01.05.2012

Azerbaijani State Commission clarifies transfer of Armenian POWs to a third country [AZE]

The article says that Azerbaijan’s State Commission on Prisoners of War, Hostages and Missing Persons said they did not want to return home and would prefer to be sent to a third country. Azerbaijani Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees refused to disclose any information about individuals, although transferring of POWs to a third country is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.

Top official: Azerbaijan may rethink its pro- Western stance due to lack of support in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [AZE]

The article says that Azerbaijan may rethink its pro- Western stance and realign with “a new bloc” if it doesn’t get more support, particularly in its conflict with neighboring Armenia. Bloomberg BusinessWeek has reported that head of the Foreign Relations Department of the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Novruz Mammadov said, “The Caspian Sea nation wants Europe and the U.S. to pressure Armenia into pulling out of Azeri districts adjacent to the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region,” Mammadov said adding “Azerbaijan is the only secular Muslim nation in the world that’s tied its destiny with the West.”

Azerbaijani deputy parliamentary chairman: Murderers of women and children are in power in Armenia [AZE]

The article says that the Azerbaijani parliament has discussed issues related to the twentieth anniversary of the Armenian occupation of Shusha. Deputy Chairman Bahar Muradova, noting that Shusha has been for two decades under the Armenian occupation, said she speaks not like a politician, but as an individual, exiled from native land. Commenting on the double standards international community is applying onto the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Muradova said that killers of our women and children at this time are in power in Armenia. She also noted that Azerbaijan itself could solve its problems but some forces do not necessarily like it.

Trend.az

03.05.2012

Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh: Shusha people will return their land peacefully or militarily [AZE]

Armenians must know that the people of Shusha will return their lands either peacefully or by force, chairman of the public association ‘Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh’, head of Shusha regional executive power Bayram Safarov told Trend. He stressed that an action plan has been prepared in connection with the 20th anniversary of Shusha having been occupied by Armenia.

Rulling party: Azerbaijan has enough power and ability to liberate its lands [AZE]

If Armenia does not liberate the occupied Azerbaijani territories, then the Azerbaijani people and state have enough power, ability and will to liberate its land and restore historical justice, Ruling New Azerbaijan Party deputy chairman and executive secretary Ali Ahmedov told journalists on Thursday. He said nobody asked Armenia and its government to occupy Azerbaijani territories by shedding blood.

Trend.az

04.05.2012

EU experts not upbeat about Karabakh settlement in next ten years [ENG]

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will unlikely be settled in the next ten years, report “Global tendencies 2030″ of EU experts says. The report has been carried out with the financial assistance of the EU and aims to define problems and security challenges in coming years.
The experts have inferred that Armenia and Azerbaijan should deepen relations with the EU and Armenian-Turkish relations should be normalized in order to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Trend.az

04.05.2012

Dialogue between Azerbaijanis and Armenians of Nagorno -Karabakh could become a tool for settlement [AZE]

The failure to include establishing a dialogue between the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Nagorno Karabakh in the European Parliament resolution is a reason why the conflict is still unresolved, Center of Political Innovations and Technologies Director Mubariz Ahmedoglu told Trend on Friday. “The dialogue between the communities could become a tool with which it will be possible to carry out the most important job – from creating an atmosphere of trust to determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh,” the analyst said.

Trend.az

05.05.2012

Azerbaijani Vice-Speaker: OSCE MG co-chairs’ visit to region may give impetus to negotiation process [AZE]

The article says that the next visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the region may give impetus to the resolution of Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijani Parliament’s Vice-Speaker Bahar Muradova believes that the co-chairs’ visit to the region can be regarded as another stage in the negotiations.

Presidency in UN Security Council to allow Azerbaijan to raise issue of executing UNSC resolutions on occupation of Azerbaijani territories, top official says [AZE]

According to the article, the presidency in the UN Security Council (UNSC) gives Azerbaijan additional opportunities to raise the issue of executing the UN Security Council resolutions on the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia, which have not been implemented yet.

Trend.az

08.05.2012

Azerbaijani ruling party: Hollande may be active in resolving Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [AZE]

The article says that Francois Hollande may be active in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Azerbaijan Party official, MP Mubariz Gurbanli told Trend that he hopes after anti-Turkic actions and statements by Sarkozy, which didn’t yield any result, Hollande will have a clear opinion on the matter. The MP also noted that the solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict depends not on the co-chairs and the co-chairing countries, but on the joint activity of the co-chairs.

Azerbaijan sends letter to UN Secretary General over so-called “presidential elections” in Nagorno-Karabakh [AZE]

Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the UN Agshin Mehdiyev sent a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon over so-called “presidential elections” in Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, permanent mission told Trend. The letter notes that according to media reports the Republic of Armenia is planning to hold so-called “presidential elections” on July 2012 in the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Republic. It notes that the international community unequivocally condemned all previous “elections” in the occupied Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. “In this regard, my Government hopes that the United Nations and its member states will vote against the provocative and illegal acts that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, show disrespect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and undermine the ongoing political efforts to resolve the conflict. We urge the international community to demand that the government of Armenia to stop its destructive policy of annexation and ethnic cleansing, not to attempt to discredit the peace process and put an end to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, “- said the envoy.

Baku declares inefficiency of talks with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh problem [ENG]

According to the article, Armenia still poses a threat to peace and stability in South Caucasus, and continues its occupation of Azerbaijani territories. If it goes on, the Azerbaijani authorities, will demonstrate their will using all means, Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Social and Political Department Chief Ali Hasanov said on Tuesday, answering journalists’ questions about the 20th anniversary of Shusha’s occupation. He said that in this regard Azerbaijan has raised the issue on the level of global institutions.

News.az

11.05.2012

‘Nagorno-Karabakh conflict one of most complicated’ [ENG]

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is one of the most complicated conflicts among so-called frozen ones, a head of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform party (ELDR) Graham Watson said at a Friday press conference in Yerevan. According to him, the term ‘frozen’ is not the best way of describing the situation as otherwise there will be no fatal incidents due to shooting. At the same time, the conflict is frozen as it is difficult to see any way forward.

Mediators postpone visit to Karabakh [ENG]

The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have postponed their visit to Nagorno-Karabakh as part of their scheduled tour to the South Caucasus region. The plans have changed due to bad weather. The mediators had earlier too, rescheduled visits to Karabakh on account of weather conditions. They were scheduled meet leader of Karabakh separatists Bako Sahakyan in Khankandi.

Trend.az

12.05.2012

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen meet with Armenian FM [AZE]

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian held a meeting with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement Robert Bradtke (USA), Igor Popov (Russia) and Jacques Faure (France), as well as the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office Andrzej Kasprzyk on May 12. The co-chairmen arrived in Yerevan within the regional visit, Novosti Armenia reported. During the meeting the sides touched upon the implementation of the agreements reflected in the joint statement of the Russian, Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents, adopted in Sochi on January 23, in particular regarding the establishment of a mechanism to investigate the incidents.

Trend.az

14.05.2012

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs call on accelerating measures in reaching an agreement on Nagorno-Karabakh [AZE]

The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk traveled on May 11-14 to Yerevan and Baku, where they met with Presidents Serzh Sargsian and Ilham Aliyev to discuss the most recent efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Minsk Group’s statement published on OSCE website said on Monday. The Co-Chairs continued their discussions with the sides on how to implement the commitments made by Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian in their January 23 joint statement in Sochi, including “accelerating” measures in reaching an agreement on the Basic Principles as a framework for a comprehensive peace settlement, to work on the mechanism to investigate ceasefire violations, and to develop humanitarian contacts. The Co-Chairs expressed their concern over recent incidents along the frontlines, and urged the sides to refrain from retaliation. The Co-Chairs also discussed with the sides the development of confidence-building measures in the military and people-to-people spheres to enhance trust and strengthen implementation of the 1994 ceasefire.

News.az

14.05.2012

‘Russia supports peaceful settlement of Karabakh conflict’ [ENG]

The article says that Russia always supported the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Answering the questions of journalist about the policy of newly-elected president Vladimir Putin on the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Igor Popov said, “our standpoint is that the mediation mission of Russia will continue together with the other co-chair countries.” One of the orders signed by the new president concerns the foreign policy says, ‘Russia must continue its activity together with the other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. This activity is based on the assistance to the sides for the settlement of the conflict considering the high-level agreements achieved in 2009-2011. I think that it concretely expresses the position of Russia.’

France ‘not to change’ its position on Karabakh conflict [ENG]

‘France supported and will support the peaceful settlement of the conflict’. The statement came from the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair Jacques Faure in response to a question about the effect of election of new French president on the country’s positions on Nagorno Karabakh conflict, APA reports.

01.05.2012
1in.am
The more stable Armenia’s political filed, the better for NK – Davit Babayan [ENG]
According to this news article, Davit Babayan, spokesperson for the de facto president of Nagorno Karabakh, said that the more stable the domestic political situation in Armenia, the better it will be for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Babayan made the statement in response to a question as to which party will win in Armenia’s parliamentary elections.

03.05.2012
News.am
Karabakh issue must be raised on the level of Secretary of State – Bryza [ENG]
According to this news item, former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza said that the process of normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations negatively affected the Karabakh peace process. Bryza also said that one should not expect a peace agreement on Karabakh until U.S. government is engaged in the process of sufficiently higher level. The risk of military conflict is growing, he added.

It’s necessary to continue searching peaceful settlement for Karabakh conflict – US envoy [ENG]
US Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern said that the only way of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is through talks. “We condemn the ceasefire violation regime on the line of contact and the rhetoric of some leaders,” said he, adding that the OSCE MG Co-Chairs said in their statement that it is necessary to maintain the ceasefire regime.

04.05.2012
Lragir.am
Co-Chairs will not allow Azerbaijan [ARM]
This article says that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, at a meeting with his Uruguayan counterpart Louis Almagro, spoke about Azerbaijan’s chairmanship at the UN Security Council, as well as about the possibilities of what he called “anti-Armenian resolution” on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to be brought forth by Azerbaijan. Nalbandian also said that Azerbaijan may make attempts to bring that resolution to the UN Security Council, adding that one should be realistic about it in the sense that the OSCE Minsk Group will not allow that to happen.

04.05.2012
Panorama.am
Serzh Sargsyan orders fortified military duty on Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line [ENG]
According to this news article, Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan, visited the Ministry of Defense and held a meeting with the top brace of the ministry and was briefed on issues like army building, improvement of armed forces capabilities, as well as recent regional and military-political situations, situation in the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line, measures undertaken to keep peace along the border. Serzh Sargsyan ordered to fortify military duty on Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line and to undertake continuous measures to increase military capability and discipline of soldiers.

04.05.2012
RFEL
Uruguay sees Karabakh conflict settlement within Karabakh’s self-determination [ARM]
This article says that Uruguayan Foreign Minister Louis Almagro said at a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Edward Nalbandian in Yerevan that his country sees nations’ right to self-determination as the key principle in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He also said that Uruguay respects all the principles accepted by the UN, but at the same time thinks that there can be no military solution to the conflict.

05.05.2012
Hetq.am
Edward Nalbandian’s response to Ilham Aliyev [ENG]
According to this article, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, referring to the speech by the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the UN Security Council, said that instead of re-affirming Azerbaijan’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of Karabakh conflict, Ilham Aliyev is taking advantage of using the UN Security Council as a platform to deliver a speech based on “lies and fraud”.  Nalbandian also recalled that Ilham Aliyev had also said in that speech “Armenians all over the world are the number one enemy of Azerbaijan”.

Military says Azerbaijan may commit more incitements [ENG]
Armenian military expert Artsrun Hovhannisyan said that the recent “incitements committed by Azerbaijani armed forces differ as they target mainly civilians”. “This is not an innovation, but it has become more intensified. The goal is obvious – we are holding elections and the spring drafting has kicked off,” he said. He also said that it is not a coincidence that Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan ordered to fortify military shift on the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line.

05.05.2012
1in.am
Solution to Karabakh conflict hardly feasible in near future [ARM]
According to this article, some European experts expressed opinion in an EU-funded report that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is less likely to be resolved any time in the near future. The expert said that further deepening of relations with European Union will pave the way for Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict. They also said that in comparison to the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts, the NK conflict is more difficult as several regional players are involved in it.

09.05.2012
Tert.am
Matthew Bryza Criticizes US Policy on Karabakh [ENG]
This article says that former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza criticized US President Obama’s policy on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, saying the administration has spent more time on Turkey-Armenia normalization to the detriment of the Karabakh conflict. “Washington lost its way in the last couple of years,” Bryza was quoted saying. He asserted that normalization between Turkey and Armenia would not be possible without progress in the Karabakh conflict.

09.05.2012
RFEL
Karabakh conflict included in Moscow’s priorities [ARM]
This article says that upon assuming his presidential responsibilities Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin signed 11 documents with one of them relating to Russia’s foreign policy and reaffirming Moscow’s further active role in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, the document makes no mention of the principles of nations’ right to self-determination or territorial integrity. The document also says that Russia will continue to actively cooperate with the OSCE Minsk Group over the resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

09.05.2012
Tert.am
OSCE chairman-in-office special rep. on Karabakh conflict settlement [ENG]
According to this news article, Patrick Murphy, Special Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for the South Caucasus, said that concrete results may be achieved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement process in 2012. In an interview to The Business Year magazine Murphy said the progress may be achieved only in case of political will of the conflicting parties and efforts of the international community. “As a special representative for the South Caucasus, I will do everything possible for promoting the conflict settlement. For it, I will consider the Irish experience, though, as it is known there are no similar conflicts,” Murphy was quoted as saying.

09.05.2012
News.am
Nagorno-Karabakh international recognition to happen sooner or later [ENG]
This news article says that United Progressive Communist Party, Vazgen Safaryan, said that maintaining of status-quo may be assessed as victory for Armenia. “The Nagorno-Karabakh international recognition will happen sooner or later,” he said adding it is necessary to continue active diplomatic actions directed towards Karabakh recognition. He also said that after the Soviet Union collapsed, many countries and national unities, including Karabakh, desired to be self-determined and that the international community should take this into account.

