IV. THE CONFLICT AND THE social-POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE IN THE TWO COUNTRIES

A brief review of the positions of political forces of the interested parties presented below reveals an unfavorable picture – i.e. that most of them are not ready to compromise. 

1. Armenia

The current disposition of the leading political forces of Armenia has developed basically as a result of the parliamentary elections of May 1999, and the events which followed after the terrorist act on October 27, 1999 when, among others, two leading politicians – Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and Parliament Speaker Karen Demirchyan were killed – have brought about only small corrective amendments to this disposition (concerning their attitude to the problem of Nagorno Karabakh). The presidential and parliamentary elections of 2003 in Armenia did not introduce changes in this balance. In our estimation, it is possible to single out the following three positions of the political forces of Armenia:

1)  supporters of the independence of NK or the reunion of NK with Armenia, held by an overwhelming majority of the right-wing and left-centrist forces of Armenia. Among them are the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) which has the largest representation in the parliament and the leader of which, Andranik Margaryan, heads the government since 2000; the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), the People’s Party of Armenia (its leader Stepan Demirchyan was the main contender against Robert Kocharyan in the Presidential elections of February-March, 2003), the National-Democratic Party, the “Constitutional Law” Union, “Orinats Yerkir”, etc. the members of which made an overwhelming majority of deputies of the Armenian parliament, both after the elections of 1999, and of 2003. The RPA, Dashnaktsutyun and “Orinats Yerkir” formed a government coalition after the elections of May 2003.

2)  Supporters of concessions to Azerbaijan – the Armenian National Movement (ANM), a number of small pro-ANM parties and organizations, such as The New Way Party, which still in 1993 declared the necessity of conceding Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan.¹

Until recently, it was also possible to speak about the existence of a third group which supported the solution to the Karabakh problem by means of certain schemes implying the restoration in one or another form of structures similar to the USSR (for example, by Armenia’s joining the Russia – Belarus union). Such slogans are rarely declared today and their public support is insignificant.

The rough estimate of the influence of these directions is as follows: the first group is supported by more than 80% of citizens of Armenia; the second – by not more than 5%. The fact that all factions of the Armenian parliament in April 2001 declared themselves against the scheme of settlement providing any form of vertical submission of NK to Azerbaijan and against the models including loss of any part of the Republic of Armenia, is another proof of this parity.

One of the important events following the tragic events in the Armenian Parliament on October 27, 1999 was the emergence of the Hanrapetutyun (“Republic”) party headed by Vazgen Sargsyan’s brother Aram and his other companions-in-arms. Among the basic slogans of this party is their criticism of President Kocharyan for his ostensible compliance in the cause of settlement of the Karabakh problem. They assert that Kocharyan at some point agreed to an exchange of the Meghri region in the extreme south of Armenia for the Lachin corridor (as a matter of fact, a certain version of the aforementioned “Goble Plan”). However, Kocharyan strongly denies these statements.

And, in general, as to be expected, the political struggle during both elections of 2003 in Armenia led to the toughening of the positions of political forces concerning the problem of Karabakh. The emergence of several public movements acting not only against NK’s joining Azerbaijan in any way, but also against the return to Azerbaijan of the occupied territories around NK, even after the achievement of political settlement became an obvious expression of this tendency. Their slogan is that these territory cannot be called “occupied”, and that they, as well as actually the territory of the NKR, are historical Armenian lands, and should be called “liberated territories”. One of the most influential organizations of such a direction is called so – “the Organization in Defense of the Liberated Territories”.“Our concession to Azerbaijan is that in 1994 at its request we stopped our offensive, otherwise this state would have collapsed. There should not be any new concessions to it,”one of the leaders of this movement Jirayr Sefilyan stated in late 2002. 

