At first glance, pacifism seems like an admirable, even noble, ideology. Its proponents preach peace and non-violence, wrapping their rhetoric in slogans about love, human rights, and avoiding conflict. They promise a future free from war and bloodshed. But in today’s complex world, particularly for nations like Azerbaijan, pacifism is not just a naïve dream - it’s a dangerous delusion. With Armenia ramping up its military and harboring ambitions of revenge, pacifism doesn’t just fail to serve Azerbaijan’s national interests - it actively threatens them.
History teaches us time and again that pacifist movements are often hijacked by outside forces to serve the interests of those looking to weaken a country from within. Azerbaijan is no exception. On the surface, pacifist rhetoric may seem harmless. But it can quickly morph into a tool of broader geopolitical maneuvers aimed at destabilizing the nation.
Beneath the calls for peace and non-violence often hide forces bent on sowing chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness. In this context, pacifism becomes a convenient weapon to erode state power, demoralize the military, and weaken society’s belief in the necessity of defending its national interests. This is especially dangerous when neighboring countries—like Armenia—reject pacifist ideals and are openly preparing for aggressive action. Under these conditions, pacifism puts both the state and its citizens in jeopardy.
The Ongoing Threat of Armenian Revanchism
The 44-day Second Karabakh War was a defining moment for Azerbaijan, a conflict that saw the nation reclaim its historical lands and restore a sense of justice. But the conflict didn’t end with that victory. Armenia continues to pursue a revanchist policy, aggressively rearming and openly planning to take back lost territories. Western backing has helped fuel Armenia’s military modernization, presenting an ongoing threat to regional security and stability.
In this volatile environment, pacifism is not merely ineffective—it’s downright dangerous. Calls for peace, demilitarization, and non-violence play directly into the hands of Armenian revanchists. While Azerbaijan fortifies its military and prepares to defend its hard-won gains, pacifists argue for disarmament and accepting a "peace" that would, in reality, amount to surrendering national interests and submitting to the will of the enemy.
The Cold Truth About Pacifism in a World of Aggression
Pacifism, as a moral philosophy, sounds appealing in theory. But when put to the test in the real world, especially in the face of aggressive neighbors, it fails. Nations have a responsibility to protect their sovereignty and defend their citizens. In the face of clear and present danger, abandoning the fight for self-defense isn’t just foolish—it’s suicidal.
The Danger of Pacifism: A Threat to National Security
Pacifism, while morally compelling, often collides with the harsh realities of the world. When faced with genuine threats, pacifism becomes a luxury that nations seeking to defend their sovereignty and security cannot afford. History has shown that in moments of aggression and conflict, refusing to resist not only fails to protect a nation but exacerbates the situation. It allows the aggressor free rein to act without facing any meaningful consequences.
When pacifism refuses to confront this reality, it can be co-opted by those with destructive motives. For Azerbaijan, this is not just an intellectual debate—it's a matter of survival and the preservation of sovereignty.
Pacifism as a National Security Threat
In Azerbaijan, pacifism is not merely a philosophical stance—it poses real and present dangers to national security. In a geopolitical environment where neighboring states are actively preparing for war, pacifist calls for peace and disarmament can look like betrayal. Pacifists who oppose the country’s defense policies inadvertently aid those aiming to undermine Azerbaijan’s sovereignty.
An example of this can be seen in the promotion of pacifist ideas through various "peacekeeping" organizations and foundations, often backed by external forces. These entities are not invested in Azerbaijan’s stability or prosperity. Their real objective is to weaken the nation, making it dependent on foreign aid and control. Pacifism becomes part of this broader agenda, sapping the public's will to defend its independence.
A Puppet State: Pacifism as a Tool of Control
Western nations that openly back Armenia’s territorial claims view pacifism as a strategic means to weaken Azerbaijan. Their endgame is to turn Azerbaijan into a managed state, subordinated to external powers, with its sovereignty perpetually under threat. As with many pacifist movements, these efforts are externally funded and guided, reflecting the interests of those who seek to turn Azerbaijan into a puppet state.