10.05.2012
Tert.am
Swedish Rigstag rejects anti-Karabakh motion [ENG]
This article says that the Parliament of Sweden rejected an Azerbaijani-sponsored motion on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which “went against the principles set forth by the international mediators”. It also says that the members of parliament, known as the Riksdag, found that the motion deviated significantly from the existing negotiated proposals, including the so-called Madrid Principles. Since only one member of the parliament signed the motion, it was not allowed for consideration as a separate document and was rejected with a bundle of other legislation.

NK conflict is in deadlock. Oskanian tells Turkish journalists [ENG]
This article says that Vartan Oskanian, former Armenian foreign minister, said at a meeting with Turkish journalists that only once the Nagorno-Karabakh is resolved that Turkey could open its border with Armenia. “For me it is very clear that the border will not open unless Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is resolved.” Oskanian also said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is in a deadlock, adding that it will be rather difficult to find a solution to the conflict.

11.05.2012
Tert.am
Co-Chairs postpone visit to Karabakh [ENG]
This article says that the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group postponed their visit to the de facto Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of their scheduled tour to the South Caucasus region.
Citing the NKR de facto authorities, Regnum news agency reported that the plans have changed due to bad weather. The mediators were scheduled to meet Bako Sahakyan, de facto President of Nagorno Karabakh.

11.05.2012
News.am
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict one of most complicated – European politician [ENG]
According to this news article, Head of the European Liberal Democrat and Reform party Graham Watson said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is one of the most complicated among so-called frozen conflicts. According to him, the term ‘frozen’ is not the best way of describing the situation as otherwise there would have been no fatal incidents due to shooting. At the same time, the conflict is frozen as it is difficult to see any way forward. Watson also added that he shares approaches of the EU, which encourages settling the conflict through diplomacy.

11.05.2012
1in.am
UN will hamper flights from Stepanakert Airport – Dmitry Adbashyan [ENG]
This article says that Dmitry Adbashyan, Head of the Civil Aviation of the de facto Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, said that the Stepanakert Airport is almost ready for operation, adding that the first flight will be to Yerevan. He also said that for the airport to conduct international flight, NK will need to get approval by the International Civil Aviation Organization, which he said is a tool for the UN, meaning that the UN, in turn, should give approval.  According to him, this is unlikely to happen and the UN will definitely impede the implementation of any international flight from the Stepanakert Airport.

12.05.2012
RFFL
Azerbaijan failed to refrain from the temptation of use of force [ARM]
This article says that OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs were received by the Armenian president and foreign minister in Yerevan and discussed issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenian FM Edward Nalbandian said that, for several times after the formal ceasefire was signed the parties had plenty of opportunities to get closer to the settlement, but every time Azerbaijan took a step back, impeding a final settlement. He also said that Azerbaijan failed during these years to prepare its people for peace.

12.05.2012
1.am
NK settlement is in the interest of international community – Italy’s president [ARM]
According to this article, Italy’s President Georgio Neapolitano said that the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is in the strategic interests of the international community as it will open new opportunities in the region and will contribute to stability in the South Caucasus and will ensure a brighter future for coming generations. He also welcomed the efforts by the parties to find a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Neapoliatno also called on the parties to remain committed to the Basic Principles of conflict settlement.

14.05.2012
Tert.am
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs issue statement
This article says that the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group issued a statement in which they said they had called on the parties during their recent visit to the region to accelerate chances for reaching an agreement on the Basic Principles, to work on the mechanism to investigate ceasefire violations, and to develop humanitarian contacts. They also expressed their concern over recent incidents along the frontlines, and urged the sides to exercise restraint and refrain from retaliation. The Co-Chairs further said that they had discussed the importance of assessing and preserving at-risk sites of Armenian and Azeri cultural and historical values, in order to protect the shared heritage of the region’s peoples while negotiations continue toward a final and lasting peace.

Minsk Group seeks to engage parties into dialogue through culture [ARM]
According to this article, Armenian political analyst Hrant Melik-Shahnazaryan said that statement by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs testifies that they are trying to bring the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict into a dialogue through culture. “This simply shows that the Minsk Group tries to seek ways,” said he, adding that in this way it seeks to restart the talks over the NK conflict. Shahnazaryan also said that he welcomes such a decision.

Considering the textbook is a source of “official knowledge” (Apple, Smith, 1991), what do aybenarans teach children in Armenia?  Textbooks offer “…through their content and form – particular constructions of reality, particular ways of selecting and organizing that vast universe of possible knowledge.” (p.3) The public education textbooks are approved by the national government and thus, one would expect textbooks to celebrate and center the Armenian national identity within texts and illustrations.  In this article, I offer an example related to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict from my larger study to demonstrate a piece of the “official knowledge” that is being taught to students in Armenia at the first grade level.  I will then follow up with a discussion on the possible implications of these lessons.

The idea for this study began when some of my colleagues and I wanted to examine first grade books from Soviet and post-Soviet years.  Whether it is in Armenia, Ukraine or Latvia, we found commonalities with varied differences between first grade alphabet textbooks.  In fact, our latest research “Pedagogies of Spaces” (Silova, Mead & Palandjian, 2012) indicates there are many spaces that contribute to the national identity, both within and outside national borders.

One aybenaran explicitly defines an image of the map of Armenia where the borders include the conflict territory of Nagorno Karabakh.  Although this is only found on one page in one textbook from my study, the message offers the assumption of Karabakh belonging to Armenia without an official resolution to the conflict.  One can infer several interesting results.  First, it assumes that the conflict never occurred, especially as this textbook is in the hands of first graders nearly two decades after the conflict.  It recognizes the territory as another region of Armenia without the slightest hint of any complication.  Today children studying this aybenaran, whether in Armenia or in the conflict territory itself, are being influenced by the national(istic) discourse to accept that these are “our borders” and, more specifically, that “our borders are strong.”  It also becomes more complicated because a child in Yerevan may not read this text in a similar way as an Armenian child in Stepanakert.  These are two very distinct capitals that have very unique cultures established despite both having traditional Armenian traits.  For example linguistically, Stepanakert Armenians have their own dialect and politically, they experience extremely different challenges.

Another insight to further explore is how this map explicitly defines the color-coded regions.  Using Yerevan as a reference point, as represented by the tiny purple region located in the south central area of the map (above the pink region) the other regions are simple to identify including Shirak in the northwest shaded in yellow or Tavush in the northeast shaded blue.  But ironically the Syunik region includes Nagorno Karabakh as the territory is shaded in a darker shade of green.  With both of these larger regions being lumped into one color, how does this map understand the local understanding, if at all?  Moreover, how do people in Kapan and Shushi relate to each other geographically?  It is clear that the regional shading offers an interesting twist on the map.  Perhaps by shading it in green, this appears to have integrated Nagorno Karabakh more easily within the borders and supported disguising of the conflict.

The third inference suggests that the map does not include the nations neighboring RoA, which contributes to the ethnocentrism and mono-culturalism among the thought processes of the students.  It ignores where Armenia is within the context of the rest of the world.  In other words, what countries neighbor Armenia and what does this mean in relation to the Armenian national identity? In the text below the map, entitled, “Our Fatherland”, the borders of Armenia are classified as “strong” indicating that this land and people are protected and the borders are fixed.  Furthermore, the text describes how we [Armenians must] love our fatherland.  Within this image and text, it is important to consider the significant role of nationalistic discourse and examine – what are the possible implications of these messages to the children of RoA?  Do children in Karabakh relate to the myth of the fatherland as Armenia or more locally to “Artsakh”?   Many of these questions rely on the need to acquire information from students, which is one of the limitations of this study being focused solely on books.

Referring back to this sample page from the aybenaran (in the image provided above), the national(istic) discourse in the text and image might suggest that when an Armenian and Azerbaijani child meet, Armenian children may strongly argue that the territory of Karabakh belongs to RoA.  Therefore, to what extent should nationalistic discourse be disclosed within education?  Specifically in this case, how does this lesson support the children’s understanding of the conflict?  Some students may have directly or indirectly been impacted by the conflict, which can give them an opportunity to express their feelings about these experiences.  We cannot assume children are not aware of the reality, which leads to my next point about the role of teachers.  How do teachers approach these specific lessons? This answer cannot be gauged by analyzing textbooks, however, further analysis in observing the teaching of national identity would be an important factor to also examine the context of these textbook studies.

The role of the national identity in education is a critical source to examine now more than ever. Evaluating the current trends of education in Armenia may suggest there is a need for reforms that could enhance and create an understanding of peace. A study recently published by Barseghyan and Sultana (2012)[ii] describes how history textbooks in Armenia and Azerbaijan currently teach animosity toward each other.  Clearly, education remains an under-utilized resource for influencing children to support a peaceful future.  One other direction to expand this discussion is to understand – does the Armenian national(istic) discourse avoid discussing Nagorno Karabakh as a conflict and why?  How are students allowed to engage in class discussions about the conflict within the frame of national(istic) discourse?  If students ask these types of questions, how are teachers trained to respond?  From this brief analysis of the map, there are more questions than answers about the power of textbooks in shaping children’s understanding of the world. Aside from the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, extending the curriculum to examine relations with neighboring Turkey can also be included in discussions.  Within a few years, RoA and Turkey will establish relations that will eventually see greater interaction between the neighboring countries.

It is important for the RoA education to support their youth for a peaceful future.  Individuals concerned with supporting a peaceful resolution to the conflict must begin by understanding how education is being utilized now, and asking how can this be used as a safe space to overturn the current politics involved in the national(istic) rhetoric?  Will there be a safe classroom to have such conversations?  Building these bridges in education will better prepare our children.

REFERENCES

Gyulameerian, J. (2003) Zankag Aybenaran.  Datev Gitakrdakan Hamaleer, Armenia

Palandjian, G. (2012) The ABCs of Being Armenian:  Ideals and ideologies in Soviet and

post-Soviet early language textbooks in Armenia (under review)

Silova, I., Mead, M., Palandjian, G. (2012) (under review) Pedagogies of Space: (Re)Mapping National Territories, Borders, and Identities in Post-Soviet Textbooks — and its accompanying images.

The international ‘system’ usually behaves in a chaotic manner; we still do not know if it is ‘the evil within’ or ‘economic mechanisms’ or ‘political institutions’ which promote certain types of behavior, rendering the system unpredictable. Nevertheless, this system features one truth: nation-states exist, and their territories are non-negotiable, barring exceptional circumstances. Subsequently ‘unrecognized states,’ which are established following armed struggles and through the division of nation-state territories, pose a unique challenge to international law-making and policy-making, as well as scholarly analysis efforts, as they uphold the idea of sovereignty and territorial integrity as sacred.

Under such circumstances, unrecognized states appear as oddities; however, in the post-World War II period, almost two dozen have existed, with most continuing to exist. Not all unrecognized states are similar enough for comparison; yet, one post-Soviet and one post-colonial unrecognized state – namely the Apsny (the Republic of Abkhazia) and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) – exhibit enough commonalities to give us hints vis-à-vis the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), its current and potential effects on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as the potential ‘futures’ in store for the people of NKR and the Republic.

Meanwhile, the current focus in both the policy-making and academic worlds on unrecognized states is one which problematizes them. In the former realm, unrecognized states are regarded as black-holes in the international system, and are conceptualized as security threats which are ideal homes for criminal and terrorist organizations. In the latter realm, unrecognized states are either regarded as undefined variables, which leads scholars to look for ontological conceptualizations, or as marginal entities which have certain types of interaction with normal entities and which are in need of reintegration to the international system.[ii] Likewise, many theories of social action and conflict resolution, such as Skocpol’s structural theories[iii] or Tarrow’s grassroots theories,[iv] and Galtung’s theories of structural violence[v], treat the nation-state as a sine-qua-non factor which is both central and constant in socio-political life. None of these approaches can currently capture the unique internal and external dynamics of unrecognized states, wherefore they also fail to understand, explain, and provide resolution to their structural problems and conflicts. This article aims to address this gap in the literature.

II. A Quick Introduction to the Cases:

a) The Apsny: Abkhazia is a disputed territory on the south-western flank of the Caucasus which declared independence as a state and is only recognized by Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru, Tuvalu and Vanuatu as well as by fellow ‘unrecognized states’ of South Ossetia, Transnistria and NKR. Meanwhile, the Abkhazian territories are commonly considered to be part of the Georgian state, which has declared Abkhazia to be under Russian occupation. Subsequently, we can say that the status of Abkhazia is a central issue in the Georgian-Abkhazian and the Georgian-Russian conflict. Following the war in Abkhazia, where the Georgian forces suffered a military defeat, the Georgian population of Abkhazia was massively displaced and cleansed. Afterwards, a ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994; however, negotiations summarily failed. In the conflict over South Ossetia between Georgian and Russian forces, the Apsny entered the conflict taking sides with Russia and consequently gained official Russian recognition, resulting in the annulment of all peacekeeping efforts.

