Tweet
ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI CONFLICT SETTLEMENT A PUBLIC, OPEN AND NON-VIOLENT PROCESS
news.az
Dec 16 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Georgi Vanyan, chairman of the Armenia-based
Caucasus Centre for Peacekeeping Initiatives.
Georgi, you are implementing an interesting peacekeeping project
in Telaki village where all initiatives and events of Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Georgia are being held. What can you say about the project
of creation of the peacekeeping center in the Azerbaijani village of
Tekali in Georgian territory bordering on the three countries of the
South Caucasus?
During the recent visit in Germany, I have presented this project to
the community in Berlin and I do hope that the conference participants
from both Azerbaijan and Germany will pass their projects in Tekali in
the nearest future. All the same, we are searching means to establish a
permanent summer camping at the junction of the borders of the three
South Caucasus states.
If I am not mistaken, you attended the meeting of the Azerbaijani and
Armenian communities of Nagorno Karabakh in Berlin. How did you receive
the invitation and which side did you represent in that meeting?
Yes, I have taken part in that meeting. The co-organizer of the meeting
was German nongovernmental organization Eurocaucasia with which we have
been cooperating for already a few years. I was representing the Tekali
project. Usually during the discussions and interviews I often have
to speak of terms and formulations. Your questions has given me one
more ground. In our sad reality-the public dialogue fully copies the
state diplomatic activity. Only personal airplanes for participants,
carpets on the asphalt and military orchestras are left.
If the matter is about the meeting of people, not empowered by the
law to hold negotiations, how can they 'represent any party'? Can
anyone represent any party at the meeting attended by analysts, public
figures, students, journalists, even if there were two deputies of
the Azerbaijani parliament among them?
To my mind, civil dialogue is not a dialogue of the parties, it is a
dialogue of the people who are interested in the parties to put all
possible efforts to resolve the conflict. This dialogue is held on
par and inside the community for promotion of ideas about the need to
solve the conflict. There are no parties in civil peacekeeping. There
are peacekeepers and those who stand on their way. There is even no
confrontation out there. This is a single process of overcoming.
The Minsk Group co-chairs and international mediators have again
intensified and spoke about the new cycle of promotion of the peaceful
negotiation process on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. It is
noted that Azerbaijan and Armenia have allegedly coordinated almost
all the major disputable issues on the future definition of the
status of Nagorno Karabakh and it is now left to withdraw Armenian
armed forces from Azerbaijani lands?
I find it difficult to speak about the processes which I suppose are
imitational. Is it the intensification of imitations? Probably, it is.
Is it the withdrawal of troops? Everything is possible but this is
not linked to the conflict settlement. The conflict settlement is a
public, open and non-violent process. This is a process of agreement.
Is the style and ideology of the Minsk Group's activity close to this?
What will bring the soonest resolution of the Karabakh conflict to
Armenia and Armenian people, to your mind?
Possible establishment of independent statehood.
Then why did the representatives of the Armenian community of Nagorno
Karabakh refuse to arrive to the meeting in Berlin over which the
Armenian mass media wrote about the failure of the meeting. Is it
true and did not meeting really have practical use for establishing
a dialogue on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?
It is a failure for the people who did not attend the meeting and did
not use the opportunity to communicate and exchange views. For them
who came, the meeting took place and was of practical use. This was a
rare opportunity to communicate with a big audience of German experts,
dealing with our problem, this was a rare chance of communicating
students who bind their research activity to our region.
I am sure that no person who undertook the mission of public activity
can yield to political speculations. There is always an option for
discussion and for this it is just necessary to overcome the fear.
Who of the representatives of the Azerbaijani communities of Karabakh
did you meet? Could you outline any plans or joint projects with the
Azerbaijani side at the meeting in Berlin?
All participants from Azerbaijan were represented in the program of
the conference and we held interesting dialogues. The film "Open
the border!" at the university audience was shown next day. It is
interesting that during my speech I said that my film is about our
hopelessness and apathy. After the demonstration, the participants
disagreed with my assessment. The Berlin audience, who are quite
well aware of the political realities of the conflict, saw hope
and optimism in this film which consists of monologues about the
possibility of peace.
