Institute for War and Peace Reporting IWPR, UK
July 10 2009
AZERI VISIT TO KARABAKH SPARKS ROW
War of words breaks out as public relations exercise by Baku
representatives goes wrong.
By Samira Ahmedbeili in Baku, Sara Khojoian in Yerevan and Anahit
Danielian in Stepanakert
A visit by Azerbaijani officials and cultural leaders to the
self-declared state of Nagorno-Karabakh was intended to build ties
with its ethnic Armenian rulers, but degenerated into the usual verbal
sparring within days.
However, analysts were wrong-footed by an unusually conciliatory
statement from Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliev after the trip, in
which he appeared sympathetic to some Armenian demands.
Nagorny Karabakh, ruled by Armenians but internationally considered
part of Azerbaijan, has been a block to good relations between Armenia
and Azerbaijan since Soviet times.
More than a million refugees fled out of both countries before and
during the war, which started in 1991 and ended with a ceasefire three
years later. Since then, there have been almost no ties between the
two neighbouring nations, while Karabakh declared independence
unilaterally.
Armenian forces control some 14 per cent of what Azerbaijan considers
to be its territory, and exchanges of fire are frequent over the line
of control.
The visit to Karabakh, which started on July 3 and was headed by the
ambassadors to Moscow of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, was intended to
help ease the tensions.
`I want to stress that neither Armenians nor Azeris are going to fly
off into space. We must live together, and therefore we need to create
contacts, joint ties, create mutual respect between each other,’ Polad
Bulbuloglu, the Azerbaijan ambassador, told reporters in Karabakh.
But, even before he left the region, he had succeeded in offending the
locals by following the terminology used in Azerbaijan to describe
Karabakh. He met Bako Sahakian, leader of the self-proclaimed state,
but presented it as just a meeting with local civil society figures,
outraging political commentator David Babian.
`It is unacceptable that non-constructive statements should be made
after a visit, as was done by this Polad Bulbuloglu and his
delegates. President Bako Sahakian from the start of the visit held
onto the principal of equality of the two sides, stressing that no
other format was acceptable, including the so-called possibility of
holding talks between two communities,’ the commentator said.
`Such meetings are ineffective, since they once more make people
angry, instead of creating an atmosphere of trust, as the authors
insist.’
The misunderstandings pursued the delegates, who also visited Yerevan
and Baku, throughout their journey. On returning to the Azerbaijani
capital, one delegate told a local news agency that the Armenian
president had told them he understood that Aghdam ` a region of
Azerbaijan outside Nagorny Karabakh itself which is almost entirely
controlled by Armenian forces ` was not Armenian land, and that he
respected Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
The comments were disowned by a spokesman for the president, and
provoked outrage in Yerevan.
`This is an arrogant lie,’ President Serzh Sargsian’s spokesman
said. `But we are no longer surprised that the Azerbaijani delegates
distorted the facts when they returned to Baku, since they always
do. The lack of tolerance from Azerbaijani society is clear.’
Similar distrust was sparked in Baku, where the supposed peacemakers
found themselves suspected of selling out the interests of their
country. Any suggestion that Karabakh is not actually part of
Azerbaijan meets fury in Baku, and Akif Nagi, head of the Organisation
for the Liberation of Karabakh, suggested that by meeting Sahakian,
the delegates were effectively recognising his rule.
`As a result of such meetings the fact of the Armenian seizure of
Azerbaijan’s territory retreats into the background. By making a
statement¦ about visiting Karabakh through Azerbaijan’s territory,
they present this as if it’s heroism. But if you meet the head of a
separatist, puppet regime, and basically recognise his legitimacy,
then it is unimportant how you got there,’ Nagi said.
He also expressed disquiet that the delegation had included Mikhail
Shvidkoy, the head of the Russian Cultural Agency, and appeared to
have been initiated in Moscow. `The visit of the so-called Azerbaijan
intelligentsia to Karabakh contradicts the interests of
Azerbaijan. This visit was conducted at the orders of Russia. Russia
is just demonstrating that the Karabakh conflict is completely under
its control and that it can make the two sides play by its rules any
time it wants,’ he said.
Under the circumstances, therefore, it was not surprising that few
observers expected positive results from the trip. However, comments
from President Aliev to Russian television after the visit suggested a
change of heart in Baku, which has previously been uncompromising in
its opposition to any recognition of Armenian rights to Azerbaijan’s
territory.
`As for the status of Nagorny Karabakh, that is a question of the
future. A resolution of its status is not one of the proposals
accepted by us and under discussion at the moment,’ Aliev told
Russia’s RTR television.
`Of course, Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of Nagorny
Karabakh. I think Armenia understands this. Today we must resolve the
results of the conflict and secure an end of the occupation. The
security of all nationalities in Karabakh must be secured, after which
communication must be restored. We understand that Nagorny Karabakh
must have a special status, and we see it as being within Azerbaijan.’
Despite Aliev’s uncompromising refusal to countenance independence for
the region, those were still remarkably conciliatory remarks by the
standards Baku has set since 1991.
`Over the last month there has been a flurry of activity in the
Karabakh negotiations: an intense round of diplomacy, the visit of the
intellectuals to Karabakh and the first visit by Armenians to Baku in
a long time, [and] a more positive tone from many of the political
leaders,’ said Tom de Waal, an analyst from the NGO Conciliation
Resources and an expert in Karabakh’s history.
`President Aliev adopted a more moderate tone than I can remember in
an interview on the Karabakh issue. I was struck by the way he said
that `we understand the concerns of the people of Karabakh’ and that
he said that the status of Karabakh is a `matter for the future’. Now
of course this was an interview to Russian television. I think things
will really change only when the presidents say this kind of thing to
a domestic audience, but it is a very positive signal.’
Samira Ahmedbeili, Sara Khojoian and Anahit Danielian are IWPR
contributors.