Karabakh dilemma for peace activists.

This article was prepared for commonspace.eu by a special correspondent.

These are deeply emotional times in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and not least among the Armenians in Karabakh itself and among the Azerbaijanis displaced by the conflicts of the last three decades. The number of casualties from the fighting of the last days is high, and there is widespread concern about what is to come. On both sides people are enthused to rally to the flag, and not to do so is often considered an act of treason.

Armenian and Azerbaijani peace activists face a big dilemma as the fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone rages on, and patriotic feeling overwhelms most of the population. The choice whether to challenge or to embrace the patriotic rhetoric is a difficult one. Many have taken to facebook to express their positions, and the picture is as confusing, as it is on the battle field.


Avaz Hasanov

Veteran Azerbaijani activist Avaz Hasanov is a well-known and respected face of the moderate voice in Azerbaijan on issues related to the conflict. His work with grass root communities of refugees and IDPs is highly respected. On the third day of the fighting he wrote:

Today I was asked to write about what was going-on on the front line, and on the reaction of Azerbaijanis. I decided to describe the latest developments without keeping any peacekeeping positions.

Beginning April 1, the Armenian armed forces have been fired with heavy weapons at the civilian population of Azerbaijan living in the border areas, as well as all along the contact line of Azerbaijani troops. As a result of the ongoing three-day clashes there were victims among the civilian population. Until now, hundreds of homes, schools and kindergartens were damaged as a result of the bombing. The number of victims among the civilian population is still to be determined. It is hard to say the exact figures as of now, as everything is confused and I do not know which information is plausible. Yesterday, the Interior Ministry and Prosecutor's Office opened a criminal investigation and published a preliminary list of the dead and wounded.

After the outbreak of hostilities, many in Azerbaijan hope that 2016 will become the year of the resolution of the frozen conflict. Or at least that there will be significant progress towards the resolution of the conflict.

First of all, Azerbaijan is keen to move from frozen conflict phase to another level, and also to show the superiority of its army in the war zone, so this will force Armenians to give up the idea of maintaining the status quo.

Secondly: Russia's position is weakened in the region because of the sanctions and low oil prices and it is experiencing diplomatic isolation. Therefore, it would be a mistake for Azerbaijan not take advantage of this and to solve the frozen conflict.

Azerbaijani society calmly accepts all the action of the authorities on the front line. Even in the face of misinformation about the fighting people believe what news comes out from the front line.

I would not say that Azerbaijan is preparing for full-scale war. However, it is important for Azerbaijan to check the pulse of the CSTO member states to find out whether Nagorno Karabakh is in the area of responsibility and interest of the CSTO member states or not, apart of Armenia and let's say Russia. Now, when there are open clashes for the first time in 20 years it is very important for Azerbaijan to demonstrate that its army is able to repel the attack and able to perform complex tasks. During this time, people's stance to events and patriotic broadcasts were aiming to maintain the spirit of patriotism among the Azerbaijanis.

For Azerbaijan, it was important to test the response of the international community. It got the reaction from all the important players in the region and from the heads of state in two days. The fastest response came from Russia naturally.  As well as  the statement of President Putin, Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergey Lavrov's visit to Baku is scheduled. Medvedev is also expected to visit Armenia. When different heads of state and international organizations issue statements calling for parties to cease hostilities, based on the fact that the conflict should be resolved peacefully, and that there is no a military solution to the conflict, it irritates the Azerbaijani public. People think, why, when Azerbaijani side demands to liberate the occupied territories and to start serious peace talks instead of delaying the conflict, mediators equally criticise the parties of the conflict? According to the people, Azerbaijan considers itself  victim of the conflict, one that has lost lands and that's why the attitude to Azerbaijan and occupant should not be the same.

Here now conflictologist can no longer contain himself :)

I think the strategic interests of Azerbaijan indicate that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, with the mediation of Russia, Turkey and Iran and other interested European countries could have a big impact on the development of the region's future. After the resolution of the conflict all the economic plans and projects could be implemented with the participation of neighbouring countries. The cautious policy of Azerbaijan in relation to Russia and America, as well as towards the European continent shows that the country is able to support peaceful coexistence with its neighbours in the future.

With the hope of a speedy peace and a ceasefire.

