HOW THE VISIT OF THE INTELLECTUALS WAS ESTIMATED
VARDAN GRIGORYAN

Hayots Ashkharh Daily – Armenia
30 June 07

The one-day visit of the delegation of Armenian and Azerbaijani
intellectuals to Nagorno-Karabakh, headed by Armenian and Azerbaijani
Ambassadors in Russia composers Armen Smbatyan and Polad Biulbiulogly
can be estimated as an initial attempt towards the basis of people’s
diplomacy.
Regardless of the impact of the before mentioned step on the
regulation of Karabakh issue and the improvement of the relations
between the two peoples, it is extremely motivating from the point of
view of the first responses.
The most important thing at present is, how the visit of the
intellectuals will be estimated in the political framework and among
the society. As NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan mentioned during his
meeting with the intellectuals in Stepanakert,’ Unless we take note of
each other’s viewpoint and create an atmosphere of trust, we will
undoubtedly be far from negotiation process.’
People’s diplomacy is aimed at overcoming the atmosphere of distrust
among the countries and the people. That is why the success or failure
of this procedure is measured first of all by the degree of the impact
on this atmosphere. In this respect, the observations of the results of
this visit record a strange fact.
In Armenia and Artsakh no one has uttered any positive or negative
word regarding the visit. Moreover in our society this visit has been
estimated the same way as any other regular visit of an international
organization or a diplomat.
In this respect the visit of the delegation of Armenian and
Azerbaijani intellectuals headed by Armen Smbatyan and Poland
Biulbiulogly had the same influence on our society as the visit of the
Head of the International Currency Fund Marta Castelo-Branko.
It seems that even if Ilham Aliev visits the capital of Armenia
there will be no particular interest towards this visit from the
intellectuals and let alone the society.
From the one hand it is good of course, as it reflects the
deep-rooted belief of our society that Karabakh issue is already
resolved. But on the other hand it is bad, as it demonstrates the
atmosphere of apathy.
But the picture is different in Azerbaijan, where almost all the
famous political and public figures have managed to express their
opinion about that `shocking event’. The variety of the opinions
manifested in Azerbaijan can be divided into three groups.
First: the political figures representing the official standpoint of
the country guided by the announcement of the representative of
Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry according to which the visit is only the
initiative of the two composer-diplomats and that in his opinion it
doesn’t prove the de facto recognition of NKR by Azerbaijan.
The supporters of the second standpoint immediately raised a
hullabaloo stating that the visit of Azerbaijani delegation headed by
Biulbiulogly is a betrayal and demanded to recall Azerbaijani
Ambassador in Moscow. Not only does the head of `Karabakh Liberation
Movement’ Akif Naghly support this idea but also, strange as it may
seem, representatives of influential pro-opposition powers Sardar
Jalaloghly, Isa Ghambar, Aly Kerimly.
The last group of the activists, as well as ex-State Secretary on
Foreign Affairs Vafa Guluzade evaluated this visit as a dangerous
attempt to make Nagorno Karabakh as a conflicting party and it plays
into the hands of Armenian diplomacy.
The third group of estimations includes the small part of
politicians and political figure that are extremely enthusiastic about
this visit.
Thus unlike Armenians, the response of Azerbaijani political
frameworks and the society regarding the first step towards people’s
diplomacy was extremely sharp, thus reconfirming the fact that the two
peoples and societies have diametrically different approaches towards
the dialogues between the two countries.
Armenian society and especially its Armenian sector are quite
indifferent to this issue, but Karabakh people manifest great and
direct interest towards it. As for Azerbaijani society, it preserves
the hostile prejudices characteristic to the `cold war’ period, with
its overwhelming majority.