HOPE FOR PEACE

Once, in a private conversation with this writer, an "informed source" compared "people's diplomacy", as opposed to the official version, with the role of paratroopers in war: "Laymen think that by using paratroopers, special purpose troops etc., it is possible to solve all problems in a war. In reality this is not the case. In movies, the task of paratroopers usually consists of a brief, subversive operation, when something needs to be destroyed or someone killed, and then making a quick exit. In a real war it may be necessary to secure a foothold and hold it until the main units arrive. However, without a supply of ammunition and reinforcements, paratroopers cannot last long. Therefore, they are not usually dropped very far into enemy territory, because this would most likely result in their deaths. The same holds true for 'people's diplomacy'. Yes, it may be ahead of official diplomacy, it may prepare public opinion, but 'people's diplomacy' can be only one or two steps ahead, not more."

 Attempts to organize "people's diplomacy" within the framework of the Karabakh settlement process have been around for a long time. Significant contributions have been made by international organizations, NGOs, rights champions, journalists and other public figures. Some support these activities, some don't. But two years ago, when Azerbaijani and Armenian ambassadors Polad Bulbuloglu and Armen Smbatyan, together with a group of intellectuals, made their first joint visit, it became clear: the settlement process is getting off the ground.

 This time a much larger delegation travelled along the Xankandi-Yerevan-Baku route. In addition to Bulbuloglu and Smbatyan, the delegation included the leader of the Party of Democratic Reforms, MP Asim Mollazada, the president of the National Conservatoire, Siyavus Karimi, the director of the Museum of Parajanov in Yerevan, Zaven Sarkisyan and a well-known footballer who used to play for Neftchi Baku, Eduard Markarov.

Represented in the delegation on behalf of Russia, and acting as a special envoy of the Russian president, was Mikhail Shvydkoy, who was particularly impressed by crossing the frontline. "The nine-person group is ready to cross the border," the elderly Czech, carrying a white flag bearing OSCE insignia, said twice into a walkie-talkie to his colleague on the Armenian side.

"This is not a border. This is the line of contact," an Azerbaijani colonel retorted to the OSCE observer. "I am sorry," the Czech said and rephrased his message. "The nine-people group is ready to cross the line of contact."

And, together with Polad Bulbuloglu, Siyavus Karimi, MPs and journalists, we moved forward along a narrow path lined with red ribbons on both sides. This was a passage through a minefield which separates Azerbaijani and Armenian troops. The path had been cleared of mines specifically for our group. There were quite a few memorable details during our journey, but the painful and instantaneous reaction by an Azerbaijani colonel to an inaccuracy by the OSCE observer was perhaps the litmus test for everything that occurred during our day of joint work and the years preceding it. It reflected the levels of constant pressure, mistrust and suspicion towards others which have become part of this more than 20-year-long conflict. "Any careless phrase can destroy the fragile thread of friendliness which stemmed from the very possibility of speaking to each other and looking into each other's eyes, from the need to share the impressions of a joint trip and the inevitable gaiety of joint parties," Shvydkoy told Rossiyskaya Gazeta afterwards.

 As many experts indicate, this trip to the region by representatives of the intelligentsia coincides with an unprecedented outbreak of diplomatic activity. We are not talking only about the Aliyev-Sargsyan or Mammadyarov-Nalbandyan talks: Baku has been visited by Israeli President Shimon Peres, his Russian counterpart Dmitriy Medvedev, Polish President Lech Kachinski and the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Asad, while a visit by the Latvian president is on the agenda. The Karabakh problem was high on the agenda of the meeting between Obama and Medvedev in Moscow and during G8 talks. 

 "I believe in the possibility of creating new realities in the negotiations about Nagornyy Karabakh. The meeting of the US and Russian presidents and the fact that they discussed the Karabakh conflict not only elevated the importance of this issue, but also reinforced the hopes of the parties to the conflict. Such talks between Russia and the USA are opening up new opportunities for the region," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who held the post of national security adviser in Jimmy Carter's administration.

In other words, it is high time to prepare public opinion for acceptance that the enemies of yesterday are no longer enemies, and "people's diplomacy" by NGO activists and intellectuals could prove very handy in this process.

 Another factor provides a lot more food for thought. In an interview with Russian TV channel Rossiya, the Azerbaijani president practically revealed what is being discussed in the talks today. "In essence, agreement has been reached in the Nagornyy Karabakh talks that Armenian troops should start withdrawing from occupied Azerbaijani territories so that guarantees could be provided, including internationally, for the security of citizens currently living in Nagornyy Karabakh and of the Azerbaijanis who will return to the occupied territories, including Karabakh. These are international guarantees."