 

Karen Ohanjanian

A different tone was set on the same day by the fiery and charismatic Armenian activist from Nagorno-Karabakh, Karen Ohanjanian, another veteran of the peace movement and a familiar face in many peace initiatives and meetings in Europe over the last twenty years.

Ohanjanian on his facebook page criticised those Armenian activists who he said  were "deprived of the feelings of patriotism, bordering on the betrayal of their people in the most difficult period of its modern history, and who by their actions question the truth of the latest developments". He singled out Artak Kirakosyan, Artaxias Sergoyan and Edgar Khachatrian for particularly harsh criticism. Ohanjanian also posted a statement issued by the organisation which he founded and has led since the early 1990s, - the Nagorno-Karabakh Committee of "Helsinki Initiative-92".

The statement says,

Today is the third day of unannounced war of Azerbaijan against independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic. The scales of destructions and physical violence which the freedom-loving Nagorno Karabakh Republic has been subjected on the part of barbarous Republic of Azerbaijan are comparable to the peak of hostilities of the first Karabakh war.

During the three days of the war the world community, represented by international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations not only did not take steps aimed at condemning the aggressor, and on the contrary does everything possible to equate the aggressive actions of Azerbaijan and defense measures of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia aimed at defense of their motherland.

Taking into account such conduct of international organizations, Nagorno Karabakh Committee of "Helsinki Initiative-92" has decided to refuse from cooperation with international organizations in the framework of projects on Nagorno Karabakh settlement and urges all non-governmental organizations of Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh to do the same. At the same time Nagorno Karabakh Committee of "Helsinki Initiative-92" pays attention to the fact of absence of condemnation by Azerbaijani NGOs of aggressive actions of its state against Nagorno Karabakh and considers cooperation with Azerbaijani NGOs as harmful and dangerous for independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic, posing a threat to security and image of Nagorno Karabakh Republic and stops relation with the civil sector of Azerbaijan.

Nagorno Karabakh Committee of "Helsinki Initiative-92" urges the authorities of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia to forbid non-governmental organizations of Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia to cooperate with the non-governmental sector of Azerbaijan.

 

Edgar Khachatrian

In Armenia, Edgar Khachatarian, the founder of the organisation Peace Dialogue, has for many years challenged the official narrative on many issues related to military affairs in the country. Khachatarian made a very strong appeal on his facebook page on Sunday, on the second day of the conflict.

Dear friends and colleagues,

This is the second day that the newswires are filled with information about the bloodshed and clashes at the Line of Contact in Nagorno-Karabakh. In just a few hours, these events have taken the lives of dozens of soldiers and civilians on both sides of the line. As a human being I regret the fact that I must sit by passively watching this due to the ongoing military operations killing people, regardless of their nationality and religious affiliation. However, it is even more painful to realize that political paranoia has led to a total depreciation of peace building as a universal value. For a second day, the people that I considered and consider as colleagues continuously spread the pseudo-patriotic, militaristic ideas, supposedly designed to unite society to confront a common enemy. It is a perverse sense of satisfaction to gloat over the fact that the alleged enemy had more losses than we are is unacceptable to me.

I do not quite understand this concept of a common enemy, as, in fact, the philosophy of this concept is that the mere fact of my nationality makes me an enemy of the entire Azerbaijani society. The same perception presents my Azerbaijani friends as enemies for my country mates. Such a perverted perception just plays into the hands of the ever devouring war machine.

Deeply aware of the unpopularity of my ideas in societies fueled by the militaristic and pseudo-patriotic propaganda, I still urge my friends and colleagues in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, their friends and colleagues from all countries and continents of the globe, working for peace building and protection of human rights to stand up together against violence and the use of military force. To everyone's regret, we have all witnessed such actions and understand the tragic consequences of the use of violence and the futile attempts to resolve conflicts by military means. I hope for your understanding and support.

 

These are difficult times for Avaz, Karen and Edgar. No doubt they will be demonised or celebrated by people inside their countries and others on the outside. They are all products of this conflict in Karabakh that has raged on for thirty years. It is better not to judge them but to listen to them and try to understand where they are coming from.

This article was prepared by a special correspondent for commonspace.eu

 

 

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)