Author Archives: SimonVratsian

THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ARMENIANS OF CILICIA IN CYPRUS – 2021-1

and the reconstruction of the armenian diocese of cyprus in 1920-930s

Edgar G. Hovhannisyan

The first mentions about Armenians in Cyprus date back to the 6th-7th centuries. During the reign of the Armenian Catholicos Gregory IV at the end of the 12th century the Armenian Diocese of Cyprus was mentioned for the first time. In the following centuries, Cyprus became one of the most important cultural and spiritual centers of the Armenians.

After the genocide, the image of the Armenians of Cyprus completely changed. The number of Armenians in Cyprus was not large before the Armenian Genocide. Several thousand Armenians displaced from a number of settlements of Cilicia and Western Armenia took refuge on the island of Cyprus. However, many Armenian refugees did not find favorable living conditions on the island and left for other countries. In the 1920s and 1930s, the number of Armenians in Cyprus fluctuated between 3,500-4,000.

The Armenian Diocese of Cyprus was mainly under the jurisdiction of the Holy See of Cilicia of the Armenian Church. However, at different times it was also subordinated to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople. After the Armenian Genocide, the reconstruction of the Armenian Diocese of Cyprus was very important for organizing the community life of the Armenians of Cyprus. It was also very important to clarify the status of the Diocese of Cyprus in terms of subordination. It is worth to mention, that after leaving Cilicia, the Catholicosate of Cilicia lost all its dioceses except the Diocese of Aleppo. A number of obstacles appeared in that process. After a persistent struggle, the problem was finally resolved in the mid-1920s and the Diocese of Cyprus came under the jurisdiction of the Catholicosate of Cilicia. The Diocese of Cyprus became the first reconstructed diocese of the Catholicosate of Cilicia

After all this, the Armenian Diocese of Cyprus made enormous efforts to organize the community life of the Armenian refugees who settled in Cyprus and to preserve their national identity. The Primate of the Diocese, Archbishop Petros Sarajyan, played a huge role in this issue. He led the Diocese of Cyprus for about twenty years from 1920 until 1940, until he was elected the Catolicos of the Cilician See

THE MECHANISMS FOR PROTECTION OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE OF THE ARMENIANS OF ARTSAKH – 2021-1

In the modern international legal system

Armine H. Tigranyan

This article introduces the urgent need for legal protection of Artsakh’s intangible cultural heritage during the war. It highlights that the international conventions and other legal systems protecting the cultural heritage during armed conflicts perform their function only partially and not in a direct way. This article identifies the crossroads where the intangible heritage is transformed to the cultural right of community members and finds its protection in the international human rights system.

The second Artsakh war provoked by Azerbaijan, qualified as an ethnic/cultural cleansing, was primarily aimed at the destruction of the identity of Armenians of Artsakh. It was characterized not only by the obvious targeting of material heritage of Artsakh, but also targeted the intangible cultural heritage of the Armenians of Artsakh – the national rituals, customs, knowledge and skills, ideas, crafts, etc.

We should note that if the damage caused to the tangible heritage is obvious in most cases, the intangible heritage is in danger of its overall extinction and it is
impossible to assess its damage. The protection of intangible cultural heritage during conflicts is very important, as it provides the communities with a sense of identity and continuity, the destruction of which threatens the existence of the community itself. The most vulnerable target of the cultural heritage during war is the intangible heritage, as it is damaged in both cases whether the target is the civilian population and the communities are displaced (the intangible heritage is revealed through its bearers), or whether the material heritage is damaged. Thus, the protection of intangible heritage during conflicts becomes important not only in terms of preserving the element of heritage itself, but also in terms of preserving the cultural identity of the communities and groups that use it.

During and after the war the cultural rights of many communities in Artsakh were violated by Azerbaijan, many of them were and will be deprived of the
opportunity to use and pass on their intangible experience to future generations. This can damage their identity, endanger the continuity and future of the community and since most of the Armenians of Artsakh during and after the war stop acting according to their intangible cultural heritage, this heritage loses its vitality and is doomed to disappear. So the protection becomes even more important in this context.

During and after the war the cultural rights of many communities in Artsakh were violated by Azerbaijan, many of them were and will be deprived of the
opportunity to use and pass on their intangible experience to future generations. This can damage their identity, endanger the continuity and future of the community and since most of the Armenians of Artsakh during and after the war stop acting according to their intangible cultural heritage, this heritage loses its vitality and is doomed to disappear. So the protection becomes even more important in this context.

