FOREWORD BY AMB. VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV TO THE SECOND EDITION

The exacerbation of inter-ethnic differences, mainly on the social-cultural ground, which in some places assumed the extreme shape of armed conflicts of varying scale and duration, has played a considerable role in both the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a multinational and once powerful state, and in the emergence of many post-Soviet national states. Among them, undoubtedly, the first one by all indicators – by the time of the outbreak of hostilities, by the prehistory of events, by the geographical coverage and scale of military operations, by the use of heavy armaments and the fierceness of hostilities – was the conflict between the Armenians and the Azeris over Nagorno Karabakh, which to some extent became the detonator for other bloody conflicts in the territories of post-Soviet Eurasia.

On May 12, 1994, sustained hostilities in this conflict were effectively halted through the mediation of Russia. The ceasefire has been maintained for well over ten years, although no progress has been made in the direction of achieving a peaceful political settlement despite the efforts of the parties to the conflict themselves and the assistance of international mediators. Neither can one see prospects of solving the problems which were either caused the conflict and were caused by it.  The “neither war nor peace” state of affairs had cost the two nations dearly as they remain locked in uncertainty and despair under the pressure of considerable military spending, the danger of renewed military operations and other burdens of the smouldering conflict – obviously at the expense of the socio-economic and democratic development of their states. It is no coincidence that the phenomenon of migration from the Transcaucasus in search of peace and earnings, which is so usual for Armenians, now increasingly involves Azeris as well. 

The causes of the deadlock in the settlement are varied. Of course, one can invoke the objective intricacy and complexity of both the problem of Nagorno Karabakh itself and the related conflict. But the main cause is rooted in the fact that the leaders of all sides continue to put forward maximalist, unrealistic, and practically mutually exclusive claims, which only stalemates the solution to the problem and entails the hardening of propaganda, sowing seeds of hatred, rejecting the search for mutual understanding and raising gleams of realism to the rank of national betrayal. The negotiation process, sluggish over recent years, is carried out by the conflicting sides under the flag of national egoism in spite of the fact that both nations share a number of common vital interests. The leaders do not dare bring to the forefront, and, on the contrary, cover up, the only reasonable prospect – a historical reconciliation between the Armenians and the Azeris for the sake of their converging interests.

Of course, there are also objective difficulties of a different nature. The break-up of the USSR, the declaration and establishment of new states have also substantially complicated the legal basis of settlement. The sides utilize, for propaganda purposes, only those facts of the Soviet period which are favorable for them, rejecting all the rest. The parameters of the conflict have changed since then. It has “grown” from an internal conflict into an interstate and regional one. Western powers with their geo-strategic interests have also invaded the region, which was not instrumental in solving the conflict but rather complicated the path to lasting peace.

Discontent with the fruitless and frustrated nature of efforts to settle the conflict is rising among both the Azeris and the Armenians (as well as in many capital cities abroad). Advocates of “Grassroots Diplomacy” gradually raise their voices, making their way to mutual contacts in search of easing tension and possible compromises. Despite the hysterics of pseudo-patriots, meetings of public figures, journalists, and political scientists of all sides take place from time to time, although in some places authorities try to take them under their control or end them altogether.

* * *

The simultaneous publication in Baku and Yerevan in 2002 of the brochure entitled “Variants of Settling the Karabakh Conflict: Concepts and Reality” by two authors – Ali Abasov and Haroutiun Khachatrian (in a small number of copies, but in four languages – Azeri, Armenian, Russian and English) set forth a new daring challenge against this background. The novelty lies in the attempt to bring together, under one cover, different proposals for the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The daring is also demonstrated by the co-authorship of an Azeri and an Armenian on such a controversial and emotional subject.

It was with their participation as well that two dialogue websites have been simultaneously created on the Internet – both Azeri and Armenian – on the Karabakh conflict, its settlement and opportunities for economic cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia. But unlike the book, which resulted from a compromise between the co-authors, each website suffers from one-sidedness stating its own version of the conflict, its set of traditional arguments, which fails to take the matter further to settlement. 

