Avaz Hasanov: Peacekeeping Is Marriage of Convenience

Baku / 12.02.19 / Turan: The Society for Humanitarian Studies held a conference in Baku on the search for peace with Armenia, which caused mixed reactions in the society.

The head of this NGO, Avaz Hasanov, in an interview with Turan shared his thoughts.

Question: After the conference, opponents of reconciliation with Armenia became more active. Why was it decided to hold such an event today?

Answer: I have been actively engaged in peacemaking, seeking reconciliation of the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples for a long time. We have come to this day considerably weakened, since in 2014 the authorities brought the civil society of Azerbaijan to paralysis. They destroyed organizations involved in conflict resolution.

Unlike Azerbaijan, Armenian organizations retained all their capabilities, and after Pashinyan came to power, their positions even strengthened.

Our organization is already four years old, as a victim of the blockade of its own state. Recently, the Azerbaijani and Armenian authorities declared the need to establish confidence-building measures. If the authorities are sincere, then we can bring the issue of peacemaking to public discussion.

Our organization cannot represent the people, speak on its behalf and sign any documents. But by holding public discussions, we can inform about the situation and the policy of the authorities.

Question: What are the results of your conference?

Answer: At various levels, Azerbaijan and Armenia are called to prepare their peoples for peace, and this is happening against the background of negotiations between the Foreign Ministries of the two countries. However, Armenia should sacrifice much more than we. In Armenia, peace talks are unpopular.

After the April 2016 events, Azerbaijan gained an advantage in the negotiations and, therefore, the topic of peace in our society should not be understood as defeatism. Azerbaijan can actually further intensify the negotiation process, taking new steps that call the existing status quo into question.

It should do this as opposed to the intention of Yerevan to put forward new rules in the negotiation process (to negotiate with Nagorno-Karabakh - Red).

At our conference it became clear that the potential of civil society in Azerbaijan has not dried up.

Question: What is public opinion on this issue?

Answer: In Azerbaijan, hundreds of public activists stand for an exclusively military solution to the conflict. Any parallel suggestions are rejected.

Such statements are patriotic and therefore popular, but they contradict the state strategy of solving the problem not only by force.

However, if you build a state strategy only on such ideas, this will lead to a defeat in the negotiations.

Such a process should be very flexible and based on comprehensive steps.

The actions of Pashinyan"s team showed that he switched to the option of flexible steps. If now our government takes a tough stance, rejecting a flexible policy, we will lose, and the pressure of the international community will increase.

Question: What are the moods in Armenia?

Answer: Now the authorities have little interest in public opinion. In order to receive alternative messages, only the possibilities of civil society have remained.

There are no discussions on this topic on television, and people are excluded from the process. Only a group of public sector activists gather in small rooms and discuss certain options for achieving peace.

Millions of people hear the call of the patriots and applaud them. They are advertised by the pro-government and opposition press because patriotic appeals sound beautiful. Why is someone disturbed by discussions held by a group of 15 people and without the presence of journalists?

For a long time under the former authority of Armenia, Yerevan conducted negotiations without achieving a result. However, the entire international community praised the Armenians. Now, the new government of Armenia accuses the Karabakh clan of "selling Karabakh".

Now the new government does not speak about peace, but discusses the possibilities of mutual compromises. As I have already said, Armenia has moved to a flexible policy, and we are forced to adhere to the tactics of the 1990s.

Peacemaking is not a call for fraternization, but something like a profitable "marriage of convenience". The winner is the one who has the best lawyer.

Question: Pashinyan makes contradictory statements. He says that Agdam is not Armenian and the Armenians cannot live on the plain, and he also demands the participation of Karabakh in the negotiations. What does he really want?

Answer: Pashinyan wants to take time. He does not want to become a target for the "Karabakh clan". Therefore, he makes unrelated statements for the society and the world to analyze his thoughts.

Question: How can one characterize the policy of Azerbaijan at the talks?

Answer: Azerbaijan at the talks does not look like the losing side. The whole world is interested in Armenia and Azerbaijan agreeing on peace.

Azerbaijan, however, is more committed to a just peace and therefore is not in a hurry with the result. Of course, people are suffering and refugees are dying, dreaming of their homeland. But the achievement of peace should not seem easy. It is difficult for a country that has lost the war to seize the initiative in negotiations and this process is long-term. The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry can negotiate with profit for us, but this topic is not discussed with the national think tanks.

Question: What will be your future actions?

Answer: We need to discuss peacekeeping with the authorities. There is a need to synchronize actions. Public peacekeeping should be docked with the activities of the authorities. Appeals for peace to a power not ready for peace will be accepted by society as a betrayal. -0-