BORROWINGS AS A MEANS OF ENRICHING THE VOCABULARY OF THE ARMENIAN LANGUAGE – 2021-1

Yuri S. Avetisyan

Undoubtedly, language development also supposes the development and enrichment of its vocabulary. One of the main means of language development is that of borrowings. Extralinguistic factors, such as progress in public life, contacts with different peoples, inevitable influences of languages with a great sphere of application, etc., also play an important role in this process. In different developmental stages, this process is performed with varying efficiency, due to the factors of greater or lesser influence. In the present stage of the Armenian language, that influence has grown substantially. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, expressed according to the fields of communication.

The sphere of public-political relations: This is the area that is most sensitive to changes, but the share of word borrowings in this area is not particularly active, as political discourse is more inclined to use its own vocabulary or word-formation means.

The field of science and technology: The unprecedented development of science in recent decades has opened a wide door to the creation of new terms, and to the unprecedented enrichment of vocabulary. Certain fields or branches of science such as law, medicine, economics. that are directly related to public life are naturally distinguished by more active changes in word structure.

The computer field: It is a new field, and the “attack” of foreign words is inevitable in the names related to the field.

The military sphere: Since the period of independence, the independent life the Armenian Military has significantly revived. It brought with it an updated military vocabulary. The Armenian language successfully creates a new military terminology.

The sports field: Sport is a rapidly evolving field. New sports equipment, new kinds of sports games, events and forms; all this is rapidly invading the social life. And these are mainly realities borrowed from abroad, from foreign nations. Naturally, their names are borrowed. The Armenian language tries to bring them to the field of the Armenian vocabulary as much as possible. It often succeeds.

The field of art: We cannot say that borrowings are active in this area. Because the sector itself does not show any signs of active development or progress.

Other areas of life: The names of food and, in general, food-related realities, clothing, and household items originate or enter into the borrowing language mostly as a result of the contact with other nations.

Certain areas have a larger sphere of influence, namely the specific fields of science and technology – cutting-edge technologies and computer science, medical science, economics, law, banking, military science, culture and sports, household, etc. According to these specific fields, in the contemporary Armenian language, certain semantic groups of loanwords are formed, which still have an indispensable role and importance in ensuring normal verbal communication.

THE PROBLEM OF RECIPROCITY BETWEEN THE NATIVE AND THE ALIEN – 2021-1

In Simon Simonyan’s collection of “The Twilight of the Mountaineers”

Marine D. Ghazaryan

Lebanese-Armenian writer Simon Simonyan’s collection “The Twilight of the Mountaineers” has a special place in the literature of the Armenian Genocide, which is characterized by various issues and questions. Summarizing up the author’s main ideas, it turns out that his thoughts are built through the binomial concepts, and the whole system created by them expresses the perceptions of the writer about the native and the alien.

In this very article, with the combination of phenomenology and imagology methods, native and alien issues are examined in schematic contrast relating to components of national identity: values, mentality, language, racial memory, which reveal Simonyan’s national self-consciousness and his own system of values. The heroes of the book are immigrants from Sassoun, who survived the Genocide, who differ in their emphasized sense of nationality.

The story is told by the author-character, who interweaves episodes of his own biography with the eyewitness history. The idea of the beginning: roots have a pivotal importance. Following the tendencies of the development of modern culture, in order to find the ontological foundations of a nation, Simonyan chooses the way to reach the roots from the present to the ancient times, the basis of which is the mythological events.

In his works, Simonyan acts as a great humanist, because raising patriotic issues, he is not molded by narrow national issues. In his stories, the consequences of wars are examined first as universal, then as national, family, and then as individual tragedies. There are no explicit depictions of genocide events in the collection. In most of the works, the scenes of the massacre are concentrated in the general images. The stories are distinguished by the examination of the cause-andeffect relations of the tragedy, making the reproach of national mistakes the most important part of the author’s ideology.

In his short stories, with various perceptions of the native and the alien, Simonyan has tried to achieve the truth by mentioning the theme of the Armenians of Sassoun who have escaped the genocide, examining the realities in terms of an impartial historian and convincing artistry, showing his own aesthetic of being faithful to reality.

THOMAS CARLYLE’S “ON HEROES, HERO[1]WORSHIP, AND THE HEROIC IN HISTORY” – 2021-1

Part Two the Hero as Divinity, Prophet, and Poet

Gevorg A. Tshagharyan

The paper discusses Thomas Carlyle’s (1795-1881) last series of public lectures, “On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History” (1840), which was the culmination of his four-year experiment as a public lecturer, and was published in book form in 1841.