The brochure also contains errors, but the Mezhdunarodnye Otnoshenia publishing house seeks to reinvigorate the work, republishing it with some specifications and additions from the authors, as well as with a number of commentaries and a set of relevant documents. The personal and professional aspirations of the scientist from Baku and the analyst from Yerevan “to start at long last a direct dialogue of the peoples with the purpose of reaching mutual understanding” deserves to be supported in every possible way. The researchers were not dissuaded by the fact that in conditions of accumulated mutual distrust their brochure would be ambiguously received by their compatriots. Everyone who stands up for the liquidation of this dangerous seat of conflict in the Transcaucasus, or the South Caucasus, will appreciate the civil courage displayed by the authors at its true worth.

The co-authors declined the term the Transcaucasus and call the region the South Caucasus – by analogy with the North Caucasus and because of its convenient abbreviation SC. Geographically it was hardly worth calling it into question. But another thing is interesting: this renaming is being actively introduced by Westerners as well as Russophobes with obvious political goals: to oust Russia from the region, shading the fact that in spite of Urartu and Kolkhida it came into today’s “world circulation” in many respects through Petersburg and Moscow. (If the Japanese mastered this logic, they should call the Far East the Near West!).

By the way, I also want to note that toponymy has become one of the frontlines of the conflict between the Armenians and the Azeris. Both sides have been struggling with geographical names (primarily, the names of settlements) for many years with a stubbornness deserving far better application, apparently trying to prove their primogeniture in these places. In practice this campaign became a symbol of inability to get along with the neighbor, and it propagates the spirit of national exceptionality. For example, the Azeris stubbornly call Stepanakert Khankendi (by its former name). The word “Nakhichevan” (this is also the name of a town near Rostov-on-Don) which is accepted in Russian since olden times, in Azerbaijan from recent times has been written as “Nakhchyvan” even in Russian. The Armenians “return the favor”. Fewer and fewer towns have single names. To tame the passions, the sides could have relieved this unnecessary tension a long time ago – say, by making a gesture of goodwill and reconciliation and switching to double names until better times: one’s name as the basic name and then indicating in brackets the name preferred by the other side. Nothing of the sort!

How difficult it was for the co-authors of the brochure to come to the compromise text is apparent from many places in the brochure. Sometimes the “political correctness” of one of them allowed the prevalence of the version of the other side. During the years of confrontation, the two sides have elaborated arguments on any disputable issue, quite often supplying it with propaganda tactics. This is also why only the middle line, which is “equidistant” from their propagandistic settings, takes us closer to the truth, whereas any tendency is fraught with taking us away from it.

For the sake of future generations, the two nations need a “peace without winners and losers”. But each side suffers from the syndrome of the “victor”, imagining itself as the victor. The Armenians are obviously let down by the euphoria following the battles of 1991-1994. (But while the Armenians of Karabakh have combat traditions, then mainly bloody hardships affecting the nation’s psychology and causing the mass exodus from the historic homeland and formation of diasporas throughout the world were falling to the lot of the rest of the Armenians for centuries. And now it is the Diaspora that from the distance excites to exaltation the defense of national interests of Armenia!) The Azeris have also been vexed by military failures try to win back at the negotiating table what they lost in battlefields, considering that a number of advantages will ensure their success. Baku holds expectations of winning economic competition with Armenia that lacks resources and enhances the military build-up at the expense of petrodollars. Meanwhile, the national-radicals dream of, and even loudly threaten, a revanche by force. Unfortunately, top officials also periodically adopt such threats. As a matter of fact, if we take a deeper look, there are no true “winners” in this conflict, as in a hypothetic nuclear war, there are only losers.  

In short, the false euphoria of the “winners” disappoints everyone (however paradoxical it might sound, “defeatism” would be more fruitful from both sides, since both nations severely suffer from the direct and indirect consequences of the conflict and would welcome reasonable compromises, which, alas, can not be achieved without mutual concessions). A lie of virtual victory quite logically leads to mendacious silence, as none of the leaders defending polar claims has yet dared to tell his nation honestly that in the course of the settlement it is impossible to gain everything they want, that they have to be satisfied with less or even the least against the background of grandiose ambitions and promises. Let alone the fact that none of them took the risk of calling for contentions between the Armenians and the Azeris to be overcome, and this is the only way to the civilized future for both nations. The unrealistic and even harmful nature of maximalism have yet to be denounced either in Baku, or in Yerevan and Stepanakert, as radicals there remain subject to primitiveness and demagogy, and realists and pragmatics have not been given preference.

