NATO PA seminar in Baku offers politicians a chance for a "home match". In a rare opportunity to engage on home territory Armenian and Azerbaijani politicians stick to script when talking about Karabakh conflict.

Although in the past decade there have been hundreds of meetings between Armenian and Azerbaijani politicians and civil society representatives in different parts of the world, it is rare that the two sides are able to engage in a debate on home territory. The seminar being held by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in the Azerbaijani capital Baku is offering a rare opportunity for members of parliament from the two countries to exchange views on a number of issues, including the Nagorno-Karabkah conflict on home territory. An Armenian Parliamentary delegation is in Baku to participate in the event and this was welcomed by the organisers of the seminar, as well as many of the participants.

The problem is that the politicians are sticking strictly to the script. In a number of exchanges during the course of the first day of the seminar both Armenian and Azerbaijani MPs repeated often heard maximalist positions on the conflict, its origins and its resolution. This caused frustration amongst some of the NGO representatives present who made several appeals to the politicians to engage in a more constructive manner.

Two issues were particularly contentious: how to reconcile the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and the participation of the self declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the current negotiation process.

Speaking for the Armenian side, MPs Tevan Poghosyan and Koryun Nahapetyan insisted that the principles of territorial integrity and self determination were equal, and that it was not possible to speak about the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan without referring also to the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for self determination. This was challenged by the Azerbaijani delegation. Deputy Speaker of the Milli Meclis Ziyafat Asgerov, and MPs Siyavoush Novruzov, Gudrat Hasanguliev, Zahid Oruij and others argued that Azerbaijan was the victim of aggression. Its territory had been occupied and hundreds of thousands of its people were displaced. They further added that the principle of self determination was not applicable in the Karabakh situation because an Armenian state already existed.

Regarding the issue of the participation of NKR in the negotiations a number of international speakers, including Dennis Sammut and Matthew Bryza said that the question of the format of the negotiations was difficult to change since it required the agreement of both sides and that if anything is changed than everything would be open up for discussion including the composition of the Minsk Group.

Both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani politicians used tough language in their presentations but the atmosphere remained remarkably calm and friendly.

Earlier in the keynote speeach at the opening of the conference, Dennis Sammut, Director of LINKS Analysis and researcher at Oxford University said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict constituted a real danger for peace in the South caucasus and beyond and the international community needed to find a way of keeping the spotlight on the negotiations that are ongoing to try to resolve the conflict. He said that four messages need to be constantly repeated:  respect for the territorial integrity of states; respect for the rights of minorities and self determination as appropriate; rejection of a military solution to the conflict; and the need to engage with the population that remains in Nagorno-Karabakh in a status neutral manner and in a way that will allow access to this population. The full text of Dennis Sammut speech is available here.

Commonspace.eu political editor said that "this meeting is important because Armenian and Azerbaijani politicians have to learn to engage with each other in front of their own populations, not in far away exotic cities in Europe as has been the case so far. Not surprisingly they are finding this difficult at first but this is a process, and the NATO PA seminar provided an excellent opportunity for this process to start. It is regrettable that some media outlets in Armenia and Azerbaijan made completely distorted reports of the meeting. This is very disappointing. But despite these difficulties a new space for dialogue has been created, and we now look forward to many more Armenian politicians travelling to Baku, and Azerbaijani politicians travelling to Yerevan in the future, thus breaking artificial taboos that constitute a serious hindrance to the peace process."

s0ource: commonspace.eu

photo: The Azerbaijani Delegation at the NATO PA seminar being held in Baku, 16-18 June 2014.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)