“Baku and Yerevan need peace. We have already tried all other options…” Armenian expert on Caliber.Az

In an exclusive interview with Caliber.Az Samvel Meliksetyan, a member of the Peace Bridge Initiative and expert at the Yerevan-based Research Center on Security Policy, shares insights on the latest Armenian–Azerbaijani civil society dialogue. Reflecting on the recent visit to Baku, he discusses the progress of peace efforts, the role of media and public engagement, and the challenges and opportunities in building trust between the two countries.

— What were the main objectives of the return visit of Armenian civil society representatives to Baku? How did it differ from the first meeting in Yerevan?

— The visit to Baku followed the groundwork and discussions we had after the first meeting in Yerevan, which, in my view, was quite productive. At that time, we got to know one another, discussed the initial key ideas within this group, and asked ourselves: “How can we implement them?” Each side refined these ideas after the first meeting, and in Baku we discussed those points again — specifically, what practical steps could be built on that foundation.

Because there are various aspects of Armenian–Azerbaijani normalisation and our dialogue — different tracks such as transport communications, the border, people-to-people contacts, media interaction, or countering disinformation, which is understandably present in this process and may increase over time. Statements and different publications appear that can trigger concern or public reaction in Armenia or Azerbaijan, but later it turns out they were information manipulations, taken out of context or interpreted by certain actors.

Since the dialogue format is expanding, their number may grow, and it is important to understand how to respond to such cases and how to counter them.

By the way, when the Azerbaijani group arrived in Yerevan, I would say that a significant part of the questions asked by the Armenian media were essentially addressed to the Azerbaijani members of the group. A similar situation unfolded in Baku, where we also spoke with the Azerbaijani press, though perhaps on a slightly more limited scale. But this was already a step forward, and now we need to think about how to make information about our work more accessible — how to engage with the media and with the societies of both countries.

Why? Because there are issues that have long been discussed within Armenian–Azerbaijani expert formats, and there is already a certain understanding of how our position and the Azerbaijani position look. Yet when you encounter the reaction of the media or some direct public reaction, it can sometimes be completely unpredictable and not based on an understanding of the dialogue already taking place among experts in our countries and within our group format. People simply do not have this basic information, which makes it especially important to convey the essence of our work directly to the societies of both countries.

Ordinary people also need to start understanding the nuances of what is happening, to hear how we see this process, and to learn how the societies of both countries can support this effort. There are many such ideas and a lot of groundwork, and the next steps should already result in some practical outcomes.

What is very important to understand is that in the 1990s and 2000s there were initiatives in which Armenian and Azerbaijani experts, journalists, and civil society representatives visited each other’s countries and capitals — but, as a rule, everything ended there. These visits took place within the framework of various programmes in which certain international organisations tried to reconcile our societies. But now the situation is different: this is direct interaction, and it is already clear that the number of such meetings will continue — and, I repeat, will grow.

This means that the format of engagement with the media, public organisations, and various professional groups will inevitably expand, and the process will become more specialised across different areas.

— You mentioned that the group’s composition will expand and that the topics of cooperation will deepen. Can you give some practical examples?

— Essentially, it’s not the group itself that is expanding, but the initiative as a whole. Our group remains the core that laid the foundation for this interaction. Over time, however, new issues arise — for example, those related to communications — and the current participants do not have the necessary specialisation. Therefore, we need new members in these areas, both from our side and the Azerbaijani side, who can produce specific analytical materials with recommendations in their respective fields.

For instance, we know that the issue of toponyms often provokes strong reactions in our societies, so specialists are needed who can create a vocabulary on this topic, clarify how these issues can be addressed, guide how the media can cover them, which terminology to use, and so on. All of this requires new people working on these thematic areas.

At present, our activities already cover, besides media and public engagement, areas such as transport communications, border contacts, and interaction with ordinary people. Visits to various regions are also planned, both in Armenia and Azerbaijan, to engage directly with local communities.

— You are a professional political scientist. How do you apply your skills within the Peace Bridge Initiative?

— Over the past few years, within the framework of Armenian–Azerbaijani peace initiatives, I have mainly contributed proposals, including in the form of articles, on topics such as border demarcation and delimitation, border-related issues, and transport communications. In particular, the Yerevan-based Research Center on Security Policy, which I represent, has been one of the initiators of these areas of the peace dialogue. This is, so to speak, my direct area of expertise — the main focus of my work in the group.