This opinion of the concerned spectator was a big discovery to me,
a unique opportunity which I received thanks to Eurocaucasia, the
projects that differ with their openness, opportunity to community
with a possibly wider circle of people, who work and live in Germany.
news.az
Dec 16 2011
Azerbaijan
News.Az interviews Georgi Vanyan, chairman of the Armenia-based
Caucasus Centre for Peacekeeping Initiatives.
Georgi, you are implementing an interesting peacekeeping project
in Telaki village where all initiatives and events of Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Georgia are being held. What can you say about the project
of creation of the peacekeeping center in the Azerbaijani village of
Tekali in Georgian territory bordering on the three countries of the
South Caucasus?
During the recent visit in Germany, I have presented this project to
the community in Berlin and I do hope that the conference participants
from both Azerbaijan and Germany will pass their projects in Tekali in
the nearest future. All the same, we are searching means to establish a
permanent summer camping at the junction of the borders of the three
South Caucasus states.
If I am not mistaken, you attended the meeting of the Azerbaijani and
Armenian communities of Nagorno Karabakh in Berlin. How did you receive
the invitation and which side did you represent in that meeting?
Yes, I have taken part in that meeting. The co-organizer of the meeting
was German nongovernmental organization Eurocaucasia with which we have
been cooperating for already a few years. I was representing the Tekali
project. Usually during the discussions and interviews I often have
to speak of terms and formulations. Your questions has given me one
more ground. In our sad reality-the public dialogue fully copies the
state diplomatic activity. Only personal airplanes for participants,
carpets on the asphalt and military orchestras are left.
If the matter is about the meeting of people, not empowered by the
law to hold negotiations, how can they 'represent any party'? Can
anyone represent any party at the meeting attended by analysts, public
figures, students, journalists, even if there were two deputies of
the Azerbaijani parliament among them?
To my mind, civil dialogue is not a dialogue of the parties, it is a
dialogue of the people who are interested in the parties to put all
possible efforts to resolve the conflict. This dialogue is held on
par and inside the community for promotion of ideas about the need to
solve the conflict. There are no parties in civil peacekeeping. There
are peacekeepers and those who stand on their way. There is even no
confrontation out there. This is a single process of overcoming.
The Minsk Group co-chairs and international mediators have again
intensified and spoke about the new cycle of promotion of the peaceful
negotiation process on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. It is
noted that Azerbaijan and Armenia have allegedly coordinated almost
all the major disputable issues on the future definition of the
status of Nagorno Karabakh and it is now left to withdraw Armenian
armed forces from Azerbaijani lands?
I find it difficult to speak about the processes which I suppose are
imitational. Is it the intensification of imitations? Probably, it is.
Is it the withdrawal of troops? Everything is possible but this is
not linked to the conflict settlement. The conflict settlement is a
public, open and non-violent process. This is a process of agreement.
Is the style and ideology of the Minsk Group's activity close to this?
What will bring the soonest resolution of the Karabakh conflict to
Armenia and Armenian people, to your mind?
Possible establishment of independent statehood.
Then why did the representatives of the Armenian community of Nagorno
Karabakh refuse to arrive to the meeting in Berlin over which the
Armenian mass media wrote about the failure of the meeting. Is it
true and did not meeting really have practical use for establishing
a dialogue on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?
It is a failure for the people who did not attend the meeting and did
not use the opportunity to communicate and exchange views. For them
who came, the meeting took place and was of practical use. This was a
rare opportunity to communicate with a big audience of German experts,
dealing with our problem, this was a rare chance of communicating
students who bind their research activity to our region.
I am sure that no person who undertook the mission of public activity
can yield to political speculations. There is always an option for
discussion and for this it is just necessary to overcome the fear.
Who of the representatives of the Azerbaijani communities of Karabakh
did you meet? Could you outline any plans or joint projects with the
Azerbaijani side at the meeting in Berlin?
All participants from Azerbaijan were represented in the program of
the conference and we held interesting dialogues. The film "Open
the border!" at the university audience was shown next day. It is
interesting that during my speech I said that my film is about our
hopelessness and apathy. After the demonstration, the participants
disagreed with my assessment. The Berlin audience, who are quite
well aware of the political realities of the conflict, saw hope
and optimism in this film which consists of monologues about the
possibility of peace.
This opinion of the concerned spectator was a big discovery to me,
a unique opportunity which I received thanks to Eurocaucasia, the
projects that differ with their openness, opportunity to community
with a possibly wider circle of people, who work and live in Germany.