The study focuses on the three types of Carlylean heroes (divinity, prophet, and poet), which are presented respectively on the background of Carlyle’s perceptions of Norse mythology, Islam, and poetry. Though Carlyle did not allow chronology to define the structural basis of the book, his schema does imply an evolving process in the history of ideas and beliefs. However, in contrast to the evolutionary vision (later formulated by Charles Darwin), Carlyle’s historical pattern presents a pessimistic, descending scale. As he sees it, the form of heroic expression contracts with time, and advancing social circumstances make it increasingly difficult for the heroic spirit to manifest itself.

Carlyle’s book avoids clear schematization. Nonetheless, his own tripartite arrangement of the subject, as suggested by the book’s full title, provides an appropriate framework for discussion. Specifically, Carlyle recognized a close interconnection between the hero, the attitude of hero-worship, and the changing historical environment in which the hero worked out his life. There is a constant interplay between these three elements. The hero, for instance, provided a dramatic impetus to historical events. His effect upon others is like that of a catalyst or, in Carlyle’s metaphor, a lightning rod or conductor. At the same time, the hero does not act in a vacuum or in social isolation. What the hero says “all men were not far from saying”. Bound by time and the culture, the hero hears more clearly than others the monitions of the age and directs its struggles. The effect the hero achieves often resembles that of the inspired poet, “the Seer; whose shaped spoken Thought awakes the slumbering capability of all into Thought”. He sums up and completes a general will and impulse, and his actions authenticate a commonly held sentiment. These relations between the hero and the hero-worshiper are reciprocal. The imaginative reader who “shudders at the hell of Dante” himself becomes almost a poet, just as the ability to recognize a genuine hero is itself a form of heroism.

In considering such historical figures as Muhammad, Dante, and Shakespeare, Carlyle attempted to redress long-held misconceptions, while in his lecture on Odin he tried to encourage a deeper and more sympathetic understanding of Norse mythology and Scandinavian paganism as a credible religious system. In general, the heroes of the first two lectures, Odin and Muhammad, whose teachings would have struck Carlyle’s Victorian audience as arcane, enabled Carlyle to illustrate his conviction that genuine religious feeling is grounded in the permanent fact of hero-worship rather than in any outward framework of myths subject by their very nature to constant historical revision. In selecting Odin as divinity in place of Jesus, the “greatest of all Heroes” (just as he chose Muhammad in place of Moses and the Biblical prophets), Carlyle provoked his audience to think afresh about the evolution of their own religion while his indirection took him clear of giving offense or of becoming entangled in theological difficulties. Equally, through his treatment of Islam and Scandinavian paganism he could stress the shared nature of all religious experience and the centrality of hero-worship itself.

Carlyle’s aim in these portraits was to show his heroes in a true light, finally freed from the “falsifying nimbus” of their fame. If, as he hoped, these heroes could be rescued from malice, misconception, and the false report enshrined in the historical record, if they could once again stand clearly before his audience and readers, might not the example lead to the fostering of new heroic avatars? With this in mind, he sought to overturn the traditional Western view of the prophet of Islam as impostor, fraud, and even anti-Christ. It was in his 1838 lectures on literature that he first expressed his opinion that Muhammad was “no impostor at all”, and the surprised response of his audience may have led Carlyle to return to the subject in 1840. Thus, in this lecture, “The Hero as Prophet”, Carlyle went beyond Jewish and Christian tradition to the great prophet of Islam, and revealed in him the essential heroic qualities: the capability of looking “through the shews of things into things” themselves and a determined readiness to live in submission to the will of God. Carlyle was aware that his Victorian audiencewas likely to have a number of prejudices against Muhammad and he faced those prejudices in his passionate defense of the Arab prophet’s truth and sincerity.

Dante and Shakespeare were Carlyle’s two exemplars of the artist-hero. Carlyle’s case for the artist as hero involves in part a rebuttal of utilitarian estimates of art as useless or impractical. In his accounts of Dante and Shakespeare Carlyle insists that art has a value which is unrelated to price and a usefulness which goes beyond the limits of the utilitarian prospectus. “Will you give up your Indian Empire or your Shakespeare?” he asks his fashionable audience. “Indian Empire will go, at any rate, some day; but this Shakespeare does not go, he lasts forever with us; we cannot give up our Shakespeare!”. In describing the heroic role of the artist, Carlyle perceives a connection between language and action, which condemns as an absurdity the view that artists are merely passive spectators of the world. In the Carlylean meritocracy men of letters and poets belong equally with statesmen and warriors to the heroic fraternity. In the artist hero are to be found traces of the politician, thinker, legislator, and philosopher, “in one or the other degree, he could have been, he is all these”. The reverse is equally true, for there is something of the poet in all other heroes: “Napoleon has words in him which are like Austerlitz battles,” the marshals of Louis XIV were “poetical men”, and Mirabeau could have been a great writer had the course of his life led him that way.

