Introduction
Despite positive developments in the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the road to full peace between the two societies will require significant effort. The signing of the peace agreement, the opening of borders, or the reduction of tensions along the border constitute only a small piece of the puzzle that both societies will need to build. A 2023 survey conducted by the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung among youth in Azerbaijan and Armenia found that only 41% of Armenian youth and 23% of Azerbaijani youth agreed that, for peaceful coexistence among nations, it is better to forget the past and focus on a common future. Meanwhile, only 11% of Armenian youth support cooperation with other countries, including Azerbaijan and Turkey, and only 9% of Azerbaijani youth feel the same when Armenia is included. Among youth in both countries reconciliatory and cooperative sentiments were not prevalent.
Over the past three years, many significant events have occurred, including mutual visits by civil society representatives, the opening of a transportation link, and the signing of Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). Yet it is difficult to speak of a significant decrease in animosity and distrust, or widespread forgetting of the painful past. Moreover, decades of hate speech in media, the reproduction of images of the “other” as enemy in textbooks as well as in education, left a clear mark on Azerbaijani and Armenian societies. Therefore, the issue of building and teaching peace among youth and society in both countries has become central. Implementing and teaching peace education has proven to be a successful solution for many countries overcoming conflict. However, for Armenia and Azerbaijan this new experience of peace education will require re-writing old narratives, reconciling memories, and building a new future. The following memo explores the possibilities for building peace education initiatives in the region and offers a few solutions to reach these goals.
Background
For most people in the region, peace is perceived more in its negative sense than in its positive sense. Positive peace refers to the predominance of peaceful and non-violent approaches, methods, and means in society, while negative peace implies the absence of war and excessive violence. Awareness of the latter is minimal, which can be explained by the region's predominantly unfavorable socio-political circumstances, as well as by previous deadly clashes and wars. Such a widespread, less peaceful practice has negatively affected politics, diplomacy, governance, ways of thinking, and problem-solving not only for ordinary citizens but also for the region's governments. Many factors have played a role in such situations, shaping the negative value systems of the societies in the region. But it is believed that the absence of peace education, which encompasses perspectives on coexistence, multiculturalism, and understanding others, is the main reason people in the region still fear one another. Trapped in the old Soviet system of education and having no graduate program or comprehensive course on peace education, both societies rely on highly biased media, have no analytical tools to analyze the current situation, and are very easily prey to fake news or propaganda. These, in turn, endanger the future of the peace process. Moreover, students, activists, diplomats, or ordinary citizens involved in negotiations or Track II diplomacy often lack basic knowledge of peace education or hold different understandings or use different languages.
Both countries have one or a few programs in international relations, political science, or humanities. In 2014, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Education introduced a mandatory course, Multiculturalism, for all higher education students. The course, in fact, has a foundation in peace education but places greater emphasis on other aspects, including culture and history. Moreover, the faculty who teach this course are not fully prepared to teach and often repeat the country's history and culture rather than impart universal values. The analysis of the curriculum shows that most elements of peace education are found in the official documents and directives. However, there are significant gaps between what is promoted in official documents and in schools regarding these humanistic values and what students experience in their daily lives. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, departments of IR, political science, and other humanities subjects offer certain courses in international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, and a few others. Their components may include some elements of peace approaches or peace-building initiatives. However, there are no mechanisms that would link these courses within a single university. Moreover, none of the programs in either country state their learning outcomes as “to encourage students to seek peaceful resolutions of the conflicts”.
In the absence of peace studies courses in the education programs of the countries studied, non-governmental initiatives took the lead in championing peace studies. For a time, various organizations offered training, workshops, and summer schools in peace studies, especially in conflict resolution and negotiation. In the South Caucasus, Georgia emerged as the leader in such initiatives, while Armenia and Azerbaijan lagged. Most of the events were either short-term summer schools or training programs, and they were not connected to each other. All these non-governmental initiatives have taken a non-academic approach and do not implement programs with learning outcomes in mind or to instill specific skills.
Conclusion and Recommendation
Constant promotion of hatred toward “the enemy” left deep scars in the public psyche. Hatred has become prevalent in society and negatively affects relationships among citizens. The books, newspapers, news, TV shows, extracurricular activities, and textbooks at schools make frequent reference to the war traumas that occurred about two decades ago on the battlefield as well as constructing the image of the enemy. This initial need assessment indicates that the countries lack long-term peacebuilding and peace reconstruction programs. The regional education system needs it to promote peace initiatives, build infrastructure for peace research, and train the necessary number of instructors, researchers, and students in these areas.
For the successful launch of peace education in the region, countries need to have three main components: political will, resources, and capacity. It is difficult to think about changing the political will in the countries. However, researchers may develop an infrastructure to build a peace program. The success of peace education depends heavily on awareness of conflict and peace, instructional capacity, and teachers' motivations. Since peace education primarily concerns the acquisition of values, attitudes, skills, and peaceful behaviors by students, teachers who are supposed to teach peace education must themselves be prepared to achieve these vital objectives. Thus, it is believed that training teachers, instructors, and faculty in peace education must become a top priority for the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan. This initiative does not require retraining or a massive investment in teachers, since youth activists in the region, civil society representatives, journalists, and communication experts can serve as short- and long-term trainers in peace education. Both governments should also allow civil society to lead in this initiative. Only through coordinated efforts can both countries overcome decades of hatred and mutual distrust.