In such circumstances, pacifism takes on a destructive character. Behind the seemingly noble calls for peace and love is a calculated strategy to demoralize society and make it vulnerable to external influence. Pacifism, when promoted in the face of real aggression, is not a genuine call for peace, but an attempt to strip the state of its capacity to defend itself.
Aggression Never Bows to Pacifism
History is filled with examples where pacifism has failed to deter aggression. When one state gears up for war, pacifist appeals from the other are interpreted as signs of weakness and surrender. Aggressors are never deterred by pacifism; on the contrary, witnessing weakness only strengthens their belief in the righteousness of their cause. This is the exact situation Azerbaijan faces with Armenia. Despite its defeat in the 44-day war, Armenia continues to rearm and plot its revanchist plans.
When Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are at stake, pacifism becomes an unaffordable luxury. To refuse resistance is to voluntarily hand over national interests and strategic positions. As Armenia readies itself for a new wave of aggression, pacifist rhetoric becomes a tool for those seeking to weaken Azerbaijan from within.
Pacifism as a Tool of Chaos
In Azerbaijan, pacifism isn’t just impractical—it’s outright dangerous. When a nation faces real threats from an aggressive neighbor, calls for peace and disarmament undercut society’s readiness to defend its rights and interests. Pacifists, often driven by external influences, become tools for those who seek to create chaos, anarchy, and lawlessness. The ultimate objective of such forces is to turn Azerbaijan into a puppet state, subservient to Western interests and vulnerable to outside control.
As history has shown, pacifism can be a fatal miscalculation for countries located in conflict zones or facing the threat of aggression. For Azerbaijan, where sovereignty and future are at stake, the luxury of pacifism is something the nation simply cannot afford.
Pacifism: Idealism or a Threat to National Interests?
In today’s geopolitical climate, especially with neighboring countries pursuing aggressive policies, pacifism can easily be seen as a betrayal of national interests. For Azerbaijan, which has faced persistent threats from Armenia for decades, pacifist rhetoric isn’t just a naive ideology—it’s a dangerous fantasy that threatens to undermine the nation’s stability and sovereignty. In a world filled with real dangers, false promises of peace and demilitarization often serve as little more than a cover for the growing strength of an adversary.
Every individual has the right to freedom of conscience and the ability to choose their own priorities in life. This is a cornerstone of any modern society. While we may disagree with someone’s beliefs, their right to express those beliefs remains inviolable. If someone feels compelled to support pacifist ideals or advocate for friendship with Armenia, that’s their personal choice—as long as it doesn’t violate the law.
However, serious questions arise when activists who were indifferent to the suffering of thousands of Azerbaijanis for years suddenly rush to defend individuals accused of crimes. The courts will ultimately determine guilt or innocence, but why now? Why do these particular individuals provoke such an impassioned defense? Where was their moral outrage when hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis were displaced, killed, or tortured? Why did they remain silent while Azerbaijani mothers mourned their sons and families were left homeless? Why are those so quick to defend accused violators so unwilling to speak out about the crimes committed against our people?
These questions are just as relevant for Azerbaijanis who join in this rhetoric. Why don’t they recognize the blatant hypocrisy? Why do Armenian media react with hysteria over the arrest of a few individuals in Azerbaijan while remaining silent on the countless Azerbaijani victims of the war? Where is their concern for the thousands who were killed or disappeared? Why do the tears of our mothers and children not seem to move them?
The Ideal of Pacifism and Its Harsh Realities
Pacifism is built on the belief that the world can and should be maintained without violence. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, this idea held particular appeal. The core of pacifism is a rejection of war as a means of resolving conflict. Slogans of peace, love, and non-violence sound appealing and logical, but history has shown that a belief in peace without defending one’s rights and territories often leads to tragedy.
Pacifism as an ideology has always sparked debate and disagreement. Figures like the XIV Dalai Lama, Mahatma Gandhi, John Lennon, and Martin Luther King made an indelible impact on history with their unwavering commitment to non-violence. Their efforts transformed societies and advanced human rights. But can these principles truly be sustained in a world where violence and injustice are part of daily reality?