Summing up the essential data of Carlyle’s public lectures, the following is to be singled out: the author clearly formulated a number of fundamental concepts and patterns of his hero theory, which ideological germs have been outlined in his literary, sociological and historical essays over the years. These conceptions led him to the precise point where his fundamental doctrine and his personal quest for self-definition met. The transition from historian to social commentator that had prompted him to publish the lectures on heroes as a book also contained the seeds for future perceptions and re-evaluation of his legacy. Writing what is perhaps the most prophetic book of the 19th century England, Carlyle formulated the circle of historical understandings which became influential especially in the second half of the 20th century.

THE AGE OF SMBAT II MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE – 2021-1

Part II: deepening of the process of fragmentation of the Armenian kingdom

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan

In the 980s, important processes took place in the neighboring countries of Bagratid Armenia. The Middle Eastern regions of the significantly weakened Arab Caliphate were under the rule of the leaders of the Iranian peoples, who managed to capture Baghdad, conquer most of Mesopotamia and Syria, and approach Armenia from the south. At the same time, in the Byzantine Empire, which was at the peak of its power, the struggle for the throne sometimes resumed. Important processes also took place in Atrpatakan, where the Ravvadids, the rulers of Tabriz, were gradually gaining strength. A completely different situation developed in the Christian Transcaucasus, where such actors as the Abkhazian king Bagrat III (978-1014) and the Taik kurapalat David (961-1000) appeared.

During the reign of Smbat II Conqueror of the Universe (978-990), the process of feudal fragmentation deepened, which began during the reign of Ashot III the Merciful (953-978). In the late 970s and early 980s, kingdoms were created in Tashirk, Parisos and Syunik, as a result of which all more or less significant principalities within the kingdom of the Bagratids became kingdoms by the mid980s. Although all these new kingdoms continued to recognize the supremacy of the ruler of Ani, the unity of the state was seriously damaged.

At the same time, Byzantium, which, despite the uprisings, retained its power, being unable to directly interfere in the affairs of Armenia, tried to achieve its ambitious goals through local rulers. Among the latter, it is especially needed to mention the Taik kurapalat of David, to whom Byzantium granted vast provinces in the western and central parts of Armenia with the right to rule for life. Despite this, the viable and powerful Taik principality was condemned as an independent political entity, as David Kurapalat was eventually forced to bequeath the Taik empire. But before that, thanks to the territories received from Byzantium, he increased his military and economic capabilities and began to effectively intervene in the affairs of the Bagratid kingdom. In the end, a rather strong cooperation developed between the rulers of Taik and Ani, the result of which was the promotion of Bagrat III’s ascension to the throne in Abkhazia, and after the latter intended to march against David Kurapalat, forcing him to peace.

In the last years of his reign, Smbat II managed to stabilize the situation in the country, to some extent overcome the consequences of feudal fragmentation, and rally the local kings around him. As a result, according to Asoghik – the historiographer of the end of the 10th century, he was accompanied by success in internal and external affairs. The country was experiencing an economic upsurge, and Smbat II began to successfully expand the royal possessions in the direction of Syunik and the eastern regions of Armenia.

Although his father Ashot III the Merciful was buried in the Horomos monastery, Smbat II found his eternal rest in Ani. According to historian Asoghik, the king “… died and was buried in the same city (i.e., Ani – A. Ye.)”. The reason is that Ani, with its new and majestic appearance, was the work of Smbat II Lord of the Universe. It is no coincidence that the king ordered to bury him there. But it is not known in which part of Ani he was buried.

