OPINION: ARIF ALIEV "I am a soldier not a politician, but I do not want another war"

http://www.commonspace.eu/user_upload/karabakh_interviews_collage_final.jpg

 

Karabakh: The big debate

Commonspace.eu today publishes the 10th in a series of twenty interviews with key personalities from Nagorno-Karabakh. The interviews give a vivid, even if sombre picture, of the attitude of Armenians and Azerbaijanis from Karabakh whose lives have been deeply affected by the conflict, and whose destiny will be at the heart of any future conflict settlement. Those interviewed sometimes use harsh language. Their opinion is almost inevitably controversial, as are sometimes their biographical notes. However it is through listening to these opinions that a path through the labyrinth that is the Karabakh conflict can be found. A full editorial policy of commonspace.eu is available at the About Us section. The next interview in the series will be with Hrant Melkumyan, Chief of Staff of the Government of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and First Secretary of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic Communist Party Central Committee.

 

Interview with Arif Aliyev

 

Arif Aliyev was born in 1967 in the Sarijaly village of Aghdam district, which has been under Armenian occupation since 1993. He graduated from vocational school in 1985 in Aghdam and did his military service in the Soviet army in 1986-88 in Kazakhstan. He started his work in Aghdam in the night police in 1989.  He was a member of  self defense groups and participated in the fighting for defense of his homeland. Aliyev was heavily wounded in the battle in 1993 and lost both his legs and is an invalid of the 1st group category. He is married and has three children.

Biographical notes are provided by the interviewees themselves.

Can you summarize your overall position on the Karabakh conflict and the conflict resolution process:

You know my situation, I lost my two legs. I am 44 years old, and in two days it will be the 18th anniversary of the occupation of Aghdam and my becoming an invalid. So its already 18 years that I have been in prison. I was born in 1967 in Aghdam, and did my military service in the Soviet army between 1986-88. From 1990 like others I took up arms and started to defend my land, at that time we didn't have a regular army and it was the duty of the police to keep order at the beginning of the conflict. I took part in self-defense operations across Nagorno-Karabakh, and as Allah is my witness, everything I am telling you is the truth. I witnessed in these operations how they Armenians killed kids and the other innocent people. When we encountered elderly Armenian people we tried to save their lives because we understood it was not them we were fighting, but when Armenians captured our people they didn't give them any chance to live. In 1995, after the ceasefire we captured an Armenian soldier who had also lost both of this legs, and he was presented to me. The soldiers said that here is our enemy, and you can do what you like with him – you can torture him, you can kill him, you can take your revenge. But I didn't do anything to him, I understood that he is also a human being despite the fact that he is our enemy and probably killed many Azerbaijanis, but now he was in my hands I shouldn't kill him. If I encountered him on the battlefield I would kill him without any hesitation, but now he was no threat, so I decided to exchange him for some Azerbaijani prisoners of war. So I could have killed him but I didn't, and this is how the Azerbaijani people acted during the war. After the occupation of Aghdam on 23rd July 1993, I was wounded in the battle and evacuated to Baku. I am not a politician, I am a soldier. But I don't want another war, this would only be a last resort to get back our territories. 

In the long term do you want to see Nagorno-Karabakh as (a) an independent state, (b) as part of Armenia, (c) as part of Azerbaijan, (d) none of the above but in an as of yet undefined status. Comment on your choice:

(c). I see the official status of Nagorno-Karabakh as an integral part of Azerbaijan as it was before the start of the war. Armenians living there are also Azerbaijani citizens so we can go back there and live with them under a special status within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. I rule out the other options.

What is your biggest objection/concern to Nagorno-Karabakh being independent or part of Armenia or under some as of yet undetermined status that is not part of Azerbaijan:

Nagorno-Karabakh has always been an integral part of Azerbaijan and never a part of Armenia, so it must remain an integral part of Azerbaijan. We will not let Armenia cut it from us.  

Were you directly involved in the armed hostilities between 1989-94? If yes in what capacity?

My involvement was in a position to maintain public order in Aghdam and some other regions, to stop the armed groups of Armenians – the bandit groups – from infiltrating the Azeri villages and killing our people. This was my main obligation and duty, up until 1993 when I was wounded. 

How do you evaluate the work of the OSCE Minsk Process?

I don't expect anything positive from them. In my opinion their work is one-sided and biased, and I don't find a single thing in their efforts which is positive for Azerbaijan.

Do you have a publicly expressed position on the Madrid Principles?

