Tweet
news.az, Azerbaijan
May 8 2010
Azerbaijani, Armenian public 'not ready for peace'
Sat 08 May 2010 | 09:33 GMT Text size:
News.Az interviews Arif Yunus, director of the Department of Conflict
Studies at Azerbaijani NGO, the Institute of Peace and Democracy.
This month marks the 16th anniversary of the ceasefire between
Azerbaijani and Armenian armed forces. Do you think the sides will
manage to preserve the reconciliation?
This issue can be seen both positively and negatively. The positive
side is that the ceasefire has been kept for 16 years without the
peacekeeping forces of any third state or international organization
being involved. This is, undoubtedly, a plus. However, this does not
include small arms. We constantly get information about the violation
of the ceasefire, exchanges of fire and a sniper war in which people
are killed. This is the negative aspect. Another negative is that the
negotiating process, which has lasted all this time, has not been
effective yet. A ceasefire does not does not mean peace, a ceasefire
is an indefinite state.
However, the sides to the conflict say that some progress in the
negotiations on the Karabakh conflict has been achieved. Do you agree?
I cannot see anything positive here. I follow the negotiating process
constantly, I have been studying it especially since the creation of
the Minsk Group. There have been many proposals on the conflict
settlement at different times, but all of them ended without result.
It is difficult to say that the negotiating process has given anything
new, because the negotiating process here is mostly for show. This
means that in reality there have been no real negotiations. The
negotiating process means that the sides are striving to attain
something via compromise. It is clear that the negotiating process
between the two countries is leading to compromise, but perception of
the term 'compromise' is distorted in Armenian and Azerbaijani
society. They think that compromise must be only in their favour. That
is, when Armenians and Azerbaijanis speak about a just settlement,
each party is thinking that the issue must be settled only in their
favour. Meanwhile, this is a hurdle that is difficult to get over. For
the Armenians, settlement means that Azerbaijan recognizes the
independence of Karabakh or its annexation to Armenia, while for
Azerbaijanis it is the mandatory preservation of Karabakh within
Azerbaijan and, afterwards, Baku will think of any autonomy without
defining the notion of high autonomy itself.
At the same time, people in Baku forget that Karabakh once had this
autonomy for 70 years. I think if we want to settle the issue of
compromise, we should have put something definite on the table during
these years. But we can see that both parties think that time is on
their side. The Armenians think that sooner or later the current de
facto state will become de jure and the time will come to recognize
the independence of Karabakh. That is, they believe that the world
will get tired, Azerbaijanis will be fed up too and, as a result,
their military gains will become legal and the whole world will
recognize the independence of Karabakh, as they did in the case of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not to mention Kosovo. This is the
position of the Armenians. Therefore, they are in no great hurry. The
Azerbaijanis also think that time is on their side: they get dividends
from oil, the economy is growing, the situation in Armenia is
worsening, and so on. Therefore, I sometimes say that the negotiations
are held for the Americans' sake, as they really want this problem to
be settled and it doesn't matter in whose favour. What's important for
them is that the problem is settled and stability is established in
the region in order to squeeze out the Russians and start their
business with Iran. But it is extremely difficult for the United
States to do this now, as there are conflicts and two countries,
Azerbaijan and especially Armenia, are in suspense and strongly depend
on Russia. Therefore, they need to settle this conflict which is why
they often force us to hold talks while we continue talks as if doing
them a favour. Therefore, I say that these negotiations are for show.
If they want to hold real negotiations, the talks cannot take place in
isolation: negotiations should be held not only on the level of the
presidents and foreign ministers but also on the level of the people
and public. One day the sides will sign a document and what's most
important is that when this day comes the societies are ready for
peaceful coexistence. In conditions of real hysteria in Armenian and
Azerbaijani society, when both parties view each other as enemies, no
one can guarantee that a peace agreement would be accepted by the
public. Therefore, they say that if someone really wants peace and
holds negotiations, they do not only hold talks, they also prepare the
public for peace. We are not preparing our people for this. On the
contrary, the Armenian and Azerbaijani press and even textbooks are
filled with fierce campaigns. Negotiations cannot be held like this.
Therefore, I am not optimistic about the negotiations.
Azerbaijan's Defence Ministry reports every day about the violation of
the ceasefire by the Armenian side in different sectors. What should
be done to reduce these instances to a minimum?