According to the Freedom House scores, the Apsny is partly free[vi]. Following their independence, Abkhazians have become increasingly dependent on their sponsor state of Russia[vii], while corruption and discriminatory oppression have become rampant[viii]. In fact, the Abkhaz president has declared that the Russian support – and thus the ceding of privileges to Moscow – was an economic and political necessity.[ix] While the Apsny has established a presidential republic with a parliamentary legislative system, the international representation of Abkhazian people has been delegated to Russia.[x] In the meantime, Freedom House and the International Crisis Group have indicated that minorities (Armenians, Russians, and Georgians) are under-represented in Apsny’s government,[xi] and many refugees have been denied the right of return in the post-war era.[xii] The Apsny has its own military, but most of its armament is supplied by Russia, who has a considerable contingent stationed in Abkhaz territories and has deployed air-defense missiles to the territory, whose navy patrols Abkhaz waters, and who has signed deals for additional military bases to be built in Abkhazia. Moreover, Abkhaz economy is integrated with Russia; they use Russian rubles as currency. Most tourists to Apsny come from or through Russia – where tourism is the highest-earning Abkhaz industry, – especially as Russian passport-holders can enter the Apsny without a visa. Freedom House underlines that Apsny’s economy suffers from corruption and widespread influence of criminal organizations.[xiii] Currently, at least half of Apsny’s state budget is supplied by Russia, and Russian companies and individuals have invested considerably in Abkhaz territories (accounting for 99% of total investment); indeed, the Apsny has ceded the control of its airport and rail system to Russia while also licensing a Russian company to explore for oil. The population of the Apsny is under dispute; however, all agree that the war and accompanying ethnic-cleansing has altered its demographics. As per its unrecognition, Abkhazia only has amateur sports leagues. All major Russian televisions and media channels are broadcast in the Apsny, while the government controls its own media with an iron grip. Ninety percent of the population reportedly holds Russian passports, and whether its elections are free and fair is a point of dispute.

b) The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC): The TRNC (to be referred to as NC for North Cyprus) is unrecognized on the island of Cyprus in the Mediterranean, established in 1983 after the sporadic violence of 1963-1974. The government of the Republic of Cyprus is the de-juro state of the whole island, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has allocated the de facto sovereignty of NC with the Republic of Turkey. The NC is a semi-presidential republic, with a parliamentary legislature and a supreme court and uses the Turkish anthem. Negotiations are ongoing, and seemed to bear fruit when a U.N. plan for resolution was up for vote in two separate referanda in 2004, but thus far they have failed.

According to its Freedom House scores,[xiv] the NC is free; however, this assessment is disputed both domestically and internationally. Indeed, the Turkish Army maintains a strong presence on the territories of the NC, and the NC has become highly dependent on Turkey and is reportedly suffering from organized crime, corruption, nepotism, and oppression. For example, 2011 was spent in a constant state of civil unrest due to the opposition media, civil society organizations, and unions of the Turkish Cypriots protesting the secession of undue power to Turkey through economic reforms, while simultaneously sacrificing the incomes and pensions of government workers. Subsequently, the government responded through harassment of independent opposition media and journalists, as well as police brutality in several instances; some occurrences of torture have also been reported.[xv] Moreover, some authorities have assessed the NC to be a puppet state of Turkey as per the high level of influence Turkey exerts on its government, citing the NC’s isolation and the above-mentioned ECHR decisions as reasons for this relationship.[xvi] The NC employs mandatory conscription, generating an indigenous 5,000-man standing force; however, almost all of the officers in this army are drawn from the Turkish Army and led by a Turkish Brigadier General. Additionally, Turkey maintains a 40,000 strong contingent from the Turkish Army under the name of Cyprus Turkish Peace Force, and the Turkish Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard are all active on the island. These forces are internationally perceived as an occupation force and thus disrupt any talks of a resolution. Similarly, Turkey has declared that she might consider annexing the NC if a resolution is not reached.[xvii] The NC economy is dominated by the services sector, which in turn is almost fully owned by Turkish individuals or companies. Moreover, the TRNC is highly dependent on Turkey for economic support – it uses Turkey’s currency and relies on Turkey as its main trading partner, as goods can only be transferred to TRNC through Turkey. Additionally, international calls, mail, and flights also have to be routed through Turkey. The NC’s population count is under dispute,[xviii] some estimate that the Turkish ‘settler’ population currently outnumbers the Turkish Cypriot population, a claim that is not ascertained. Turkish Cypriots can only have amateur sports as per embargoes. According to the UN and the THCRF, the NC causes many of the human rights violations,[xix] even though Freedom House estimates the NC to be politically free and democratic.[xx] Although the ethnic minorities are mostly treated well, hostilities and discrimination have increased between Turkish and Turkish Cypriot populations.

c) The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (The NKR): The NKR was established in the South Caucasus, on the territories of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Oblast and several Azerbaijani districts, all of which are de-juro Azerbaijani territories (although there is debate on whether the old Oblast territories seceded legitimately or not; parties agree that the districts are under occupation[xxi]).  Armenians and Azerbaijanis populated the Nagorno-Karabakh territory throughout the history.  The conflict over these territories commenced in 1918 but was put on hold in 1923 due to Soviet control in the area. The dispute re-emerged and led to the Nagorno-Karabakh War (1991-1994), ending in a ceasefire and the NK’s declaration of independence. NKR is only recognized by Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. NKR is a presidential democracy with a parliamentary legislature.

The NKR’s scores for political liberties have declined and as of 2011, Freedom House has assessed NKR as not free.[xxii] Since declaring its unrecognized independence, NK has become dependent on Armenia and suffers from considerable corruption, oppression, criminal activity, and nepotism. Although the NKR is a multiparty democracy by design, their latest election did not feature any opposition, with a pro-government commission.[xxiii] Indeed, political opposition and deviance from Armenia are regarded as treasonous acts, which are security risks. The Armenian Republic and Karabakh militaries jointly secure the region; yet, Armenian forces outnumber the NK forces. Armenia also is the main arms supplier to the NK. Moreover, economics-wise, NK uses the currency of Armenia, the dram, and Armenia provides NK with economic aid, weapons, and military personnel. Nevertheless, NK has also been able to establish economic partnerships with other, recognized states, including the USA, Russia, and France – who are geo-politically powerful. Vis-à-vis transportation, NK depends totally on Armenia, as all official international access to NK is through Yerevan. Educational facilities have been established through logistical and economic help from Armenia and Armenian diaspora populations. When it comes to foreign representation, NK has established representative missions in several, diplomatically strategic locations. Demographics-wise it does not depend much on its sponsor state, and its census appears quite correct, although the question of forcefully displaced Azerbaijani population remains. Therefore, NK is in violation of the right of return in this case, and is party to the deprivation of proper facilities and declining health conditions to the IDPs. Corruption also appears significant and the territory suffers from a lack of civil liberties as it remains under martial law, the media is censored and controlled, and religious freedom is lacking. Law appears to be not applicable to powerful political, economic, and criminal groups. Nepotism, a result of economic activities being controlled by powerful elites, is also widespread. NK’s sports are also highly dependent on Armenia, and its sports teams participate in the Armenian leagues.  But for telecommunication, NK has its own Lebanese-built system.

III. The Consequences of Isolationist Policies Accompanying Unrecognition

Generally, it is assumed that unrecognized states are inherently authoritarian, lawless/criminal, puppet-like, and thus are inherently threatening to the international community. This is incorrect. Very notable scholars such as Tilly[xxiv] and Sir Barrington Moore[xxv] give accounts of state-formation, which underline that it is a path dependent (past choices and currently available choices determining the path of a phenomenon) and dynamically evolutionary. Ultimately, these important theoreticians have us come to two conclusions: firstly, whatever unrecognized states are, they have become so as per the choices they had available; secondly, dealing with such states by removing choices from the table as is the norm – e.g. through embargoes – will only lead to the perpetuation of sovereignty-based disputes.

For the theoretical framework of this analysis, the author will employ the Power-Dependence Theory of Emerson, and the Tillian state-making theory. Firstly, Emerson’s sociological theory dictates that power is the ability to make someone do something that they would otherwise not do, and defines the P(ower)_{(of)A,(over)B}is directly related to the D(ependence)_(of)B(,on)A; simply put, as the dependence of B on A increases as per the supply-demand continuum, so does the power of A on B. Secondly, the state-making theory of Charles Tilly, in sum, claims that there are four main factors leading to the formation of a certain type of government: a) the accumulation and concentration of capital, b) the accumulation and concentration of the means for coercion, c) preparation for war, and d) the geographical and political position of the government within the international system. Tilly goes on to argue that the struggle for the means of war unintentionally created the organizational structure of the state, where the government had to ‘forcefully’ extract the resources from the populace – which became especially true due to the extensive requirements of standing national armies. In forcing extraction of resources, the rulers met resistance, which led to their conceding rights and privileges to citizens – ushering in democracies. As can be seen, Tilly’s model ultimately incorporates the Power-Dependence theory, as the power of the people over a state, and thus the realization of a democracy, impinges upon the state’s dependence on its people.

Now that the theoretical framework has been established, the second step is to analyze some common properties observed across our three cases. First and foremost, one of the most striking facts is that all of these unrecognized states depend highly on their sponsor states. This dependence is not only monetary (all cases utilized the currency of their sponsor states and traded almost exclusively with their sponsor states, although this is less so concerning the NK), but also demographic and militaristic.

Concerning their economy, all unrecognized states are under embargoes and/or suffer hardships and additional costs in trading as they must go through extra procedures to export, and must import through their sponsor states as goods cannot be transported directly. This decreases such states’ capabilities to buy and sell, and thus, to form trade partnerships with any party but their sponsor state – letting the sponsor monopolize trade. Moreover, all three of these states were observed to need assistance from their sponsor states to pay for their own government’s budget and to provide other necessary government expenses, such as schools in NK. Lastly, in all three cases, governments privatized considerably strong industries and key facilities such as airports, which were obtained by corporates or individuals from the sponsor. In smaller territories, this leads to the formation of monopolies in essential goods such as water and electricity. Ultimately, this means that 99% of economic transactions involve and/or depend on the sponsor states – leaving the economic fates of unrecognized states to their sponsors.

On the demographic side, all unrecognized states went through a period of mass displacement and/or cleansing of minorities loyal to the officially recognized states – i.e. Georgian, Azerbaijani, and Greek groups. Subsequently, in order to cement their claims to the land and to outnumber the ‘removed populations’ which continue to have claims to the land, these states imported workers and their families as well as military personnel from their sponsor states, who started their lives in these unrecognized territories. This trend of importing populations and changing demographics created undue tensions in the job-market and thus, spurred ethnic discrimination, while also impede on resolution, as ‘the removal of settlers’ has become a requirement that is hard – for the lack of a better word – to fulfill.

On the militaristic side, all of our cases are dependent on military personnel, the provisions/armament of their standing, and expertise. Additionally, all cases depend on the forces of their sponsors to patrol and secure their borders; indeed, even the police forces that usually ensure domestic security are tied to the sponsor states (especially true in the NC, where they report to the military). These military forces not only serve as a point of further dependence, but they also serve to disrupt talks of resolution, as the de-juro states view such forces as invasion forces and require their withdrawal.

Why do these unrecognized states depend so highly on their destructive relationship with sponsors? The reason lies in their isolation from the international community. Subsequently, these states: a) cannot trade much and can only receive minimal humanitarian aid, aside from the monetary aid from their sponsors; b) their security is not guaranteed – in fact it is threatened, usually by United Nations Security Council resolutions underlining that their independence is unacceptable, that they constitute the guilty party in the original dispute which led to their creation, and that the only possible resolution is their reunification with their de-juro state – by the international system and they must thus depend on their sponsors to secure their borders. The consequences of this are not hard to discern, especially when taking into account the Emersonian theory of power-dependence: these unrecognized states have only minimal power and thus minimal authority and sovereignty as they depend maximally on their sponsors – who thus come to hold all power. This is evident from the fact that even the European Courts have asserted that the de-facto sovereignty in the NC lies with the Republic of Turkey, as well as the fact that NK’s political will is mostly heard through Armenian authorities. Yet, the international community, especially through the U.N., asks that such unrecognized states reduce their cooperation with their sponsor states as a way to resolve the conflict. This is simply putting the cart in front of the horse; if the international community continues to isolate and punish these states, how can they break off relations with their sponsors, which have become their sole lifeline? For example, when NC came closest to reunification with the Republic of Cyprus was when the European Union and the United Nations offered NC the alliances and monetary support, decreasing their dependence on Turkey. Ultimately, it appears that the international community and system, through their insistence on indivisibility of state territory and on respect for state sovereignty, lead unrecognized states to a path of dependence and conflict perpetuation – whereas including such states increasingly in the international system might have better produced the intended results.

A secondary common property of unrecognized states is their authoritarian tendencies. Indeed, the Apsny is rated as barely partially free by the Freedom House scores, whereas the NK is rated as not free. Meanwhile, whilst the NC is rated as free with high scores, there is reason to doubt this as per the recent events of police violence on civil society, police ‘terrorization’ of anti-state/anti-Turkey media, Turkish attempts to further muslimize and turkify the people of the NC, and the increasing demographic replacement of Turkish Cypriots with Turks from the mainland. In any case, Tillian theories of how nation states have evolutionarily became democratic makes it clear that the reason is the state’s need to garner coercive and capital resources. In order to do so, states are bound to extract monetary and personnel resources to establish a standing national military and to set up the infrastructure to sustain this army and to further extract resources caused such states to negotiate with and concede rights and privileges to their people. However, such a process is impossible in unrecognized states.

The reasons are easy to see. As underlined above, most of the monetary resources of unrecognized states come from their sponsors, not their citizens. Likewise, these states have very small standing armies of their own, sustained by compulsory conscription; in fact, these states depend on the military of their sponsor states to secure their borders. Henceforth, the state only needs to concede rights and privileges to their sponsor instead of their own citizens. Indeed, contrary to the democratization experience of nation-states, unrecognized states become more authoritarian as they must concede such rights and privileges to ‘outsiders’ from their sponsors while their citizens protest, wherefore such states need to oppress and force their will upon their own populations, in addition to ‘forcing’ identity assimilation with the sponsor state through the media, sports events, and schools. Some might think that civil disobedience and removal of personnel from vital jobs through strikes, etc., might force the unrecognized states to concede democratic rights to citizens; this thinking is also wrongful. Sponsor states benefit from their partnership with these unrecognized states, and thus have an interest to maintain a favorable demographic majority, wherefore they transfer considerable populations to the latter’s territories. These ‘settlers’ tend to come from poorer, more marginalized demographics which usually cannot find jobs in the mainland of the sponsor – whereby they are more than willing to undertake jobs which appear oppressive to citizens, and which can earn them citizenship in the unrecognized states. Normally, the international community does not allow forceful demographic changes; however, in unrecognized states, the census and thus the population count is always under dispute and is not deterministic, and the international community is unwilling to enforce laws, etc., in such lands in order not to appear to ‘recognize’ the unrecognized states. Ultimately, such policies serve to decrease the bargaining power of citizens, causing civil unrest, and thus to force these states to be more authoritarian and corrupt. Corruption is, as per Hibou’s analysis of Tunisia, a natural consequence of the state’s attempts to establish a system of nepotism and to deprive non-subservient populations from resources.