The years that followed passed under the slogan of struggle of the opposition with the authorities whose legitimacy they do not recognize (meaning that Kocharyan's reelection passed with brazen infringements, and that, therefore, he can not be recognized as a legitimate president), by no means could lead to the growth of moderate sentiments with respect to the Karabakh problem, especially against the background of the increasingly growing bellicosity of Baku’s rhetoric. Events like banning contacts with Armenians (up to the scandal with NATO) and especially the murder of an Armenian officer by his Azeri colleague in Budapest in January 2004, only fuel the general anti-Azerbaijan mood in society. As a result, in some sense, there is a paradoxical situation – the position of the government appears practically the most “liberal” with regard to ways of achieving a compromise around the NK problem. Thus, the hearings on the NK problem with the involvement of quite a wide spectrum of public and political forces and experts were held in the National Assembly of Armenia at the end of March 2005. The Minister of Defense Serge Sargsyan was practically the only person who seriously supported the return to Azerbaijan of territories around NK in case of the achievement of an acceptable compromise on the status of NK. The majority of the rest of the speakers pronounced in a spirit that it is impossible to give the enemy what had been won at the cost of blood. Many speakers supported the thesis that the transference of NK and the territories surrounding it to Azerbaijan at the beginning of the 1920s took place not without Turkey’s participation, and that, therefore, those events are nothing less than the continuation of the genocide of Armenians of 1915. And only in two speeches, the words about the necessity of looking for ways of reconciliation between Armenians and Azeris were sounded.

Despite the growth of belligerent sentiments, Armenian society has preserved a vast potential for a peaceful and constructive dialogue. There are many organizations different orientations that actually cooperate with colleagues from Azerbaijan. It is a potential, and if used appropriately, that can play an important part in the reconciliation of the two peoples and even, probably, can become a real force in the settlement process.

2. Nagorno Karabakh.

The recent years have marked a new period in the history of this unrecognized state. It can be briefly characterized as partial deviation from the condition of “a besieged surrounded fortress”. Certainly, problems of defense and the army continue to occupy the central position in the life of the NKR and its residents. However, the continuing political stability attained for nearly five years (since an attempted assassination of NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan in March 2000) has led to qualitative changes in the atmosphere in this unrecognized republic. Active economic transformations have been made, the inflow of private investments has begun (almost exclusively from Diaspora Armenians), and economic growth has, in some years, exceeded 15%. In June 2005, parliamentary elections were held in Karabakh, recognized by the majority of foreign observers as quite democratic (something that leaders neither in Armenia nor in Azerbaijan have courage to do)². All this has led to a situation where “passions have settled” to a certain extent in Nagorno Karabakh, and a quite stable society has developed. Consequently, less aggressive rhetoric began to be heard more from Stepanakert than from Baku and Yerevan (whereas prior to that, the leaders of Karabakh tried not to be left behind in this “competition”). At the same time, as before, all political forces of the NKR, irrespective of their positions and attitudes to the authorities, share the opinion that any status future status of this territory should proceed from de facto independence, the right to which its people won in the war against Azerbaijan (in their terminology – “rebutting the aggression of Azerbaijan against the NKR”). Anyway, the abovementioned transition to a more peaceful manner and perception of events leads one to hope that this party to the conflict will show a sufficient flexibility and constructiveness in the negotiating process (of course, when it is involved in negotiations which are still being conducted without its participation).   

3.Azerbaijan

In a wide spectrum of political opinions of parties of Azerbaijan, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is practically unequivocally regarded as a result of the aggression of Armenia, the consequences of which the state should reverse by all means provided by international law, including the military solution to the problem. Another way was offered by the Social-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan in 1995:

1. AR should declare about the opening of communications and ways of communication with RA.

2. Offering the status of NK within AR, it is necessary to declare in advance the following:

a) NK is an autonomy living on the basis of the principle of self-government, uniting both the Armenians and the Azeris of this region;

b) Under the Lachin corridor it is necessary to understand only the highway controlled by international forces and Azeri customs officials;

c) NK is declared a free economic zone and funds are obtained for its development;

d) On the initiative of the Armenian minority the nongovernmental organization - the Armenian Foundation of Culture is created. From the budget of Azerbaijan a part of the taxes paid by Armenians living in AR is transferred to this foundation; the state does not interfere with cultural affairs. The foundation should have the international status and independently choose a place of its location.

