Tweet
INTELLIGENTSIA EXCHANGE SPARKS DEBATE, RAISES HOPES IN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA
By Fariz Ismailzade
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Day,az, Zerkalo, Echo, Musavat, 1news.az (June 28-July 5)
July 16 2007
The surprise and controversial exchange of intelligentsia delegations
between Azerbaijan and Armenia on June 28 generated heated debates in
both societies. The move, the first of its kind in the past decade,
raised more questions than answers.
Each delegation was comprised of five or six people and headed by
the Armenian or Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia, Armen Smbatyan and
Polad Bul-bul olgu respectively, thus giving the visit a semi-official
flavor. The assemblage also included university rectors, artists,
academicians, and doctors. There was no doubt that the presidents of
both countries had approved the visits beforehand.
The delegations visited the contested areas in Karabakh, including
Shusha, which has a deep symbolic significance for the Azerbaijanis.
Farhad Badalbeyli, a member of Azerbaijani delegation, noted "I
was shocked to see the destroyed mosque in Shusha." The groups
later met with both Armenian President Robert Kocharian in Yerevan
and Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in Baku. The delegation
from Azerbaijan included many Karabakhi Azerbaijanis, a move that
purposefully sent a signal to the outside world that there is a
sizable ethnic Azeri population in the disputed region as well.
News of the visit was not well received in Azerbaijan. The Karabakh
Liberation Organization, in its traditional approach, condemned these
contacts between the two countries and called the members of the
Azerbaijani delegation traitors. "Those who visited Karabakh insulted
the Azerbaijani people," said the organization in a statement. The main
opposition parties, such as Musavat and ANIP, also heaped criticism
on the authorities. ANIP officials stated, "Such mutual visits only
serve the interests of the Armenians."
Yet, more centrist opposition forces, such as Democratic Reforms Party,
Democratic Party, Civil-Solidarity Party, Social-Democratic Party,
and others, welcomed the move. Sabir Rustamkhanli, an MP and chairman
of the Civil Solidarity party, said, "The visit of [members of the]
Azerbaijani intelligentsia to Karabakh is a sign of our people's will
to the peaceful settlement of the conflict." Ambassador Byul-Byul-ogly
added, "I believe we did the right thing by visiting Karabakh."
Most independent experts in the country also welcomed the move. Azad
Isa-zadeh, a military expert, stated, "We should not forget that
Armenians are our neighbors, and we are destined to live together."
Arkadiy Gukasian, resident of unrecognized Republic, agreed: "If we
cannot create an atmosphere of mutual trust, we will always be far
away from a peace settlement."
The international community showed strong signs of support for the
initiative, with positive statements coming from the Russian Foreign
Ministry, U.S. Department of State, and the Council of Europe. A
Russian Foreign Ministry statement predicted that the mutual visit
between the two countries would help to create a more favorable
atmosphere for settling the conflict, and Jonathan Hennic, head of
public affairs at the U.S. embassy in Baku, added, "The U.S.
positively evaluates" this visit.
Despite general approval regarding the visit, several questions
remained. Foremost, people are wondering what prompted such a
sudden shift in the position of the Azerbaijani leadership, which has
previously condemned similar exchanges between NGO representatives and
journalists. Some people linked the re-orientation with the upcoming
elections in both countries and the desire on the part of the political
leadership both in Azerbaijan and Armenia to show to the international
community that they are doing their best to solve the conflict. Others
believe that it was a trial balloon for future actions.
But the most important question is whether this was a one-time
stunt or the beginning of a larger trend. Azerbaijani officials had
contradictory evaluations themselves, with Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov welcoming the move and saying, "Azerbaijanis should
be able to travel to Shusha and Khankendi as freely as to Sheki
and Guba." Meanwhile his deputy, Araz Azimov, warned "NGO visits
to Karabakh are possible only after the liberation of the occupied
territories." Jonathan Cohen, director of Caucasus Program at the
UK-based NGO Conciliation Resources, believes that this is a political
decision. Yet, "they [the leaderships of both countries] can turn it
into a larger trend if they want to."
Both President Aliyev and President Kocharian face elections in
2008, making the likelihood of finding settlement to the conflict
and concessions related to it almost impossible in the next two years.
Yet, they also understand that the nationalistic crowd at home will
make it impossible to reach a compromise even after the elections.
Thus, the time is ripe to start working with the domestic population
to prepare common ground. Mutual visits and the resumption of public
diplomacy between the two societies is the only way to build confidence
and trust between the insecure neighbors and pave the way for the
lasting and sustainable peace in the region.