The above-mentioned factors culminate in a lawless space within the international system. This is not a natural consequence; it is one forced by the international community. The populations of unrecognized states, denied both the route of international trade and non-oppressive domestic work, are led to either search their fortune elsewhere or in non-law-abiding activities, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, arms trafficking, racketeering, and possibly ‘hosting’ criminal organizations. The NC, for example, has served as the host for Turkish casino owners, who were outlawed in the Republic of Turkey – and who now almost exclusively own the most profitable sector in that country: the service and tourism sector (i.e. hotels). These hotels are now host to illegal activities, including gambling, drugs, and inter-human fights. Likewise, crime rates have reportedly risen to dramatic heights in the Apsny and NK, and thus in the Caucasus. Additionally, international crime-fighting organizations, such as the Interpol, refrain from pursuing activities in these territories, which – together with government corruption – make them ideal spaces for international criminal activities, such as smuggling of historical artifacts and human trafficking.

Lastly, in all three cases, a resolution to the territorial dispute has been impossible. This is not only due to the past grievances between the two ‘states’, although the question of missing persons and return of displaced peoples plays an important role. One of the reasons, as it has been mentioned, is that all these unrecognized states are home to ‘invasion forces’, which are not very willing to leave. Contrarily, their withdrawal would arguably compromise the security of the unrecognized states. This is due to the fact that the international community and system do not guarantee the security. This has especially been an issue in the NC as well as with NK, where Azerbaijani authorities require the removal of all Armenian forces for a negotiation in good-faith. Another reason has been that, due to the high levels of dependence on sponsor states, such resolution efforts have been subjected to the whims of the sponsors; indeed, these efforts appeared most fruitful in 2004 in the NC as per the Turkish backing due to impending E.U. membership talks. This renders such processes unstable, while also undermining the authority of the representatives of unrecognized states. Thirdly, unrecognized states appear to be liabilities whence unified as they underachieve economically (due to embargoes and isolations) and human rights and lawfulness-wise. The reasons for this – and its perpetuation – have been discussed above.  Lastly, such unrecognized states also serve as ‘pawns’ in bigger conflicts; indeed, the conflicts between Turkey and EU/Republic of Cyprus/Greece are being played through the NC; the Russia & South Ossetia vs. Georgia conflict is being played out through Abkhazia; and NK is another stage for the conflict of Turkey & Azerbaijan vs. Armenia & Russia. This not only complicates the behind-the-scenes interests concerning the conflicts as many and powerful shadow-negotiators exist, but also makes territorial disputes much harder to resolve in the absence of a resolution to the ‘bigger’ conflicts, which are mostly not even on the negotiation table and ‘require’ the resolution of the territorial disputes first or simultaneously. Ultimately, these properties ‘lock’ unrecognized states in a trajectory of conflict perpetuation.

To conclude, the consequences of the policies of economic, social, cultural, political, and militaristic isolation – which currently accompany the policy of unrecognition – are certainly (yet unintentionally) counter-productive: they perpetuate the conflicts and the power-dependence dynamics that they aim to resolve. While attempting to reunite a break-away territory with its de-juro state, the measures taken against unrecognized states lead them straight into the hands of their sponsor states, which maintain economic monopolies and militaristic presences over these territories, thus, enmeshing such territorial conflicts with the conflicts fought by the sponsor state. Additionally, the measures taken to resolve the conflict through the carrots-and-sticks method renders unrecognized states to be economic and criminal liabilities, which are oppressive and authoritarian and certainly not tolerant of other groups. Ultimately, all these measures although are well-intended but perpetuate the conflicts. These are the real consequences of isolation – and if unrecognition is to achieve its intended goals, it must espouse more creative and constructive policies to get to the finish line.

1. IV.  The Implications of Cases on NK and the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, and Conclusions

Is NK then bound to the same trajectory of dependence, authoritarianism-oppression, lawlessness, economic underachievement, and the perpetuation of the Armenia (and Russia) and NK vs. Azerbaijan and Turkey conflict? Realistically speaking, this will be the case. Already the NK is dependent on Armenia to high degrees, and it will be hard to lessen this dependence in the short run. Authoritarianism-oppression is also highly present, along with nepotism and corruption. While economic signs are not too pessimistic (as per the economic partnerships with powerful parties, as discussed above), criminal organizations are already rooting themselves in the region, certainly gaining momentum from the Apsny, as well. Negotiations over NK have been ongoing, but not fruitful. Azerbaijan requires the removal of Armenian troops if any resolution is to be reached, while Armenia insists that NK’s status should first be solved through popular vote, or its sovereignty should be recognized. The Turkey-Armenia conflict’s resolution appears deeply embedded in the NK’s sovereignty/territory conflict, and vice versa, while Russia and Turkey remain heavily involved in the peace processes as shadow-negotiators, acting as spoilers. On this note, a historic agreement between Turkey and Armenia fell through as per the former’s reported attempts to include a resolution to the NK issue. Likewise, the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict requires resolution on the issue of NK’s status, and vice versa. All signs are indicating a long and drawn out process – and the longer the process, the harder the resolution, due to the consequences of isolation.

Before we suggest any possibilities for the conflicts surrounding the territories where NK has entrenched itself, we must differentiate between the isolation and unrecognition policies, and differentiate among the aforementioned conflicts. As has been argued in the section above, isolation and unrecognition are not necessarily the same policy. Unrecognition dictates that a territory, which has declared independence is not recognized as a peer of recognized states within the international community and system, whereas isolation dictates that all recognized states must actively sever economic, social, etc. ties with that territory. While unrecognition is not counter-productive in and of itself (although we cannot know this as it is always paired up with isolationist policies), isolation is. To follow, I argue against isolationist policies; neither for nor against unrecognition.

Secondly, we must differentiate between the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, the NK-Armenia relationship, the NK-Azerbaijan conflict (not officially recognized as such in Azerbaijan, but an important differentiation for the purposes of this article), and the Armenia-Turkey conflict. The main thrust of the Turkish attitude towards the NK is a derivative of its friendly relations with Azerbaijan and the question of the Armenian Genocide. The latter of these is not connected to the NK and only delays it resolution. Additionally, while it is true that the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is over the NK territories, conflating this with the NK-Azerbaijan conflict would necessitate the assumption that Armenia and NK are the same in their policies, values, and interests. Although the parties are extensively similar, we must not assume they are the same. Focusing on Armenia’s needs at the expense of NK’s, and vice versa, would perpetuate the conflict. Ultimately, we can argue that the differentiation of all these conflicts would produce multiple, yet more focused and productive (vs. isolationist) negotiations.

Ultimately, all is not lost; currently NK has suitable grounds to be the first case of a successful resolution involving an unrecognized state since the case of Eritrea – certainly better than the Apsny and the NC. NK’s economic dependence of Armenia makes it hard to imagine the lessening of Armenian influence in NK territories; however, according to Forbes, Armenia has been economically underachieving (2^nd worst economy in the world),[xxvi] while NKR has obtained alternative trading partners[xxvii] some of which are considerably powerful (USA, Russia, France, Italy, and Canada, among others).

Secondly, while the Armenian military presence in NK appears there to stay, if a goodwill agreement and an accompanying guarantee agreement were signed among the NATO, EU, Turkey, Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and NK to secure the de facto NK borders while the conflict is negotiated, at least some of this contingent might be withdrawn (this has precedence in Transnistria). These measures could help detach the NK’s territorial conflict from the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey conflicts as suggested above, thus making its resolution more probable.

This might also be effective considering human rights and civil liberties, which are being violated in order to ensure a stronger demographic presence of Armenian population in NK by denying the right of return to the displaced Azerbaijani population (and other minorities) from Nagorno-Karabakh. In order to strengthen the Armenia-friendly identity of the people in NK, oppression and prohibition of other identities are employed both institutionally and socially, as the Freedom House report on the NKR underlines that religious and educational institutions are not open to alternatives to Orthodox Christianity and Armenian-language schooling, respectively. These are indications that Armenian identity in the NK is as much forced in top-down fashion, as it is a free choice – although it should not be treated as conclusive evidence.

As revealed in our analysis, this is common in unrecognized states to ensure a perpetual and stronger alliance with the sponsor state and to ensure independence. The proposed measures would decrease dependence of the NK on the Armenian goodwill, while also hugely removing threats to the NK’s security as negotiations go on and decrease the perceived threat on the Azerbaijani side. Azerbaijan, in the meantime, can allow for transportation (especially international) to and from the territories (in stages, of course), which would further decrease NK dependence on Armenia, while building confidence. Through such measures, a resolution might (emphasis added) be plausible in a nearer future.

The above-mentioned measures might appear implausible; they probably are in the short run, as not much trust exists in this geography. However, all concerned parties must look at the consequences of isolation and decide whether that route is ideal. Conflict perpetuation would hurt all involved parties: Armenia’s Turkish border might never open, it would have to maintain a military force in the NKR territories – a costly process – and suffer from ‘security threats’ as per its negative regional relationships; Azerbaijan might see the perpetual suffering of NKR’s IDP population and the continued occupation, and likewise suffer from regional security threats; the NKR will suffer economically, and might have to share or transfer its sovereignty, while  the people of NKR will suffer the decline in political rights and civil liberties and increased crime and corruption. All involved conflicts – as they would not be dissociated – would also be perpetuated, as the direction of negotiations among parties would still impinge upon the situation in the NKR. Human suffering and endless political negotiations are currently the ‘normal’ consequences of isolationist unrecognition, but they can be overcome by espousing more creative and constructive processes of conflict resolution.

Bibliography:

Emerson, R. M. “Power-Dependence Relations” in American Sociological Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Feb., 1962): pp. 31-41

Hibou, B. The Force of Obedience: The Political Economy of Repression in Tunisia. Malden, MA: Polity, 2011.s

Tilly, C. Coercion, Capital, and European States, Ad 990-1992. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990.

16.04.2012
Lragir.am
Returning Karabakh is no solution [ARM]
This article says that unlike previous election campaigns, the Armenian political parties somehow avoid the topic of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in their election platforms. The author raises a question, asking is that Armenia that has changed, or is it the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that fallen into oblivion. The author also mentions that one thing is clear: the society has changed and it will be hard to divert its attention from current social problems to the Karabakh conflict.

16.04.2012
News.am
Armenian, German ministers speak about Karabakh peace process [ENG]
This article says that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian received Germany’s Minister of State Cornelia Pieper and discussed, among other things, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Armenian FM briefed her on the current stage of the peace talks over Nagorno-Karabakh.

War between Armenia and Azerbaijan beneficial for the third state – Lithuanian official [ENG]
According to this article, member of European Parliament and ex-President of Lithuania Vytautas Landsbergis said that there are powers that prompt Azerbaijan to war, adding that Baku should realize it and settle the Karabakh conflict fairly and peacefully. Landsbergis also said that that Azerbaijan should not repeat Georgia’s mistake and should be patient, take calm steps, strengthen relations with international organizations and regularly inform them about the Karabakh conflict in detail. “In case war breaks out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the third state will gain profit,” he said.

17.04.2012

Hetq.am
No alternative to Karabakh’s international recognition – Eduard Sharmazanov [ENG]
This article say that Deputy Chairperson of Armenia’s National Assembly, Eduard Sharmazanov, said in response to a statement by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev that there is no alternative to the international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh. “First of all, Azerbaijan must stop the arms race and the military rhetoric. Secondly, it should prepare its society for peace rather than for war,” said Sharmazanov, responding to Aliyev who had earlier said that one day the national flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan will be erected in Stepanakert and Shushi.

19.04.2012
News.am
Karabakh peace process to achieve success only without extreme demands and illusions – former envoy [ENG]
According to this article, OSCE Minsk Group former co-chair, Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov said that the Madrid Principles may serve as the basis for settling the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. He also said that it is necessary to put an end to extreme demands and illusions, “especially from the Azerbaijani side,” Kazimirov also said that lots of versions were offered to the sides for last 20 years, at the same time mediators should not yield to the whims of the sides.

20.04.2012
Tert.am
Armenia not ready for revolution in Azerbaijan [ARM]
Armenian military expert Richard Giragosian said that Armenia’s National Security Council is not operating properly, adding that Armenia has no specific agenda should there be a revolution in Azerbaijan. “We are not ready, should there be revolution in Azerbaijan. I don’t see that Armenia has a ready-made strategy,” said he, adding that this is a lack of leadership.

One day Azerbaijan will run short of oil, while Karabakhi people’s will is endless – [ARM]
According to this article, Deputy Chairperson of Armenia’s National Assembly said at a meeting with Irish journalist Daniel McLaughlin that one day Azerbaijan will have already depleted its oil resources, adding that the will of the people in Nagorno Karabakh is endless. He also said that the people in Nagorno Karabakh have already self-determined, Nagorno Karabakh is an independent state and that there is no alternative to Karabakh’s independence.

20.04.2012
Panorama.am
Military expert says Azerbaijan provoking instability on the eve of elections [ARM]
This article says that Armenian military expert Artur Petrosyan said that in pre- and post-election phases in Armenia, Azerbaijan has always been carrying out provocative steps aimed to create atmosphere of panic, desperation and instability in the country, military expert said.“Azerbaijan is aimed at provoking instability in Armenia while the country is hosting vital elections processes,” Artur Petrosyan said. The expert mentioned that on the threshold of every elections Azerbaijan did something and in this phase also they can undertake certain measures.