We can differentiate two aspects to this. The first is the real state
of affairs on the front line. The second is the way this is all
presented. These are not the same. As I have already said, a ceasefire
means the non-use of military hardware, aircraft and artillery.
Meanwhile, small arms have never been banned. Naturally, if we go to
the front line, we will see exchanges of fire almost every day, which
are mostly by accident. I can talk about the instances that I have
seen myself. For example, there is a watch at the military post. A
rabbit runs past, the watch is afraid and opens fire. The Armenians do
not realize this and open fire too. Or they are celebrating someone's
birthday: they drink and start firing into the air and the people on
the opposite side don't know that it's a birthday party and return
fire. This causes an exchange of fire for half an hour. This happens
everywhere. Wherever there troops, there is shooting.
Both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis are doing it. Therefore, it is
very difficult to say who is to blame. It's another matter how all
this is presented. Our Defence Ministry will never say that the
ceasefire was violated by the Azerbaijani side. You will never read in
a report of the Armenian Defence Ministry either that the Armenian
troops have broken the ceasefire. In addition, depending on the
internal political situation, they may not even report a violation of
the ceasefire or report a great deal about ceasefire violations. In
the latter case, an ordinary citizen may get the impression that war
has started. But in fact there is no war, it's just an exchange of
fire that occurs every day. This presentation is propaganda. For
example, last year on 1 March, when Armenia had elections, there were
reports of fighting on the front line. But these fights occurred every
day. In addition, I can say when these fights will be especially
fierce. As soon as the snow melts, a positional war starts and both
Armenians and Azerbaijanis try to move the trench line a little
further forward. In some cases we are more active and in others the
Armenians are active.
The Minsk Group co-chairs have repeatedly asked the sides to remove
snipers from the contact line. The Armenian side agrees to it, while
the Azerbaijani side does not. What causes the reluctance of the
Azerbaijani side?
It's the same reason why neither of the sides intends to give up
anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, despite the Ottawa international
convention banning the use of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Both
the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides say that as long as the Karabakh
conflict continues, they cannot give them up. That is, everyone refers
to the fact that as long as there is war and a threat, they will not
give up mines and snipers, because the sides do not trust each other
and I think this is the reality. They do not trust each other and they
understand that the negotiations are for show and not serious.
Therefore, it is necessary to be ready every day.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
May 8 2010
Azerbaijani, Armenian public 'not ready for peace'
Sat 08 May 2010 | 09:33 GMT Text size:
News.Az interviews Arif Yunus, director of the Department of Conflict
Studies at Azerbaijani NGO, the Institute of Peace and Democracy.
This month marks the 16th anniversary of the ceasefire between
Azerbaijani and Armenian armed forces. Do you think the sides will
manage to preserve the reconciliation?
This issue can be seen both positively and negatively. The positive
side is that the ceasefire has been kept for 16 years without the
peacekeeping forces of any third state or international organization
being involved. This is, undoubtedly, a plus. However, this does not
include small arms. We constantly get information about the violation
of the ceasefire, exchanges of fire and a sniper war in which people
are killed. This is the negative aspect. Another negative is that the
negotiating process, which has lasted all this time, has not been
effective yet. A ceasefire does not does not mean peace, a ceasefire
is an indefinite state.
However, the sides to the conflict say that some progress in the
negotiations on the Karabakh conflict has been achieved. Do you agree?
I cannot see anything positive here. I follow the negotiating process
constantly, I have been studying it especially since the creation of
the Minsk Group. There have been many proposals on the conflict
settlement at different times, but all of them ended without result.
It is difficult to say that the negotiating process has given anything
new, because the negotiating process here is mostly for show. This
means that in reality there have been no real negotiations. The
negotiating process means that the sides are striving to attain
something via compromise. It is clear that the negotiating process
between the two countries is leading to compromise, but perception of
the term 'compromise' is distorted in Armenian and Azerbaijani
society. They think that compromise must be only in their favour. That
is, when Armenians and Azerbaijanis speak about a just settlement,
each party is thinking that the issue must be settled only in their
favour. Meanwhile, this is a hurdle that is difficult to get over. For
the Armenians, settlement means that Azerbaijan recognizes the
independence of Karabakh or its annexation to Armenia, while for
Azerbaijanis it is the mandatory preservation of Karabakh within
Azerbaijan and, afterwards, Baku will think of any autonomy without
defining the notion of high autonomy itself.
