Opinion: the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process needs inclusive multitrack diplomacy

“As movement towards an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan gathers momentum, a multi-track approach needs to emerge in order to make any peace more sustainable,” writes Onnik James Krikorian for commonspace.eu. “Governments, local communities, and the non-governmental sector should be partners and not rivals.”

“We wanted civil society but got NGOs,” International Alert’s Caucasus Director, Marina Nagai, quoted an Eastern European activist as saying in 2018, perfectly summing up the dichotomy between the sphere and the public it is meant to serve and represent. A 2013 briefing paper, How to Finish a Revolution: Civil Society and Democracy in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, by Orysia Lutsevych, Deputy Director of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House, went even further. 

“Western-funded NGOs form an 'NGO-cracy', where professional leaders use access to domestic policy-makers and Western donors to influence public policies, yet they are disconnected from the public at large,” it read. "New civil voices use more mass mobilisation strategies and social media, and are visible in public spaces. They are more effective in influencing the state and political society than Western-funded NGOs.”

Given the controversy surrounding the recent attempt to introduce a “foreign agents bill” in Georgia, criticism of Western-funded NGOs carries with it some risks, and while some fulfil their stated aims and objectives, many others do not. The point was particularly true prior to the 2020 Karabakh war and has become even more acute afterwards with some simply not visible at all and others even opposed to the terms of a long-anticipated peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

South Caucasus Wacken Metal Battle

In a sense it has become a case of putting too many eggs in one basket and this reality was hammered home just two weeks ago in a very unlikely situation – an annual music competition that brings together heavy metal bands from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia together on one stage in Tbilisi. Hardly Eurovision, the Wacken Metal Battle has been held in the South Caucasus since 2012. The winner will represent the region at Wacken Open Air, one of the world’s largest heavy metal festivals held in Germany since 1990.

This year was the first time Turkiye also joined the competition.

“Metal Battle has successfully managed to unite people in the region without relying on grants or political slogans, unlike many other non-governmental organisations that have failed in their attempts,” Eric Hutchence, the organiser, wrote on Facebook on the eve of the competition held on 20 May. “Despite not having huge sums of money, Metal Battle has been able to bring people together through their music and shared passion for metal,” he continued. 

“This serves as a reminder that true unity can be achieved by focusing on common interests and connections, rather than relying solely on funding or political agendas,” Hutchence opined.

This criticism might sound unfair given that there are some notable exceptions to the rule in the non-governmental sector, but too often NGO activity has become politicised and partisan, focusing not on what is likely or inevitable, or how best to explain or improve outcomes, but what individuals of certain political persuasions want to happen in order to fit in with often narrow ideological visions. The groups are non-inclusive and seem to never represent a cross-section of society.

“Music is also used to bring people together and foster greater understanding”

But could Track III diplomacy efforts that involve actual citizens and communities themselves compensate for this unfortunate reality? The recent Wacken Metal Battle Caucasia and Turkiye, along with some other non-politicised regional projects, demonstrate that they can. 

“Music is also used to bring people together and foster greater understanding, that  is, connect with people through music, public concerts, and interactive performances with local musicians,” read one academic paper, Processes Of Track Three Diplomacy In The Management Of Cross-Border Security Relations Between Kenya And Somalia. “There is also the use of a wide range of academic, culture, professional and sports exchange programs.”

Mihran Azraille Aghuzumtsyan, guitarist with Armenia’s Wacken entry, Perfect Legacy, appeared to agree and told me after the event that more were necessary so that people from all four countries could come together without the shadow of politics hanging over them. The band, incidentally, will perform at Peacecore Fest in Berlin in September under the banner of “Reconciliation, Peace, Friendship.” Greek and Turkish bands will also take part.

This was a theme I explored in a previous opinion piece here and Hutchence’s Metal Battle in Tbilisi reminded me of it once more. 

A multi-track approach to the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process needs to emerge in order to make any peace more sustainable

None of this negates the importance of traditional approaches to conflict resolution. Indeed, the only tangible progress in the normalisation of relations can arguably only come from Track I diplomacy with Track II diplomacy intended as a complementary process rather than an attempt to lead it. Sadly, that appears to have been forgotten over the past two decades and Track 1.5 initiatives also remain sorely lacking.

As movement towards an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan gathers momentum, a multi-track approach needs to emerge in order to make any peace more sustainable. Governments, local communities, and the non-governmental sector should be partners and not rivals. This was a point that also appeared to be made in an interview I held last month with LINKS Europe’s Dennis Sammut on the importance of a whole range of confidence building measures that should be implemented.

“We have been encouraging stakeholders, whether it’s the local government, whether it’s local organisations, whether it’s the international community, whether it’s foreign governments, whether it’s international organisations, to pick up these ideas and run with them,” he told me. 

“Our approach is, yes, we work on bottom up, we’re not a government organisation, we’re not working with the governments directly, but as soon as we start working we build a channel of communication with the government, because we need to tell the governments what we’re doing – not to inform them but to influence them. […] Our message is that nobody is 100 percent in control of the situation and something can happen tomorrow and it will derail everything,” Sammut says. 

“But also as a human being, you know, I open my computer in the morning and read an Azerbaijani soldier was killed here, and an Armenian soldier was killed there, and as a human being I feel a responsibility. We have to stop this.”

source: Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist, photojournalist, and consultant from the U.K. who has covered the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994.
photo: Caucasus Metal Battle in March 2018, Onnik James Krikorian
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

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)