As noble as the ideals of pacifism may be, they often crumble when confronted with the harsh realities of geopolitics. For countries like Azerbaijan, which face constant external threats, pacifism is not a solution—it’s a dangerous delusion.
Pacifism in Real Politics
Today, pacifism often becomes a misguided illusion. In a world where nations must protect their independence and territorial integrity, pacifist calls can have a dangerously counterproductive effect. Aggressors are never deterred by pacifism—on the contrary, they view it as a sign of weakness, which only strengthens their conviction that their actions are justified. When one state prepares for war, pacifist slogans from the opposing side do nothing but embolden the aggressor’s plans.
Azerbaijan has repeatedly faced this situation. Despite Armenia’s defeat in the 44-day war, it continues to build up its military and pursue revanchist ambitions. Under such conditions, pacifism is not just an irrelevant luxury—it’s a direct threat to national security. Refusing to defend oneself is tantamount to voluntarily surrendering to the enemy.
History Repeats Itself
Pacifism as an ideology emerged in the late 19th century alongside other powerful social movements, such as the struggle for women’s rights, socialism, and anarchism. While these movements held strong appeal, they proved powerless when confronted with the massive conflicts of the 20th century. Both World War I and World War II demonstrated that peace built on a refusal to resist is an illusion—one that cannot withstand real, existential threats.
While pacifism may serve as a noble moral stance, it turns into a fatal weakness in the face of aggression. In today’s world, Azerbaijan cannot afford to fall prey to false promises of peace.
The Term "Pacifism": History and Categories
The term "pacifism" was first coined by French peace activist Émile Arnaud at the 10th Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901. Arnaud used the word to describe an ideology that rejects all forms of war and violence. Since then, pacifism has developed into a broad social movement, with those who adhere to this philosophy known as pacifists. However, pacifism is not a monolithic ideology—its followers fall into various categories, depending on their views on violence and conflict.
Different Types of Pacifism
Pacifists can be divided into several groups based on their approach to violence:
Absolute Pacifists
Absolute pacifists believe that human life is the highest value and that it should never be taken under any circumstances, even in self-defense. They completely reject violence as a method for resolving conflict and believe that violence is always unacceptable.
Conditional Pacifists
Conditional pacifists are more flexible in their views. While they also oppose violence, they recognize that in exceptional cases, war may be justified. Their approach is rooted in utilitarian ethics—actions are evaluated based on their outcomes. If violence results in the greatest benefit for the majority, it may be deemed acceptable. For example, conditional pacifists might support a war of liberation against invaders if it improves living conditions for most people.
Selective Pacifists
Selective pacifists advocate for a complete ban on weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear or biological weapons, but they do not oppose the use of conventional weapons for defensive purposes. Their approach focuses on rejecting aggressive violence, especially forms of violence that can result in large-scale human casualties.
While these different strains of pacifism all share a commitment to non-violence, their nuanced approaches reflect the challenges of adhering to this ideology in a world rife with conflict and aggression. For nations like Azerbaijan, the implications of pacifism must be carefully weighed, especially when national security is on the line.
Pacifism and Religion
Pacifism is deeply intertwined with religious beliefs, especially in Eastern traditions. Religions like Buddhism, Jainism, and Hinduism promote the principle of ahimsa—the practice of non-violence toward all living beings. Followers of these faiths take this principle to heart, with some wearing masks to avoid accidentally inhaling insects or sweeping the ground before them to prevent stepping on small creatures.
In Christianity, pacifism is embodied in the teachings of Jesus Christ, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount, where he instructed his followers to "turn the other cheek" when faced with violence. Certain Protestant groups, including the Amish, Mennonites, and Seventh-day Adventists, also embrace pacifism, believing that the use of weapons contradicts divine commandments.
Pacifism continues to be a powerful movement rooted in both religious and philosophical traditions. While absolute pacifists reject any form of violence, conditional pacifists acknowledge that in some situations, war or force may be justified depending on the circumstances.