I am not informed about this document. But which document has ever been fulfilled? Four UN Security Council resolutions adopted in 1993 (numbers 822, 853, 874 and 884) urging Armenia and the joint occupying forces to withdraw their troops from the occupied districts of Azerbaijan – Kelbajar, Lachin, Aghdam, Fizuli, Jabrayil, Gubadly, Zengilan and Goradiz city – have been ignored by Armenia up until now. It is already 18 years that they are not being implemented. I am not sure that Armenia would accept the Madrid Principles document until the end of the peace process.

Do you think that it is important/appropriate that the de facto authorities of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic be part of the peace process facilitated by the Minsk Group? If yes should they be there instead of the Armenian Government?

Since Nagorno-Karabakh is legally part of Azerbaijan, that authority de facto or de jure, is not recognized by us. We know who we are dealing with – that is Armenia with Russia standing behind them. So their involvement is not acceptable. But please don't confuse the de facto authorities of Nagorno-Karabakh with the ordinary Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, we have good relations with some of them. When we get a chance to meet them in a third country, we get the chance to talk to them and exchange our views, and most of them say that it was politicians and Armenian diaspora who started the war and put the local Armenians in hell, but they want to have a joint life with us and to coexist with us. The Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh are hostages to a handful of politicians with their own political agendas, who are keeping the community in Nagorno-Karabakh under their control as an instrument for their policy and staying in power in Armenia.  

Sometimes the possibility is mentioned that the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh under Armenian control since 1994 should be returned to Azerbaijan as part of an interim peace agreement, leaving the issues of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh to a later date. Do you have an opinion on this issue?

The President of Azerbaijan and our people are thinking of how to get back the surrounding regions. But in my opinion I think that if we take the lands back piecemeal, when it comes to returning the remaining territories, there will be deadlock. So I think it is better to return all the lands at the same time as you suggest in your question. As the surrounding regions have nothing to do with Nagorno-Karabakh, they must be returned as a first stage and then we can discuss the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

What is your opinion with regards to the role of Turkey, Russia, Iran, the United States, the European Union or any other country or international organisation, or the international community in general, with regards to the Karabakh conflict and its settlement:


I only see the positive role of Turkey, and expect a positive contribution from them to the whole process. I don't expect any positive contributions from any of the other international actors which you mentioned. I would prefer to give a greater role to Turkey. Even Armenia would love to have a good relationship with Turkey in order to survive in the future as they don’t have normal relations with any of their neighbors except Iran. The other countries have their hidden agendas in the region.

How do you evaluate the role of informal, NGO-level contributions to the peace process? Do you believe that informal contacts have a useful role to play prior to or after a formal agreement?

I would say that as they somehow know what is what in this conflict, the NGOs having a really sincere intention and goodwill to do something positive in order to find justice out of the process, are very welcomed by us.   

Do you have a position on the desirability or not of free movement of Armenians and Azeris between their two countries before a final peace agreement?

I don't see a possibility for this model of Armenians coming here and Azerbaijanis going there before the return of the occupied regions to Azerbaijan, only after that would it be possible. Any final agreement must guarantee the return of the territories for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, otherwise the Azerbaijani people will not welcome the Armenians here.

Do you think that Armenians and Azerbaijanis will ever be able to live together peacefully in Karabakh again in the future?

After getting the western Azerbaijani lands (Zangazur and Goycha) in 1918 under Russian Bolshevik pressure and its crafty policy following the massacre of Azerbaijanis and Jews by the Dashnaksutyun   jointly with Russian armed groups, Armenians had a good appetite to put forward  more territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh has always been an integral part of Azerbaijan and Armenians used to live with us peacefully there, so I have hope that we can again live together in Nagorno-Karabakh. But as I mentioned this problem was created by the Armenian politicians, and the Armenian community in Nagorno-Karabakh are their hostages.

What is your opinion on the issue of return of refugees/IDPs to Nagorno-Karabakh?

Once we reach a peace agreement by peaceful means, it will be very easy for the IDP community to return there. They won't look for any help from the government or anyone else. The only thing we would need at the very beginning is to clear the lands of the land mines, after that it won't be difficult at all for us to go there.

 

(c) commonspace.eu

 

Read previous interviews in this series:

Artur Tovmasyan

Bayram Safarov

Masis Mayilian

Rovshan Rzayev

Vahram Atanesyan

Havva Mammadova

Gegham Baghdasaryan

Kerim Kerimli

Sergey Ghazaryan

Arif Aliyev

Hrant Melkumyan

Sevda Ibrahimova

Armen Sargsyan       

Anar Usubov             

Hayk Khanumyan

 

Vagif Jahangirov      

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)