Opinion: breaking bread in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict

"It is also too early to talk about 'culinary diplomacy' in the Karabakh conflict, sometimes also referred to as 'gastrodiplomacy,' though countless state banquets demonstrate that is by no means a new concept," writes Onnik James Krikorian in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "Instead, 'gastronationalism' has often defined the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict - especially over national dishes common to both such as dolma - in much the same way that Lebanese and Israelis have engaged in a perpetual 'hummus war'." He adds that "amid the petty squabbling over food there are also positive examples" of how cuisine has bridged divides across the South Caucasus.

In September 1992, as winter approached, critical shortages of wheat threatened to plunge Armenia into a major humanitarian crisis. The railroad from Russia through Georgia’s breakaway region of Abkhazia had been closed because of that separatist conflict and Yerevan had no other option but to approach neighbouring Turkey for assistance. Despite its support for Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict, Ankara agreed – though only after first consulting with Baku. 

“Ter-Petrosyan called me one day,” Hikmet Cetin, the Turkish Foreign Minister at the time, said in a 2015 documentary made by an Armenian documentary film studio. “He said they were in trouble. Winter was approaching. The European Union had promised […] wheat but due to bureaucratic obstacles and bad weather conditions it was rather hard to get that to Armenia in time. He was wondering if it would be possible to buy some wheat from Turkey […].”

Cetin discussed the issue with then President Suleyman Demirel who instructed him to talk to his counterpart, Abulfaz Elchibey. “No-one should be deprived of God-given bread. It’s a humanitarian issue,” the then-Azerbaijani president responded even though the conflict with Armenia over Karabakh had already descended into a full-scale war. Grain shipments, as well as processed commodities from warehouses in Turkey transported by the United States, were dispatched.

It might not have given new meaning to the term ‘breaking bread,’ and not least because the Armenia-Turkey border was closed soon after Armenian forces captured and occupied the Azerbaijani region of Kelbajar in spring the following year. But it did, however, highlight the importance of food in conflict situations, something that the current impasse on the Lachin Corridor also demonstrates today. Although there have been no cases of starvation given that Karabakh is largely agricultural, has its own reserves, rationing was introduced, and Russian peacekeepers had been bringing in supplies until 15 June this year anyway, food security has nonetheless shown itself to be of vital importance.

Gastrodiplomacy and gastronationalism

It is also too early to talk about “culinary diplomacy” in the Karabakh conflict, sometimes also referred to as “gastrodiplomacy,” though countless state banquets demonstrate that is by no means a new concept. Instead, “gastronationalism” has often defined the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict - especially over national dishes common to both such as dolma - in much the same way that Lebanese and Israelis have engaged in a perpetual “hummus war”.

But amid the petty squabbling over food there are also positive examples. In 2015, for example, an Israeli hummus bar offered a 50% discount for Arabs and Jews dining together. And there have been similar attempts to do the same for Armenians, Azerbaijanis, and Turks albeit through international organisations. Indeed, as the dust settles following the 2020 Karabakh War, with Yerevan and Baku edging closer to peace, more efforts in this area should be forthcoming.

There are also other precedents. In 2015, for example, an Armenian and Turkish cook worked together at a “Conflict Cafe” in London.

“In Armenia and Turkey it’s a very divided region, so you can’t get across physically into the two communities even though they sit side by side,” International Alert’s Charlotte Onslow told the Evening Standard in 2015, noting that it particularly highlighted some of the cultural and culinary similarities between the sides. “We are always looking for entry points that are indirect and not entirely political.”

In the mid-2010s, the Caucasus Business and Development Network also took women from Armenia’s second largest city of Gyumri to Kars in Turkey where they observed similar cooking practices and lifestyles. The women in Kars also visited Gyumri for the same reason. 

“The region, climate and geography formed the cuisine of both peoples, which explains the similarity,” the Armenian co-organiser, Armine Avetisyan, said in a Q&A session following a film presentation on the project, Haven’t We Shared Much Salt and Bread Together, at a Food Symposium on cuisine and conflict at Tuft University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 2018. Both Avetisyan and her Turkish counterpart, Ihsan Karayazi, spoke of the need to ‘scale up’ such initiatives to create ‘greater cultural change.’

Confidence building markets, South Caucasian food festivals

Indeed, in the proposals to end the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in 1997, the establishment of weekly or even daily markets in Karabakh to build confidence, relations, and trust were included. Similar markets also existed on the Armenia-Georgia border close to the ethnic Azerbaijani village of Sadakhlo and between ethnic Georgians and Ossetians in Ergneti, a Georgian village on the Administrative Boundary Line between the sides. 

This continues to be the case in markets in Tbilisi, and especially at one large trading centre outside the capital, where relations between the Armenian and Azerbaijan traders largely remained intact both during and after the 2020 War. “[…] there is no conflict between Azerbaijanis and Armenians who work in the Lilo market,” one ethnic Armenian trader selling Turkish clothes - as many do in Armenia itself - told visiting researchers for a paper on the post-2020 situation in Georgia.

But more international donor attention needs to be paid to such initiatives as was the case less than a decade ago. In 2015, for example, International Alert brought together food producers from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia together for a festival to showcase their wares. This included tea-growers, beekeepers, vintners, and cheesemakers and while ostensibly commercial in nature, there were also obvious conflict resolution undertones. 

One participant, Artush Mkrtchiani, even showcased a “Caucasian Cheese” created by regional cheesemakers. Though it might be too early to do the same again today, if a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan looks likely then such initiatives will be increasingly necessary. But rather than focus solely on Armenia and Azerbaijan proper, and as proposed in 1997, they could have a particularly important role to play in bringing Azerbaijanis and Karabakh Armenians together as the deadline of 2025 for the Russian peacekeeping mission rapidly approaches.

source: Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist, photojournalist, and consultant from the U.K. who has covered the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994.
photo: foodperestroika.com
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
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (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)