Pacifism in the 20th Century: Nonviolence as a Global Movement
The 20th century saw pacifism rise to new prominence, giving birth to entire philosophical movements centered on nonviolence. One of the most influential figures in this realm was Mahatma Gandhi, who used nonviolent resistance to lead India's struggle for independence from British colonial rule. Gandhi’s tactics of peaceful protest and civil disobedience left an indelible mark on global politics and public consciousness.
Another powerful example of pacifist ideals in action was the work of Martin Luther King Jr., who championed nonviolent resistance during the U.S. civil rights movement. Inspired by Gandhi, King believed that evil could only be overcome through love and goodness, maintaining that violence merely perpetuates more violence and injustice.
XIV Dalai Lama: A Modern Icon of Pacifism
The XIV Dalai Lama, a prominent modern advocate of pacifism, emphasized that violence stems from anger and fear. He argued that true peace can only be achieved by controlling one's emotions. According to the Dalai Lama, violence born from hatred doesn’t resolve humanity’s problems—it only deepens them.
The practices of these figures underscore both the moral appeal and the practical difficulties of pacifism in the face of injustice and violence. While nonviolence has been a transformative force for social change, the debate over its feasibility in real-world conflicts remains relevant as many wrestle with the tension between moral principles and national security.
The Ongoing Relevance of Pacifism
The question remains: is it possible to uphold pacifist ideals in a modern world where violence and conflict persist? Many philosophers argue that pacifism, while idealistic and morally compelling, may not always be practical. States have a duty to protect their citizens and safeguard their territories. In the face of real threats, refusing to engage in self-defense can lead to catastrophic consequences. According to the concept of the social contract, a government must protect its people in exchange for their loyalty and adherence to the law.
While pacifism remains a noble ideal, its application in a world rife with violence presents complex challenges. Balancing the moral pursuit of peace with the practical necessity of defense continues to spark debate, especially in nations that face existential threats.
The Limits of Pacifism: When Confronting Evil Becomes a Necessity
Despite its moral value, pacifism often faces the stark reality that war can sometimes be the only path to restoring justice. Take World War II as a prime example—if humanity had not taken up arms against fascism, the world could have succumbed to a brutal tyranny. Contrary to pacifist ideals, history demonstrates that rejecting violence does not always preserve life; in fact, it can often strengthen the forces of evil.
Pacifism as a movement emerged in the late 19th century, alongside other significant social movements such as the fight for women’s rights, feminism, socialism, and anarchism. At that time, the ideas of Romanticism flourished, with new philosophical and social concepts finding expression in art and literature. Yet these noble ideals soon collided with harsh realities: World War I, followed by revolutions, fascism, and rising nationalist movements, shattered the illusions of peaceful progress. The world, in many ways, collapsed under the weight of its own delusions.
Today, pacifist sentiments are gaining momentum once again, sparking legitimate concerns. If we relinquish the defense of our fundamental rights—life, freedom, and sovereignty—these ideals may lead to new, tragic mistakes. A world without the fight against violence and injustice is not a real world—it is an illusion. Refusing to confront obvious evil only creates the conditions for it to grow and spread. In such circumstances, pacifism becomes a luxury we cannot afford, especially when passivity in the face of threats jeopardizes our very existence.
Albert Camus’ novel The Plague vividly illustrates what blind and unfounded faith in the goodwill of aggressors can lead to:
"I knew a man who rejected mistrust. He was a pacifist, a champion of absolute freedom, and he loved all living creatures. A noble soul! He posted a sign on the threshold of his home: 'No matter where you come from, enter, you are welcome!' And who responded to this kind invitation? The fascists. They entered the pacifist’s home as if it were their own and tore him apart."
This powerful quote captures the dangers of pacifism without critical thinking. In the pursuit of peace, ignoring the lurking threats that accompany such idealism can transform pacifism into a perilous trap. In a world where evil often grows unchecked, the refusal to resist can have devastating consequences.