By AZE.US
Disputes over cultural and religious heritage show that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has moved from the battlefield into the information space. Yet the two societies remain unprepared to calmly accept each other’s historical narratives, experts say.
Azerbaijani military psychologist Azad Isazade and Armenian political analyst Robert Ghevondyan discussed the latest escalation in a new episode of “Current Topic” on Pressclubs TV, the joint media platform of the Yerevan and Baku press clubs.
During the program hosted by Arshaluis, the experts examined the wave of accusations in Armenian and Azerbaijani media following a visit by foreign diplomats accredited in Azerbaijan to the Karabakh and East Zangezur regions. Disagreements over the presentation of Christian monuments, including the Gandzasar monastery, became the immediate trigger for the controversy.
The Conflict Has Changed Form
Isazade said tensions persist within both societies despite progress at the political level. Armenians and Azerbaijanis continue to distrust one another and remain alert to the possibility of another blow – no longer necessarily military, but informational or political.
At the same time, he argued that the current dispute could itself be viewed as evidence of progress.
Five or six years ago, we were not arguing about cultural heritage. We were shooting at each other with artillery, missiles and automatic weapons.
The most violent phase of the conflict has passed, he added, but the peace process will inevitably encounter new flashpoints. Learning how to manage such disputes could gradually help the sides develop a common political language.
Peace Will Not Erase Competing Narratives
Ghevondyan warned against expecting a peace agreement to make Armenia and Azerbaijan abandon their established interpretations of history.
Even the signing of a treaty, reopening of borders, launch of bilateral trade and arrival of tourists would not immediately reconcile the two countries’ positions on cultural heritage. Armenian society would not suddenly accept Karabakh as historically Azerbaijani, he said, just as Azerbaijan would not automatically accept the Armenian interpretation of every Christian monument in the region.
According to Ghevondyan, competing historical narratives could survive for another 50 or even 100 years. The immediate task is therefore not to force either society to surrender its interpretation, but to prevent historical disagreements from destroying the political peace process.
Who Benefits From the Escalation?
Isazade said the controversy appeared to have developed spontaneously, but warned that forces interested in worsening relations between Baku and Yerevan could exploit it.
He emphasized that the most visible progress on the border, peace agreement and regional transport links emerged after Azerbaijan and Armenia moved toward direct bilateral talks.
After we removed all the mediators and began talking one-on-one, we saw positive movement on the border, the peace treaty and communications. It turns out that the mediators were simply getting in our way.
Ghevondyan agreed that individuals, organizations and states exist that would benefit from difficulties in the normalization process. He did not rule out the possibility that some information campaigns could be coordinated in a way that concealed the identity of their organizers. Both speakers treated possible outside involvement as an assessment rather than an established fact.
Why History Remains Political
Isazade identified two reasons why cultural heritage cannot yet be separated from political confrontation.
First, both societies have developed deeply rooted and mutually incompatible views of their history and culture. Agreeing to discuss disputed issues with the other side can be perceived domestically as admitting that one’s own national narrative might be wrong.
Second, parts of the expert community are politically engaged. Many historians, writers and other humanities scholars participated in the national movements of the late 1980s. A significant number of present-day political analysts are also trained as historians.
Ghevondyan argued that the deeper problem is not merely competing historical interpretations but the absence of trust. When an Armenian and an Azerbaijani sit opposite one another, each tends to see the other as a representative of a state narrative rather than as a potentially objective expert.
Media Reflect Fears – and Amplify Them
Isazade described the role of modern media as contradictory. News outlets and social platforms can magnify disputes, but they also allow each society to see the other side’s reaction almost immediately and compare competing accounts.
At the beginning of the conflict in the late 1980s, he noted, the information vacuum was filled by rumors. Today, developments can be followed almost in real time, and readers can compare Armenian and Azerbaijani coverage.
Ghevondyan cautioned against treating the media as a single institution. Some outlets report facts and reflect statements by officials and experts, while others inflate an incident until it can be used for political purposes. It is therefore important, he said, to consider who finances an outlet and whose interests it represents.
Talks Continue, but Damage Has Been Done
Isazade said he did not expect the cultural-heritage dispute to halt negotiations. No scheduled meetings or visits had been canceled, he noted, and the political dialogue was continuing.
The larger problem is that the two societies have not kept pace with the agreements pursued by their leaders. For peace to become sustainable, it must eventually be accepted not only by governments but also by citizens.
Ghevondyan offered a more cautious assessment. He said the process had not stopped, but some initiatives had already been postponed and new difficulties had emerged.
Both experts agreed that similar crises would occur again. The challenge for Baku and Yerevan is not to retreat whenever a disagreement arises, but to gradually learn how to manage and overcome it.
We have stopped throwing stones at each other, but we are still swearing at each other. The next stage is simply to look at each other sideways. It will be a very long time before we embrace, but de-escalation is taking place.
The road to lasting peace will run through such conflict points, the speakers concluded. Each dispute resolved without violence can help the two societies develop a form of political immunity – provided they do not allow information wars to destroy the peace agenda itself.
AZE.US