1

List of Armenian Political Parties interviewed

Armenian Aryan Order (Party), Armenian Democratic Liberal (Ramkavar) Party, Armenian National Congress, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), Christian Democratic Union, Communist Party of Armenia, Conservative Party of Armenia, Constitutional Rights Union (party), Democratic Party of Armenia, Heritage Party, Labour Socialist Party of Armenia (HASK), Liberal Party of Armenia, National Conciliation Party, National Democratic Union, New Times Party, Peoples' Party, Prosperous Armenia Party, Republican Party of Armenia, “Sardrapat” Movement, Social Democratic (Hnchakyan) Party, Union for National Self-Determination Party, United Labour Party, United Liberal National Party (MIAK)

List of Azerbaijani Political Parties interviewed

Azadlig Party, Azerbaijan Democratic Party, Azerbaijan Liberal Party, Azerbaijan Peoples Party, Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, Citizen and Development Party, Civil Solidarity Party, Classical Popular Front Party, Democratic Reforms Party, Great Structure Party, Greens' Party of Azerbaijan, Justice Party, Musavat Party, Motherland Party, National Independence Party of Azerbaijan, National Salvation Party, Open Society Party, Party of Union of Independent Democrats, Social Prosperity Party, Umid Party, Yeni Azerbaijan Party, Yurdash Party, Whole Azerbaijan Popular Front Party,

2

KARABAKH: THE BIG DEBATE

The views of Armenian and Azerbaijani Political Parties on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution

process

This study was conducted by LINKS in the framework of the European Partnership for the peaceful settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,

with the support of the European Union.

LINKS, 7-10 Adam Street, London WC2N 6AA UK

Tel +44 2075209308; fax: +44 2075209309; e.: info@links-dar.org

3

KARABAKH:

THE BIG DEBATE

The views of Armenian and Azerbaijani Political Parties

on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

and conflict resolution process

Introduction by the Executive Director of LINKS LINKS is pleased to present our study on the views of Armenian and Azerbaijani political parties and public organisations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and its resolution.

The study launches our programme: “Karabakh: the big debate”. In 2011 the programme will aim to contribute to creating the space and the right environment for a comprehensive debate on the Karabakh conflict and its resolution amongst and between political forces in Armenia and Azerbaijan, at home and in the diaspora.

Methodology

A team from LINKS conducted face to face interviews with leaders of political parties and public organisations in Yerevan during June 2010 and in Baku during July 2010. Forty-six Armenian and Azerbaijani political parties were surveyed.

The short essays summarise the views of the forty-six Armenian and Azerbaijani political parties surveyed, and the English versions have been double checked with the interviewees for accuracy. An informal Russian translation is also available. The rest of the study will be released over the course of the next weeks.

This study maps out the declared positions of the political parties. It helps the reader to understand the domestic political context in which the Karabakh negotiations are taking

4

place. Despite the fact that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan are perfect democracies the leaders of the two countries cannot ignore the views of the politically active part of society on this issue, which all agree is of vital importance for both countries.

LINKS will shortly also release a similar study on the views of Armenian politicians in Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh displaced by the conflict.

General impressions on the views of Armenian political parties on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process.

In many aspects the survey confirms the many entrenched and established views on the issues in question. Politicians in all countries tend to take refuge in well used slogans and clichés as a precaution against criticism. However the survey also brings out many interesting views of the Armenian Azerbaijani political elites on both the nature of the conflict, as well as the conflict resolution process.

An interesting factor which emerges from the study is that many of the current leaders of Armenian political parties actually fought in the 1989-94 conflict. This makes the issue a very personal matter for these leaders, who also feel that they have a stake in its outcome. Similarly in Azerbaijan many politicians participated in the conflict, and some were displaced as a result of it.

The view from Yerevan.

There is broad consensus amongst Armenian politicians that any settlement of the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict needs first and foremost take into account the views and the welfare of the Armenian population of the territory. Most parties say that this can only be achieved through independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. Some call for immediate recognition of the self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. However, there is little consideration given to the place, if any, of the Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh displaced by the conflict.

The survey shows broad, though not unanimous, support for the Minsk Process as the best available format for negotiations of the settlement of the conflict. Most political parties see no alternative to the Minsk process. The views expressed, on the role of individual countries or groups of countries, vary considerably, with a broad consensus that Turkey could not play a role because of its outright support for Azerbaijan. There is in contrast wide support for Iran’s role, considered by many to have been balanced and nuanced. Several political leaders want more EU engagement with the conflict settlement process and some expressed disappointment at the lack of proper EU engagement with the process. Many parties express the view that the authorities in Stepanakert should be a party to the negotiating process.

5

Most political leaders were positive towards civil society engagement with the conflict settlement process; some expressed a desire to be part of a broad dialogue process with Azerbaijani counterparts. A few however remained cynical to this type of activity. Many blamed the Azerbaijan government for hindering their civil society engagement with confidence building measures.

The view from Baku

Azerbaijani political parties are fairly unanimous in seeking a solution to the Karabakh conflict based on the restoration of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, i.e. the return of Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjoining territories lost to Armenia in the conflict. There is widespread recognition of the need to give Nagorno-Karabakh extensive autonomy within Azerbaijan. Some parties have elaborated detailed plans of how this can be done. There is also recognition by some parties that the deployment of international peacekeeping forces of some sort will be needed. Some party spokespersons highlighted the need for Azerbaijani democracy to be strengthened in order to make the preposition of a return of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh back into the Azerbaijani fold more attractive.

