Tweet
KARABAKH PEACE: MORE ILLUSION THAN REALITY
The Civilitas Foundation
Thursday, 11 March 2010 06:38 |
The monthly Civilitas Foundation discussion on current topics featured
as its guest Thomas de Waal, Caucasus analyst and Senior Associate
at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington DC. Mr. de Waal
spoke with Salpi Ghazarian, Director of the Civilitas Foundation.
Mr. de Waal had just returned from Baku, and in response to Mrs.
Ghazarian's question about whether the conflict can still be called a
frozen conflict, he responded that the Karabakh conflict, unlike for
example the Cyprus issue, has never been frozen, is at best dormant.
He explained that although neither side will want to start a war,
'stupid reasons' too can trigger military clashes, and in a situation
that is self-monitored, where the line of contact brings the sides
very close together, such 'accidents' are considered more likely.
He did indicate that Azerbaijan is more inclined to support the most
recent proposal brought by the Minsk Group co-chairs in Sochi.
Mrs. Ghazarian asked how it is possible for the Armenian side,
which has said yes to every proposal presented by the mediators
over the negotiations period, to now find itself in a situation
that a negotiated document has been presented which clearly does not
appear to be to the liking of the Armenian side, but acceptable to
the Azerbaijani side, especially since in October President Sargsyan
insisted that an agreement is not even close. Mr. de Waal explained
that the ambiguity built into the document, especially over the
issue of Karabakh's status, has been expanded sufficiently to the
satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side. Mrs. Ghazarian asked how such
ambiguity which is called 'constructive ambiguity' can be constructive
if the sides don't approach the negotiations with reciprocal trust
and a willingness to reach a lasting solution? Doesn't the immediate
readiness to manipulate the ambiguity to the benefit of one side
mean that such ambiguity becomes destructive and further feeds the
mutual distrust?
Mr. de Waal agreed that constructive ambiguity specifically, and a
peace deal in general resemble a chair with four legs, and in the
case of Karabakh, there are currently only two legs - a negotiations
process and a ceasefire. But it lacks the other two legs: civic
engagement and confidence-building measures.
Mrs. Ghazarian pointed out that the atmosphere of distrust which
is clearly harmful to the peace process is fueled by intolerant and
militaristic rhetoric, especially from the Azerbaijani side, where it
is reinforced at the highest official levels, and therefore reflects
policy. Mr. de Waal pointed out that it is important for everyone to
acknowledge the pain of the other, to which the audience responded with
skepticism, citing the continuing threatening language of Azerbaijani
leaders regarding Armenians of Karabakh and Armenia.
Acknowledging that there seems to be little hope of a resolution
soon, Mr. de Waal pointed to a need to engage new participation,
particularly from the European Union. Mrs. Ghazarian's response
expressed the general Armenian skepticism about putting one's security
and future in the hands of those who are not well-versed and do not
share a sense of urgency and destiny.
The audience included diplomats, students, NGO and political activists
and former government officials. The discussion was followed by a
lively question - answer session.
The Civilitas Foundation
Thursday, 11 March 2010 06:38 |
The monthly Civilitas Foundation discussion on current topics featured
as its guest Thomas de Waal, Caucasus analyst and Senior Associate
at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington DC. Mr. de Waal
spoke with Salpi Ghazarian, Director of the Civilitas Foundation.
Mr. de Waal had just returned from Baku, and in response to Mrs.
Ghazarian's question about whether the conflict can still be called a
frozen conflict, he responded that the Karabakh conflict, unlike for
example the Cyprus issue, has never been frozen, is at best dormant.
He explained that although neither side will want to start a war,
'stupid reasons' too can trigger military clashes, and in a situation
that is self-monitored, where the line of contact brings the sides
very close together, such 'accidents' are considered more likely.
He did indicate that Azerbaijan is more inclined to support the most
recent proposal brought by the Minsk Group co-chairs in Sochi.
Mrs. Ghazarian asked how it is possible for the Armenian side,
which has said yes to every proposal presented by the mediators
over the negotiations period, to now find itself in a situation
that a negotiated document has been presented which clearly does not
appear to be to the liking of the Armenian side, but acceptable to
the Azerbaijani side, especially since in October President Sargsyan
insisted that an agreement is not even close. Mr. de Waal explained
that the ambiguity built into the document, especially over the
issue of Karabakh's status, has been expanded sufficiently to the
satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side. Mrs. Ghazarian asked how such
ambiguity which is called 'constructive ambiguity' can be constructive
if the sides don't approach the negotiations with reciprocal trust
and a willingness to reach a lasting solution? Doesn't the immediate
readiness to manipulate the ambiguity to the benefit of one side
mean that such ambiguity becomes destructive and further feeds the
mutual distrust?
Mr. de Waal agreed that constructive ambiguity specifically, and a
peace deal in general resemble a chair with four legs, and in the
case of Karabakh, there are currently only two legs - a negotiations
process and a ceasefire. But it lacks the other two legs: civic
engagement and confidence-building measures.
Mrs. Ghazarian pointed out that the atmosphere of distrust which
is clearly harmful to the peace process is fueled by intolerant and
militaristic rhetoric, especially from the Azerbaijani side, where it
is reinforced at the highest official levels, and therefore reflects
policy. Mr. de Waal pointed out that it is important for everyone to
acknowledge the pain of the other, to which the audience responded with
skepticism, citing the continuing threatening language of Azerbaijani
leaders regarding Armenians of Karabakh and Armenia.
Acknowledging that there seems to be little hope of a resolution
soon, Mr. de Waal pointed to a need to engage new participation,
particularly from the European Union. Mrs. Ghazarian's response
expressed the general Armenian skepticism about putting one's security
and future in the hands of those who are not well-versed and do not
share a sense of urgency and destiny.
The audience included diplomats, students, NGO and political activists
and former government officials. The discussion was followed by a
lively question - answer session.