“Azerbaijan is unequivocally committed to peace in the South Caucasus” Armenian cultural figure in an interview with Caliber.Az

In an exclusive interview with Caliber.Az, Professor of the Yerevan State Institute of Theatre and Film, Artistic Director of the Yerevan Puppet Theatre, Honoured Art Worker of Armenia, and participant of the “Bridge of Peace” civic initiative, Ruben Babayan reflects on his experience of participating in Armenian–Azerbaijani dialogue platforms and outlines his views on the evolving dynamics of regional engagement.

– What impressions did the latest meeting of the “Bridge of Peace” initiative, which this time took place in Gabala, Azerbaijan, leave on you?

– Gabala is a very beautiful region, a natural gem of Azerbaijan. There is a special atmosphere here, and this, perhaps, even influenced the working environment of the delegations from our countries. Admiring the mountains in Gabala, one inevitably reflects that peace is, first and foremost, harmony, and this state must also fill our everyday lives. Although I had visited Azerbaijan back in Soviet times, it is impossible to remain indifferent when looking at all this. It is a truly heavenly place, and I even noted in my speech at the round table that humanity was originally gifted a paradise, but through our own folly, through various wars and conflicts, we turn it into hell. These thoughts seem especially relevant now, against the backdrop of the major war in the Middle East. And the fact that we, gathered in Gabala, are, at these very days, speaking about establishing peace in our region is highly symbolic and extremely important.

I have been participating in various peace initiatives between our countries since 2021, and I would like to note that the meetings within the framework of the “Bridge of Peace” stand out primarily because of their format, as they are held without intermediaries. As is known, intermediaries always enjoy a certain authority – they are the best, the kindest, the most civilised – but in any case, they also pursue their own interests to some extent, and this should be kept in mind. Secondly, frankly speaking, I find it somewhat condescending when two peoples with rich cultures are unable to reach an agreement on their own and require intermediaries. Such direct contacts are far more useful and productive, and our meetings prove this.

– What do you see as the main advantage of such discussions?

– The discussions are sometimes very frank, and I believe this is absolutely right, because in order to understand another person, you need to be attentive and truly listen to them. Everyone has their own pain, and without understanding the pain of others, you can never build bridges of mutual understanding.

As I understand it, I am currently the only representative of Armenian culture here. However, it is quite obvious that over time our project will expand further in various directions, including the development of cultural bridges. Not only will certain ties be restored, but new ones will also emerge. In my view, this is a very important aspect of our initiative, because any attempt to simply restore everything exactly as it was before is always doomed to failure. People, especially the older generation, often recall with nostalgia how well they lived during the Soviet Union. But it is important to understand that this time cannot be brought back; it is gone forever, and that country no longer exists. People change, new generations come, new interests, views, projects and plans emerge, new ideas appear. We must give them space. With old systems and rules, you are always destined to fall behind.

– Ruben, how do you assess the dynamics of the initiative’s work? How quickly is the implementation of the tasks set by the “Bridge of Peace” moving forward?

– I think the most accurate assessment is the efficiency coefficient generated by the initiative’s activities. This lies not so much in the meetings and discussions themselves, but in the periods after them, when the groups return home and begin working directly with their respective societies, implementing in practice everything that was agreed upon during the joint discussions. In other words, they are doing their “homework,” because we cannot gather several million of our compatriots from both sides at a meeting. So, the idea of the “Bridge of Peace” does not end with two-day meetings – it is only just beginning its work. For comparison, over the past two months, members of the Armenian group have held around 40 meetings with representatives of Armenian society.

It is clear that in one or two days, or even in one year, you cannot fundamentally change the situation that has effectively developed over the past 30 years. In my view, in the future our “round tables” will take on a slightly different format: there will be more of them, and they will be more narrowly focused, since our societies and states have many issues that can only be addressed jointly. For example, youth relations between the two countries, environmental issues – in particular water resources, which cannot be resolved by any single country on its own. And, of course, issues of logistics and communications. So, in the near future, as I see it, all this will be implemented in the format of professional meetings, where representatives of the transport sector of Azerbaijan, for instance, will meet with their Armenian counterparts, women’s organisations from both countries will discuss relevant issues in this area, and environmental specialists from Azerbaijan and Armenia will likewise engage on ecological matters.

– How do you assess whether Armenian society is currently inclined towards peace with Azerbaijan and ready for dialogue?

– I believe that, in general, any society – whether Armenian or Azerbaijani – is not monolithic and is divided into different categories: there are people who are hostile, those who hold more peaceful views, and those who understand that the Caucasus is our common home, and that sooner or later we will have to trade and communicate with each other.

But one cannot build one’s own happiness on the misfortune of another – this is also very important to understand. Addressing this issue, I said at the meeting that we need to reconsider the very notions of victory and defeat. The principle of understanding the importance of peace forms a genuine victory for society, rather than celebrating victory over an opponent as such. In the latter paradigm, any peace will always remain under threat, much like it was in the USSR and how it is understood in Russia today. As is known, any defeat generates in the loser a sense of revenge and a desire to take the place of the victor.

Returning to the question, I would like to note that, in my view, a certain part of Armenian society – and quite a large one – does have an understanding of the importance of establishing peace with Azerbaijan. There is also an awareness that hostility has brought us nothing good. Moreover, I think that, especially over the past five years, there has been a growing recognition that certain third forces have long benefited from this hostility and were interested in keeping the two peoples in a state of perpetual conflict – sometimes active, sometimes smouldering, but never fully extinguished. Because there are countries that can justify their presence in our region solely through its conflictual nature, and as soon as it becomes peaceful, it turns out they are no longer needed here.

– What impression did your meeting with Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan, leave on you?

It was a very open and sincere conversation. The members of the Armenian group asked Mr. Hajiyev direct and frank questions, including quite sensitive issues that concerned them, and received very open and honest answers in return. This moment also has its reflection – in the same way, the Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia, Armen Grigoryan, at one time responded just as openly and directly to questions from the Azerbaijani delegation of the “Bridge of Peace”.

The main point I would like to emphasise and directly convey to everyone in Armenia is that Azerbaijan is unequivocally committed to peace in the South Caucasus, and only to peace. Regardless of the outcome of various political processes currently unfolding in the international arena and those that will soon take place in Armenia – I am referring to the parliamentary elections in our country – I would like to stress once again that we must value the unique situation that has emerged in the South Caucasus. Our region has become an island of peace amid a series of “hot” conflicts taking place both to the north and to the south of our borders.

Many states also recognise the importance of this in practical terms – at present, a significant share of global air traffic passes over this island of peace in the South Caucasus, which serves as a kind of bridge between Europe and Asia. This is a highly important symbolic and practical sign. We have achieved this situation together – and in order to preserve peace in our region and strengthen its foundations, we must continue to work for it jointly.