3. AR should open the concrete substance of the NK status.

4. Still before the complete end to the conflict AR declares about its decision to restore economic cooperation and trade with RA.

5. The Azerbaijani state declares that it will not interfere with communications of state and private organizations with their Armenian partners.

6. AR declares to the states of the South Caucasus and international organizations that it will support the international non-governmental peace-keeping organizations working in the region.

7. The Azerbaijani state starts direct negotiations with the leaders of NK; on behalf of the state these negotiations can be conducted by the following officials: Prime Minister, Minister of Internal Affairs, Chairman of the Commission on  National Relations, or one of the advisers to the AR President³.

It is necessary to note that later, the radical wing of the leadership of the SDP of Azerbaijan reconsidered its former position and no longer excludes a military solution to the conflict. In general, there is a tendency whereby the delay of the resolution of the conflict steadily leads to radicalization of positions not only of the political elite, but also of Azerbaijani society as a whole. At the same time, a thesis that the Armenian side, speaking about the preference of a peaceful solution to the conflict, constantly appeals to the results of the first military company, considering them as the final status quo, is being set forth. Thus, in the opinion of the Azerbaijani side, the opponent himself indicates the only way of resolution of the protracted conflict.

 A rather significant part of citizens of Azerbaijan do not reject the possibility of renewed hostilities – according to the sociological researches conducted in the countries of the South Caucasus within the framework of the project “The South Caucasus Network For Civil Accord” in 2002 with the support of the European Commission, 32% of respondents in Azerbaijan consider the renewal of military operations in the Karabakh conflict probable. For comparison – only 16.6% of respondents adhere to the same position in Armenia⁴.

Positions of the majority of political parties of Azerbaijan correspond to, or are close to, those stated in the so-called “Charter of the Four” published in Azerbaijan in the summer of 2001. This document became the answer to the abovementioned statement of the factions and groups of the RA National Assembly. In the summer of 2001, an initiative group (E. Namazov – a former aide to the AR President, T. Zulfugarov – ex-Minister of Foreign Affairs of AR, N. Imanov – a member of the leadership of the National Independence Party, and S. Bagirov – ex-president of the Azerbaijan State Oil Company) held meetings and consultations on the coordination of this Charter. As a result, about 600 signatures of the heads of the country’s largest political parties, non-governmental organizations and mass media, religious figures, representatives of the intelligentsia, etc. were affixed to the charter. In September-October 2001, the Charter was sent to the AR President, presented to the public, handed over to the Minsk Group co-chairing states, hand sent out to international organizations.

 The Charter points out and presupposes that the conflict between RA and AR can be resolved only by a stage-by-stage format and with the consistent observation of the following four principles:

All occupied lands should be freed and the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan (state) should be restored;

The forcibly displaced persons and refugees should return to the places of their permanent residence, including Shusha and other settlements in NK; security guarantees should be created for their residence;

NK can be given the rights of self-government, however the powers realizing state sovereignty should be reserved to the superior bodies of the authorities of AR;

If the peaceful resolution of the conflict becomes impossible, AR according to the Charter of the United Nations and the known resolutions of its Security Council should expel the aggressor by using force.

 In general, by the end of 2001 there was a certain consolidation of positions within society, and among the authorities and opposition parties of Azerbaijan, over the question of overcoming the consequences of the conflict, the thesis of which was to be actively brought to the notice of the international public by state and non-governmental organizations. The work with the numerous Azeri Diaspora worldwide acquired a more systematic character, and its consolidating role was seen in the break of the information blockade which promoted, in the opinion of the Azeri party, the fair solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. In the Milli Majlis – the parliament of AR – the unofficial “Karabakh” faction prepared and dispatched numerous documents about the consequences of the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan; the state proclaimed March 31 as the Day of the Genocide of the Azeri people, which was widely marked in the following years 2003 by the actions of the Azeri Diaspora worldwide. In October 2003, the forthcoming presidential elections in AR, as it also was in RA, toughened the positions of confrontation even more. 

