A recent article in Switzerland’s 20 Minuten reported on the discontent of several Swiss parliamentarians over a letter from Azerbaijani MP and head of the Switzerland-Azerbaijan Friendship Group, Rizvan Nabiyev. In his letter, Nabiyev urged his Swiss colleagues to reconsider their support for the “Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Forum.” This forum, proposed on October 15, 2024, by the Foreign Policy Commission of the Swiss National Council, aims at facilitating the “safe return” of Armenian residents to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Nabiyev voiced his concern that the forum could undermine ongoing dialogue between Azerbaijan and Armenia, potentially destabilizing the fragile peace process. However, members of the National Council such as Nik Gugger (EVP), Erich Vontobel (EDU), and Nicolas Walder (Green Party) perceived Nabiyev’s letter as a form of external pressure, calling it an “interference in the independent decision-making of the Swiss parliament.”
Lost Sense of Reason
As a resident of Switzerland and someone who considers it my second homeland alongside Azerbaijan, I feel compelled to share my perspective on this issue. I would like to begin with an appeal to common sense.
This initiative, which at first glance appears to be a noble one, seemingly intends to promote peace and aid in the return of those displaced from their homes. However, no matter how well-intentioned it may appear, the initiative comes across as a one-sided and politically charged move. The proposal solely focuses on the Armenian side of the conflict, disregarding Azerbaijan’s legitimate right to govern its territories, which were reclaimed in accordance with international law. Additionally, it fails to address the right of over 200,000 Azerbaijanis who were forcibly displaced from Armenia in the late 1980s and early 1990s to return to their ancestral lands. These people, having lost not only their homes but also their cultural heritage, remain overlooked amid attempts to facilitate the “homecoming” of only one side.
Or, do these Good Samaritans believe that there is an expiration date on the rights of a certain ethnic and religious group expelled from their land? Or perhaps, they think these people never had such rights to begin with? I ask this because the plight of these individuals, along with the fate of Karabakh Azerbaijanis exiled from their lands, has been disregarded by Western nations for over 30 years. In contrast, no one forced Armenians out of Karabakh in 2023; their departure was voluntary, motivated by an unwillingness to live as part of Azerbaijan.
This is why Azerbaijani MP Rizvan Nabiyev’s letter, especially coming from the head of the Switzerland-Azerbaijan Friendship Group, seems a natural reaction to a one-sided initiative launched by Swiss parliamentarians. Their outrage, however, is puzzling. It’s hard to believe that in casting themselves as victims, they do not see that, while claiming Swiss sovereignty as allegedly compromised by Nabiyev, they are, in fact, undermining the sovereignty of another nation. Their outrage suggests that they see Nabiyev’s letter as interference in Switzerland’s internal affairs (which, frankly, I’d find concerning myself if it were the case), rather than as an expression of his legitimate interest in an issue that directly impacts his country—a forum where a “wedding without the groom” is planned, where the fate of Azerbaijani territories is to be discussed without Azerbaijan’s own voice in the matter.
The Declarative Abstraction of Bored Parliamentarians
The indignation of Swiss parliamentarians over the reasonable letter from Azerbaijani MP Rizvan Nabiyev comes across as vulgar, even staged. In fact, it almost feels like they’re pleased to have received attention for their initiative—without this reaction, would they even know if they were being noticed or ignored? Mission accomplished or not? This letter makes it clear: their simulated “busy activity” has worked—they’ve been noticed!
We’re accustomed to the fact that the phrase “international law” irritates certain self-important Western figures whenever it concerns Azerbaijan. The plight of nearly a million Azerbaijani refugees, the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory, the Khojaly massacre, the ongoing mine terrorism—all these subjects seem vague and unwelcome, especially when raised by a so-called “dictatorship.” As if reassuring us, they imply, “Let’s not over-dramatize things. Azerbaijanis encountered these unpleasant experiences at the hands of desperate people, didn’t they? After all, “Menschliches, Allzumenschliches.“
Are we meant to understand it this way?
In all seriousness, though, the absurdity of this planned forum is evident in the fact that the Armenians of Karabakh—whom Swiss parliamentarians wish to “return home”—have already expressed their unwillingness to return under the terms set by Azerbaijan. Herein lies the deadlock and the farcical nature of the proposed gathering. If the side the forum organizers support rejects the only realistic path—accepting Azerbaijani citizenship—and no other means exists to bring them back, then how do the organizers intend to solve this problem? By reoccupying Azerbaijani territories, displacing the returning population, and establishing yet another separatist regime? Everything “new” is simply a recycled past. But we haven’t forgotten it yet.