At the same time, people in Baku forget that Karabakh once had this
autonomy for 70 years. I think if we want to settle the issue of
compromise, we should have put something definite on the table during
these years. But we can see that both parties think that time is on
their side. The Armenians think that sooner or later the current de
facto state will become de jure and the time will come to recognize
the independence of Karabakh. That is, they believe that the world
will get tired, Azerbaijanis will be fed up too and, as a result,
their military gains will become legal and the whole world will
recognize the independence of Karabakh, as they did in the case of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, not to mention Kosovo. This is the
position of the Armenians. Therefore, they are in no great hurry. The
Azerbaijanis also think that time is on their side: they get dividends
from oil, the economy is growing, the situation in Armenia is
worsening, and so on. Therefore, I sometimes say that the negotiations
are held for the Americans' sake, as they really want this problem to
be settled and it doesn't matter in whose favour. What's important for
them is that the problem is settled and stability is established in
the region in order to squeeze out the Russians and start their
business with Iran. But it is extremely difficult for the United
States to do this now, as there are conflicts and two countries,
Azerbaijan and especially Armenia, are in suspense and strongly depend
on Russia. Therefore, they need to settle this conflict which is why
they often force us to hold talks while we continue talks as if doing
them a favour. Therefore, I say that these negotiations are for show.
If they want to hold real negotiations, the talks cannot take place in
isolation: negotiations should be held not only on the level of the
presidents and foreign ministers but also on the level of the people
and public. One day the sides will sign a document and what's most
important is that when this day comes the societies are ready for
peaceful coexistence. In conditions of real hysteria in Armenian and
Azerbaijani society, when both parties view each other as enemies, no
one can guarantee that a peace agreement would be accepted by the
public. Therefore, they say that if someone really wants peace and
holds negotiations, they do not only hold talks, they also prepare the
public for peace. We are not preparing our people for this. On the
contrary, the Armenian and Azerbaijani press and even textbooks are
filled with fierce campaigns. Negotiations cannot be held like this.
Therefore, I am not optimistic about the negotiations.
Azerbaijan's Defence Ministry reports every day about the violation of
the ceasefire by the Armenian side in different sectors. What should
be done to reduce these instances to a minimum?
We can differentiate two aspects to this. The first is the real state
of affairs on the front line. The second is the way this is all
presented. These are not the same. As I have already said, a ceasefire
means the non-use of military hardware, aircraft and artillery.
Meanwhile, small arms have never been banned. Naturally, if we go to
the front line, we will see exchanges of fire almost every day, which
are mostly by accident. I can talk about the instances that I have
seen myself. For example, there is a watch at the military post. A
rabbit runs past, the watch is afraid and opens fire. The Armenians do
not realize this and open fire too. Or they are celebrating someone's
birthday: they drink and start firing into the air and the people on
the opposite side don't know that it's a birthday party and return
fire. This causes an exchange of fire for half an hour. This happens
everywhere. Wherever there troops, there is shooting.
Both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis are doing it. Therefore, it is
very difficult to say who is to blame. It's another matter how all
this is presented. Our Defence Ministry will never say that the
ceasefire was violated by the Azerbaijani side. You will never read in
a report of the Armenian Defence Ministry either that the Armenian
troops have broken the ceasefire. In addition, depending on the
internal political situation, they may not even report a violation of
the ceasefire or report a great deal about ceasefire violations. In
the latter case, an ordinary citizen may get the impression that war
has started. But in fact there is no war, it's just an exchange of
fire that occurs every day. This presentation is propaganda. For
example, last year on 1 March, when Armenia had elections, there were
reports of fighting on the front line. But these fights occurred every
day. In addition, I can say when these fights will be especially
fierce. As soon as the snow melts, a positional war starts and both
Armenians and Azerbaijanis try to move the trench line a little
further forward. In some cases we are more active and in others the
Armenians are active.
The Minsk Group co-chairs have repeatedly asked the sides to remove
snipers from the contact line. The Armenian side agrees to it, while
the Azerbaijani side does not. What causes the reluctance of the
Azerbaijani side?
It's the same reason why neither of the sides intends to give up
anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, despite the Ottawa international
convention banning the use of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Both
the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides say that as long as the Karabakh
conflict continues, they cannot give them up. That is, everyone refers
to the fact that as long as there is war and a threat, they will not
give up mines and snipers, because the sides do not trust each other
and I think this is the reality. They do not trust each other and they
understand that the negotiations are for show and not serious.
Therefore, it is necessary to be ready every day.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az