Interview with Armenian-born Phil Gamaghelyan, managing editor of the Journal of Conflict Transformation.
Q: Do you agree that 2010 was an unsuccessful year for a Karabakh settlement, despite Russia's active role as a mediator?
A: Unfortunately, I have to agree with this. I think the beginning of 2010 was very promising. The changing geopolitical environment in the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 "unfroze" the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and initially created a geopolitical environment conducive to a resolution. All the major players in the region – Russia, the USA, Turkey and the EU – considered a resolution to be in their interests. Yet our leaders failed to capitalize on this opportunity and no progress was registered. The combination of great expectations and a lack of progress has led to an inevitable backlash and now all the sides are more cautious than they have been and are back to their usual, mutually exclusive, positions.
Q: What are your expectations of 2011? Do you expect any progress in the peace process?
A: I do not expect any progress in the peace process. I think if we can avoid a new war in 2011, we should consider it good news. Progress at this point is not likely, at least not in the current format of OSCE-led negotiations. What we can do, however, is develop a new and comprehensive strategy, learning from the failures of the current peace process. The priority, for 2011, still, is the prevention of conflict, not resolution, I think.
Q: Do you believe that Azerbaijan and Armenia can solve bilateral problems by peaceful means?
A: Yes, I am absolutely certain that they can. In fact I think the only way this conflict can be resolved it is to have Azerbaijan and Armenia look at this conflict as a common problem and jointly solve it. Fifteen years of reliance on third parties to solve our problems, as we can see, have produced no results, as the sides themselves have not done enough. Armenia and Azerbaijan still have a chance to sort out their own future, but they are slowly but surely running out of time.
Q: The current Armenian president and his predecessor are sure that Armenians and Azeris cannot coexist in the neighbourhood. How would you comment on that?
A: I think I was asked this question already when you interviewed me few months ago. I can repeat what I said: I think one of the major reasons we are not able to resolve this conflict is the radical rhetoric from our leaders. It is impossible to find a sustainable solution unless we change the hostile language that we use when talking about one another.
There are no two peoples that are not able to coexist. French and Germans, Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants, many others, killed each other but live peacefully side by side today. These are the kind of statements by the leaders which, together with propaganda in education and the media, create conditions when our two societies are indeed not able to coexist peacefully. Armenians and Azerbaijanis most definitely can live side by side, but certainly not while our leaders, our media and our education systems are doing everything possible to prevent it.
Q: Do you believe in the success of public diplomacy between Azerbaijan and Armenia?
A: Relations between the Armenian and Azerbaijan societies are very hostile. Even if our leaders found a solution tomorrow, we would face enormous problems trying to implement the peace agreement. The refugees would face hostility when they try to return, various spoilers are likely to be able to sabotage the peace process. While it is up to the politicians to negotiate a political agreement, it is the role of public diplomacy to restore the badly damaged relations between the societies. Moreover, in times like these, when the political process has exhausted itself and the negotiations are pretty much dead, public diplomacy can help to generate new and alternative ideas to move the peace process forward. Overall, public diplomacy always serves as the safety net that keeps the peace process alive and mitigates the fallouts or failures of official diplomacy. Yet to be effective, public diplomacy needs to complement the official process. Unfortunately in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh, there is very little coordination between the official peace process and public diplomacy efforts, which reduces the effectiveness of both the official process and public diplomacy.
Q: What are the prospects for Armenian-Turkish relations? Are improvements any time soon realistic?
A: The Armenia-Turkey official normalization process had some successes and some failures. Unlike the official process, the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation process has been consistently moving forward in recent years thanks to public diplomacy.
Just five to seven years ago, Armenian-Turkish relations were just as bad as Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and improvement seemed a hopeless case. Yet today we have visible progress and a process of reconciliation that goes forward with full force and, I believe, is irreversible. Joint Armenian-Turkish conferences and research initiatives are all but commonplace now. In 2010 I had the chance to participate in numerous Armenian-Turkish initiatives, both in Yerevan and in Istanbul, and there were so many of them that I had to miss most of them. When in Istanbul, I ran into other Armenians on a daily basis who were there on various reconciliation-focused initiatives. Turkish business people freely travel to Armenia nowadays and vice versa.
The further improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations is perhaps the only hope left that the atmosphere in the region might improve, contributing to the resolution of other problems, including the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation.
Phil Gamaghelyan is the managing editor of the Journal of Conflict Transformation: Caucasus Edition; co-director of the Imagine Centre for Conflict Transformation and a fellow at the International Centre for Conciliation.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