The Baku and Yerevan press clubs shortly before the elections in AR, had published the results of the sociological survey devoted to the Karabakh conflict and the prospects of its settlement. Answering the question about the possibility of renewed military operations, the majority of Azeri respondents expressed the opinion that, in the near future, there could not be drastic changes in the existing “neither war, nor peace” situation, however, they emphasized that for liberating the occupied lands it would still be necessary to resort to the force of weapons which would take place already under other authorities. The majority of respondents in NK, meanwhile, advocated a peaceful settlement of the conflict, stating the conviction that the world community would not allow AR to begin military operations. Respondents in RA thought that the threat of a renewed war comes from Azerbaijan. However, the majority adheres to the following position – neither AR nor RA is ready to wage war. Only 24.2% of respondents said that economically, RA is ready to war, and 21% of respondents expressed their confidence in the army’s combat efficiency.  More than 70% of respondents in RA supported a peaceful way of conflict resolution.

What possible concessions in the conflict do the parties see? The overwhelming majority in AR sees autonomy for NK as a limit to possible concessions and distrusts the efficiency of new compromises. In NK, some respondents admit a compromise, but there were also people who said: “why should we accept a compromise when as a result of the war the odds are in our favor?” or that “a compromise is impossible because the Azeris will never give up their land claims”. In RA, the participants in the survey consider that NK’s secession from AR is a solved question, and it is AR that has to make this concession. The participation of representatives of NK in the negotiating process is considered as a compromise that AR could agree to. The return to AR of the areas surrounding NK, except for Lachin, under certain conditions could become a concession agreed to by RA.

 Answering the question about the role of international negotiators, respondents in RA pointed out the positive role of the OSCE Minsk Group and the Council of Europe. In NK, international organizations are considered as a shield that precludes a new war. The majority of respondents in AR considered the activities of intermediaries unproductive and expressed a wish to reject their services, however.

 The analysis of mass media (television and newspapers) coverage has shown the significance that the problem of the conflict takes: in AR – 6.1%, in RA – 7.7 %, in NK – 21.2 % of the total amount of materials. It is typical that in all three cases, the majority of materials are devoted to the discussion of peaceful variants of settlement of the conflict.

 The parties emphasized that state structures are closed in the matter of obtaining information on the conflict⁵.

The presidential elections in AR unexpectedly became an important political event, not only in the region of the South Caucasus, but also outside it. Heydar Aliyev’s departure from the political arena sharply raised the question about the new guarantor of the situation of the status quo in the Karabakh conflict and to a greater extent – on the oil strategy of AR. To understand the complexity and uniqueness of the situation it is enough to say that some time before the elections, three states, so essentially different from each other as the United States, the Russian Federation and Turkey, unexpectedly showed solidarity in deciding on the figure of the son of Azerbaijan’s president. Furthermore, without waiting for the official announcement of the results of the election during which a systemic falsification of votes had been used, the president of the Russian Federation, the prime minister of Turkey, the U.S. deputy Secretary of State already the next day congratulated Ilham Aliyev on his victory in the election. And it was in spite of the fact that at that very time, severe clashes between the authorities and the opposition began. Could it testify to the fact that some agreements on ways of settlement of the Karabakh conflict which suited all the parties had been reached by these three countries with the candidate for power? The visits of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group to AR also bring little clarity in the situation, although an important factor has emerged following the recent meetings of the Presidents and especially between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries – the constant “information leakage” about the course of negotiations. There is an impression that in such a way the parties are trying to probe the public opinion on a number of variants of the final resolution of the conflict. It was declared in the Azeri press through official mouthpieces that the Armenian party was ready to withdraw from the occupied regions outside NK and though this information was denied by the opposite party, in itself this and other facts are rather remarkable. So, AR suggested restoring, with the way out beyond the boundaries of the South Caucasus, the road once connecting AR, NK and RA, in general there is an impression that Azeri diplomacy has, at last, gone on the offensive in finding support with international organizations. British parliamentarian David Atkinson’s report, the results of the New York summit where the report of Goran Lenmarker (tt the annual meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE which took place in Washington on July, 6, 2005, the discussion of the report of the Swedish member of Parliament Goran Lenmarker, a special representative of the chairman of the PA of the OSCE on the Karabakh conflict was continued) about the necessity of the soonest withdrawal from the occupied Azeri territories was heard, are separate evidences of Azeri diplomatic success.

