Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
Feb 1 2007
Karabakh Debates Its Future
Karabakh Armenians say they prefer the status quo to an uncertain
peace deal.
By Ashot Beglarian in Stepanakert
A series of broad public debates in Nagorny Karabakh suggest public
opinion amongst Karabakh Armenians is highly sceptical of the
compromises being proposed by international mediators on the future
of the disputed territory.
The Armenia-based organisation, the International Centre for Human
Development, organised a series of public meetings with the aim of
soliciting a wide range of views on the future of Karabakh. Now an
unrecognised territory with an overwhelmingly Armenian population,
Karabakh has been de facto separate from Azerbaijan for a decade and
a half. A ceasefire has maintained an uneasy peace between the two
parties since 1994.
The meetings were held on the eve of the visit to Karabakh on January
25 by the three international diplomats of the OSCE’s Minsk Group
responsible for negotiating a peaceful settlement of the conflict,
the American Matt Bryza, Russia’s Yury Merzlyakov and France’s
Bernard Fassier.
Tevan Poghosian, executive director of the International Centre for
Human Development and chief organiser of the initiative, said a key
aim of the debates was to bring the views of ordinary people to the
attention of the mediators, despite the fact that their talks were
held behind closed doors.
As well as a meeting in the Karabakhi capital, Stepanakert, two
debates were also held in the regional centres of Martuni and
Martakert.
The organisers said they gave the discussions an open format to
encourage the free exchange of ideas. Alisa Mkrtchian, a participant
in one of the debates, described it as a kind of `brainstorming’.
More than 217 ideas were voiced and written up on large screens for
everyone to consider and discuss.
Mkrtchian noted that there was wide support for the preservation of
the current status quo for Karabakh in which, despite being
unrecognised internationally, most local residents believe the
territory enjoys a measure of stability.
`Considering that there were representatives of different social
groups, political views, ages and so on, round the table, this level
of unanimity was quite telling and it reflects the attitude of
society to the Nagorny Karabakh problem and to ways of solving it,’
said Mkrtchian.
The Karabakh Armenians do not have a place at the table in the Minsk
Group negotiations, held between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Elements of
a peace deal under discussion include the return of the six
territories under Armenian control outside Karabakh and a referendum
on the future status of the entity.
Masis Mailian, deputy foreign minister of Karabakh, welcomed the
discussions because he said that the public in Karabakh had been left
`on the sidelines’ in the debate over their own future.
`I believe that the authorities should always rely on public opinion
and the position of society for its actions,’ said Mailian. `There
are a lot of interesting ideas, which the authorities should
definitely take into account in the course of its work.’
The participants debated five future scenarios: the status quo;
independence for Karabakh; Karabakh joining Armenia; Karabakh
becoming an international protectorate and giving up the surrounding
Azerbaijani territories; and Karabakh ceding the territories in
return for potential independence in the future (the closest option
to what is currently under negotiation). The option that Karabakh
should return to being part of Azerbaijan was not put forward and no
one even mentioned this as a possibility.
At the end of the debate, the majority of participants – 31 people in
all – voted for the option of independence, twelve said they wanted
to keep the status quo, with other options receiving much weaker
support.
There was widespread opposition to some of the ideas being discussed
during the current peace talks – the deployment of international
peacekeepers in the conflict zone, giving up of territories, return
of the pre-war Azerbaijani population and a referendum on the future
status of Karabakh.
One participant said, `Since the truce of 1994, the ceasefire regime
has been maintained thanks to the balance of forces that has formed.
This is a unique case. The introduction of a third force can disturb
this balance and lead to unpredictable consequences.’
A fairly typical view came from Eleonora Gazarian, who said, `One
thing became clear in the course of our discussions – we will not
make any kind of compromises under someone else’s diktat. I think
that we need a comprehensive solution with the definition of the
status of Nagorny Karabakh first and then mutual concessions.’
On a broader point almost everyone was agreed – that the Karabakh
Armenians should proceed at full speed with the project of building
up democratic and civic institutions in their unrecognised state,
whatever their international status.
Eduard Agabekian, the mayor of Stepanakert, said, `We must create the
state of which we dream – with a stable economy, socially just, where
there is no conception that some are allowed to do everything and
others are not even allowed to do what is permitted by law.’
Poghosian said he was pleased with the debates and planned to hold
similar initiatives in the future. `People had the chance to check
certain items of information and to give their own views of the
problem,’ he said. `Initiatives like this also have the aim of
inculcating young people with the ability to negotiate and solve
conflicts.’
Ashot Beglarian is a freelance journalist and IWPR contributor in
Nagorny Karabakh.