Interview with Dennis Sammut, executive director of the British organization LINKS.
Q: Couldn’t you briefly tell us about the second part of LINKS’ study on the views of Armenian and Azerbaijani political parties and public organizations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its resolution.
A: This second part summarizes the views of Azerbaijani political parties. The study launches our programme: “Karabakh: the big debate”. In 2011 the programme will aim to contribute to creating the space and the right environment for a comprehensive debate on the Karabakh conflict and its resolution amongst and between political forces in Armenia and Azerbaijan, at home and in the diaspora.
A team from LINKS conducted face to face interviews with leaders of political parties and public organizations in Yerevan during June 2010 and in Baku during July 2010. Twenty three Armenian political parties and six public organizations were surveyed in Armenia and twenty three political parties and sixteen public organizations were surveyed in Azerbaijan.
The short essays that form part of this second part of the survey summarise the views of the twenty three Azerbaijani political parties.
Q: What are the purposes of the project?
A: This study maps out the declared positions of the political parties. It helps the reader to understand the domestic political context in which the Karabakh negotiations are taking place. Despite the fact that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan are perfect democracies the leaders of the two countries cannot ignore the views of the politically active part of society on this issue, which all agree is of vital importance for both countries.
LINKS will shortly also release a similar study on the views of Armenian politicians in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh displaced by the conflict.
Q: And what are your general impressions on the views of Azerbaijani political parties on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process?
A: Azerbaijani political parties are fairly unanimous in seeking a solution to the Karabakh conflict based on the restoration of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, i.e. the return of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjoining territories lost to Armenia in the conflict. There is widespread recognition of the need to give Nagorno-Karabakh extensive autonomy within Azerbaijan. Some parties have elaborated detailed plans of how this can be done. There is also recognition by some parties that the deployment of international peacekeeping forces of some sort will be needed. Some party spokespersons highlighted the need for Azerbaijani democracy to be strengthened in order to make the preposition of a return of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh back into the Azerbaijani fold more attractive.
Most of the political parties interviewed consider the military option as a possible solution to the problem. There is a quasi fatalistic tone to this preposition based on an assumption that Azerbaijan will have to resort to the military option if all else fails, whatever the cost. None of the politicians interviewed seem to question this approach, although clearly some are more bellicose than others.
There are many different opinions with regards to the role of the international community, the Minsk Group process and key international actors. However there is a tone of suspicion in the voice of all those interviewed. Only Turkey’s role is generally welcomed. Some Parties out-rightly condemn the work of the Minsk Group and accuse the three co-Chair countries of pro-Armenian bias. Many criticise Russia and point a finger at Russia as the main reason why the conflict has not been resolved. Iran is also generally considered to have been pro-Armenian. The European Union, in as much as it is mentioned, is usually regarded in a positive manner.
There are mixed views also on the possible role of civil society in helping the peace process. Some express quite cynical opinions about this process. Many others are however positive. However even those who support people to people contact insist that the free movement of people at this point is unacceptable.
The wide spectrum of opinions contained in these twenty three short essays reflects the level of attention that the Karabakh question receives in Azerbaijan, where it dominates the political discourse. As in Armenia, many Azerbaijani politicians actually participated in the conflict. Many were also displaced by the conflict. For them the issue is very emotional and personal.
The views expressed are fascinating to read. They remain ofcourse the views of those interviewed and not of LINKS.
Together with the views of the Armenian political parties published in our report two weeks ago this collection of interviews needs to be read by anybody with an interest in the conflict and its resolution as it provides the political context in which the conflict is anchored. Some views from both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani perspectives are disturbing. They remain however part of the actual reality.
W.W.
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