Thus, it is possible to conclude that the political atmosphere both in Armenia and NK, and also in Azerbaijan can not be recognized as tolerant towards the positions of the opposite party as far as ways of the resolution of the Karabakh problem are concerned. Time allowed for the settlement of the conflict seems to be irreversibly lost, it has only changed places of the “offenders” and the “offended” (Azeris and Armenians, accordingly). Everyone remembers well what the outcome in the first case was … 

Special hopes for “a turning-point in the conflict” pinned on the CIS summit in Kazan (the Russian Federation) in August 2005 where another meeting of the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia took place, were not justified. As it was officially declared:  “the parties had not time to prepare documents for signing”… 

4. Grassroots diplomacy

In the early 1990s, grassroots diplomacy was rather active and big hopes were connected with it in the aspect of opportunities to melt the ice of mistrust between the Azeri and Armenian peoples and to establish a dialogue between them. Still, in the Supreme Soviet (Council) of the USSR of the last convocation, the inter-regional deputy group tried to become an intermediary between the parties to the nascent conflict. The newly forming human rights movement also actively engaged in mediatory activities, as the Russian “Memorial” group, for example, organized and held a series of meetings of representatives of the intelligentsia, politicians and representatives of parties of the two countries in 1992-1993. The Helsinki Citizens Assembly and a member of its leadership Svetlana Ganushkina, the organization “Civil Assistance” (Dmitry Leonov) were engaged in studying the situation on the spot, organizing meetings and negotiations, liberating hostages and prisoners of war. The peace-making activity of Victor Popkov (“Omega”), who tragically died in Chechnya, and who was engaged in the organization of direct negotiations between representatives of non-governmental organizations and the public of the two republics, deserves a special mention.

The American “Global Community” organization had worked extensively in the same direction, promoting several meetings between representatives of creative and scientific intelligentsia, non-governmental and peace-making organizations of the two countries. Due to this mission (we shall especially mention Samantha Seinfeld and Craig Barns), for the first time after the beginning of the conflict, joint projects and meetings directed at easing tensions and promoting cooperation between the non-governmental organizations of the two republics started to be carried out. In 1993, the chairmen of the national committees of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly of AR and RA Arzu Abdullayeva and Anahit Bayandur received the Ulof Palma peace prizes for their outstanding activities aimed at the establishment of peace in the region through grassroots diplomacy. The initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church on the organization of meetings of the spiritual leaders of AR and RA, during which it was repeatedly emphasized by all the parties that the conflict had no religious confrontation in its roots, became a major landmark.

However, a sharp decrease in this activity has been observed over recent years despite the efforts of the West and international organizations to maintain it. It is likely to be partly attributed to the general apathy caused by the failed efforts of officials and structures aimed at the achievement of at least some progress in the settlement of the conflict. However, the more important factor preventing the development of grassroots diplomacy is, no doubt, the increasing negative attitude to it by both official bodies and some parties and organizations of the two countries. In Azerbaijan, they adhere to the point of view of the inadmissibility of any contacts with “the Armenian aggressor”, deeming that these contacts only strengthen its positions. I. Aliyev expressed a similar viewpoint after his appointment as prime minister of AR, arguing that negotiations are the exclusive prerogative of the authorities of the two republics.

