The statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan regarding the events of March 31, 1918 shows that history is a tool of political pressure for Baku.
The events that took place more than a century ago are presented one-sidedly as “Armenian genocide against Azerbaijanis”, forming a clear narrative that tends to influence the negotiation processes.
The events of Baku in 1918 are evaluated in historiography as complex and multi-layered conflicts due to the collapse of the Russian Empire, the chaos of the civil war and the power vacuum. Mutual violence was recorded during those events, and their one-sided presentation distorts the historical reality, serving specific political goals.
One of the key points of the Azerbaijani MFA’s statement is the use of the wording “genocide”. However, from the point of view of international law, genocide requires clear evidence of deliberate and systematic destruction. Giving such a qualification to the events of 1918 does not have a sufficient legal basis and is more propaganda in nature.
The use of the name “Irevan” instead of Yerevan deserves special attention. This is a clear political message with a territorial context. It shows that Azerbaijan continues to question the irreversibility of Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The structure of the statement is also telling. The events of 1918 connect with the developments of the late 20th century, creating a single chain of blame, up to Khojaly and subsequent conflicts. This approach aims to form the perception in the eyes of the international community that Armenians are the authors of long-term and systematic violence. This is a narrative strategy, through which an attempt is made not only to justify one’s own actions, but also to prevent Armenia’s diplomatic opposition.
All this happens in the conditions when the Armenian authorities talk about “established peace” and try to reduce the political significance of historical topics. However, Baku’s behavior shows the opposite. Azerbaijan has not only not closed the pages of the past, but is actively turning them into a tool of political pressure.
As a result, an obvious asymmetry is formed. Yerevan is trying to close the historical agenda of the conflict, while Baku is turning it into a main lever of influence. Under these conditions, the talk of “peace” remains vulnerable because it is not reinforced by mutual political behavior.
The message of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan is clear: the conflict continues, just in a new format. Until a balance is formed in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, statements about “peace” will remain mostly at the rhetorical level.
Political scientist Suren Surenyants
—
Disclaimer: This article was contributed and translated into English by Andranik Taslakhchian. While we strive for quality, the views and accuracy of the content remain the responsibility of the contributor. Please verify all facts independently before reposting or citing.
Direct link to this article: https://www.armenianclub.com/2026/04/02/past-versus-present-the-asymmetry-of-the-approaches-of-yerevan-and-baku/