Each side falls into the trap of self-deception, as if time works in its favor. The Armenians dream of finalizing the existing status quo through everyone’s getting accustomed to it (hence their demand for a package solution to the conflict that would allow them a time-out), while the Azeris dream of bolstering their economic and military strength and solving the conflict by force or from new positions of strength. Yet time is running against them all, only aggravating the arguable problems and fostering scepticism, impeding the normal development of the young states. To delay the settlement of the conflict means to stir up animosity, and to poison the new generations with its miasmas.

* * *

Returning to the brochure, it is difficult to regard the introductory part as successful, where the authors along with interesting judgements made a noticeable bias in the evaluation of Russia’s role in the course of the conflict and its settlement. Its role is almost demonized. But our reader should know the way of thinking of some analysts throughout the Caucasus.

One of the initial premises, that during the years of perestroika the Center (i.e. Moscow) allegedly furthered the escalation of ethnic differences in some republics to remove from office conservative nomenclature and promote new personnel, is already doubtful. Russia’s maintenance of its historical positions in the region is characterized not very approvingly (“Russia tries to recover the influence that the USSR used to have in this region”), though it would be more correct to speak about its influence that had objectively developed there before 1917 as well. An obviously negative role in maintaining the conflict is ascribed to Moscow and it is alleged that it has an interest in preserving the occupation and having the conflict suspended for an indefinitely long time, in carrying out destabilizing actions in the region, etc. It is worth feasting the eyes upon the following consumer wording: “Russia failed to offer the region a reasonable variant of settling conflicts, providing economic assistant or a way of integration”. I will restrict myself to the settlement of the Karabakh conflict only, since the core of the brochure is in it. Here everything is “quite the opposite”: the sides failed to use a number of Russia’s proposals in the mid-90s. It is time for some people to feel sorry for that.

Whether the authors want to or not, the penetration of Western powers into the Transcaucasus is shielded in the brochure. In conditions of globalization they fail to see any anomaly in the statements of the United States about its “vitally important strategic interests” in this region. On the whole, the authors failed to observe the objectivity or at least “equidistance” with respect to notorious “external factors”. Thankfully, at least the decisive role of Russia in establishing ceasefire regimes in all the three conflicts in the Transcaucasus is not denied.

It can also be told of how Washington hinders the efforts on stopping the bloodshed in Karabakh. In the second half of 1993, the mediatory mission of Russia several times succeeded in establishing ceasefires as well as arranging the first meetings of H. Aliyev with L. Ter-Petrosyan and R. Kocharyan in Moscow on September 25. A few days later we were officially informed that the United States in principle did not mind the achievement of the ceasefire agreement by means of direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict, but not with the mediation of Russia (!). The U.S. Department of State was concerned with Moscow’s attempts to confront the Minsk Group with the fait accompli of a ceasefire and end-of-hostilities agreement, whereas all efforts on the settlement, as they say, should be made in this format. If something like this was stated to us, then it is not difficult to guess what was suggested to Baku and Yerevan, of course, for the welfare of “collectivism”!

How much more blood had to be shed by the Azeris and the Armenians to reach an agreement themselves? Or when would the CSCE Minsk Group, which failed to give priority to the curbing of military actions, achieve the stopping of bloodshed?

The powers that be in the Transcaucasus often archly overestimate the impact of “external factors”. They do so to hide the ineffectiveness of their own approaches to the settlement. Those who do not want or can not assume the responsibility for inevitable concessions, readily seek an “alibi” that it is the competition of powers that ostensibly impedes the agreement. 

As a matter of fact, the destiny of the settlement is basically in the hands of the ruling elites and peoples of the region. No doubt, it depends primarily on them. And when it is said that other states will agree with whatever solution is reached by the parties to the conflict, it is not a departure from the constructive role of the international community, from the support of peace efforts but a direct invitation for the sides to prove in practice by flexibility their striving for lasting peace. It is important for the international community that the sides come to an agreement, and how exactly they will do so is more important for the sides themselves.

All too often, there are complaints about mediators. I know that from my own experience in the Karabakh conflict in 1992-1996. Official Baku gives preference first to one and then to other mediators, but then reproaches each of them for failing to adequately recognize or consider Azerbaijan’s interests. It would be worth understanding why all the mediators suddenly became so unfair towards this side. Does it happen without any reason? 

