Civil society organisations across the South Caucasus urge their governments to sign the Ottawa Convention on landmines

Across the South Caucasus civil society organisations on Thursday (30 November) called on their governments to adhere to the Ottawa Convention that bans the use, production and sale of anti-personnel landmines. The call came during events held to mark the Day of Solidarity with the victims of landmines and other unexploded remnants of war in the South Caucasus.  

In Baku, Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Campaign Against Landmines (AzCAL) hosted an event during which it presented its report "Landmines are the most serious obstacle preventing Azerbaijani Internally displaced persons from exercising their right to return to their homes", which was researched and produced earlier this year. Speaking at the event, AzCAL Chairman, Hafiz Safikhanov spoke about the extent of the landmine problem in Azerbaijan and the huge efforts being put in trying to address it. He said that it was time for Azerbaijan to adhere to the Ottawa convention as this will strengthen its ability to mobilise international support. Hafiz Safikhanov also spoke about the work on demining in a regional context. He called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to move forward with the signing of a peace agreement. He proposed that the two countries consider in the future joint humanitarian demining operations, which would be very good for operational reasons, as well as a confidence-building measure.

Image
Baku

Addressing the gathering, Dr Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Europe spoke about the work of the campaign Landmine Free South Caucasus since it was launched in October 2018. He said that the situation in the region had changed substantially since then. There were new challenges but also new opportunities. The new situation made it much more possible that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia join the Ottawa convention and he urged the governments to move swiftly in this direction.

The guest of honour at the event was the British Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Fergus Auld. He reiterated the commitment of the British government to work to eradicate the problem of landmines globally, and in Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus in particular. Ambassador Auld said the UK government calls on the governments of the region to sign the Ottawa Convention as an expression of their commitment for a landmine free South Caucasus.

During the meeting there was also a discussion on the role of women deminers in Azerbaijan. Already two teams consisting of 28 women have been deployed and are working on this issue. A representative from the Azerbaijan State Committee on Women Affairs also talked about the role of women in humanitarian demining and expressed the support of the Committee for the work for a landmine free South Caucasus.

During the meeting, those present also heard testimonials from three persons from the Tovuz region and Aghdam who had suffered life-changing injuries by landmines. A number of civil society organisations also spoke at the event.

In Tbilisi, the Tbilisi School for Social Research hosted an event during which the remaining problem of landmines in Georgia was discussed. Giorgi Arziani, Director of the Tbilisi School for Social Research spoke of the costs that anti-personnel landmines inflict on civilians' security and how landmines hamper the economic development of the communities that live close to the landmine fields. He also mentioned the LFSC awareness-raising campaigns that were conducted at Georgian schools.

Two video reports were shown to participants, including one on the situation with the minefield near the Red Bridge which was followed by a presentation by Irakli Chitanava from UNDP.

Speaking online from Baku, LINKS Europe Executive Director, Dennis Sammut made a public appeal to Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili to take a personal interest in the matter of the Red Bridge minefield. Dennis Sammut said that it was a shame that the area near the Red Bridge - the point where Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are connected -  is a minefield. He called for this to be transformed into a peace park. Dennis Sammut said that the current situation could be explained in the past due to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, but now, with the peace process in motion, and with the prime ministers of the three countries meeting recently in Tbilisi, there should be a new beginning. Dennis Sammut called on Prime Minister Garibashvili to integrate the Red Bridge minefield issue in his Peaceful Caucasus initiative and make this a tangible example of the new begining.

Image
Tbilisi

The event in Tbilisi was also addressed by Godfried Hanne, Head of the Regional Office of the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus who spoke about the work of the European Union in support of a landmine free South Caucasus.

In Yerevan, Armenia, the NGO Television station CivilNet ran a long interview on the problem of landmines in Armenia and in the wider South Caucasus with Benyamin Poghosyan. In the interview, Benyamin Poghosyan urged all concerned to focus on the humanitarian aspect of demining and said that the matter should be depoliticised, and the focus turned to the victims of landmines and their families and communities.

Image
Tv

LANDMINE FREE SOUTH CAUCASUS is a regional campaign, taking its message across the region in five languages: Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, Russian and English. Different publicity material has been produced, including leaflets, posters, cartoon videos and infographics for use on social media.

The campaign LANDMINE FREE SOUTH CAUCASUS is co-ordinated by LINKS Europe working with partners from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia and beyond, with the support of the European Union.

source: This report was prepared for commonspace.eu by LINKS Europe
photo: A screenshot from one of the publicity videos of the Landmine Free South Caucasus Regional Campaign

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
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (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)