Afterword to the Munich Debate of Aliyev and Pashinyan

***

- How do you assess the meeting between the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashin in Munich?

- The meeting between the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinen in Munich took place at the 55th conference on peace and security on and the elimination of these threats on the European continent. The fact that during the conference, along with Lebanon, Syria, and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh was discussed can be considered an important event. Although the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has long been the focus of world leaders, this issue was not publicly discussed at such a conference with 35 heads of state and more than 80 foreign and defense ministers.

- The Azerbaijani media put forward the president of Azerbaijan in this debate. How can a defeated country leader win a debate? What was the victory?

- The Azerbaijani media and experts promoted by these media in their roles. They represent to society in the form of victory our successes at any meetings and events. This is normal. In fact, if the media discussed this on a regular basis, for example, if they commented on the live broadcast of negotiations between the president and the prime minister, that would be understandable. Television broadcasts do not broadcast this meeting live, nor do they subsequently translate it, but then the statements inflated by them themselves are circulated. If they wanted to convey what the president said, they would have to give it in the original. People could watch this interview and debate on their own. It is unprofessional to comment on this meeting with experts after it ends. Ilham Aliyev had a successful discussion, and a well-grounded positive assessment by the public is normal.

- Which of the arguments of the parties were stronger and more thorough?

- Of course, the first was given the floor to the President of Azerbaijan, it is clear that he was the first to tell about the state’s position on the conflict. Azerbaijan’s position was more reasoned. At international events, of course, Armenia is the responding party. The Armenian justification for the occupation of Azerbaijani territories is incomprehensible to an international audience. We have witnessed this many times. Experts from Armenia and even independent experts cannot bring serious arguments that could explain the invasion of Armenia on the territory of Azerbaijan. Therefore, it is clear that the Azerbaijani side demands the elimination of the fact of occupation. The Prime Minister of Armenia used certain tricks. This is a serious statement about stability and peace in front of such a large audience. Of course, behind such a statement there is no serious intention in achieving a serious peace. However, his statements are carefully studied by European institutions. Because so far no one in the Armenian leadership has made such extenuating statements about the achievement of stability and peace. Therefore, Pashinyan’s unexpected nomination of such a proposal to seek peace by the parties to the conflict seems attractive to Europe and the international community. However, general discussions showed that the arguments of the Armenian side on the extension of the conflict are weak.

- What information does the debate give to the international community? Is it enough to inform about the realities of Azerbaijan?

- Actually, the message of Ilham Aliyev is aimed at the fact that Azerbaijan is a victim of the occupation, and the liberation of its territories is one of the main principles for establishing stability in the region. At the same time, President Aliyev said that it is important for the victims of the conflict to return to their homeland, which would give a serious impetus to the normalization of relations. This is one of the approaches that the West is comfortable with regard to humanitarian issues. Aliyev leaves for later a solution to a difficult problem - the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Therefore, Aliyev was very specific in setting out the position of Azerbaijan.

- One of the topics in this discussion was the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group. Both sides of the conflict stated that they prefer to negotiate within the framework of a well-known institution for conflict resolution. However, over the years, we do not see the effectiveness of this organization. Why do not the leaders of the conflicting parties talk about this?

- In general, not a single organization, except for the OSCE Minsk Group, offered its services to the parties to the conflict. The international community, the UN, the European Union and the Council of Europe also recognize the OSCE Minsk Group as the main mediator in this conflict. Therefore, the parties are well aware that changing the format is a long and risky task. Therefore, no one wants to do something to change this. At the official level, we do not hear any serious complaints from the OSCE Minsk Group. In Azerbaijan, Armenia, at the level of presidents or foreign ministers, there are no official statements or comments about the dissatisfaction with the Minsk Group. However, public figures, political parties and politicians close to the authorities issue such statements. As if to monitor the mood of society. The heads of state understand that it is difficult to refuse the services of the OSCE Minsk Group. That is why they sometimes secretly criticize, but at the same time value cooperation with the OSCE Minsk Group. At international events, they cooperate with her, not focusing on their dissatisfaction with the activities of intermediaries.

- The conflicting parties did not make any military statements at the meeting. Why?

- In reality, the heads of state went to a meeting of the Munich Security Conference to discuss security issues and global challenges. Of course, there should speak from a softer position.  It is more important was to give some hope for overall security. Therefore, there were more historical excursions. No one made annoying statements. I think it was a pre-planned approach. Because if the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan made statements at the security conference that could harm security, then it would be pointless to discuss the benefits of this conference. I see this as the main reason for leaders to avoid military statements. Because within the framework of such a large conference format, the parties deliberately reminded of their positions. The Azerbaijani side did this, and the Armenian side responded. In any case, it was a good case when the parties stated their positions at the Conference on Security.

- What do you recommend? Should the parties continue negotiations in this form and tradition, or should they seek new ways to resolve the conflict?

- Negotiations to resolve the conflict are conducted at the level of foreign ministers and heads of state. They may have more detailed discussions. Not only in such open debates. Therefore, in parallel with the official negotiation process, it is very good to hold open debates in Europe, Russia and the capitals of the co-chairing countries. At such meetings, the parties repeat the rhetoric that is actually present in the community, and at the same time bring up the rhetoric for discussion. This was the first such event at the level of heads of state. It was important for the heads of state to speak and see the reaction of others in the framework of such a large conference, as well as demonstrate their commitment to the negotiation process. Two presidents succeeded. Although the accusations against each other were harsh, they made it clear that some progress could be made in the negotiation process. Heads of state should be interested in holding such open debates in parallel with the participation in discussions of senior government officials, representatives of civil society, think tanks and political parties. Spread this open debate in both countries. In any case, the views expressed by the heads of state in Munich are widely debated, endorsed and criticized. This means that a huge push has been made. Until now, hundreds and thousands of conferences have been held by civil society. None of these conferences were broadcast on television. The public did not discuss this openly. Now everyone is discussing such an open debate between the heads of state. This is a huge effect. Both the president and the prime minister did it successfully. Debate also played an important role in increasing the popularity of Ilham Aliyev among the population. President Ilham Aliyev firmly defended the country's position on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.