The Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh: Justifying the Right of Armenia

The recent conflicts in the Nagorno-Karabakh region represent a complex and deeply rooted issue that has been simmering for centuries. Many consider the dispute as a matter of historical grievance and religious differences, with fundamental questions of right and wrong emerging. This article aims to provide an analysis and support for the case of Armenia, arguing that its position is justified based on historical context and the principle of ethnic self-determination.

Historical Background and Motivations

Historically, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be traced back to the late 19th century, when the region, known as Artsakh, was predominantly inhabited by Armenians. Armenia, a predominantly Christian nation, sought to preserve its ancient Christian heritage and territory. Conversely, Azerbaijan, a Muslim-majority state, sought to expand its sovereignty over the region.

Many express their support based on personal backgrounds and religious affiliations. As someone born and raised as a Christian, with extensive exposure to Christian culture and religion, I stand by the position of Christian Armenia. However, this support is not merely based on personal beliefs, but on deeper historical and ethical considerations.

Preservation of Ethnic Identity

The primary goal of Armenia in maintaining Artsakh is to safeguard its ancient Christian enclave, Artsakh, or Nagorno-Karabakh. Throughout history, Armenians have sought to protect their homeland from various invasions and ethnic changes. The destruction of historic Christian churches and cemeteries by Islamic forces, including Turkey with its Ottoman influence, underscores the importance of retaining cultural and religious landmarks.

Azerbaijan, on the other hand, was keen on integrating Artsakh into its territory, viewing it as extending a predominantly Muslim region. This desire for territorial expansion can be seen as a form of forced assimilation aimed at erasing the historical presence of Armenians in the region.

Geopolitical Exploitation and Moral Turpitude

Unfortunately, some actors in the international community have exploited this conflict for their own geopolitical interests. These morally corrupt individuals or entities have fueled the conflict, using the suffering of nations for their own gain. Such actions are unjustifiable and morally wrong. It is crucial to distinguish between the parties involved and identify those who are genuinely fighting for their rights and those who are mere opportunists.

Secularism and Human Rights

The battle for Nagorno-Karabakh is not just a religious conflict but also a tug-of-war over secularism and human rights. Throughout history, large parts of the world have been subjected to religious domination. From 610 AD onwards, Islamic conquests have aimed to subjugate all non-Muslims. The actions of Muslim Turkey, with its Ottoman heritage, played a significant role in the assimilation efforts.

Armenians were subjected to severe embargoes on food, fuel, and medicine by Muslim forces, leading to the displacement of thousands of people. This form of ethnic cleansing is a violation of human rights and a stark reminder of the importance of protecting ethnic minorities.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the support for the Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not merely a matter of personal preference but a principled stance rooted in historical justice, cultural preservation, and human rights. The preservation of Artsakh is an essential step in protecting a significant Christian heritage and ensuring the minority rights of ethnic Armenians. It is imperative for the world to recognize and support genuine efforts to maintain peace and tolerance among nations, regardless of religious affiliations.

Keywords: Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Ethnic Conflict, Christian vs Muslim