20.04.2012
In Baku the reports of the European Parliament are deemed as great achievements [ARM]
According to this article, officials in Baku said they consider that reports adopted by the European Parliament that will be implemented in relation to Armenia and Azerbaijan within the Association Agreement, was a significant achievement for Baku’s diplomacy in terms of restoring Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, even though they are non-binding. Other said that those reports were a moral victory for Azerbaijan.

21.04.2012
RFEL
Ter-Petrosyan criticizes Madrid Principles [ARM]
This article says that leader of the opposition block Armenian National Congress and Armenia’s first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan criticized the Madrid Principles meant for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, adding that if the opposition block comes to power, it will change them “significantly”. Speaking at a rally in Yerevan, he also said that the reference to both territorial integrity and people’s right to self-determination is a diplomatic trick by the mediators under the guise of returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan under autonomy.

23.04.2012
News.am
PACE head to hold meetings with Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations [ENG]
This article says that President of the PACE bureau, Jean-Claude Mignion said that the bureau has not yet made decision on resumption of a sub-committee on Nagorno-Karabakh. He said that plans to hold meetings with the heads of Armenian and Azerbaijani delegations “to enter into an intelligent dialogue” to discuss further actions. Jean-Claude Mignon also said he would hold a meeting with the French representative of the OSCE Minsk Group to see how the process is developing.

25.04.2012
Tert.am
Azerbaijani side opens fire on Tavush region, Dovegh village’s kinder-garten, school evacuated [ENG]
This article says that Azerbaijani front troops opened fire at the direction of Dovegh village in Armenia’s north-eastern province of Tavush, prompting the evacuation of the local kindergarten and school. It also says that the irregular fire damaged a car belonging to a local resident. No casualties were reported.

Nagorno Karabakh conflict should be solved in a peaceful way – Ilham Aliyev [ENG]
According to this news article, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said in an interview with the Korean magazine Diplomacy that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible to solve only in a peaceful way on the basis of international rights – within the framework of the Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. He also referred to the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group and noted that the co-chairing countries have so far mediated a number of meetings with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia.

26.04.2012
Tert.am
Expert warns of threat of new Armenian massacre [ENG]
According to this article, Armenian military expert David Jamalyan said that Azerbaijan’s “aggressive policy is actually a threat of a new Armenian massacre”. In contrast to 1915, however, Armenia has an efficient army, he added. According to him, the May 9 military parade in Nagorno-Karabakh will show the army’s efficiency. “This is an aggression against Armenia. The Armenian army is only retaliating now. But if the things go on like this, we have all the reasons to neutralize the fire,” Jamalyan said.

Azerbaijan changes its ceasefire violation tactics – military expert [ENG]
In this article, Armenian military expert David Jamalyan said that the recent violations of ceasefire regime by Azerbaijani side show the change of tactics targeting common citizens. “Azerbaijan has changed its tactics directing its aggression against civil society. It gives us a room for thought,” Jamalyan said at a news conference. He stressed that shooting in Dovegh village of Tavush province targeted the kindergarten. It is an aggression and not a caprice of a soldier standing in army base, he added.

27.04.2012
Panorama.am
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs release statement [ENG]
‪This article says that the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group issued a statement in which they said that they “are deeply concerned by recent reports of a series of ceasefire violations along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border and the Line of Contact that resulted in a number of deaths and casualties”. “Such senseless acts violate the commitment of the parties to refrain from the use of force and to seek a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and contradict the spirit of the January 23, 2012, joint statement of Presidents Aliyev and Sargsian,” read their statement.

27.04.2012
News.am
Azerbaijani will continue provocations [ENG]
Karabakh war participant Manvel Yeghiazaryan said that as long as Azerbaijan is sure of its victory, it will “continue provocations instead of launching real military actions”. Armenians generally, and politicians in particularly, should show solidarity in response to such hostile actions. “If Azerbaijan was sure in its victory, it would have launched military actions long ago, taking revenge. However, it would never see victory, I assure,” Yeghiazaryan said.

28.04.2012
Tert.am
Azerbaijan ignores international community’s opinion – opinion [ARM]
According to this news item, Armenian political analyst Narek Galstyan said that Azerbaijan ignores the international opinion and pointed at the fact that the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev called Armenians fascists at a Euronest session in Baku. He also said that no other president could have behaved that way. Narek Galstyan further reminded that the Armenians organized a proper reception for Azerbaijan’s spiritual leader when he visited Armenia earlier.

Only restraining force for Azerbaijan’ aggression is the Armenian army – Narek Galstyan [ARM]
According to this article, Armenian political analyst Narek Galstyan said that the only force that “restrains Azberaijan’s aggressive policy” is the Armenian army, and that the international community does not play a significant role. He also said that the recent statement by the OSCE Minsk Group was quite a soft one. Further, he said the international community does not have any mechanisms yet to restrain Azerbaijan’s “aggressive policy”.

29.04.2012
Tert.am
Turkey has nothing to do with the NK conflict – Serzh Sargsyan [ARM]
According to this article, Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan said at a campaign visit to Armenia’s second-largest city of Gyumri that Turkey has nothing to do with the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He also said that Armenia condemns Turkey’s rejection that the massacres of Armenians in early 20th century in the Ottoman Turkey constituted genocide.

Iran is ready to mediate NK talks [ARM]
According to this news article, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said at a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Edward Nalbandian in Tehran that Iran is ready to assume the role of a mediator in the talks aimed at resolving the Karabakh conflict. He also said that Tehran expects a peaceful settlement to the conflict. “We have our own interests in the region, therefore, we are seeking for peace in the region,” Salehi was quoted as saying.

30.04.2012
News.am
OSCE representatives visit Armenia’s area where Azerbaijan attacked [ENG]
This article says that OSCE representatives visited the place where the Azerbaijani army units had allegedly attacked the vehicle of Armenian military servicemen, killing three of them. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office field assistants Hristo Hristov and Irji Aberle inspected the scene of the incident, and subsequently the aforementioned vehicle kept at a Military Police department. The Armenian MOD representatives informed the field assistants that the attack was preceded by the flights of an Azerbaijani unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the MOD informed.

Trend.az

Nagorno- Karabakh conflict must be resolved through peaceful means- former president of Latvia [RUS]

Member of the European Parliament and the former President of Latvia, Vitautas Landsbergis considers resolution of Karabakh conflict possible only by peaceful means. The former president reiterated his position in Azerbaijan. Landsbergis also noted of Azerbaijan’s rights in referring to the Council of Europe with a request for cooperation in resolving the conflict.

17.04.2012

News.az

‘Neither US, EU nor Russia seem to be keen to resolve Karabakh conflict’ [ENG]

Azerbaijani parliament member Gudar Hasanguliyev spoke of the inability of the OSCE Minsk Group to resolve Karabakh conflict. He associated this with the position of the world powers not interested in the just settlement. Hasanguliyev further noted that the expectation on the international level is for Azerbaijan to reconcile with the loss while preventing its government from going into a way with Armenia.

19.04.2012

Day.az

Expert opinion: “West is on Azerbaijan’s side when it comes to Karabakh question” [RUS]

Director of the center “Russia Eurasia” of the council on external politics of Germany Alexander Ror considers west on Azerbaijan’s side. This is more evident in recent resolution adopted by the European Parliament and the importance it gives to territorial integrity of Azerbaijan (the resolution calls [19.04.2012, RUS] to respect the territorial integrity as well as states the following condition- for any accession talk to begin occupied territories of Azerbaijan must be liberated and returned to Azerbaijan) believes Ror. This resolution according to Ror only reiterates the principles of the Council of Europe that integration with any new country is possible only if the candidate country resolves all its territorial issues.

20.04.2012

Intention to establish a new village in occupied Khojavand is “provocation by Yerevan” [ENG]

Spokesman for the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Elman Abdullayev said Armenia’s approach to resolve the Karabakh conflict is not serious. This statement came as a result of recent announcement made by the Karabak leadership on establishing a new village on Armenian occupied Azerbaijani territory. This can only mean that official Armenia is unwilling to reach any kind of settlement commented Abdullayev.

23.04.2012

Day.az

David Lidington: “A solution for Nagorno- Karabakh problem must be found” [RUS]

Lidington, active chairman of the Council of Europe’s committee of ministers expressed his opinion on the urgent need in finding a solution to the existing Karabakh problem. He reminded the audience of initial agreement made between the two sides following their membership initiation to the Council of Europe- the only way to resolve the conflict is to be reached through peaceful means only. Lidington also noted of the role Ministers Committee of the Council of Europe can also play in having a maximum influence on the resolution process.

Similarly that day, Lidington responded [RUS] to a question by Azerbaijani parliament member and PACE delegation member Ganira Pashayeva who raised the issue of occupied territories and inability of its original residents to return for the last 20 years. In his response, Lidington urged the country to find fast ways to resolution of the conflict, as this would sole many problems of refugees and IDPs. Hu further called on the two sides to stay away from edgy statements and instead increase individual attempts in finding a common solution to the Karabakh conflict.

Azerbaijan’s Presidential Administration warned OSCE Minsk Group [RUS]

“Either Minsk Group resolves Nagorno- Karabakh problem by peaceful means, or Azerbaijan will free its territories by military means” said in an interview with Turkish newspaper “Cumhuriyet” the head of the socio- political department of the Presidential Administration Ali Hasanov. Hasanov raised his concern over the recognition of Armenian Genocide vs. what Armenians committed in Khojaly referring to the incident as Khojaly Genocide and the overall neglect to this particular Azerbaijani tragedy.

Azadliq.org

Ter Petrosyan calls for immediate changes of Madrid Principles [AZ]

In a rally organized last week in Armenia, the country’s former president spoke of the urgency to change Madrid Principles as its current format is unacceptable for present day talks. Petrosyan said that notions of territorial integrity and right to self determination that make up an important segment of the principles are two values that cannot exist together and especially in the case of Karabakh. He also noted that this is a trick to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan under the status of autonomous republic.

26.04.2012

Trend.az

As before, there is no logic in Armenia’s position- Mnistry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan [RUS]

Elman Abdullayev, Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs representative while commenting on a statement made in an interview of Kocharyan, told Trend that it is the inability of Armenia’s diplomats to find valid arguments that is now replaced by hysterical argumentation on behalf of Armenian diplomatic corps. Representative from Azerbaijan explained this inability of Armenian side in coming up with logical statements all along the negotiation process.

News.az

‘Azerbaijan must over and over again invite Karabakh Armenians to Baku’ [ENG]

This quote is taken from an interview with political scientist Zardush Alizade who speaks on the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, recent movie screenings organized by Georgi Vanyan in Armenia and possible cooperation between Karabakh Armenians, civil societies and the two communities overall. In his interview Alizade touches upon the importance initiatives as that of Vanyan carry in situations like this. He mentions the role communities can play in reconciliation as well.

28.04.2012

Day.az

OSCE to hold monitoring on the line of contact between Armenian and Azerbaijani military troops [RUS]

Explanation for the visit and monitoring are the result of the recently tense situation on the line between the two sides. Several times, the ceasefire regime was broken (the article reports on shootings held on that same day and days prior). In an article published on April 27 [RUS], the OSCE Minks Group co- chairs expressed their concerns with the recent news on ceasefire violations. In a statement made by the Co-chairs, the mediators agreed that such meaningless acts destroy the responsibility the two sides expressed on January 23, 2012, in refraining from using force and moving towards peaceful reconciliation.

02.04.2012

Azerbaijani FM, OSCE MG co-chairs to discuss Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in London [AZE]

The article says that Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov is going to meet with OSCE co-chairs. Recalling an elections year in the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries and the conflict parties, Mammadyarov said that the negotiation process is necessary to continue adding that there few issues that they cannot be ignored. He also mentioned Azerbaijani position in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict saying that Azerbaijan require a great peace agreement.

Nineteen years pass since Kalbajar occupation [ENG]

This article writes that launching a large-scale military operation on March 27 in 1993, the Armenian armed forces occupied the Kalbajar region on April 2. It continues saying that as a result 511 people died, and 321 were missing or have been captured.

Azerbaijani FM: It’s time for breakthrough in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [ENG]

Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov in his speech delivered during the meeting of the Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly held in Baku that it is time for a breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the fact of the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenians should be recognized at international level. He also said that the parties should strengthen their willingness to settle the conflict.

Armenian MP: Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution will take a few weeks in case of compromise between parties [AZE]

According to the article, Armenian MP Vahan Hovhannisyan said that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could be settled in a few weeks if there is a compromise between the parties. Reminding the possibility of the solution of the conflict the Armenian MP emphasized that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict cannot be stay with status quo forever.

Russia is not indifferent about relations with its partners [AZE]

The article says that Russia is not indifferent about relations with its partners. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that OSCE co chairs are performing their duties honestly in adherance with the Helsinki Act.

Trend.az

03.04.2012

EU Commissioner: Resolution to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is in building trust [ENG]

According to the article, the only way to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict may be down to building of trust and mutual understanding between the parties. EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Stefan Fule said at a joint press conference with the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov that no one forgets the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict adding that EU is ready to make its effort to resolve the conflict.

Russian FM: Moscow ready to further assist in negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution [ENG]

The article says that Azerbaijan and Russia seek to find solutions to many problems and have repeatedly proved the proximity of positions not only in bilateral format, but also in the international arena. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a news conference in Baku his visit to Azerbaijani capital Baku will a good opportunity to assess the practical development of cooperation.

