The Armenian government’s policy regarding Armenian captives held in Baku is becoming increasingly problematic because it allows Azerbaijan to monopolize the discourse surrounding the issue without opposition and impose Azerbaijani approaches on various foreign actors. Political scientist Tigran Grigoryan made this assessment.
The Authorities’ Approach to the Captives Has Produced No Results
According to him, the main emphasis in statements by the Armenian authorities is that excessive public attention surrounding the captives could interfere with the process. Therefore, they argue, it is necessary to work more quietly with Azerbaijan behind closed doors to achieve results.
Grigoryan notes that the effectiveness of such an approach could have been debated two or three years ago. However, over the past years, it has produced no substantial results, which now makes it possible to conclude that the approach has failed.
“Of course, I am not arguing that we should not work with the Azerbaijani side behind closed doors, try to discuss this issue in the same package with other issues and achieve results. But the approach whereby we do not talk about the captives at all, do not speak about them publicly, and generally do not include the issue among our priorities is absurd,” he said.
Armenia Has Largely Failed to Systematically Emphasize the Captives Issue
According to the political scientist, this policy already has very concrete and practical consequences.
He described several episodes from his interactions with diplomats from different countries that, according to him, demonstrate how the issue of the captives has been pushed into the background of Armenia’s agenda.
The first case, according to Grigoryan, occurred about a year ago during a meeting between the expert community and a high-level delegation from a European country. The meeting took place after talks at the level of Armenia’s deputy foreign minister.
During such meetings, foreign diplomats usually try to understand Armenia’s main challenges, the urgent problems it faces and how their countries could contribute to resolving them.
Representatives of the expert community, the political scientist notes, consistently raise the issue of the captives at such meetings.
In this case, however, what was striking was that immediately before the meeting, the foreign official had met with the leadership of Armenia’s Foreign Ministry and other officials but was unaware of the issue.
“When we started talking about the captives, we realized that this person was completely unaware that such an issue existed. He even took out a pen and started making notes — how many people are being held in Baku, who they are and what their situation is,” Grigoryan said.
He believes this episode demonstrates that Armenia has largely failed to place systematic emphasis on the issue of the captives.
This Policy Already Has Concrete and Practical Consequences
The second episode described by the political scientist occurred recently and, in his assessment, can already be viewed as a consequence of the same policy.
During a meeting with a fairly high-ranking diplomat, the issue of the captives was raised again. One of the participants used the English word “hostage,” one of the internationally used equivalents for the Armenian term for a captive.
According to Grigoryan, the diplomat’s reaction was noteworthy.
The diplomat described the word as “provocative,” despite representing a significant state and being unable to adopt a one-sided position.
“It is a term in international vocabulary, a term that is part of international law,” the political scientist stressed.
When the experts tried to understand why the diplomat perceived the term as provocative, they received an explanation reflecting the Azerbaijani approach.
The diplomat said that, from Azerbaijan’s perspective, the people held in Baku are criminals who violated Azerbaijan’s Constitution, domestic legislation and other laws.
According to Grigoryan, this situation demonstrates that, as with many other issues, only one narrative surrounding the captives effectively remains on international platforms — the Azerbaijani narrative.
Azerbaijan consistently portrays these people as criminals who, according to Baku’s claims, committed war crimes and violated the Azerbaijani Constitution.
At the same time, according to the political scientist, there is no equivalent counter-narrative from Yerevan, at least at the public level.
It Is Unacceptable to Pretend That There Are No Problems
Grigoryan believes Yerevan can continue negotiations with Azerbaijan in a constructive atmosphere on TRIPP, the unblocking of communications, the peace agreement and other issues.
However, he considers it unacceptable to pretend that there are no problems at all, that peace has already been established and that there are no remaining difficulties in the peace process.
According to the political scientist, turning the peace process into an end in itself so that it can later be presented to society as an already established policy is dangerous because it creates an information imbalance.
“This approach creates an asymmetry: there is an Azerbaijani approach to various issues, an Azerbaijani framing of those issues, and there is no counterbalance from the Armenian side,” he said.
According to Grigoryan, as a result, international and foreign diplomats will increasingly begin to perceive the captives issue through the Azerbaijani prism.
In other words, they will see it not as the problem of Armenians captured as a result of the war and held in Baku, but as an issue involving people whom Azerbaijan portrays as criminals and claims the right to prosecute.
Baku Is Also Trying to Differentiate Between the Armenians Held There
Grigoryan also draws attention to another Azerbaijani narrative that, according to him, has been promoted increasingly actively in recent years.
It concerns dividing the Armenians held in Baku into different categories.
Azerbaijan is attempting to place the former military-political leadership of Artsakh in one group and those who held no official positions and were simply captured in another.
According to the political scientist, this distinction is already becoming acceptable to some foreign actors, and one reason is that Armenia has also failed to express a clear position on this issue.
In his assessment, the problem is not only Azerbaijan’s narrative.
The more serious problem is that no counterweight to Baku’s formulations is being created internationally. As a result, the Azerbaijani interpretation is gradually becoming the dominant international perception surrounding the issue.