THE MOSCOW TREATY OF MARCH 16 (18), 1921 IN THE FATE OF THE ARMENIAN PEOPLE-2021-1

Ararat M. Hakobyan

Summary
The centenary of the signing of the illegal Moscow Russian-Turkish Treaty of “Friendship and Brotherhood” on March 16 (18), 1921 will be marked, which left a heavy trace on the fate of Armenia and the Armenian people. It was signed by Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia, which at that time were in allied relations. It is a historical fact that the governments of these two internationally unrecognized countries, having virtually no territorial border contact with each other, signed an agreement and resolved the territorial-border issues of the third internationally recognized state, in this case Armenia, without the knowledge and participation of the latter. The Moscow Treaty was signed behind the backs of Armenia and the Armenian people, with gross violations of international law. And in this sense, the Russian-Turkish Moscow Treaty, as a prototype of a political deal, can be compared and even identified with the Moscow Treaty of 1939 on the division of territories of Eastern Europe – the notorious Soviet-German Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Considering territorial and border issues of vital importance for Armenia and the Armenian people in the sphere of Russian-Turkish relations, it is easy to see that they were openly sacrificed to the expansionist interests of Turkey, which soon became a NATO member.

Summarizing and generalizing the decisions of the parties on territorial and border issues concerning Armenia and the Armenian people, in accordance with the first three articles of the Moscow Treaty, the following real picture can be recorded in the language of numbers. Under this agreement, 17,250 km² of the Kars province and 3450 km² of the Surmalu district, a total of 20,700 km² of the internationally recognized territory of Armenia, were transferred to Turkey. In addition, at the request of Turkey, the Nakhichevan district of the former Erivan Governorate and the internationally recognized Republic of Armenia, which was about 5500 km², was transferred to its younger brother – Azerbaijan. In this context, if we take into account the fact that in 1921, by the decision of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCWP dated July 5, 1921, 4160 km² of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh was illegally presented to Azerbaijan, it turns out that in 1921, as a result of these anti-Armenian deals from Armenia and the Armenian people were taken away and annexed to Turkey and Azerbaijan: 20700 + 5500 + 4160 = 30360 km² of area, which is actually more than the territory of Soviet Armenia and its legal successor, the present Republic of Armenia – 29.8 km². As a result, it turned out that if Georgia and Azerbaijan had reasons for joy, then in Armenia there were still feelings of anxiety, loss and pain, since the more than cynical Article 15 of the Moscow Treaty and its logical continuation in the person of the Kars Treaty of October 13 1921, continue to cause the anger and concern of Armenia and the Armenian people.

These treaties, imposed on Armenia and the Armenian people by force and the threat of the use of force, have been lasting for 100 long and difficult years. We believe that the current government and parliament of Armenia should make a statement on the occasion of this anniversary, addressed primarily to Turkey and Russia, as well as to the UN and the international community as a whole.

Very soon, this fall, the centenary of the Turkish-Transcaucasian Treaty of Kars, which is an exact copy of the Moscow Treaty, will be marked. This will be discussed in detail in the autumn issue of “Vem” magazine.

ARMENIA ON THE DEFINITIVE BORDER OF MODERNIZATION AND FILLING – 2020-4

Retrospective economic and political comparisons in տhe context of the Second Artsakh War

Atom Sh. Margaryan
2020 was, by far, one of the most turning and fatal years of the millennium of the permanent flow of Armenian history. The plague that started at the beginning of the year and turned into a global evil from March (COVID-19), which was a destructive and deadly threat to human lives and the normal life of the country, hit Armenia with all its might. At first, the underestimation of that great threat by the Armenian “velvet” authorities and the unimpeded spread of the fire because of it, and then the application of panic and monstrous restrictions by the sameauthorities was just ridiculous. At the same time, 2020 had much more terrible and destructive consequences. The large-scale Azeri-Turkish attack on the entire front of Artsakh on September 27 and the 44-day heavy war that followed, which led to heavy losses – human, territorial, military-technical, communication, etc. The article is dedicated to the analysis of the effects of these two crucial factors.

The article develops the provision according to which the 30-year history of the newly independent Republic of Armenia is, in fact, a story of imitation of the reforms aimed at modernizing the institutional and economic systems of the country and, ultimately, their failure. In fact, the country’s elite-guided and antinational electoral elites have not been able to create emerging security, diplomatic, legal-political and economic emerging systems capable of withstanding external and internal challenges and crises. This is confirmed by its continuous social and economic failures, and, finally, by the heavy defeat suffered by the country after the Second Artsakh War, with huge territorial and human losses.

According to the study reflected in the article, the main determinants of the behavior of the ruling elites of the Third Republic of Armenia were based not on the realization of national interests, visions of strategic development and realistic and viable programs anchored on them, but on corrupt groups in practice. In fact, one and a half dozen successive governments in the country have served the interests of these groups and their paramilitaries, regardless of the areas in which decisions are made, their implementation, the rule of law, defense, security systems and the military, economic resources, income distribution, goods or social policy. The main precondition for success in politics, advancement in the public service, and significant income in business and economic transactions over the past decades has been for people to be loyal to the top leaders of the highest bureaucracy, to serve this or that leader, to be part of the government, and so on.

