Last week,  School of Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University and Carnegie organized and hosted in Washington DC a symposium on ways of strengthening and improving non-governmental dialogue between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.

Discussions titled “Assessing the Deadlock in the Nagorno-Karabakh Peace Process, Breaking the Impasse Series Symposium” brought together some officials and analysts from Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the US-based experts. The discussion was initiated by Philip Gamaghelyan from George Mason University, independent analyst Tabib Huseynov, and Carnegie’s Thomas de Waal.

The Armenian side was represented by Varuzhan Nersessian, (Deputy Chief of Mission at the Armenian Embassy in Washington DC), Tigran Mkrtchyan (Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Richard Giragosyan (Regional Studies Center), Tevan Poghosyan (International Center for Human Development), Marine Manucharyan (“Civic Forum” NGO) and others.

Director of the Center for Regional Studies Richard Giragosyan told about the discussion in an interview with Mediamax.

- Please, tell us more about the meeting.

- As far as I know, this is the first such ‘Track II Diplomacy’ meeting between Armenia and Azerbaijan for many years. It was convened in Washington, but it involved civil society representatives and official representatives from both Armenia and Azerbaijan. There was an attempt to include representatives from Karabakh, and I don’t know why there was not representation. But the NKR Representative in the U.S. attended the meeting. The organizers of the event were inclusive, willing to talk about any issue.

What we had was not just a discussion or a debate on the status of Karabakh, but one basic agreement that Armenia and Azerbaijan need to hold a broader dialogue to touch on Karabakh and also to include Karabakh. This was important. For many years the problem has been Azerbaijan, but for this time it allowed this dialogue to take place, and representatives from the Azerbaijani government and Foreign Ministry attended.

- What was the main message the Armenian side sent to Azeri colleagues? 

- There was a diplomatic debate, and the Azerbaijani side was not shy in challenging the Armenian position. But in the private sessions it was much more constructive and there was an agreement that this is the first step. Nothing was agreed upon yet, but it was the first step in terms of talking to each other, not yelling at each other. From the Armenian perspective, this represented an opportunity to demonstrate the reality on the ground and it’s very important.

Neither side can use it as propaganda, because it wasn’t propaganda. The Karabakh representative in Washington officially defended Karabakh position, Armenian civil society representatives, of course, defended the Armenian side, and talking, debating, discussing and disagreeing is much more positive than sniper fire or refusing to be in the same room. And there is no ability for either Baku or anyone else to use this as propaganda.

- Did the Azerbaijani colleagues agree with the statement that there is no military way for resolving this issue? 

- Some yes, some no. But what is interesting is, just as with Armenia-Turkey, I believe the two sides need more dialogue. In other words, whether it’s Turkey’s policy of denying the Genocide, closing the borders, denying diplomatic relations, that’s not a policy. Just as Azerbaijan’s approach toward Armenia and Karabakh, denying diplomatic recognition, closing borders. That’s not a policy either. What was represented was an attempt to normalize the abnormal.

- During this conference Azerbaijani analyst Tabib Huseynov argued that the Azerbaijani civil society sometimes fears that confidence-building measures might entrench the status-quo in favor of Armenia. What do you think?

- In general, confidence-building measures are important. This meeting was not about confidence-building, it was about a step before that dialogue-building. I mean, before we can get to confidence we need dialogue. We don’t have confidence or trust. But Tabib was talking about Azerbaijani civil society. And maybe from this point of view he was right, because in Azerbaijan it’s much more dangerous to speak out or to challenge the official position. In Armenia it’s much more free: different opinions are listened to. So, surely Tabib Huseynov knows Azeri society better and maybe he is right, but that’s not good for the Azerbaijani people.

- Did you raise the question of Azeri propaganda against Armenia and Armenian people and what was their response?

- Part of my optimism is because many elements of Azerbaijani civil society are more concerned about a lack of democracy and corruption in Azerbaijan than about hating Armenians or Nagorno-Karabakh. And this is where we can find a common ground.

- So, can we conclude that this so-called ‘Track II Diplomacy’ in Washington was really constructive and the two sides understood each other?

- What’s important is the bridge for understanding right now is more between the civil society, but there is an asymmetry. In other words, we always welcome Azerbaijani civil society representatives come to Yerevan, but many cannot, because of the nature of the government of Azerbaijan. Therefore there is imbalance. There is also an imbalance or asymmetry for Armenia civil society who cannot go to Baku, who cannot get visas. This needs to be addressed before this kind of dialogue can move forward. 

Mediamax’s Aram Araratyan talked to Richard Giragosyan.