A call for peace in Karabakh. Intellectuals and activists from around the world call for an immediate halt to the shooting and attacks

We, the undersigned citizens of Azerbaijan, Armenia and other countries demand that the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict stop the shooting and attacks on the Line of Contact and Armenian-Azerbaijani border immediately.

We demand that, as a sign of good will, either side stops shooting unilaterally and then asks the other side to do the same.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." On the Karabakh front-line, a sniper shot for a sniper shot, an attack for an attack will only make more young Armenians and Azerbaijanis dead, wounded and disabled. A few meters of territory or "strategic heights" gained are worth nothing if they put young people under the ground and leave their loved ones traumatized.

The Karabakh ceasefire regime was agreed and signed in May of 1994. In February 1995, the parties agreed to strengthen and monitor the ceasefire regime. But that has not been enough to prevent dozens of young people being killed each year. Many of them, some of them born after the ceasefire agreement was signed, died over the last week. We appreciate that the ceasefire in itself is not enough and that the status quo inflicts harm on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the region.

We demand that mediators and parties to the conflict find a new legal and practical framework that will stop the violence. In 2008 in Helsinki the foreign ministers of France, Russia and the United States called for the removal of snipers from the ceasefire line. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon endorsed the idea in 2010. We regret that that proposal, which could have saved dozens of lives, has never been implemented.

Finally, we urge citizens, civil society leaders, state and independent media to uphold ethical and professional standards as they discuss the conflict, not to glorify or otherwise encourage violence, to engage in sincere efforts towards peaceful conflict resolution and demand from their respective governments that they halt the escalation of the conflict and start real negotiations for peace.

August 9, 2014

Veronika Aghajanyan, Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, Yerevan

Anar K. Ahmadov, Assistant Professor of Comparative Political Economy, Leiden University, The Hague

Rashad Aliyev, freelance journalist, social media and conflict resolution trainer, Baku

Zinaddin Babayev, Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, Boston

Bayram Balci, visiting scholar, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment, Washington

Sofie Bedford, researcher, Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University

Jean-Baptiste Blanc, University of Lausanne

Laurence Broers, Editor, Caucasus Survey and Research Associate, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Michael Cecire, associate scholar, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia

Alexander Cooley, Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, Columbia University, New York

Dzovinar Derderian, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

John Evans, former U.S. Ambassador to Armenia (2004-2006)

Arzu Geybullayeva, Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, Istanbul

Philip Ghamagelyan, Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, Washington

Natalya Ghurbanyan, International Development Expert, Washington

Richard Giragosian, Regional Studies Center, Yerevan

Hamida Giyasbayli, Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, Baku

Sevil Huseynova, Institute for European Ethnology, Berlin

Ulvi Ismayil, Public Policy Expert, Washington

Irakly Kakabadze, Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, Tbilisi

Maria Karapetyan, Rondine Cittadella della Pace, Arezzo

Richard D. Kauzlarich, former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan (1994-1997) and Adjunct Professor School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, George Mason University, Arlington

Arsen Kharatyan, Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, Yerevan

Brady Kiesling, former Deputy U.S. Special Negotiator, Minsk Group, Athens

Charles King, Professor of International Affairs and Government, Georgetown University, Washington

Marion Kipiani, Norwegian Helsinki Committee, Tbilisi

Michael Lemmon, former U.S. Ambassador to Armenia (1998-2001)

S. Neil MacFarlane, Professor International Relations and Fellow, St. Anne's College, Oxford University

Simon Maghakyan, Lecturer in International Relations, University of Colorado, Denver

Mikail Mamedov, Adjunct Professor, Department of History, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

Karen Ohanjanyan, Nagorno-Karabakh Committee of "Helsinki Initiative-92″, Stepanakert

Yelena Osipova, School of International Service, American University, Washington

Mane Papyan, journalist, Vanadzor

Karl Rahder, former CEP Visiting Faculty Fellow at Baku State and Baku Slavic universities, 2004, Naperville

Alakbar Raufoglu, journalist, Washington

Natalya T. Riegg, Professor of Political Science and Global Studies, University of Saint Mary, Leavenworth

Dennis Sammut, Director LINKS and Oxford University

Emil Sanamyan, Editor, The Armenian Reporter, Washington

Emil Souleimanov, Charles University, Prague

Ronald Grigor Suny, Professor of Social and Political History at the University of Michigan

Margarita Tadevosyan, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Arlington

Albert Voskanyan, Center for Civic Initiatives, Stepanakert

Thomas de Waal, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment, Washington

Cory Welt, Associate Research Professor of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington

 

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).

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)