The above-mentioned realities and factors have overwhelmed the reforms in Armenia for decades, and instead of modernization and development, the society has witnessed stagnation and failures. As a result, the country has not been able to accumulate sufficient resources over time, both in terms of neutralizing external military threats and effectively enduring other emergencies, on the contrary, it has largely squandered the existing and previously accumulated development potential. As a result, corruption, illegality, mass violations of human and civil rights flourished, the income and property burden of the society, poverty and emigration expanded and deepened.

THE UNPUBLISHED MEMORIES OF TOVMAS NAZARBEKYAN – 2020-4

Military operation on the Caucasus Front from July 1914 to April 26, 1916.
Copy-book 9: from January 27 to February 27, 1916

Ruben O. Sahakyan
The 9th notebook of Tovmas Nazarbekyan’s memoirs present the military operations that took place from January 27, 1916 to February 27, which brought a radical breakthrough in the battles on the Caucasus front.

In January-February 1916, the Caucasian army carried out simultaneous operations, which enabled it to gain an operative advantage over the enemy in both Taron and Upper Armenia. The Russian army continued its offensive in the direction of Erzerum, aiming to capture the main strategic stronghold of the Ottoman 3rd Army in Western Armenia. Tovmas Nazarbekyan proudly states that in difficult climatic conditions and with few losses the Russian troops managed to capture Erzerum which was considered impregnable. Commander of the 6th Caucasian Regiment, Colonel Movses Silikyan was appointed commandant of Erzerum.

Simultaneously with the capture of Erzerum, the seizure of Mush was carried out by a group of Russian troops headed by Tovmas Nazarbekyan. Immediately after that, the general visited Mush, therefore he later described the Turkish atrocities in detail. In his memoirs, he cited the written testimonies of two officers of his division about the details of the massacres of Armenians in the city and valley of Mush. At that, one of the testimonies was checked and recorded through the interrogation of Armenian and Muslim witnesses. Only a few Armenian craftsmen were left alive in the city, who were needed to meet the needs of the army.

After capturing Mush and its valley, the Russians had to constantly fight the Kurdish gangs in the rear, which disrupted the regular supply and communication of the armed forces, as a result forcing them to deploy significant forces to protect the rear and carry out punitive actions.

On February 11, 1916, the Russians tried to seize Bitlis (Baghesh) quickly, but failed. However, after receiving appropriate assistance, General Abatsiev captured Bitlis on the night of February 18-19.

IRANIAN-AZERBAIJANIAN RELATIONS IN 1991 – 2021 – 2020-4

And the issue of Azeri-speaking regions of Iran

Summary

Sargis M. Mkrtchyan
Relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Azerbaijan, which became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union, have had difficult ups and downs over the past three decades. They were conditioned by the attractive and repulsive factors existing between the two countries.

Attracting factors are history, religion, language, being contiguous, opportunities for economic cooperation, etc. Among the repulsive factors are the issue of clarifying the legal regime of the Caspian Sea, the issue of Artsakh, different perceptions of the state-religion relations, the direction of foreign policy, especially the aspirations of the Republic of Azerbaijan towards the Azeri-speaking regions of Iran.

The problems of the Iranian Azeris and the ethnic groups of Iran in general, raised by the Pan-Turkic and the Pan-Azeri circles without any real basis, are mainly carried out for political and mercenary purposes. Modern communication resources and various means of propaganda are used. History, symbols, reality are distorted, cultural heritage is appropriated.

Since independence, the Republic of Azerbaijan has anchored the identity of its people on linguistic and ethnic factors, while after the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian authority has given priority to Islamic ideology and values. Azerbaijan has joined the Turkey-Israel-US axis, while Iran is trying to get closer to Russia. At present, Iran’s enemy (Israel) or rival states (Turkey) make good use of the issue of Iranian Azeris to weaken Iran and divide the country if possible.

During the past 30 years, in fact, repulsive factors have prevailed over gravitational factors. Today, there are more problems and distrust between the two countries than close relations.

The overt or covert aspirations of the Republic of Azerbaijan towards the Azeri-speaking regions of Iran are directly related to Iran’s national security. It is fraught with the danger of the division of Iran, which is not only a blow to Iran, but is the greatest threat to Armenia’s national security.