It’s clear that this initiative is nothing short of a futile exercise. Its content rests on empty declarations and politicized clichés, incapable of withstanding any intellectual scrutiny, devoid of common sense, and offensive to intelligence. Any attempt at rational argument—explaining that what’s happening here is not merely a misjudgment but a mistake—is met with noisy chatter, platitudes, and the evasive refrain: “Perhaps, technically, you’re correct, but remember, Azerbaijan is a dictatorship…”
And? Does that mean its lands are fair game for occupation, and its citizens’ lives somehow matter less? Even here, the parliamentarians’ position falls apart, since the occupation of Azerbaijani lands took place under the pro-Western rule of Abulfaz Elchibey, not the Aliyev administration.
We are accustomed to seeing international law, typically championed by the West, sidelined in favor of policies driven by ideological preferences. In practice, support for Armenia, underpinned by cultural and religious ties, takes priority, while legal norms are relegated to a secondary position. The attempt by certain political groups to use this initiative for influence, without understanding the conflict’s nature, transforms the proposed forum into an ideological showcase—an illusion of activity that offers no real benefit.
Neutrality Kaput?
As a Swiss taxpayer, I’d like to remind our policymakers that the true interests of the nation should always come first. Switzerland’s interests lie in maintaining diversified cooperation with Azerbaijan, including economic collaboration. The Swiss approach should rest on a single principle: Switzerland First—not merely as a slogan but as the foundation of state policy, directed at safeguarding the interests of its citizens and maintaining freedom from outside influence.
Switzerland, with its reputation as a neutral state and a respected mediator in international conflicts, has long been an example of sound judgment and respect for international law. Initiatives like this, however, resemble political posturing rather than a genuine quest for dialogue. Actions colored by ideology undermine the country’s neutrality and needlessly risk damaging its reputation. Opting for ideological pressure and aligning with external sympathies reflects a choice that does not resonate with the Swiss spirit. Departing from this in favor of global players, whose agendas may diverge from the welfare of the Swiss people, threatens the country’s core values.
It is important to us that the principles which make Switzerland the unique country we love, value, and are proud to be a part of, remain inviolable — understanding that living here is a privilege, not something to be taken for granted.
Swiss parliamentarians, brimming with concern for one side of the conflict, may feel they can ignore Azerbaijan’s discontent, but they should at least pay attention to the comments left by Swiss readers on the article in 20 Minuten. These are, after all, their own constituents, and if they all respond with sarcasm toward this initiative, what does that tell us? Of the roughly 50 responses, nearly all express dissatisfaction with parliament’s diversion to external initiatives when the nation faces pressing issues: rising healthcare costs, employment, and budgetary concerns. Most commenters believe this forum initiative does not serve Swiss interests and diverges from the course of neutrality. “Get back to your responsibilities,” writes one, reminding lawmakers that their primary task is to protect the interests of their own citizens. Other concerned citizens note, “By intervening in other countries’ affairs, we lose our role as a peaceful mediator that strengthens trust in Switzerland.” Comments urge a refocus on Swiss domestic issues—healthcare, employment, pensions—stressing, “The core duties of parliamentarians are to address pressing matters at home rather than play peacekeeper in foreign conflicts.” Another sarcastically questions, “Why should our taxes fund Swiss political interference in Azerbaijan when we have plenty of needs at home?” One particularly popular remark sums it up: “The attempt to meddle in another state’s affairs seems more like political lobbying than an honest quest for peace.” But perhaps the most striking part is that over a thousand readers have given these comments a thumbs-up, signaling their approval. This means the overwhelming majority supports these views, clearly showing where Swiss public sentiment lies.
For those interested, further comments offer a clear sense of what people truly think of this initiative and the parliamentarians behind it.
Conclusion
For the collective West, Azerbaijan’s victory in the Second Karabakh War has become a painful irritant. Azerbaijan, having regained control over its territories in full compliance with international law, now faces ideological resistance. The West seems to send a pointed message: “We don’t like your victory, and we won’t let you enjoy it. We’ll make things difficult, and surely you understand… It’s just what we must do.” The ideological bias is clear: maintaining their sympathies and influence is more important to the West than remaining objective. This strategy aims to keep Azerbaijan under constant scrutiny and pressure, despite the legitimacy of its position.
This has led to a paradoxical situation: the West has effectively taken over Russia’s role in keeping the regional conflict alive and holding Azerbaijan in check. However, just as Russia’s 30-year attempts to pressure Azerbaijan into relinquishing Karabakh yielded no success, the manipulations of a distant West will fare no better. Switzerland, in particular, should not sacrifice its neutrality by following the ambitions of Brussels (read: Paris), which seeks to play the role of a “miniature Napoleon.” Switzerland’s strength and significance lie in its independent role as a mediator on the world stage, and even its own parliamentarians should not jeopardize this esteemed status.
Swiss neutrality matters. It is a fundamental principle that should not be reconsidered, upheld for numerous reasons that hardly need restating here.
Alekper Aliyev