Trend.az

04.04.2012

EU asked to take initiative in resolving conflicts in South Caucasus [AZE]

The EU should take the initiative to resolve the South Caucasus conflicts, Azerbaijani MP Faraj Guliyev said at the last plenary meeting of the regular session of the Euronest PA, held in Baku. He said that the OSCE Minsk Group is engaged with the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh however he added that EU organizes a forum to resolve the conflict in comparison with the OSCE Minsk Group.

OSCE conducts 23 monitoring activities on contact line between Armenian, Azerbaijani armies in 2011 [AZE]

Last year, OSCE Chairman-in-Office Personal Representative, Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk and his team conducted 23 monitoring activities on ceasefire observance on the contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops, the OSCE annual report says. According to the report, Kasprzyk continued to assist and support the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in their efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

In the next report of Euronest the Karabakh conflict will be on the agenda [AZE]

The article says that in the latest report of the Committee of Political Affairs of the Euronest PA the issues related to regional security will be addressed. The co-chair of the Parliamentary Assembly, Kristian Vigenin, said at a press conference following the Baku session that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be considered as well. She added that Azerbaijan and Armenia should help the Minsk Group to resolve the conflict.

Trend.az

05.04.2012

Armenian MPs ready for meeting with Nagorno-Karabakh communities [AZE]

The article says that Armenian MPs, attending Euronest PA session in Baku, declared their readiness to meet Nagorno-Karabakh Azerbaijani and Armenian communities. Azerbaijani MP Rovshan Rzayev said that holding the meeting is important and they are trying to keep this issue on the agenda.

Baku calls on Yerevan to put up with Azerbaijan’s UNSC membership [AZE]

Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesman Elman Abdullayev told Trend that it is time for the Armenian leadership to put up with the nonpermanent membership of Azerbaijan in the UN Security Council and to learn constructivism and pragmatism. Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian said on Thursday at a joint press conference with his Lithuanian counterpart Audronius Azubalis that Azerbaijan discredits the UN Security Council and constantly increases armaments.

US former ambassador to Azerbaijan hopes for breakthrough in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations [AZE]

The article says that the former US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Matthew Bryza hopes for speedy breakthrough in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. Bryza who also served as a co-chair at The OSCE Minsk Group said reporters at an event marking the 20th anniversary of establishment of Azerbaijani-US diplomatic relations that he thinks that there will be breakthrough when the two presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia feel they can trust each one sufficiently. “I hope this will be soon but that’s up to the presidents of course and it’s up to the society. The societies as well need to understand they have to live together,” he said.

Trend.az

06.04.2012

Lavrov: Russia’s position on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unchanged [AZE]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia’s position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unchanged. “I want to clearly and unequivocally confirm that no any change in our position on assisting in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh has happened. Our position is based on the fundamental approaches worked out by the co-chairs,” said Lavrov.

News.az

09.04.2012

Baku doesn’t support Azerbaijani film festival in Armenia [ENG]

The article says that Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Culture and Tourism does not support a festival of Azerbaijani films, planned for the Armenian city of Gyumri.

“I don’t understand how the Armenians are going to get those films. They are all stored in our State Film Foundation and no film can ever be taken without state consent,” the head of the ministry’s cinema section, Yusif Sheikhov, said. He said that due to Armenia’s policy of occupation, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan does not take part in joint actions with this country and is not going to do so in future.

‘Strategic confusion’ in US policy on South Caucasus [ENG]

News.Az interviews Glen E. Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation. Answering a question on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Howard said, ”Russia has been given the primary position of being the country that arms Armenia but at the same time is the key negotiator with Azerbaijan. That doesn’t make sense,” adding that Foundation’s role is to keep reminding the West and policy makers that a balance is needed in the negotiating process. “Strong role for US leadership, that you just don’t give it to Russia and let Russia try to resolve the problem,” he said.

Trend.az

10.04.2012

Red Cross employees visit Azerbaijani POW [AZE]

The article says that employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited Azerbaijani POW kept in Yerevan on April 2. The ICRC representatives delivered a ‘Red Cross’ letter to the POW and received a ‘Red Cross’ letter from him.

Azerbaijani Parliament discusses adopting law on Karabakh [AZE]

The article says that an issue of adopting a separate law on Karabakh has been again submitted to the Azerbaijani parliament’s discussion. In the article Azerbaijani MP Zahid Orujov says that if Azerbaijan has a single law on occupied territories, Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh won’t be able to participate in any economic programs.

Trend.az

11.04.2012

OSCE to monitor contact line between Armenian, Azerbaijani armies [AZE]

Monitoring will be held on the contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani armed forces in near the Yusifjanli village in the Azerbaijani Agdam region on April 12, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry told Trend.

Armenian-made mine revealed in Azerbaijani region [AZE]

The PMN-E antipersonnel mine made in Armenia has been revealed in the Aghdam region, the National Agency for Mine Actions Azerbaijan (ANAMA) told Trend today. According to the information, Chief of Civil Defense Department of the Aghdam Executive Power Mansur Guliyev told ANAMA about the mine.

Azerbaijani soldier injured by Armenian Armed Forces [AZE]

Following the violation of the ceasefire on the borderline by Armenian Armed Forces, Azerbaijani soldier named Ayxan Mustafayev became injured. He was taken to the hospital directly after the incident happened.

Trend.az

12.04.2012

OSCE monitoring on contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani armies reveals no incident [AZE]

No incident occurred during monitoring held on the contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani armed forces in near the Yusifjanli village in the Azerbaijani Agdam region on April 12, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry spokesmen Eldar Sabiroglu told Trend.

News.az

13.04.2012

Ban of Azerbaijani film festival in Armenia is demonstration of Armenian culture [ENG]

Chairman of Public Union “Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno Karabakh” Bayram Safarov said while commenting on the ban of Azerbaijani film festival in Gyumri that ban of Azerbaijani film festival in Armenia is the demonstration of Armenian culture. Mentioning that there is an Armenian library, Armenian church in Azerbaijan, Armenians are living in the country, Bayram Safarov said Azerbaijan is a democratic and a civil state.

Trend.az

13.04.2012

Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh avoids dialogue [AZE]

The article says that the Head of the Shusha executive power and Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno-Karabakh Bayram Safarov told reporters on Friday that an action plan that will take place throughout Azerbaijan in connection with the 20th anniversary of Shusha’s occupation by Armenians, is under preparation. He also said that the Azerbaijani community has always stood for a dialogue. But the Armenians avoid these meetings.

European parliament: Association agreements must help resolve Nagorno-Karabakh conflict [AZE]

According to the article, the EU Association Agreements with Azerbaijan and Armenia must help resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by peaceful means, two draft resolutions of the European Parliament, to be placed for voting on April 18, say. The resolution stressed that the unresolved conflict prevents the full realization of the European Neighbourhood Policy.

Trend.az

14.04.2012

Ambassador: Azerbaijan has right to raise Nagorno-Karabakh issue at UNSC [AZE]

The article says that the UN Resident Coordinator in Azerbaijan, Ambassador Fikret Akcura believes that Azerbaijan as a member of the UN Security Council has the right to raise the Nagorno-Karabakh issues at the organization at any time. It will depend on the initiative of Azerbaijan, Akcura told journalists on Saturday.

News.az

14.04.2012

International Young Democrat Union Board Meeting adopts resolution on Karabakh [ENG]

According to this article, a resolution titled “Nagorno Karabakh: 20 Years is too long” was adopted at the International Young Democrat Union Board Meeting in Beirut on April 13, 2012. According to the European Azerbaijan Society that the resolution describes the chronology of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and put forward proposals for its solution.

02.04.2012
News.am
OSCE Minsk Group to continue efforts to settle Karabakh conflict – US Ambassador [ENG]
This article says that US Ambassador to Armenia John Heffern said that the U.S., France and Russia will continue their efforts to find a peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
He also said that the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs would continue to demand finding the right solution and introducing the mechanisms to put an end to the ceasefire violation. Heffern said they would continue to bring the sides closer and try to put an end to violations and establish long-tern peace. Weapons should be restricted, ceasefire regime maintained, while the nations should get ready for realistic solution to the conflict, he added.

Azerbaijan recently rejected at least 4 proposals of OSCE mediators – Armenian FM [ENG]
According to this article, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said at a joint press conference in Yerevan with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov that Azerbaijan has recently rejected at least four arrangements. Commenting on “Baku’s constant appeals to the resolutions of the UN Security Council,” Nalbandian said they were adopted back in 1993 and contained calls to stop hostilities and sign a ceasefire agreement”. After each resolution Azerbaijan intensified the military actions suffering defeats of the local Armenian forces, the Minister added.

Lithuania regrets Karabakh conflict was not solved during its OSCE presidency [ENG]
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis said he regrets that the parties to the Karabakh conflict failed to achieve a settlement during his country’s presidency in the OSCE. Talking to journalists in Baku, Azubalis said Vilnius would spare no effort to assist the sides in reaching peaceful resolution of the conflict.

02.04.2012
1in.am
High time for Armenia and Azerbaijan to go forward over peaceful agreement- Stefan Fule [ARM]
EU Commissioner on Enlargement and Eastern Neighborhood Policy said in Baku that it is high time for Armenia and Azerbaijan to take steps to reach a peaceful agreement over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He also said that the EU would take some steps to strengthen trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Stefan Fule further said that though a lot of people call the Karabakh conflict a frozen one, it does really concern the EU. The EU commissioner also said that the EU considers the OSCE Minsk Group as the only format to the peacetalks over the Karabakh conflict.

03.04.2012
Tert.am
EU Commissioner rules out France’s replacement in Minsk Group [ENG]
According to this article, EU Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fule ruled out the possibility of replacing France’s mandate in the OSCE Minsk Group. He was quoted as saying that the EU keeps backing France’s efforts towards reaching a negotiated settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Fule also said that the Karabakh issue was a key topic at his meeting with Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.

03.04.2012
Lragir.am
Russia is in favor of returning territories around Nagorno Karabakh [ARM]
This article says that the statement by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov who said during his two-day visit in Yerevan that the Madrid Principles should remain as the basis for the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, testifies to the fact that the Russian diplomat thinks Armenia should return the territories around Nagorno Karabakh and only then it will be possible to resolve the conflict. The article also claims that Lavrov hinted that the parties fail to agree on the issue. The article cites also Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian as saying that Azerbaijan backtracked on its pledges at least six times recently.

03.04.2012
Panorama.am
Azerbaijan hinders confidence building process between conflicting sides – Karine Achemyan [ENG]
MP of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, Karine Achemyan, said that Armenia backs peaceful resolution of Karabakh conflict while Azerbaijan fails to overcome the “defeatist complex and carries out anti-Armenian propaganda at international level”. “Azerbaijan should refrain from making provocative statements and show respect for the Armenian side and the mediator countries,” she said. The MP also said that a settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict can be achieved solely through peaceful negotiations.

03.04.2012
1in.am
The most important thing is stable status quo – David Babayan [ARM]
This article says that the spokesperson for the de facto President of the unrecognized Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, Davit Babayan, said that Nagorno Karabakh is still not a party to the peacetalks, adding that the format of Karabakh’s participation in the talks should be resumed. He also said that Turkey’ condition to open its border with Armenia only after the Karabakh conflict is resolved means the conflict has stepped into a new phase. “At the same time the most important thing is that the status quo is being observed in a stable way,” said Davit Babayan.

03.04.2012
News.am
Russian MFA to accelerate Karabakh peace process [ENG]
According to this article, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at a visit to Azerbaijan that Moscow is interested in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and is acting in the interests of the people residing in the region. “We all want to accelerate the process of conflict resolution, and we will make additional efforts in order not to delay this process,” he was quoted as saying.

EU’s aim not to settle conflict but coordinate contacts between people [ENG]
European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Stefan Fule said in Baku that the European Union would continue the discussion of a new package of confidence-building proposals with the parties to the Karabakh conflict. “But I can note that first we have enough experience in this issue and our position is not to settle the conflict under these proposals, but to coordinate contacts between the ordinary people,” he was quoted as saying.

04.03.2012
Tert.am
EuroNest to address Karabakh conflict [ENG]

Christian Vigenin, a co-chairman of the EuroNest Parliamentary Assembly said that a new report by the Assembly’s Committee on Political Affairs would cover regional security issues. The official said that the document would address the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, along with the conflicts in Transnistria and Georgia. He called for Azerbaijan and Armenia’s efforts to assist the Minsk Group in achieving a negotiated settlement.

04.03.2012
News.am
People of Nagorno-Karabakh must decide their destiny – Armenian MFA [ENG]
Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said at a joint press conference with his Finnish counterpart Erkki Tuomioja in Yerevan that “Baku is trying to blackmail the delegations visiting Azerbaijan to make them voice one-sided wordings on the Karabakh issue”. “Such an approach cannot be useful for the peace process,” Nalbandian said, stressing that the right to self-determination, along with other principles, is the basis of the OSCE Minsk Group proposals.
The principle is reflected in the statements adopted in Helsinki, Athens, Almaty, Astana and Vilnius, he said adding that the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group repeatedly stated the Karabakh people should decide their own destiny.

Armenian PM says movement in building platform for Karabakh talks was registered [ENG]
According to this article, Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan said at an interview with the Russian online newspaper Kommersant that there is a serious movement in creation of platform for the Karabakh peace process. He also said that conflicts like the one of Nagorno-Karabakh are not solved easily and overnight. The Armenian PM also said that meetings and talks held in trilateral format were very useful. “There appeared deep understanding of the problem both within the OSCE Minsk Group format and the meetings held at the initiative of Dmitry Medvedev,” he stressed.

05.04.2012
Panorama.am
Only peaceful settlement will lead to security in region – Clinton [ENG]
According to this article, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a briefing that “we regret any loss of life and continue to call upon the sides to take steps – including the withdrawal of snipers – to improve the atmosphere for negotiations, prevent unnecessary casualties, and strengthen implementation of the ceasefire”. As a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, she added, the US remains deeply committed to helping the sides in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to reach a lasting and peaceful settlement. “The US has emphasized that the parties should show restraint in both their public statements and on the ground to avoid misunderstandings and unintended consequences,” she said.

