A CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACH IS NEEDED
By Karine Mangassarian
Yerkir.am
May 12, 2006
What role can the political and societal attitudes of conflicting
parties have in the Karabagh settlement process? A roundtable
discussion was organized by Social Communication NGO and the Armenian
Association for Conflict and Peace Research on May 11 to discuss
this question.
Representative of ARF’s Supreme Body, head of the standing
parliamentary committee on external relations Armen Rustamian and
chairman of AACPR Khachik Galstian participated in the roundtable.
Rustamian started his presentation by referring to the meeting of the
Armenian and Azeri presidents in Rambouyet since this meeting generated
discussions that the negotiation process had entered a deadlock.
“Rambouollet was an important point and we have to assess it
objectively to understand where the negotiation process has reached
in the recent years and what the tendencies of today are. Many people
think that Rambouollet was a deadlock. I don’t think so. If we take
such an approach this would mean that we have had many deadlocks,”
Rustamian said noting that the logic of the negotiation process
occasionally implies such outcomes.
Rustamian believes the negotiation process should be assessed from
two perspectives. First, from the perspective of the degree of
constructivity and second from the perspective of efficiency of the
negotiations. There is a lot to do in terms of ensuring a constructive
approach and the international organizations accept this fact. They
believe that no projects implemented in the region can be efficient
unless the conflicts are resolved.
What should be done to make the positions of the conflicting parties
more constructive? “In the case of Karabagh settlement it becomes
increasingly evident that the settlement process cannot be constructive
if the settlement does not reflect the nature of the conflict. In
other words, this is an ethno-political conflict and there can be no
settlement unless its root causes are eliminated.
If the causes are not settled the conflict itself cannot be settled. I
think the international community gradually understands this,”
Rustamian stated noting that it is impossible to arrive at a final
settlement of a conflict if only the consequences of the conflict are
addressed without dealing with its causes. Otherwise, peace cannot
last long.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is trying to propose step-by-step settlement
considering today’s peace as a great concession to the Armenian
side. “Peace is necessary for everyone. It cannot be in the interests
of just one party. If the other side insists that peace is a concession
and the other party should make concessions in return, this is wrong.
The negotiation process cannot be constructive if the parties do not
understand the necessity for peace,” Rustamian noted. He believes
it is wrong to address all conflicts with one and the same formula
since even the three conflicts in our region are different in terms
of their political, historical and legal aspects.
Azerbaijan is not willing to accept this fact and insists on settlement
of the conflict based on its territorial integrity. “We are ready
to respect Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity but Karabagh has never
been a part of independent Azerbaijan”, Rustamian stated.
Azerbaijan rejects any cooperation while Armenia, according to
Rustamian, considers that a platform of common interests should
be created to mitigate the parties’ mutual distrust towards each
other. Otherwise, no one can guarantee that even if an agreement is
reached it will not be breached on the very next day.
Commenting on the efficiency of the negotiation process,
Rustamian noted that the Karabagh conflict is unique in that
one of the conflicting parties, Karabagh, is not involved in the
negotiations. “What we have today is not negotiations but simply
consultations.
This process should eventually contribute to negotiations whereby
the three parties will sit around the negotiation table and agree on
a final document,” Rustamian noted adding that Armenia should not be
blamed for getting involved in the conflict since if Armenia had not
involved in it another genocide would have been committed in Karabagh.
Khachik Galstian talked about the role of people’s diplomacy in
conflict settlement, in other words, the role of the public sector. He
believes that even though on the level of political relations
militaristic statements are voiced especially by Azerbaijan, people’s
diplomacy should aim at the peaceful settlement of the conflict.
“People will have the final say in any solution of Nagorno Karabagh
conflict, ” Galstian stated noting that on this level we can witness
double standards of ethics whereby a murderer is announced the man
of the year in Azerbaijan and a murderer in Armenia.
Is the government undertaking any measures to organize interaction
between the parties at this level? According to Rustamian, the Armenian
side has always proposed to Azerbaijan to establish such relations.
However, if any Azeri political figure attempts to do something in
this direction he will not be able to return to Azerbaijan because
they think that engaging in such a dialog means treason of their
country. Galstian believes such relations should be established on
the level of intercultural communication.
Azerbaijan is not ready for this either.
What expectations can we have from the two presidents’ next
meeting? Can we expect it to be more constructive? Rustamian is not
very optimistic about this since today the principle approaches of
the two parties are very different.
Even if a document is drafted it cannot be considered final and
will only be a document stating the principles on which the parties
agree. Meanwhile, the answers to the important and subtle issues
related to the conflict can only be reached through serious work of
experts and political scientists.