Cases of direct attacks on the Armenian representatives of NK which had arrived in Baku to participate in a conference (September 2001), and also the Azeri refusals to issue entry visas to Azerbaijan to some Armenian representatives, including official ones, were registered⁶. Armenia, on the contrary, is ready to receive any delegation from Azerbaijan, although attempts to visit NK or any of its areas frequently encounter rejections with mostly unclear motivations.⁷

     At the same time, the year 2005 may be considered as the beginning of a new stage of the activation of grassroots diplomacy going beyond the format of bilateral relations and addressing the problems of the whole region of the South Caucasus. In this process, of course, it is impossible to deny the role of the neighborhood program put forward by the EU for the South Caucasus, but for the sake of justice it is also necessary to note the independent role of intellectual and civil forces of the republics of the South Caucasus that have put forth two independent initiatives. We are glad to mention that both these initiatives are being developed within the frames of the proposals that have been stated by us still in the first edition of our book.

The first initiative organized a Conference of Citizens of the South Caucasus “For Peace, Cooperation and Integration for the sake of the Future” operating on a permanent basis. We found it necessary to describe its provisions in a separate chapter (see above the Dartmouth variant).

The second initiative – “To a transparent and effective regional policy: the South Caucasian political and civil dialogue” – plans to discuss within the framework of trilateral meetings varied problems the solution to which will promote the acceleration of processes of integration of the three South Caucasus republics into the EU. The parties prepared and discussed three independent reports on the subject of “Integration Processes in the South Caucasus” (a view from Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia) on the basis of which it is planned to develop common positions of the parties.

We shall note that both initiatives put questions of the acceleration of the region’s democratic development at the top of the resolution of all regional problems.

The trilateral meeting of representatives of these two initiatives on the Alands in September, whose successful experience in the prevention of an ethnic conflict went down in the annals of the world history, became the culmination of the peace-making forces of the ending year.

---

¹The data are taken from the recent edition -Political parties of Armenia, Yerevan, 2005._{Back to text}
²The ruling “Democratic Party of Artsakh” received 25 out of 31 seats in the NKR parliament. Just like after the previous elections, the Dashnaktsutsyun Party, one of the members of Armenia’s ruling government coalition, found itself in opposition._{Back to text}
³We thank the former co-chairman of the Social-Democratic Party of Azerbaijan Zardusht Ali-zade for the rendered material related to 1995._{Back to text}
⁴Golos Armenii (Yerevan), May 23, 2002._{Back to text}
⁵Zerkalo (Baku), April 12, 2003._{Back to text}
⁶Although the incident with a military delegation of Armenia which failed to obtain visas for the conference in Baku within the framework of NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in September 2004 does not concern grassroots diplomacy, it is worth mentioning as a probable attribute of the further toughening of positions of the AR authorities regarding contacts with RA representatives. Earlier, many representatives of official Yerevan came to Baku to participate in events of an international character – even the then prime minister of Armenia, Armen Darbinyan, visited Baku to attend a TRACECA conference in September 1998. In January 2004, three Armenian officers were not admitted to a conference in Baku, despite all the efforts of NATO, the good relations with which the organization are valuable for Azerbaijan._{Back to text}
⁷It should be added that unlike the Minsk Group of the OSCE the intermediary mission of Russia until 1996 was not limited to political-diplomatic work with the leaderships, foreign policy and military structures of the sides, but aspired to involve their wider public circles in the process of settlement. Thus, upon its initiative, and sometimes with its active participation many meetings of parliamentarian, religious leaders, heads of TV companies and journalistic unions of all parties to the conflict were held during those years. Resulting documents were accepted or discussed at some of those meetings. Such meetings were held later and independently, without active involvement of Russian mediators (V.K.)._{Back to text}