“Our society doesn’t accept the proposals made by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen. In fact, if you’ve noticed, those proposals aren’t accepted by Azerbaijan either,” said independent journalist and sociologist David Gharabekyan from Karabakh.
Gharabekyan has come to that conclusion based on the speeches and public discussions of social figures in Karabagh. However, D. Gharabekyan is of the opinion that both sides must be ready for “mutually beneficial solutions”. According to the Karabakhi analyst, on the one hand, the announcements made by the co-chairmen were aimed towards progressing the negotiations, and on the other hand, they were aimed towards getting public opinion.
“Since Karabakh and Armenia are the ones that have to make most of the compromises, Bryza is trying to convince society and the authorities that the compromises are inevitable and is getting them ready for it. On the other hand, Bryza was trying to get the people more interested so that the political discussions could counterbalance the despair and aggression in Azerbaijan,” says the analyst.
According to him, it seems as though now Bryza has reached his goal because different levels of society have started discussing the principles of the conflict settlement and expressing their opinions.
“With that, people are not focusing on pressuring the opponent, rather they are trying to make a right, political decision,” he says.
Gharabekyan believes that leaving Karabakh out of the negotiations process for the past eight years has had a negative influence on the process as a whole. On the other hand, the extremist declarations and promises made by the Azeri authorities have put an end to retreating with the authorities. As a result, according to Gharabekyan, the sides are in a situation that they can’t get out of.
“Both Karabakh and Armenia won’t accept a solution which will be discussed without Karabakh. Any negotiation concerning the return of territories or the conflict in general will be illegal without Karabakh and the sides won’t reach their goals. On the contrary, things will get worse,” says Gharabekyan.
He believes that Karabakh will reject the current principles, just like it rejected the phased version of the conflict settlement in 1997. The reason for this, according to Gharabekyan, is the following:
“The given document, that version doesn’t equally protect the interests of both sides and that will create obstacles for the settlement.”
What principles will make the people of Karabakh agree with the conflict settlement?
“Karabakh’s status must exclude Karabakh from Azerbaijan’s territory. Refugees must receive financial compensations for the lands they have lost. Finally, Armenia and Karabakh must have safe borders,” says the analyst as he lists the beneficial principles.
But since both sides differ in opinions regarding those principles, I asked Gharbekyan whether or not he sees a conflict settlement in the future.
“Conflicts like this are not settled quickly, for example, the Arab-Israeli conflict. It took 40 years for it to settle. Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as their societies, must feel a sense of responsibility to establish peace and that they can’t just be separated from the regional processes,” he says.
However, over the past couple of years, the Karabakh conflict has turned into something to take advantage of. A state overturn took place in Armenia in 1998 and the Karabakh conflict was brought up as an excuse. The Armenian society and international community have gone along with the Armenian authorities for the sake of the Karabakh conflict settlement over the years. So, I asked Mr. Gharabekyan if Karabakh is not interested in that.
“This says something about how interested the society is in the Karabakh conflict. However, I must say that when any conflict settlement is taken advantage of, there is no longer a chance for constructive discussions,” says Gharabekyan.