Beniamin Matevosyan: Is Hikmet Hajiyev vying for the post of prime minister of “Western Azerbaijan”?

(Time, finally, to draw conclusions)

The visit of an entire cohort of diplomats, led by Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, to occupied Artsakh, specifically to the ancient monastic complexes of Gandzasar and Dadivank, and the presentation of Armenian cultural heritage as “the cultural heritage of Caucasian Albania,” has become yet another alarming signal for Armenia. This not only exposed the depth of the geopolitical failure of Nikol Pashinyan’s foreign policy course, but also highlighted Baku’s systematic work to rewrite history and build a legal foundation for a new, bloody aggression.

The reaction within Armenia itself to this demonstrative act by the Azerbaijani side proved symptomatically fragmented. Society showed discontent, bitterness, and anger, while the official authorities effectively chose to ignore what happened, shifting attention instead to entertainment events, bike races, and festive activities. From a geopolitical standpoint, what took place looks like a catastrophic collapse of Armenian diplomacy. For decades, the co-chair countries of the OSCE Minsk Group, by Ilham Aliyev’s own repeated admissions, in seeking to preserve the status quo, effectively helped keep Artsakh under Armenian control. Today, by contrast, foreign diplomats are openly taking part in Baku’s events on occupied territory. Their presence at the demonstrative declaration of Armenian architectural shrines as “Caucasian Albanian” legitimizes the Azerbaijani narrative on the international stage.

At the same time, part of Armenian society is falling into dangerous self-deception, greeting with enthusiasm the visit of Magdalena Grono, EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus, to the Matenadaran. The euphoria over the fact that a European official did not openly dispute the region’s “rich Armenian trace” is entirely baseless. European diplomats’ talk of “differing views on the origin of the monuments” only shifts the conflict into the realm of abstract academic discussion, even as, on the ground, the systematic destruction and falsification of the Armenian presence continues.

Hikmet Hajiyev and Azerbaijan’s top leadership are fully aware of the historical reality, but they are deliberately constructing a false narrative. By calling Gandzasar and Dadivank monuments of Caucasian Albania and claiming that their architecture was supposedly distorted during years of “occupation,” Baku is pursuing a fundamental goal: to brand Armenians as an “alien people” with no historical rights to this land, whether to Artsakh or to Armenia itself. Hajiyev, through his own hyper-reactivity and boorish, offensive propaganda style, is effectively signaling his readiness to claim the role of lead ideologue for projects targeting the territory of Armenia proper, or the role of “prime minister of Western Azerbaijan.”

Alongside this historical falsification, Azerbaijan is waging an equally dangerous political and legal assault. The judicial farce underway in Baku against the captive leaders of Artsakh is aimed not so much at specific individuals as at the Armenian state itself. An appeal from David Ishkhanyan, former Speaker of the NKR National Assembly, sent from Azerbaijani captivity, lays bare the cynicism of this system. Prisoners are not given indictments or verdicts, these are withheld even from their defense lawyers, the processing of powers of attorney is obstructed, and court rulings are not published.

Ishkhanyan points out directly that Baku is not simply putting individual Artsakh leaders on trial, but building a case file accusing the Republic of Armenia of “aggression in 2020.” A falsified legal foundation is being constructed, within which the Armenian side is declared the instigator of the war.

Baku is methodically creating an informational and legal pretext for another escalation. The attempts to erase the cultural code in Artsakh, combined with accusing Armenia of war crimes, indicate that Azerbaijan is systematically preparing for a new war. The response to this existential threat must not be shaped at the level of cultural institutions or the church, but by the country’s Security Council, Ministry of Defense, and government, which, for now, remain in a state of paralysis.

Think about that…