacement of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians—particularly given the lack of serious political or legal consequences for Aliyev. Staged Trials Weaponized to Vilify Armenians Azerbaijan's ongoing sham trials against Armenians serve to dehumanize and vilify them. Aliyev has repeatedly referred to Armenians with dehumanizing terms such as 'rabbits,' 'bloodthirsty enemies,' and 'vandals'––rhetoric that fuels hatred and reinforces a hostile image. These trials serve a broader purpose: they help Aliyev rewrite history by portraying Armenia as the aggressor while diverting attention from Azerbaijan's documented abuses, including the forced displacement of Armenians and systematic destruction of Armenian cultural heritage in the region. Until recently, the death penalty remained a possibility for these defendants. Khayal Bashirov, head of the Center for Political and Legal Studies, acknowledged this potential outcome. He described the legal proceedings against those accused of committing the offense of 'grave crimes against the people and state of Azerbaijan' as the 'Baku Process,' noting that defendants face charges under more than 20 articles of the Criminal Code, many carrying potential life sentences: '…since 1998, the death penalty has been removed from Azerbaijan's Criminal Code as the most severe form of punishment. However, it is still not entirely excluded under the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan. This means that, in the future, the death penalty could potentially be reinstated in the Criminal Code.' A further indication emerged on June 24 at the inauguration ceremony of the 'November 8' Power Plant in Mingachevir. During this event, Aliyev once again attacked Armenia in his speech, labelling it a 'war criminal state.' This accusation merits scrutiny: if Azerbaijan possessed compelling evidence of anti-Azerbaijani propaganda by Armenian state leaders or proof supporting its 'war criminal state' claim, it would not be pressing Armenia to withdraw all cases from international courts. Both countries have filed parallel cases at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), each alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenia accuses Azerbaijan of ethnic cleansing of Armenians, while Azerbaijan accuses Armenia of committing similar acts against Azerbaijanis—both cases remain under ICJ review. The ICJ offers Azerbaijan an ideal venue to present its narrative to the world, yet it shows no interest in doing so. The blatant hatred and predetermined verdicts against Armenians held hostage in Baku expose Azerbaijan's lack of genuine commitment to peace. These trials serve not as instruments of justice but as tools to incite hatred and aggression within Azerbaijani society. At the same time, they deepen anger and skepticism among Armenians, eroding trust in their government's peace initiatives—particularly in the aftermath of the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Artsakh's Armenian population. Azerbaijan Escalates Threats After Finalization of Peace Treaty Text On March 13, the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that the draft 'Agreement on Peace and Establishment of Interstate Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan' had been finalized with negotiations concluded. The ministry said the peace agreement was ready for signing after Armenia accepted Azerbaijan's proposals on the two remaining articles. These articles reportedly included Baku's demands to withdraw international lawsuits and prohibit third-party monitors or troops along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Following the agreement's finalization, Azerbaijan intensified its disinformation campaign. While this campaign was active before the March 13 announcement—mostly through media outlets affiliated with the Azerbaijani government—it gained momentum when Azerbaijan's Ministry of Defense (MoD) became directly involved. The MoD has since issued numerous false and baseless press releases alleging that Armenian forces have been firing across the border from various locations. Between March 16 and the end of April 2025, Azerbaijan's Ministry of Defense released 26 reports—16 [1] in March and 10 in April.[2] Previously, only three such statements had been issued in 2025 — twice on January 6 [3] and once on March 5 . All these releases are available on Azerbaijan's Ministry of Defense website. The Armenian Ministry of Defense refuted all these press releases, stating they did not reflect reality. The Armenian MoD, in line with the Prime Minister's Office, has repeatedly offered to investigate any evidence of Azerbaijani claims. Azerbaijan has not responded to these offers. Meanwhile, the Armenian side issued two statements—on March 31 and April 20 —with photographic evidence of Azerbaijani forces firing at residential buildings in Armenia's Syunik region. Intimidation tactics and threats became widespread, especially after the agreement on the peace treaty text and Armenia's official stance to sign it as soon as possible. However, when the Armenian Prime Minister and officials reduced their statements about signing the agreement, Azerbaijan's campaign abruptly stopped. In May, they issued only two such statements,[4] and since June, they have been completely silent on the matter. This pattern suggests that Azerbaijan does not want public pressure regarding the signature—even though Armenian has met all of their demands and agreed to the final text. Azerbaijani Forces Hold Major Drills After Peace Text Finalized According to official reports from the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense, Azerbaijan conducted over 30 joint and individual military drills and exercises from January to June 2025—primarily with Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Serbia and Kazakhstan. In January and February alone, Azerbaijan participated in two joint [5] and four individual [6] military exercises. After the 'peace treaty' text was agreed upon, 26 joint and individual military exercises were conducted during March, April, May, and June, either involving Azerbaijan or taking place on its territory. Between March and May, Azerbaijan participated in six international [7] joint military exercises and training events, including a joint exercise with Iran. During this same period, the Azerbaijani Armed Forces conducted 14 [8] individual (domestic) military exercises, including tactical exercises, reservist training, and live-fire drills. In June, Azerbaijan conducted three joint[9] and three individual[10] military exercises. From January to June—just half a year—Azerbaijan conducted a total of 30 joint and solo military exercises. This clearly demonstrates the country's significant emphasis on military power. It's particularly noteworthy that after the treaty text was agreed upon in mid-March, military drills increased rather than decreased. This pattern suggests that the policy of using force—or threatening to use force—remains firmly in place, raising serious questions about President Aliyev's commitment to peace.
EVN Report
19-07-2025
- EVN Report
The U.S. Proposal, Sovereignty, and the State of Play
A U.S. proposal to lease a transit route through Armenian territory to connect Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan has sparked debate over sovereignty, security and regional power dynamics. Dr. Nerses Kopalyan offers expert insight into the implications and possible outcomes.
