Civil society activists call for more openness and transparency in Karabakh peace negotiations.

Activists in the ongoing civil society initiative - the Independent Civil Minsk Process, meeting in Helsinki over the last days, have issued an appeal to the political leaderships of the sides involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as to civil society and political and public forces, and have proposed new initiatives to help resolve the conflict.

The appeal states:

"We, together with the other representatives of civil society and experts, in the framework of the Independent Civil Minsk Process (ICMP) Initiative on the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, signed a Declaration in Tbilisi on December 8, 2010, which called upon the leadership of the parties:
- to refrain from war-like rhetoric, and political and information action aimed at conflict escalation;
- to take urgent measures on securing the ceasefire and preventing armed clashes, and to ensure the immediate withdrawal of snipers from the frontline;
- to add to the basic rules of the conflict resolution (the non-use of force, territorial integrity, equal rights and self-determination of peoples) the principle of "peaceful resolution of disputes" based on the Helsinki Final Act;
- to begin the development of a Road Map of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution.

We deeply regret that the ICMP earlier appeals have not been heard, and at the 20th anniversary of the ceasefire regime, our people are not on the way to a peaceful resolution, the solution of practical problems to restore good neighborly relations and cooperation and regional integration. Unfortunately, currently, we have a deadlocked situation in the official negotiation process, increasing tension on the frontline and an increasing threat of the resumption of large-scale military operations in the light of the processes that have been started in the post-Soviet space.

The conflict already brought a huge disaster including the deaths of ten thousands of people, hundreds of thousands wounded and disabled and more than one million people who lost their homes. The absence of progress in the conflict resolution between our people caused huge problems for the attempts to create social-economic prosperity, a strong civil society as well as a democratic statehood on the principles of the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and human rights.

The current status quo can not continue indefinitely and the efforts to "freeze of the situation" do not work: people are dying from the shooting that takes place almost every day, the area of military incidents is expanding, the arms race is increasing between the conflict sides, while the rhetoric on government and public level is becoming more radical. Further attempts to retain the status quo will inevitably become part of the new dangerous trend in the post-Soviet space, which not only threatens European security, but also the independence and sovereignty of our countries.

In the currently explosive situation, as unprecedented eruption of violence along the contact line in late July and the beginning of August of this year have demonstrated, even minor mistakes of one side of the conflict can be used to impose upon us a new war.

We support the initiative of the co-chairman of OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador James Warlick from May 7, 2014 outlined in the report called "Nagorno-Karabakh: The Keys to a Settlement" and the Statement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs from May 12, 2014. This balanced approach reflects the accumulated experience of many years of negotiations and long-term work of the parties of the conflict as well as the previous and present members of OSCE Minsk Group. We believe that the three principles and these six elements are an effective basis for the development of the Peace Agreement within the OSCE Minsk Group and the "road map" for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

We believe that the negotiation process of conflict resolution should be open and transparent for our societies. Thus, we call to convene an international forum with representatives of government and civil society of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict sides together with the representatives of international organizations to support the peace process and its practical implementation.

We support the idea of the use of international peacekeeping forces in the implementation of the Peace Agreement. However, we emphasize that the international forces should neither include the countries serving as co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group, nor the neighboring countries of the conflict sides. To implement these agreed principles, international mediation should be free from any geopolitical interests such as the struggle for spheres of influence and domination over the region.

We appeal to the leadership of co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and to all States with urgent demand to stop the supply of all kinds of offensive weapons in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The peaceful resolution of the armed conflict is only possible when both sides of the conflict are ready for mutual compromise, with reject of maximalist demands and preconditions and a develop perception of shared national interests of our people and when there is a sincere effort by international mediators to peacefully resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

We appeal to the political leadership of the parties to the conflict, that despite the different interpretations of certain provisions of the principles of the settlement and the existing disagreements on several issues, to urgently start a formulation of a Peace Agreement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of the initiative of the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Ambassador James Warlick from May 7, 2014 and the Statement of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs from May 12, 2014.

We call upon civil societies on all sides of the conflict, all political and public forces to become active participants in the peace process, to start searching for necessary compromises, to abandon maximalist demands and to take their share of responsibility in the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict."

The appeal was signed by David Shahnazaryan, who was Ambassador of the President of the Republic of Armenia on Special Missions from 1992-95; Eldar Namazov, who was Assistant to the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the head of Presidential Secretariat 1993-99; Arzu Abdullayeva, Chair of Helsinki Citizens' Assembly-Azerbaijan, holder of Olof Palme Piece Prize, winner of EU and US government Marshall Award; Karen Ohanjanyan, Coordinator of the Nagorno Karabakh Committee “Helsinki Initiative-92”; Natalya Martirosyan, Chair of Helsinki Citizens' Assembly-Armenia; Ali Abasov, Professor, political analyst; Zardusht Alizadeh, Doctor of philosophy, political analyst; Aghasi Yenokyan, Director of the Armenian Center for political and international relations; Leyla Alieva, Center for National and International Studies, political analyst; and Haykak Arshamyan, Regional Studies Center, historian, political analyst.

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)