By AZE.US
The military phase of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict may be over, but genuine peace between the two societies has yet to emerge, according to Armenian political analyst Alexander Iskandaryan.
Iskandaryan, director of the Caucasus Institute, made the remarks during an interview with Armenia’s Lratvakan Radio, AZE.US reports.
The discussion followed criticism in Armenia of comments made by Hikmet Hajiyev, assistant to the president of Azerbaijan, during a visit by foreign diplomats to Karabakh. Armenian commentators disputed the Azerbaijani presentation of the history of the Gandzasar monastery.
Iskandaryan argued that such statements are directed primarily at Azerbaijan’s domestic audience rather than the international community. He expressed doubt that diplomatic visits or public remarks could alter the conclusions of professional historians specializing in Caucasian Albania.
“This effort, it seems to me, is aimed primarily at Azerbaijanis,” he said.
According to Iskandaryan, historical narratives are being used to strengthen national identity and maintain public consensus. He noted that many countries have reinterpreted ancient heritage and incorporated it into modern national histories.
He cited debates over Alexander the Great’s legacy in North Macedonia, the portrayal of ancient Anatolian civilizations in Turkey and attempts under Saddam Hussein to connect modern Iraq with Babylonian heritage.
In the case of Karabakh, however, Iskandaryan believes the historical dispute serves an additional political purpose: provoking an emotional response in Armenia.
In his assessment, statements about the origins of churches and monasteries prompt Armenian historians, public figures and state institutions to engage in arguments over the cultural identity of the monuments.
“If this produces such a reaction, then the objective has been achieved,” he said.
Iskandaryan also linked the continuation of confrontational rhetoric to what he described as the Azerbaijani leadership’s need to preserve public unity after restoring control over Karabakh.
“The existence of an enemy is a very convenient instrument for state-building,” he said. “It consolidates not only the elites but society as well. It can be used for years and decades.”
He argued that repeatedly emphasizing the military victory may eventually become insufficient on its own. Public discourse therefore continues to focus on issues that preserve a sense of external confrontation and political mobilization, he said.
Iskandaryan also pointed to what he described as a contradiction in the current peace process. Baku and Yerevan have reported progress on border delimitation, transportation links and a peace agreement. At the same time, disputes continue to erupt over place names, historical monuments and interpretations of the past.
He compared the process to a pendulum in which positive developments are followed by statements that renew mutual resentment.
“The situation on the border is neither peace nor war,” Iskandaryan said.
“We are not shooting, and that is true. But peace is something entirely different. Not only is there no peace – there is no movement toward peace.”
At the same time, he criticized the Armenian public’s response to statements coming from Baku. Emotional reactions to every controversy, he argued, deepen polarization and allow disputes over history to overshadow discussion of the practical conditions required for future coexistence.
Iskandaryan said professional debate should focus on evidence, sources and arguments rather than personal accusations. When political or emotional claims are presented as academic conclusions, he added, it indicates a broader crisis affecting both sides.
AZE.US