By Fariz Ismailzade
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Day,az, Zerkalo, Echo, Musavat, 1news.az (June 28-July 5)
July 16 2007
The surprise and controversial exchange of intelligentsia delegations
between Azerbaijan and Armenia on June 28 generated heated debates in
both societies. The move, the first of its kind in the past decade,
raised more questions than answers.
Each delegation was comprised of five or six people and headed by
the Armenian or Azerbaijani ambassador to Russia, Armen Smbatyan and
Polad Bul-bul olgu respectively, thus giving the visit a semi-official
flavor. The assemblage also included university rectors, artists,
academicians, and doctors. There was no doubt that the presidents of
both countries had approved the visits beforehand.
The delegations visited the contested areas in Karabakh, including
Shusha, which has a deep symbolic significance for the Azerbaijanis.
Farhad Badalbeyli, a member of Azerbaijani delegation, noted "I
was shocked to see the destroyed mosque in Shusha." The groups
later met with both Armenian President Robert Kocharian in Yerevan
and Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in Baku. The delegation
from Azerbaijan included many Karabakhi Azerbaijanis, a move that
purposefully sent a signal to the outside world that there is a
sizable ethnic Azeri population in the disputed region as well.
News of the visit was not well received in Azerbaijan. The Karabakh
Liberation Organization, in its traditional approach, condemned these
contacts between the two countries and called the members of the
Azerbaijani delegation traitors. "Those who visited Karabakh insulted
the Azerbaijani people," said the organization in a statement. The main
opposition parties, such as Musavat and ANIP, also heaped criticism
on the authorities. ANIP officials stated, "Such mutual visits only
serve the interests of the Armenians."
Yet, more centrist opposition forces, such as Democratic Reforms Party,
Democratic Party, Civil-Solidarity Party, Social-Democratic Party,
and others, welcomed the move. Sabir Rustamkhanli, an MP and chairman
of the Civil Solidarity party, said, "The visit of [members of the]
Azerbaijani intelligentsia to Karabakh is a sign of our people's will
to the peaceful settlement of the conflict." Ambassador Byul-Byul-ogly
added, "I believe we did the right thing by visiting Karabakh."
Most independent experts in the country also welcomed the move. Azad
Isa-zadeh, a military expert, stated, "We should not forget that
Armenians are our neighbors, and we are destined to live together."
Arkadiy Gukasian, resident of unrecognized Republic, agreed: "If we
cannot create an atmosphere of mutual trust, we will always be far
away from a peace settlement."
The international community showed strong signs of support for the
initiative, with positive statements coming from the Russian Foreign
Ministry, U.S. Department of State, and the Council of Europe. A
Russian Foreign Ministry statement predicted that the mutual visit
between the two countries would help to create a more favorable
atmosphere for settling the conflict, and Jonathan Hennic, head of
public affairs at the U.S. embassy in Baku, added, "The U.S.
positively evaluates" this visit.
Despite general approval regarding the visit, several questions
remained. Foremost, people are wondering what prompted such a
sudden shift in the position of the Azerbaijani leadership, which has
previously condemned similar exchanges between NGO representatives and
journalists. Some people linked the re-orientation with the upcoming
elections in both countries and the desire on the part of the political
leadership both in Azerbaijan and Armenia to show to the international
community that they are doing their best to solve the conflict. Others
believe that it was a trial balloon for future actions.
But the most important question is whether this was a one-time
stunt or the beginning of a larger trend. Azerbaijani officials had
contradictory evaluations themselves, with Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov welcoming the move and saying, "Azerbaijanis should
be able to travel to Shusha and Khankendi as freely as to Sheki
and Guba." Meanwhile his deputy, Araz Azimov, warned "NGO visits
to Karabakh are possible only after the liberation of the occupied
territories." Jonathan Cohen, director of Caucasus Program at the
UK-based NGO Conciliation Resources, believes that this is a political
decision. Yet, "they [the leaderships of both countries] can turn it
into a larger trend if they want to."
Both President Aliyev and President Kocharian face elections in
2008, making the likelihood of finding settlement to the conflict
and concessions related to it almost impossible in the next two years.
Yet, they also understand that the nationalistic crowd at home will
make it impossible to reach a compromise even after the elections.
Thus, the time is ripe to start working with the domestic population
to prepare common ground. Mutual visits and the resumption of public
diplomacy between the two societies is the only way to build confidence
and trust between the insecure neighbors and pave the way for the
lasting and sustainable peace in the region.