05.04.2012
News.am
Azerbaijan’s position ridiculous – Armenian FM [ENG]

Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said that Azerbaijan is making statements, which “hamper the Karabakh settlement,” “Azerbaijan is pretending to show interest in the change of status quo. But official Baku’s statements say it opposes the settlement and changes in status quo,” he said. Further, Nalbandian recalled that Hillary Clinton had said all the principles and elements presented as a basis for settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are drafted and presented to the sides as a whole. “Separating one element or principle will not solve the problem,” he added.

Azerbaijan discredits UN Security Council – Armenian FM [ENG]
This news item says that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian said that Azerbaijan discredits the UN Security Council with President Ilham Aliyev calling Armenians as “fascists”. He also said that Azerbaijan is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, at the same time Baku creates tension in the region by making warlike statements daily. Besides, the country is engaged in military build-up, creating threats to security and stability in the region and in the world. “I believe no comments are necessary. It is an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of their society,” Nalbandian said.

NKR people decolonized, self-determined just as lawfully as Armenia, Azerbaijan – Armenian MP [ENG]

This article says that within the framework of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly session in Baku, Armenian National Assembly delegation member Stepan Safaryan, referred to the speech of the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, saying that his speech “comes to prove yet again that Azerbaijan lives in another reality”. “The Minister called Nagorno-Karabakh’s self-determination as ‘occupation,’ in the case when the Nagorno-Karabakh people decolonized and self-determined just as lawfully—and consistent with the international law—as Armenia and Azerbaijan,” said the MP.

06.04.2012
Tert.am
Bryza hopes for breakthrough in Karabakh talks [ENG]
According to this article, former US Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Mathew Bryza said he is hopeful to see a quick breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement talks. Bryza also said that there has been no dramatic shift in the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. “I continue to be convinced that there is a workable and fair proposal on the table that co-chairs have worked on for many years and I think there will be breakthrough when the two presidents feel they can trust each one sufficiently,” he was quoted as saying.

06.04.2012
RFEL
Klaus can understand Azerbaijan’s position on Karabakh [ARM]
This article says that President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus said at a meeting with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev in Prague that he can understand Azerbaijan’s position over the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He also said that he would not remain indifferent either had part of his own country been occupied. “I would like to give some advice on the resolution of this issue, but unfortunately I cannot say anything about this issue,” said Vaclav Klaus.

06.04.2012
News.am
Russia’s position based on similar attitude towards three principles of Karabakh settlement [ENG]
According to this news article, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia’s position on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement remains unchanged. “Our position is based on principle approaches offered by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs,” he said. The position of the mediators and Russia’s actions is based on the necessity to seek a solution, which would answer the interests of one and the other side, he added. Lavrov also stressed that the solution should be based on similar attitude towards the basic principles: the right of the people for self-determination, non-use of force and territorial integrity.

09.04.2012
Tert.am
Russian official rules out speedy settlement of Karabakh conflict [ENG]
According to this news article, Chairperson of Russia’s Federal Council, Valentina Matvienko, said she thinks a speedy settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is impossible given the complexity of the issue. “I think that we must give attention to the trilateral meetings of our intellectuals and cultural workers,” she said, adding that it is impossible to settle this conflict without confidence. “We must support the scientists and culture figures in their confidence-building efforts,” she was quoted as saying.

11.04.2012
1in.am
Karabakh conflict should be resolved through the efforts of regional players – ambassador [ENG]
According to this news item, Iranian Ambassador to Azerbaijan Mohammad Bahrami said in an interview that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be resolved through efforts of the regional countries. “That conflict should be settled exclusively in a peaceful way,” said he, adding that Iran intends to use its relations with Armenia for a peaceful and just settlement to the conflict. The Iranian ambassador also expressed regret for what he called the “failure” of the OSCE Minsk Group for 18 years now o solve the conflict.

12.04.2012
Hetq.am
Edward Nalbandian meets OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs [ENG]
This article says that Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian met with the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in Warsaw and discussed issues related to the ongoing talks over the Karabakh conflict, and the implementation of the provisions of the statement adopted in Sochi in January this year. Nalbandian drew attention on the “statements from Baku and the steps being taken which are in direct contradiction” to the agreements reached in Sochi. The Armenian FM also said that the “anti-Armenian and racist rhetoric by Azerbaijan” hampers the talks’ process.

13.04.2012
Lragir.am
Lest the war should never resume [ARM]

This article says that the inhabitants of the village of Mataghis in Martakert region in Nagorno-Karabakh pray everyday so that the war will not resume. “If there is no war, we will live a good life. We are ready to even remain hungry, lest there should be no war,” the villagers said. A resident named Alvina Avanesyan recollected that the village was prospering before the war, adding that today a lot of families are staying in dilapidated houses. Most of the villagers live now in Russia and do not want to come back because of poor conditions.

1.     Introduction

The Nagorno-Karabakh peace process has entered another stage of peace talks based on the Madrid Principles for conflict settlement. There have been numerous meetings between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the course of the last several years, but no tangible results in ensuring official peace agreement has been achieved.

A hypothesis for the failure is the deep gap between official and public opinion on the current matter of negotiations. Miscommunication, or the absence of any reasonable communication, between the two levels has created vast mistrust towards the negotiations package (in this case Madrid Principles) thus leaving little space for confidence among the officials to take forward the peace plan.

In order to understand the stalemate in which the parties have entered, focus-group discussions were conducted with various groups of people in Armenia to gather information on public perceptions and expectations towards the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict based on Madrid Principles. Several other objectives were also discerned, such as: identification of the awareness on Madrid Principles among ordinary citizens and expert groups, raising wider awareness among public regarding various aspects of peaceful resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and current state of affairs of the official peace process, as well as outlying future vision of the coexistence between two nations. Refugees, people living in border region, NGO leaders, journalists, youth (including students), and women were discerned as groups directly affected by conflict.

In Armenia focus-group discussions were carried out a) with the residents of Kornidzor village located in the south of Armenia bordering with Azerbaijan (11 persons), b) with refugees from Azerbaijan currently residing in Goris (12 persons), c) with NGO leaders working in the area of peacebuilding (7 persons), d) with journalists, covering Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (8 persons) and e) with youth, actively involved in the dialogue meetings with their counterparts from the other side (7 persons).

In Nagorno-Karabakh focus-group discussions were carried out a) with refugees and IDPs currently residing in Shushi (8 persons), b) NGO representatives (5 persons), c) with residents of northern and southern parts of Nagrono-Karabakh living in bordering regions with Azrebaijan (7 persons), d) with youth mainly from Stepanakert (7 persons) and e) with women both from Stepanakert and bordering regions (15 persons).

2.     Main results of the focus-group discussions

2.1The awareness on the recent package of negotiations and Madrid Principles

There was a sheer lack of awareness about the Madrid Principles among refugees and residents of bordering regions in Armenia. No single respondent mentioned any of the six principles outlined in the document. However, some respondents mentioned three overarching principles related to the Madrid Principles: territorial integrity, self-determination and non-use of force. It was mentioned that those principles were even included in the curriculum of the high-school history lessons.

There was more information on the Madrid Principles among Kharabakhi respondents (people living in bordering regions, women and NGO representatives) living in different regions of Nagorno-Karabakh bordering with Azerbaijan. Mostly they were mentioning three principles: return of refugees and IDPs to the places of their former residence, return of territories adjacent to NK to Azerbaijani control and peacekeeping operation. These principles are probably the ones that ordinary Armenians consider the most controversial among others. Although a few women living in bordering regions also identified the issue of the future status of NK and Lachin corridor, the issues of refugees and territories were the most frequently mentioned ones.

Another characteristic of the groups in NK was the understanding of the situation of unresolved conflict or no-war-no-peace scenario since they live in rather close proximity to the front-line and would bear direct consequences in the case of resumption of war. To sum, Kharabakhi ordinary citizens were more aware of the principles than in Armenia.

Among the Armenian and Kharabakhi NGO community, the Madrid Principles were highly discussed. Every single participant was well aware of the Principles even though as one of the Armenian experts mentioned, the Madrid Principles were not officially published rather became available from media leaks and some international think-tank websites.

Most of the experts both in Armenia and NK mentioned that even though the Madrid Principles are known to the public to a certain extent, the formulations are not clear at all. As one of the respondents in Armenia mentioned: “We don’t know at all the details and implementation mechanisms of the Principles, while the devil is in the details and we don’t have any information on the devil”.

One common issue agreed upon by most of the respondents was the understanding that the problem of unresolved NK conflict lies not in the principles or approaches of negotiations but rather in the understanding among the parties of whether they want peace or not. “The problem is that if the authorities honestly want to bring peace in the region they can go forward based on any package on the negotiations table, call it Madrid Principles or anything else” (Armenian NGO representative).

Awareness among representatives of media was also rather high in Armenia. Along with the same line of argument related to the unwillingness to resolve the conflict, one more important point was raised among the members of this focus-group: “interest groups, in particular third countries involved in the mediation process who pursue their own agenda and thus hamper the process” (Armenian media representative).

Young people both in Armenia and NK were surprisingly well aware of the negotiation process in terms of the Madrid Principles. However, lack of trust among conflict sides was still a major obstacle for taking forward any peace deal. Several youngsters mentioned that unclear, vague and indefinite description of the principles did not provide necessary information thus enhancing current stalemate.

2.2 Return of refugees and IDPs to their former places of residence

Voluntary return of refugees to the places of former residence is one of the most controversial and challenging issues among many others in the Madrid Principles. For Armenian respondents, despite the fact of having inviolable right of return, this principle specifically refers to the return of Azeris to Nagorno-Karabakh and hence it is considered to be the most “pro-Azeri” point in the package.

For many Armenian respondents among the media and NGO sector, the return of Azeri refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh is invariably tied to the determination of the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh as a precondition for possible return scenarios. “There can be no return before clear mechanisms for future status of NK” (Karabakhi NGO representative).

Other alternatives to return, such as resettlement and restitution were suggested as legitimate ways of dealing with refugees rights in the framework of international law. The group of refugees in Armenia and NK mentioned that no Armenian refugee would like to return to the places of their former residence even if security guarantees were provided. Even though a real possibility for Armenian refugees is also envisaged in the Madrid Principles to former Shahumyan region of Azerbaijan compactly populated by Armenians before the conflict, very few Armenian refugees would consider returning there at this stage of conflict. They also insisted that they are absolutely disenfranchised from the peace process and don’t consider any prospect of just peace without their ownership.

Another troublesome issue here was the problem of proper organization and logistics of all potential returnees. There was a fear in the Armenian expert community that there will be more numbers of Azeri refugees willing to return to NK than there was before the beginning of conflict. However, there was also certain understanding that return of refugees to several non-contested territories such as – Aghdam, Fizuli, Jebrail, Kubatly and Zangelan – could be possible.

The prospect of Azeris returning to Nagorno-Karabakh is seen by Armenians as largely undesirable and unjust, and as an issue that needs to be considered after clarifications are made regarding the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Among Armenian respondents, there was a clear distinction between the causes and consequences of conflict, with the understanding that if consequences (such as displacement) are addressed before the causes (such as security and identity), then the same cycle of conflict could be repeated. One of the main impediments for this is the daily deterioration of mistrust between the conflict parties that endangers even the fragile truce we have today.

In NK there was a clear message from different focus-groups that all refugees can return to the places of their former residence given they accept NKR citizenship. This implies that the problem of security for Armenians would no longer be a serious issue compared to the situation when Azeris return to unrecognized entity.

2.3 Future status of NK

Most of the respondents in Armenia and NK saw status as the only guarantor of the security of the Armenian population, since security threats along with identity issues have been perceived as the main causes of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh demanding resolution before the return of Azeri IDPs. The liberated/occupied territories around NK are increasingly considered less as a security and more as a constituent part of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. This was particularly true for a large number of respondents in NK and to some extent also in Armenia.

The issue of future status of NK is another crucial aspect of Madrid Principles. Generally, this was perhaps the most important issue among Armenian respondents. As one of the representatives of media mentioned: “If you don’t know the final destination what difference does it make to go by foot or car”.

A referendum was perceived as a key element in the future discussions over the need for security. However, the most contentious point was probably the slight but significant change introduced into the text from “a referendum or population vote to determine the final legal status of Nagorno- Karabakh” to the “final status of Nagorno-Karabakh to be determined in the future by a legally-binding expression of will”. Many NGO representatives and young respondents identified this as vague description of possible future status of NK, which did not provide any clear mechanisms at all.

Even if the peace agreement envisaged a referendum for determining NKR’s status in the current belligerent situation it is hard to imagine any condition under which Armenians would agree because the technology of referendum, i.e. who should participate, what territories it should cover, what should be the text, and when it should be scheduled is more important rather than the principle itself.

One of the respondents from the NGO sector mentioned that the same proportion of population should be kept in NK as it was before the start of conflict, “otherwise Azeris may send second and third generations thus outnumbering Armenian population and thus determining the fate of referendum in favor of Azeris”.

One respondent from NGO sector offered that the issue of status (and other) could and should be discussed given NK authorities are recognized as legitimate side at the negotiations table, “recognition is the start for other issues to discuss, it is not the end of the process”.  However there was no agreement among other respondents in this group on this issue, since the future status is the most difficult question, and that’s why “we should discuss other issues first where there can be some sort of agreement between conflicting parties”.

2.4 Return of NK adjacent territories to Azeri control

According to some experts in Armenia the more hard-line approach towards the return of all territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan and the impossibility of Azeris’ returning to these territories is getting wider support among Armenians mainly because of the numbers of incidents on the line of contact and threats of war resumption by Azerbaijan to change the status quo.