According to the Azerbaijani president, political guarantees in this case are far more important than military and peacekeeping ones. "We do understand the concerns of those living in Nagornyy Karabakh: after the return of all seven occupied districts, Nagornyy Karabakh will again be cut off from Armenia geographically. Therefore we appreciate the anxiety of those living there, and are ready to consider, in a constructive manner and on the basis of international norms, the issue of overland communication which would be reliable and not give rise to concern. We do understand the concern of the opposing side. As far as the status of Karabakh is concerned, it is a matter for the future. And the suggestions we are currently discussing and agreeing do not include the issue of status. If this topic is tabled again, we will not achieve anything. Thus there is an understanding that life will go on. Of course, we can't see ways of Nagornyy Karabakh existing as an independent state. Azerbaijan will never agree to that. We think the Armenian side understands that. At the same time, Yerevan considers that the level of self-administration existing in Nagornyy Karabakh should be preserved. In Soviet times there was a Nagornyy-Karabakh autonomous district, the administration of which included one Azerbaijani, while the rest were Armenians. This Azerbaijani was the head of the town of Susa, where 90 per cent of the population are Azerbaijanis. And, while considering options for the future existence of this territory, we should not go too far. Today we need to eliminate the results of the conflict, put an end to occupation, provide for the security of citizens of all nationalities and then open all communications. Only then can peace reign. Azerbaijanis and Armenians used to live in Azerbaijan and Armenia and there were no serious problems. In other words, there must be peace."

Ilham Aliyev also emphasized that "we can't always live in a state of war. We don't want war, although we are building up our military capabilities". "I think that if the Armenian side is displaying political will and taking the steps it will have to take anyway, i.e. to vacate all occupied territories, and, after Azerbaijanis return to Susa and Nagornyy Karabakh, we will certainly discuss the status issue. Of course, Nagornyy Karabakh must have a status. We do understand that. Again, we can't see this status outside sovereign Azerbaijan. I think that the talks process will become more constructive after the occupied lands have been vacated. We are talking about a stage-by-stage withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied territories outside Nagornyy Karabakh. During the first stage, shortly after the signing of appropriate agreements, troops are to withdraw from five districts. Withdrawal of troops from the other two districts, which are located between Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh, i.e. Kalbacar and Lacin, will take place five years after the agreement comes into force, due to the geography of the districts. We think this is a compromise period of time. In this zone it is perhaps necessary to provide more security measures, so that no-one can question the peaceful intentions of both parties. At the same time, however, the withdrawal of Armenian troops from all seven districts is not in any way linked to any other factors, and this is clearly stipulated in the suggestions by the Minsk Group. As for the status of Nagornyy Karabakh, a mechanism of temporary status may be agreed at the first stage, while the final status will be resolved when the parties agree on that," the president said, effectively revealing the settlement plan under consideration.

The plan requires Azerbaijan to make serious compromises, but Armenia also has to tread this path.

 There has been practically no reaction to the Azerbaijani president's statement in Yerevan - even the opposition remains tight-lipped. This, however, may be because the statement represents a "political bombshell" for Armenia, especially against the backdrop of constant and hysterical assurances that a withdrawal of troops is out of the question.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to exclude economic interests from this complex political equation. The Armenian economy is currently in a deplorable plight. Many experts think that Armenia is unlikely to survive without detente with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Even in this case the chances of "fitting into" transit policies are rather slim. Until recently the country was heavily reliant on transfers from abroad, i.e. cash transfers to family members, but now this "creek" is about to dry up. Besides, after the war between Russia and Georgia, Armenia has lost overland communication with its patrons in Moscow.

Against this backdrop, real hysteria broke out on the other side of the frontline. Nagornyy Karabakh, which was recently accommodating the peacemakers itself, is hosting an "all-Armenian conference" organized by the Dashnaktsutyun Party, with all the accompanying statements one would expect from it. "Any attempts to portray Nagornyy Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan are unacceptable. We have repeatedly stated that a solution to the Katabakh problem without our direct participation in the negotiating process is impossible. The people of Karabakh don't want war, but we are always ready to defend our independence," the "president" of the self-styled NKR, Bako Saakyan, has said. 

The chairman of the "public council for foreign policy and security" of the self-proclaimed NKR, Masis Mailyan, said, "The settlement plan proposed by the mediators runs counter to the interests of NKR and Armenia."

The commander of the Armenian expeditionary corps, which is referred to as "the defence army of Nagornyy Karabakh" in Armenian media, Lt-Gen Movses Akopyan, told journalists that the "line of security guarantees for the NKR population" lies not along Lacin, but "along the bank of the Kur river". Akopyan is certain that it is his "army" which secures peace in the region and is even "imposing peace on Azerbaijan". "Over the last 10-15 years we have not allowed the Azerbaijani side to have an advantage on the line of contact". In other words, this sounds like an attempt to resume hostilities.

 It is particularly amazing that it was the "initiative of ambassadors" that came in for scathing criticism, both in Yerevan and Xankandi. "The visit by the Armenian and Azerbaijani ambassadors to Russia, Armen Smbatyan and Polad Bulbuloglu, as well as Armenian and Azerbaijani intelligentsia, to Stepanakert is simply an insult to the "defence army" and the people of "NKR". If they come again, they will leave without having got what they wanted," said chairman of the "permanent commission for defence, internal affairs and security" of the local "parliament", Zhanna Galstyan.

Some critical statements have been made in Yerevan, especially by the Golos Armenii newspaper.

Smbatyan has not yet been recalled as Armenian ambassador to Russia, which sends a message that the peacemaking effort enjoys some support in Yerevan.

However, it would also be wrong to underestimate the attempts to undermine the peace process, because war has become normal business for too many in Armenia.