As H. Aliyev has said, if he and R. Kocharyan are to conduct negotiations with each other then what are the mediators for? What will they do? But by such complaints, the sides pass over in silence how many times one side or the other rejected various proposals of the mediators. They even rejected them as a basis for conducting negotiations. This superficial position of the sides led to the situation that the mediators handed over the “ball” to the leaders themselves so that they would work on the approximation of their positions. It turned out to be more difficult than rejecting proposals. Then H. Aliyev began to ask:  “How to come to terms if the positions are diametrically opposite?” It’s time to value the hard work of the mediators and not to use them only for writing off one’s hesitations and mistakes. 

Of course, it should be acknowledged that no “sterile pure” peacemaking can exist. Every mediator-state also considers and pursues its own national interests, however the distinction between good and evil can be easily found here – what the priority is given to: the interests of settling the conflict or self-interested geopolitical expectations? Karabakh can richly illustrate both of these approaches.

* * *

Analyzing the international and legal aspects of conflict settlement the co-authors forgot to point out that all the ten Helsinki principles of the OSCE are equal and must be considered all together and not selectively – whoever likes which one more. The principles of peaceful settlement of disputes, non-application of force or a threat of force have no less significance than the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. Their universality is indisputable. In them is the root of settling the conflict.

The authors undertook to collect possible variants of the political settlement of the conflict. But was it worth excursing to exotic, obviously useless ones? Of course, they are not aware of everything that happened at different stages at the negotiating table – it is not always published. But, anyway, a number of gaps of the first edition are bridged now.

The problem of Nagorno Karabakh is the core of the conflict and its settlement, but the standoff has caused many other problems as well. There is a mass of causes and sequences here. The brochure is focused on the variants of solving the problem of the status of Nagorno Karabakh, and it touches less upon derived problems (liberation of occupied territories, security needs of both sides and possible necessity for demilitarization of some zones, return of refugees and displaced persons, restoration of economic and transport links, etc.). The authors appear to believe that they will be solved depending on the solution to the central question. But some of them became of no little importance and who can predict the sequence of their solution?

The concentration of considerations stated in the conclusion and deductions of the brochure is perhaps the most interesting. Being in the epicenters of public consciousness in their countries, the authors reveal the main political-psychological obstacles to the peaceful settlement of the conflict – an “absolute psychological deadlock”, which resembles a theatre of absurdity.” They emphasize the necessity of forming elites capable of tuning the public opinion of each side to the wave of searching and finding mutually acceptable compromises.  

A. Abasov and H. Khachatrian soundly and firmly clamour against the harmful mythologies in peoples’ consciousness, against “the excited mass consciousness sodden with nationalistic myths”, against “the violent, fierce, irrepressible, destructive nationalism”, and “the different forms of national and religious collective hysteria.”

I consider the authors’ putting forth the capacious wording: “Compromise is higher than victory” to be one of their important achievements. The aphorism of common sense sounds like a reproach to all virtual “winners.” It is a cry to them from the future when reason will not be subject to prejudices and emotions. This formula could serve as the epigraph to the brochure and a slogan of grassroots diplomacy devotees in Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia.

History shows that victories are not everlasting and sometimes are even short-term. Very often they keep the development of events in the tight grip of confrontation and are fraught with dangers of revanche. A sensible compromise is more lasting. It clears the way to normalization of the situation in the region, gradual overcoming of distrust and resumption of mutually beneficial cooperation. The authors reasonably emphasize mankind’s need in philosophy and culture of the world as opposed to the cave cult of war and violence, which, unfortunately, prevails over the common sense of peoples in the heads of some rulers in this new millennium as well.

Let us be frank: no feeling of gratitude has yet grown in public opinion, let alone in official structures of Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in Karabakh itself, to the two authors for their efforts in the interest of the resolution of the conflict. But this time will come. Both peoples are so much eager to get closer to the improvement of the situation! I know well that there is the same wish in Russia, which did and still continues to do much for overcoming the conflicts in the Transcaucasus.

* * *

In some places of the brochures I had to make a number of notes and comments (as the supplement of the authors’ text or because of discrepancies, but nonetheless in coordination with them). The authors’ notes are marked with numerals; mine are given in italic and marked with asterisks and also with the initials V. K at the end.

Ambassador V. Kazimirov