Revanchist populism Oskanian’s outdated fantasies take flight again

Recently, Armenian revanchists have increasingly voiced the notion of a so-called “right of return” for Armenians who voluntarily left Karabakh in September 2023. They claim that this demand is supposedly becoming an integral part of the international agenda. Among these “protectors” of Armenian rights, former Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stands out for his relentless advocacy. Oskanian has previously expressed a desire and nurtured hopes of becoming the “foreign minister” of the unrecognised and illegal entity known as the “NKR.”

So, with respect to this “issue,” Oskanian outlined what he called “three priorities” identified by the U.S. State Department, which, according to him, include the following: the “return of Armenians” to the liberated Karabakh region of Azerbaijan; the “release of Armenian ‘prisoners,’” a term Armenian revanchists use to refer to separatists who fought against our country; and the “protection of Armenian Christian heritage,” which, upon closer inspection, has often turned out to be recent constructions or crude forgeries.

To add further weight to his argument, Oskanian even brought Switzerland into his narrative. According to his elaborate reasoning, Switzerland should organize a peace forum involving representatives from Azerbaijan and Armenians who left Karabakh to discuss the conditions for a “collective and safe return,” since, in his view, “the peace initiative is already going beyond a local dispute and is becoming the will of the international community.”

Simply astonishing audacity! A long-forgotten figure, irrelevant even in Armenia itself, seriously claims that an entire country—Switzerland—should organise something. One wonders for whom and for what exactly—perhaps personally for Oskanian?! Indeed, the former minister’s wild fantasies gallop across the airwaves, littering them with utter nonsense.

However, Oskanian is far from alone in this unrestrained nonsense. Similar claims have been made by other Armenian, if I may say so, politicians. For example, Samvel Shahramanyan, the last head of the Karabakh junta swallowed by the darkness of oblivion, previously stated that the issue of “Artsakh cannot be considered closed as long as tens of thousands of people are deprived of the opportunity to return to their native lands.” Meanwhile, opposition members in the Armenian parliament accused the government of allegedly “ignoring the right of their compatriots to return to Karabakh.”

Diaspora organisations share the same stance, including the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which continuously calls on Western countries to enshrine an “unconditional right of return” for Armenians to the Karabakh economic region of Azerbaijan and to “ensure international guarantees for their cultural and physical security.”

To be frank, the nonsense repeatedly broadcast by the Armenian political outbursts has grown rather tiresome. Yet their complete political and legal illiteracy leaves us no choice but to address it, and we will take upon ourselves the task of correcting it.

First, let’s note that not a single official document signed in the post-conflict period between Azerbaijan and Armenia contains even a hint of a right for Armenians to return to the liberated Azerbaijani territories. For example, the text of the “Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia,” initialed in Washington on August 8 in the presence of the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the U.S. president, makes no mention whatsoever of a “right of return” for Armenians who lived illegally for nearly three decades in the temporarily occupied Azerbaijani territories of Karabakh. Accordingly, appealing to the U.S. State Department or any other country on this issue is nothing more than a crude exercise in juggling statuses and authorities—something unlikely to please any of the parties involved.

Second, those championing “justice” for the “expelled” should pay attention to the facts, which are notoriously stubborn. It is well known that official Baku offered Armenians living in Karabakh the opportunity to integrate into Azerbaijani society, which would have required taking Azerbaijani citizenship. In that case, they would have been granted all the rights enjoyed by citizens of our country, regardless of their national or religious affiliation. Yet the Armenians chose to leave. It was their voluntary decision.

Furthermore, the sheer ignorance of the proponents of “Miatsum” is evident in the fact that no international body has a legal mechanism to force Azerbaijan to accept foreigners on its territory who have voluntarily renounced their citizenship. Thus, the narrative of a “right of return” is nothing more than a toast at revanchist gatherings in the backyard, not a political or legal instrument.

At the same time, revanchists should not forget the right of return of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis who, unlike the Armenians in Karabakh, were forced to leave their homes in Armenia under the threat of murder—a situation that, under international law, could be classified as genocide or a crime against humanity.

In summary, it can be stated with complete certainty that we are dealing with primitive provocations that, among other things, contradict what Baku and Yerevan are discussing in the course of the peace dialogue, which focuses on borders, transport links, and diplomatic relations. Any attempts by Armenian revanchists to push their agenda into this process should be met with a firm response from the Armenian leadership, which must resist falling for their provocations.