Azernews.Az

Qabil Ashirov

Read more

An Azerbaijani proverb says, “If you have a toothache, get it removed; if you have a problematic neighbor, move to another neighborhood.” Unfortunately, this proverb cannot be applied to a country with a problematic neighbor like Armenia. It would be a welcome opportunity to move away and leave those people to continue obsessing over their fabrications.

You cannot see any significant development or innovation in Armenia, yet this nation continues boasting about Armenian inventions and claiming credit for the achievements of great countries such as the USA, Russia, China, and others. Since the collapse of the USSR, every third person has left Armenia, and migration continues to rise. This raises a pressing question: “If you are so smart and innovative, why is Armenia an isolated and underdeveloped country?”

Unfortunately, our so-called “innovative and smart” neighbor, with its tiresome fairy tales, also distracts us from focusing on our own affairs. Whenever we achieve something anywhere in the world, this “innovative” nation is quick to throw mud, and we are obliged to respond to their fabricated stories.

The most recent such incident took place in the Netherlands. Thus, Azerbaijan’s embassy in the Netherlands, in collaboration with Azerkhalcha OJSC, organized an exhibition titled “The Magnificence of Azerbaijani Carpets: Learning Through Art” at the Atrium City Hall in The Hague to introduce Azerbaijani culture to the local community.

Simultaneously, Armenian media outlets worldwide attacked the event, spreading fabricated stories aimed at discrediting it. Their rhetoric is well-rehearsed and familiar, but credit must be given where it’s due: Vahan Amatuni, with his creativity, outshone his colleagues. It seems he attempted to write about Armenian carpet weaving culture, but ended up touching on everything except carpet weaving itself.

He claims that since the Azerbaijan Republic was created in 1918, we do not have the right to introduce our culture and cultural heritage. It seems whether he is thick-headed, like other people who use this rhetoric, or plays a fool.

Azerbaijan is not the only republic in the world that declared its independence or established a new republic in the last century by changing its name. For example, before the 1920s, modern Turkiye was officially called the Ottoman Empire (Devleti Aliye); before the 1940s, modern Iran was known as Persia; roughly thirty years ago, the current Russian Federation was part of the USSR; and what are now the Czech Republic and Slovakia were once united as Czechoslovakia, among others. As for Armenia, it did not exist.

According to this logic, none of the countries mentioned above — nor others around the world with similar histories — would have the right to speak about their culture and cultural heritage. However, according to these thick-headed individuals, Armenians, who lacked a state for thousands of years, can freely claim credit for nearly every innovation in the region and beyond.

If one leafs through the pages of history, one will find that Azerbaijanis have established numerous states across the region. These include the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan, the Qajar and Safavids, Qara Qoyunlu, Ag Qoyunlu, various khanates within present-day Azerbaijan, the Ravvadids, Shaddadids, Shirvanshahs, Nakhchivanshahs, Caucasian Albania, Atropatene, Manna, and many others.

The author shamelessly claims that Garabagh belongs to the Armenian people. He seems to have forgotten that even Armenia itself never officially recognized Garabagh as Armenian territory over the past 30 years. He also appears to have conveniently overlooked the fact that Armenian officials today openly admit that a large portion of present-day Armenia once belonged to the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

Moreover, it seems the author hasn’t even read any history books. Had he done so, he would have known that Moses of Kalankatuk recorded in his work The History of Albania that Albania held its first church council in Garabagh—a council that became known in history as the Council of Aghuen.

As expected, the author, like many Armenians and their echo chambers, insists on calling Garabagh “Artsakh.” They attempt to use this name as evidence of some historic Armenian claim to the region. But let us remind the author and others who share his mindset: the word “Artsakh” has no connection to either Armenia or the Armenian people. It is derived from the name of the Persian-origin Arsacid dynasty, and using it does not make Garabagh Armenian.

The Republic of Azerbaijan has never had an issue with the historical province of Artsakh, which was once part of Caucasian Albania and, even a thousand years after Albania’s collapse, remained the religious center of the Albanian Church. The name Artsakh has never been a threat to Azerbaijan; in fact, it appears frequently and respectfully in Azerbaijani secondary school history textbooks. What Azerbaijan has rightfully opposed is the misuse of this historical term in political speculations aimed at undermining its sovereignty.

The author also shamelessly cites that, during the Russian Empire, Garabagh carpets were allegedly classified as Armenian. But why does he fail to mention that, in the 1830s, the Albanian Church in Garabagh was officially abolished by the Czar’s decree and its property transferred to the Armenian Church? If Garabagh truly belonged to Armenians, one must ask: What was the Albanian Church doing there in the first place?

The author’s shamelessness doesn’t stop there. In an attempt to rally support, he even criticizes Azerbaijan for allegedly labeling Tabriz carpets as Azerbaijani. Once again, Vahan Amatuni deliberately conceals historical facts. Yes, today Tabriz is a city within the borders of Iran. But its population is predominantly Azerbaijani. Historically, Tabriz was also the capital of several Azerbaijani-founded states, including the Aq Qoyunlu, Qara Qoyunlu, and the Safavid Empire. Therefore, Azerbaijan, recognizing the cultural contributions of the Azerbaijani people from these regions, does not amount to making territorial claims against Iran.

If we were to follow Vahan’s absurd logic, then calling Muhammad Fuzuli an Azerbaijani poet would mean Azerbaijan is claiming territory from Iraq. Would calling Stalin a Georgian be an attack on Russia’s territorial integrity? Or calling Barack Obama Kenyan by heritage an affront to the United States? Of course not. People and cultures have roots, and acknowledging that does not imply aggression or ownership.

Furthermore, Vahan and others who share his mindset should not forget that despite occasional misunderstandings, Iran and Azerbaijan are connected by deep religious and cultural ties. Even if thousands of people like Vahan come together and publish these empty, hostile articles, they will not succeed in driving a wedge between the two nations.

Azerbaijani and Iranian cultures are so closely intertwined that it is often difficult to draw clear boundaries between them. For example, during the Sasanian Empire, the Shah came from Persian aristocracy, while the center of the empire’s official religion, Zoroastrianism, was located in Atropatene—the ancient region from which the modern word Azerbaijan is derived. Every time a new Shah ascended the throne, he was required to make a pilgrimage on foot to Atropatene.

In later centuries, the situation reversed. For nearly a thousand years, Azerbaijanis ruled over Iran, yet the official religion of those states—beginning with the Safavids—remained Shiism, a doctrine supported and shaped by Persian influence. Many Azerbaijani poets wrote their works in Persian, further enriching the shared literary and cultural heritage of the two peoples.

It would be far more productive if individuals like Vahan focused on solving the problems facing their own state rather than engaging in cultural bullying against Azerbaijan. Over the past 30 years, half of Armenia’s population has left the country. At this rate, in a hundred years, there may be no Armenia left to write about.