The South Caucasus is living through one of its most remarkable historical moments. Two neighboring countries that have long clashed since gaining independence are gradually moving toward peace. There is no need to say it: this process excites everyone. Will peace truly be achieved? Will the roar of gunfire finally give way to the cheers of sporting events? Will homes no longer receive coffins wrapped in flags? Will young people pick up tools to rebuild war-torn regions instead of weapons to fight on the frontlines?
Everyone wants to leave war behind and heal its wounds. That is why the progress in peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the past few years brings hope. Yet, there is a lingering fear of outside interference. Before U.S. envoy Vance visited the South Caucasus, Russian politician Zatulin’s statements already fueled these concerns. Just as efforts were made to counter Zatulin’s baseless claims, an unexpected blow came from across the ocean: Nancy Pelosi publicly criticized Vance in connection with the so-called ‘Armenian genocide’. Her actions, in the truest sense, were like ‘spoiling the broth’-needless and counterproductive.
This is not about reopening debates over historical events between TurkIiye and Armenia; that is their matter to resolve. My goal here is to critique Western values, especially American principles, when they are betrayed by figures like Pelosi. Highlighting the Armenian genocide narrative at this critical moment does not promote justice; it strengthens the hand of those in Armenia who thrive on nationalist fervor and undermines ongoing peace efforts.
Whether in high school or at university, one of the core lessons taught under Western values is equality before the law. We are taught that everyone stands equal under justice. Take, for example, Podstam the Miller, who boldly defied King Frederick II by declaring, ‘There are judges in Berlin.’ He relied precisely on this principle. It was this trust in impartial law that drew people from authoritarian regimes to the West. Entrepreneurs chose to build their businesses not in their native lands, but in countries where the rule of law guaranteed fairness and opportunity for all. This very foundation made the West-and especially the United States- great and attractive.
However, individuals like Nancy Pelosi, who defend the so-called ‘Armenian genocide,’ undermine this fundamental principle. Viewed objectively, claiming that the Armenian genocide occurred is not about confronting injustice-it is simply granting special privilege to a particular ethnic group.
More precisely, Armenian historians present numerous documents asserting that this was a genocide. The Turkish site, meanwhile, provides its documents arguing that no such genocide occurred. As individuals, our responsibility is to examine the issue calmly and reach a reasoned conclusion. The consensus that emerges from careful study of both Armenian and Turkish perspectives is that, during World War I, the Ottoman Empire relocated Armenians from Eastern Anatolia to the western regions of the empire and the Middle East due to concerns over collaboration with Russia. Some lives were lost during this relocation. Here a question raises: ‘is it truly genocide?’
For instance, during World War II, ethnic Germans living in the Caucasus were deported to Central Asia under harsh conditions due to suspected collaboration with the Nazis. Thousands perished en route or suffered fatal hardships in the settlements to which they were sent. A similar fate befell the Ahiska Turks in Georgia. Although Turkiye did not participate in the war, the Kremlin feared that Turkiye might intervene in the future. Acting on this concern, the entire population was forcibly relocated to Central Asia overnight. Like the Germans, many Ahiska Turks tragically lost their lives, and to make matters worse, their homes were later occupied by Armenians-homes that are still inhabited by Armenians today.
Another Caucasus people who suffered similar deportations were the Chechens. In the mid-20th century, they too were exiled to Central Asia and endured immense suffering. The Crimean Tatars experienced comparable persecution: accused of collaborating with the Nazis, the entire Tatar population of the peninsula was rounded up into trains and deported to Central Asia. Many perished along the way or in the harsh settlements where they were placed.
The Crimean Peninsula, however, did not only witness the deportation of Tatars. Looking back over the last two centuries, we also see that after Russia occupied Crimea, Armenians living there were relocated from the peninsular to Rostov-on-Don during the harsh winter months. A large portion of them perished during this forced migration.
Yet selective memory prevails. Neither The U.S. Congress, nor Armenian Parliament recognize these events as genocide. Pelosi, proudly endorsing the Armenian genocide, fails to acknowledge comparable tragedies. Why is suffering in Crimea, or of Chechens, Ahiska Turks, or Caucasus Germans, ignored? Only Turkiye’s actions are labeled genocide, while Russia’s are erased from history books.
In my view, this is not genocide. Labeling it so contradicts Western principles, which teach that no one group should be granted superiority. Either all similar historical tragedies should be recognized equally, or none should be labeled genocide. Armenian and U.S. parliaments alike ignore the fate of other displaced peoples, even when outcomes and motivations were identical. The selective focus on one narrative while ignoring others undermines the very notion of justice.
Most importantly, raising this divisive narrative at such a crucial moment only empowers nationalist forces in Armenia. Over the past 30 years, one in six Armenians has left the country. Yet they cling fanatically to the genocide narrative. Strengthening them at this time, by repeating selective claims, cannot serve peace. Figures like Nancy Pelosi, by perpetuating this selective narrative, appear uninterested in the fragile peace slowly taking root between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
At this pivotal moment, the choice is clear: peace must come first. Selective historical narratives, no matter how politically convenient, have no place in building trust, dialogue, and lasting reconciliation.