Whereas, one of the major prerequisites for possible return to the remaining five regions adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh is the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic authorities as an equal party to negotiations with legitimacy to discuss matters related to the borders and return issues.

Among Armenian respondents there was some moderate approach towards the return of certain territories to Azeri control, especially among youth and NGO leaders. This, in general, reflects the moderate approach among Armenian public and elite. There was no common understanding regarding the return of territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, however there was a consensus that there are regions that cannot be returned (Lachin) or it will be very difficult to return (Kelbajar) in any conflict resolution scenario, meaning that remaining five regions are less contested territories in terms of their return to Azerbaijani jurisdiction.

Most of the respondents from bordering regions in Armenia mentioned that return of territories was not possible. Interestingly, since Kornidzor is bordering the region of Gubatly some of the respondents mentioned that the latter should also not be considered as a return option along with Lachin and Kelbajar. Apart from economic reasons, this stance can be explained by fear towards the other supported by the lack of trust.

But overall, the question of return of territories was widely denied especially by NK respondents supported basically by the fact of total war rhetoric and daily casualties at the line of contact caused by snipers. In this situation return of territories could bolster incidents and casualties.

2.5 Peacekeeping operation

The idea of deployment of peacekeeping mission and/or peacekeeping operation in general was not welcome by Armenian respondents both in Armenia and NK. The best security guarantee, especially for Karabakhis, but also for some Armenia respondents, was the status of NK understood as international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh state or at least its authorities.

A few other respondents were keener on peacekeeping operation given at some point (after more clarification in the question of the status) there will be need to safeguard people from possible criminal activity of ethnic kind. The idea of peacekeeping observers was even more supported in Armenia in the sense that the observers could identify, register and follow-up any kind of violations across the line of contact and between communities.

But the most sticking point in the discussion on peacekeeping operation was the unclear situation in terms of the origin of those forces. Potential discrepancy on the nations carrying out the mission among third party countries mediating the peace negotiations is so deep that the principle itself is less probable to come true at any given stage of peace process: “There is even more discrepancy among mediators and third countries on the peacekeeping issue than the future status of NK – Russia, USA, Iran and EU – they all have diagonally different stances on this issue”, “peacekeeping operation is more difficult than future status. The war will end when the war among mediators will end”.

Despite the fact that the majority of respondents expressed negative attitude towards peacekeeping operation bringing negative examples from the recent history of peacekeeping missions and highlighting violations of human rights such as gender-based violence, some agreed that given such mission would be deployed local economies would be boosted significantly.

One of the respondents representing media mentioned that recent paradigm of dealing with ethnic conflicts indicates that peacekeeping mission is perhaps the only way to provide security of diverse communities without which existing mistrust or low level of trust cannot be transformed.

2.6 Peacebuilding initiatives

Most of the respondents mentioned that peacebuilding initiatives aimed at bringing peace between two nations were extremely important in protracted deep-rooted conflicts since the enmity and hatred could be overcome only by direct engagement of societies in various initiatives and activities. “The involvement of NGO, business and community leaders in the peace process is extremely important to promote conflict transformation and overcome negative experience aimed at bringing just and positive peace” (representative of media).

A business component of multi-track diplomacy would seriously improve socio-economic conditions by opening the communications bridging Armenian and Azerbaijani economies. Representatives of youth voiced the idea of economic cooperation as a prerequisite of long-lasting peace. “Even though the fear towards each other is still present in the minds of ordinary people, the need for peace and development, is more alive, which gives hope that specific measures of dialogue meetings between conflict parties could be effective in the period proceeding signing of peace agreement” (young student).

Other respondents agreed that cooperation itself would not resolve conflicts but could create preconditions for their settlement and resolution in the long-term perspective. Specific examples were brought by the respondents living in the border region and some young participants: cheaper fuel, more business opportunities, more employment opportunities, etc. “People-to-people meetings are important. The more ordinary people know each other, the sooner the peace” (Armenian media representative).

3.     Conclusion

The Madrid Principles have been criticized since their origin by Armenians for different reasons. Several points have already been presented, such as the return of refugees, return of territories and peacekeeping mission. Armenians still think that concessions made by this agreement are detrimental for the national interests of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, with perhaps the most disturbing principle being that the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh would be determined by referendum.

Balancing the Madrid Principles so that all parties feel they are equally winning or losing (unfortunately a win-win outcome is hardly possible given the peculiarities of such conflicts) is one of the most important issues in the peace process. Otherwise, Armenians may feel their basic needs are significantly less satisfied and try to preserve the status quo. More technical questions on the implementation should be discussed and presented to the public in order to bring peace by Madrid Principles closer or remove this package from negotiations table.

The lack of trust is crucial in the NK conflict. In the absence of trust any deal namely the Madrid Principles or anything else is doomed to failure. Yet the best mechanism for the transformation of conflict is the democratization of societies. Common values, common vision of future – they all lack between the conflict sides, that’s why it is not important whether we have the Madrid Principles or a different one. Genuine long-term peace is possible after societies will be able to delegate their elected leaders to the peace talks and bear the burden of concessions together with them.

At this stage unless the war of information and propaganda end and Karabakhis return to negotiations table as recognized entity there will be no peace.

Democratization of societies can lay ground for long-lasting peace in the region. Building trust is more feasible after the authorities decide they want peace. Non-democratic states are capable of popularizing signed agreement through their media making reconciliation possible.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

[1] Opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Black Sea Trust, the German Marshall Fund, or its partners.

The present paper poses the following question: To what extent is Azerbaijani society ready to engage in confidence building?  Raising this question is of crucial importance because political resolution of the conflict is accompanied by societal support for it.  I answer it by conducting a content analysis of two history textbooks designed for 10^th (Valiyev 2000) and 11^th (Mammadov, Gandilov 2000) grades in Azerbaijani high schools.  Both textbooks were approved by the Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan in 2000.  These books are currently used in all high schools of Azerbaijan and are compulsory part of high school curriculum.  Armenia and Armenians are mostly described in these two books and they shape the attitudes of the young generation regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Armenians.

Societal beliefs are shared by members of a society on topics and issues that are of special concern for the society; goals, myths, collective memory, self-image, views of others, and so on[i]. Factors such as emotions, historical memories, and myths can exacerbate the violent implications of intra-group interactions. Ethnic conflict is not caused directly by inter-group differences, ancient hatreds and century’s old feuds, or the stresses of modern life within global economy[ii].  However, these factors are used to support the conflict. Political memories and emotions also magnify these anxieties, driving groups further together[iii].  Memories and myths lead sides to have doubts about others and shape violent attitude towards them.

Schoolchildren in Azerbaijan have no personal memories of conflict between their two countries but history textbooks help to maintain an image of the other country as the enemy and, thus prevent a long-term resolution of their problems.  Textbooks influence the formation of collective memory and image of others. They are perceived by students as the first or only source to understand values of their society.

Council of Europe’s Recommendation, Rec(2001)15. of the Committee of Ministers to member states on history teaching in twenty-first-century Europe says “history teaching must not be an instrument of ideological manipulation, of propaganda or used for the promotion of intolerant and ultra-nationalistic, xenophobic, racist or anti-Semitic ideas.  Historical research and history as it is taught in schools cannot in any way, with any intention, be compatible with the fundamental values and statutes of the Council of Europe if it allows or promotes misuses of history, namely through  an excessively nationalistic version of the past which may create the “us” and “them” dichotomy[iv]”.

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Resolution 1416 (2005) called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to foster reconciliation and to restore confidence and mutual understanding among their peoples through schools, universities and the media, stating without such reconciliation, hatred and mistrust will prevent stability in the region and may lead to new violence[v].

History classes are compulsory in all schools of Azerbaijan and there are no alternative texts allowed in history classes. The Education Ministry approved the history textbooks in 2000. According to the criteria for evaluation of textbooks accepted by the ministry, textbook materials must be sensitive to issues of gender, race, ethnicity and religion.  Ministry’s textbooks policy requires the material follow secularity principles; avoid information against the constitution of the country, and international treaties that Azerbaijan accepted. The policy also bans including discriminatory information on ethnicity, religion, race, gender, and politics.

However, Armenians are mostly discussed in history textbooks designed for 10^th and 11^th grades. Armenians are described in nine chapters in both books. Expressions that describe Armenians, such as Armenian terrorist, Armenian fascist, Armenian bandit, Armenian separatist, Armenian barbarism, enemy and adjectives such as nasty Armenian and fascist Armenian are widely used in those textbooks.

Headlines of three of texts include the word Armenian. All texts are in negative tone towards Armenians. Armenians were named enemies ten times, bandits eleven times, nasty twice, criminals five times, separatists three times, terrorists twice, ands fascists once. In general, thirty three discriminative and derogatory words are used in both 10^th and 11^th history textbooks to address of Armenians.

Text 44, “Initial stage of Karabakh war, intensification of political crisis”, picture Armenians as fascists and their involvement in war as barbarity. “Armenian fascists occupied Khojaly and committed bloody crime. Armenian fascists put 14 Azerbaijanis into fire in Gugark village in Armenia. To prevent barbarity of Armenians in Karabakh, Supreme Council of Azerbaijan Republic admitted legislation on self-defense in 1991. Loyal attitude of leading states to de-facto Karabakh Republic, enticed Armenian separatists even more.” In the text, Armenians are described with phrases such as enemy, separatist and invader.

Much of the course is devoted to describing Armenia and Armenians as main enemies of Azerbaijanis. Armenians are not only associated with Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but also with genocide towards Azerbaijanis in 1918, aggression of tsarism in Azerbaijan, deportation of Azerbaijanis from Armenia to Azerbaijan by Soviet authority. Alongside, the course pictures Armenians as a continuous trouble for Azerbaijan for almost a century.

In some texts, Armenians are described as the main executors of violent actions of tsarism in Baku in early 20^th century. Text 45, “Mass destruction policy of tsarism in Azerbaijan”, in the textbook designed for 10th graders[vi], Armenians are described as terrorists. “Nasty Dashnaksutun party was the main executor of tsarism. In 1905-1905s Armenian bandits and terrorists committed 500 criminal cases against Muslims. Sly and treacherous Armenians signed peace contract in one province, while killed people in others.  Armenians, our eternal enemies, got help from Ottoman and Russian Armenians.”

Text 2, “1918 March genocide of Azerbaijanis”, in the textbook designed for 11th graders describes how Armenians killed thousands of Azerbaijanis in Baku and in other districts. “The union of Dashnags and Bolsheviks attacked Kerpijkhana and Mammadli disticts of Baku, populated with Azerbaijanis. Armenians could involve seamen in killing. Although Muslims stooped opposing, Armenians continued to kill civilians. Dashnag Bolshevik Union burned Kaspi printing house, editorial office of Achig soz newspaper, and mared minarets of Teze Pir mosque. They killed people outside Baku, in Shamakhi, Kurdemir, Salyan and Lenkeran”.

However, the text mentions that it was not only Armenians, but Bolsheviks were involved in killing of Azerbaijanis as well. Thus, the text mentions that March genocide was committed by Bolshevik-Dasnhag union, nevertheless naming only Armenians “bandits.” Text 3 in a textbook designed for 11^th grades, “Establishment of Bolshevik-Dashnag regime and its anti-Azerbaijani policy”, states that Bolshevik-Dahsnag union banned all newspapers and magazine, except their own, after 1918 March events.

The course continues with depicting Armenians as trouble-makers even in Soviet time.

Text 32, Next deportation of Azerbaijanis from Western Azerbaijan (Armenian SSR), is about eviction of thousands of Azerbaijanis from Armenia to Azerbaijan in 1940s. It says that “Armenians settled in Nagorno-Karabakh after Turkmenchay treaty, often demanded to unite Karabakh with Armenia. “Armenians were ready to do anything to realize their nasty plans. In 1948-1953, 150, 000 Azerbaijanis were forced to leave their lands. They were settled in Saatly, Imishli, Goychay, Kurdemir and Sabirabad districts of Azerbaijan. Thousands of them, especially children and old one died as a result of severe climate. Their houses in Armenia were given to those Armenians coming from different countries.”

School textbooks play an important role in shaping the beliefs of young generation. Examination of them shows that, education system of Azerbaijan prepares youth for hatred, rather than for tolerance. History education reflects societal beliefs, not facts. Achievement of peaceful resolution to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict might seem to be not realistic with the historical stereotyping shaped by history textbooks.

The involvement of young generation into this process is of pivotal importance.  It is a guarantee to the continuation of peace process and negotiations in the future. Reviewing the textbooks content I can conclude that the society new generation brought up is not ready for peace process. History teaching in Azerbaijani schools focus primarily on promoting hatred to Armenians rather than on peace and peacemaking.

Anti – Armenian propaganda and hate dissemination carried out by history teaching is a serious obstacle to the peace process. While negotiation peace process, the role of history curriculum should be highly considered and recommendations of international organizations, such as aforementioned CEO textbook recommendations should be followed.

Reference:

Mammadov Ishag, Gafarov Tahir, Mammadov Khagani, Taghiyeva Shovkat, Valiyev Murad, Mammadova Shargiyya, Huseynov Aghasi, Gojayev Akbar.,History of Azerbaijan. 11th grades.  Approved by Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan Republic in 2000.

Valiyev Tofig, Aliyev Rahim, Taghiyeva Shovkat, Gojayev Akbar, Alishova Hejer, Mammadova Kifayet. History of Azerbaijan. 10th grades.  Approved by Ministry of Education of Azerbaijan Republic in 2000.

Lake, David A. Containing Fear. The origins and Management of Ethnic Conflicts.

Staub, Ervin and Bar-Tal, Daniel. Genocide, Mass killing, and Intractable Conflict. Roots, Evolution, Prevention, and Reconciliation.

—————-

[i] Staub, Ervin and Bar-Tal, Daniel. Genocide, Mass killing, and Intractable Conflict. Roots, Evolution, Prevention, and Reconciliation.