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

 

Related articles

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!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

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)