However, due to my additional education, I am also interested in other areas, such as historical narratives and the history of our conflict, and I try to devote attention to these fields within the work of our group.

— You mentioned in an interview with our media, reflecting on the origins of the conflict, that, regrettably, people at that time could not control their emotions… And this led to what happened…

— Yes, absolutely. This is one of the biggest problems in such conflicts and disputes. In my view, there are two ways to address such a problem. The first is to try to analyse it and find ways to resolve it. The second is to give in to emotions, aggression, and the constant search for who started it first — and then it becomes an endless chain. The result is only worse.

— Continuing on this topic: how does Armenian society currently view the work of your group and the start of this kind of peace dialogue, where ordinary people are engaging rather than just politicians and diplomats?

— I would say that some political forces in Armenia view this kind of dialogue quite negatively. For example, there have already been official statements from certain political parties and experts, and a fair amount of criticism has been voiced. However, this is mostly characteristic of a more active segment of society that is engaged in information flows and lives within certain narratives or political discourse.

At the same time, when we talk about Armenian society as a whole, it seems to me that it is ready for peace and demonstrates this, including through its choices, reactions, or even the lack of strong reactions to certain political events. Overall, people are tired of alarming news, war, and tension.

Certainly, they are also weary of alarmist media publications. Processes like this dialogue give them some hope that “maybe it will work out” — perhaps with caution, scepticism, or mistrust, but still with an expectation of something positive. I would say that one signal that inspired hope in society was the process of border delimitation. Many predicted that this would lead to a “real apocalypse,” but nothing terrible happened.

Then the Washington Declaration of August 8 added a forward-looking note — all of this creates some positive expectations in society, a sense that we might be “somewhere between what was very bad and what could be good,” although whether we have turned in the right direction is not entirely clear yet. This is roughly the atmosphere.

But I believe that, considering more than 30 years of irreconcilable contradictions, such a reaction is quite understandable.

— You and other members of the delegation have already shared some impressions of your walk around Baku in interviews with our media, for example, visiting the Armenian church. What else stood out to you?

— One of my specialisations is architecture and history, so I was particularly interested in looking at the Azerbaijani capital from this perspective, especially during visits to the Palace of the Shirvanshahs and other historical sites in Baku. For example, I noticed certain details in their décor that reflect Christian Armenian architectural influences, just as in the appearance of our own ancient historical buildings we can see the influence of Islamic traditions. These influences appear in ornamentation and decorative details.

All of this speaks to the mutual influence of cultures. Also, even though our flight to Baku was only about an hour, once you arrive, you realise you are not far from home — people in Baku behave and interact in many ways very similarly to how people do on the streets of Yerevan. This even applies to clothing styles, by the way. These shared traits are much more noticeable than, say, in Tbilisi, where the differences are far greater.

— Members of your delegation in Baku met with Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan. What stood out about this meeting?

— When our group and Azerbaijani colleagues met in Yerevan with the Head of the Security Council of Armenia, Armen Grigoryan, I personally felt that the interaction was very sincere and informal. I can say the same about the meeting with Mr Hikmet Hajiyev: it seemed to me that he was very open with us, genuinely interested in speaking with our delegation, and valued this dialogue.

Undoubtedly, the importance of the meeting lay in the opportunity to ask questions directly and receive answers to issues that cause concern in the relations between our countries. I believe the meeting was truly valuable and useful. Overall, any meetings or contacts — whether in expert group formats or with official representatives — conducted in such a trusting atmosphere inspire optimism and hope.

Of course, many challenges still lie ahead in finding dialogue and common ground. However, I believe that whereas for many years the main levers of the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict were outside Baku and Yerevan, decisions are now being made precisely in the two capitals. This represents a historic opportunity and a historic responsibility for politicians in both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The task of our experts and civil society is to support them as much as possible in this process. I also believe that if there is a chance to achieve peace, everything necessary must be done to seize it. And at the very least, simply because all other options — including the most regrettable and negative — have already been tried. There is no alternative to a peaceful resolution.