I got an e-mail from Azerbaijan last week. It was a letter to the people of Armenia signed by 101 Azeri intellectuals. At the end of the letter, the authors write that they would like the readers to consider it a call for peace, not look for secret intentions or make counter-arguments.
I usually don’t find secret intentions and I have never had any. As a human being, I am ready to shake the hand of the person in favor of peace, even if that person is from the official Baku. (If official Baku wants to shake hands, then it feels the need to). What I didn’t understand by reading the letter was what they meant by “not presenting counter- arguments”.
There is no other text besides the Holy Bible, which can’t have any counter-arguments. Any writer puts in emotion, subjective approaches. But it’s not only about making counter-arguments. The problem is that the political and social cultures of the Southern Caucasus region have made it so people don’t understand that a conflict like the Karabakh conflict can only be solved through a dialogue.
A month ago, a high-ranking Azeri official suggested granting Karabakh an autonomy status like that of Tatarstan in Russia. Question: did the Azeri official come up with that suggestion by himself? Had he discussed with his fellow officials about what he was suggesting to the people of Karabakh, who have been living apart from the Azeri authorities for over twenty years now? If he were to have discussed that, then he would realize that that wouldn’t be accepted by Karabakh.
After reading that announcement, I started to go further in detail about the topics related to the Tatarstan Republic in Russia. I must say that that type of autonomy status is rather impressive. Any kind of issue is regulated by the constitution, laws, and contracts signed by both Tatarstan and the federal authorities. In a word, it’s harmony-you leave us in peace and let us develop, and we don’t take too much advantage.
After researching, a question comes up: how come Russia doesn’t settle the conflicts in Northern Caucasus by using the Tatar autonomy status? Isn’t it possible to use the same Russian-Tatar harmony in the long-suffering land of Ichkeria? I think that Russia has thought about that, but hasn’t taken any steps knowing that after a bloody war, you can’t reach harmony with any customs or taxing contracts, much less see the establishment of peace.
The same goes for Armenia. When Armenians reply to Azerbaijan’s declaration negatively, telling them to keep their autonomy status for themselves and that Karabakh has been independent for the past ten years, they don’t discuss or think about the fact that if it was possible to live in a euphoria of victory for only a decade and a half with the current economic situation, the next decade would require more, including investments, work places, normal living conditions, etc.
They don’t realize that the audience watching this political game of ping-pong is the people of both countries. They are not only tired of watching the game, but also aren’t encouraged about the victory or defeat.
Perhaps this is the reason why the Azeri intellectuals confuse the proposal for peace and the threat of war by offering to shake hands. The Azeri intellectuals write:
“This ‘no war, no peace’ status can’t go on. This cold war and conflict are eating up huge amounts of resources belonging to Armenia and Azerbaijan. If things go at this rate, many Azeri consider getting ready for a new war as the only alternative.”
After reading the line “no war, no peace” status, I was hoping that the Azeri intellectuals would suggest starting a dialogue and two-way communication, but alas, they proposed restarting a war and gave a list of advantages that Azerbaijan has and may have. This is how they ask the people of Armenia to join them in settling the Karabakh conflict and remind them:
“After all, the alternative to peace is war.”
There is one evident contradiction in the letter. As I already mentioned, they ask Armenia not to bring up counter-arguments, meanwhile, they say the opposite in the beginning.
“We’re bringing up our arguments without claiming that it’s the truth of the higher instance because we want to find a reasonable way out of this labyrinth together.”
If we have to find a way out together, then how can we do that without a dialogue? If we must talk it out, then how can we not bring up counter-arguments? Finally, if they want to call us to a debate, why are they recommending the people of Karabakh to conduct a referendum for returning the six seized territories?
Based on this proposal, we can come to the conclusion that the Azeri intellectuals have already faced the fact that Karabakh is no longer a part of Azerbaijan; otherwise they wouldn’t write “to return at least six regions surrounding Karabakh” and wouldn’t forget Lachin and Kelbajar when listing the names of those regions.
The Armenian and Azeri societies have been waiting for a dialogue for a while now-a dialogue, which must be based on arguments and counter-arguments and real analyses. There are enough people from both sides ready for a civilized dialogue, but each time they almost reach success, 101 intellectuals come and try to mix the food, which has been cooking in the pot for the past eighteen years, so that it won’t reach the boiling point.