Most of the political parties interviewed consider the military option as a possible solution to the problem. There is a quasi fatalistic tone to this preposition based on an assumption that Azerbaijan will have to resort to the military option if all else fails, whatever the cost. None of the politicians interviewed seem to question this approach, although clearly some are more bellicose than others.

There are many different opinions with regards to the role of the international community, the Minsk Group process and key international actors. However there is a tone of suspicion in the voice of all those interviewed. Only Turkey’s role is generally welcomed. Some Parties out-rightly condemn the work of the Minsk Group and accuse the three co-Chair countries of pro-Armenian bias. Many criticise Russia and point a finger at Russia as the main reason why the conflict has not been resolved. Iran is also generally considered to have been pro- Armenian. The European Union, in as much as it is mentioned, is usually regarded in a positive manner.

There are mixed views also on the possible role of civil society in helping the peace process. Some express quite cynical opinions about this process. Many others are however positive. However even those who support people to people contact insist that the free movement of people at this point is unacceptable.

Fascinating, even if sometimes disturbing

6

The wide spectrum of opinions contained in these forty-six short essays reflects the level of attention that the Karabakh question receives in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, where it dominates the political discourse.

The views expressed are fascinating to read. They remain of course the views of those interviewed and not of LINKS.

This collection of interviews needs to be read by anybody with an interest in the conflict and its resolution as it provides the political context in which the conflict is anchored. Some views from both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani perspectives are disturbing. They remain however part of the actual reality.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those Armenian Azerbaijani politicians who have agreed to be interviewed for this survey.

I want to thank our interviewing team led by Elin Kinnander, assisted in Armenia by Hovhannes Nikoghosyan, and in Azerbaijan by Fuad Hassanov (Director, Democracy Monitor), and also George Simonishvili. I am particularly grateful to Josh Bird who edited the essays.

LINKS wishes to thank the European Union for supporting this project in the framework of the European Partnership for the peaceful settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (EPNK).

Dennis Sammut

Oxford, 31 December 2010.

7

About LINKS

LINKS – The London Information Network on Conflicts and State-building was established in London in July 1997 to contribute to the peaceful resolution and the prevention of conflicts and the advancement of democratic values in societies in transition. LINKS currently also works on issues related to dialogue between Europe and the Islamic world based on mutual respect.

LINKS engagement in support of the peaceful resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been consistent for more than a decade. In 2003 LINKS helped establish the Consortium initiative, an NGO coalition working for the settlement of the conflict, and since 2009 it has been a founding member of the European Partnership From 2002 to 2008 LINKS facilitated the South Caucasus Parliamentary Initiative, a dialogue process between the parliaments of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

About EPNK

The European Partnership for the peaceful settlement of the conflict over Nagorno- Karabakh (EPNK) is a partnership between five European civil society organisations: Conciliation Resources, Conflict Management Initiative, International Alert, Kvinna till Kvinna, the London Information Network on Conflicts and State Building (LINKS) and a range of local partners working together to support a peaceful settlement of the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

EPNK is funded by the European Union’s Instrument for Stability.

8

KARABAKH:

THE BIG DEBATE

Part 1

The views of Armenian Political Parties

on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and

conflict resolution process

9

ARMENIAN ARYAN ORDER

The Armenian Aryan Order was

established in 1998 and is led by

Armen Avetisyan (Party Chairman)

who has held the position from the

party’s creation.

www.hayary.org

10

ARMENIAN ARYAN ORDER A R M E N I A

The position of the Armenian Aryan Order (AAO) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the

AAO, Armen Avetisyan, held in Yerevan on 15th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party recognizes the overriding legitimacy of the 20th February 1988 resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh assembly to be reunited with Armenia. The party maintains that its members have considered Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian Republic as of joint statehood for the past twenty years, and urges all other Armenian political parties to also recognize joint statehood.

For resolution of the conflict the party attaches significant importance to international law. The party cites the relevant conventions and resolutions issued by the UN that recognize the right for nations that have historically been residing on specific territory to form independent statehoods on those territories. The party maintains this as a strong argument for an approach to the conflict based in international law. However the party considerers the convention, although issued by the UN, as not widely enough recognized by the international community. It therefore also promotes the right to self determination as a stronger international legal basis for independence. The party also criticizes Turkey for entering historically Armenian territory and therefore making comprehensive claims of nation-statehood more difficult.

The party contests that Azerbaijan has never had any defined state borders according to international law pre-dating Nagorno-Karabakh’s 1988 resolution for secession. The party maintains that Zionists and pan-Turkic ideology were behind the formulation of the Azeri state in 1918 as part of a wider scheme of international revolution. Furthermore, in 1917 after the October revolution in Russia, Azerbaijan was created by the Ottoman Empire in a territory where it had no precedent. In short, the Azeri nation was created out of nothing, and is merely the product of Turkish efforts.

The party maintains that Bolshevik Russia created the independent Republic of Azerbaijan, and its creation therefore cannot be considered as based in international law, highlighting the historic refusal of the League of Nations to recognize the independence of Azerbaijan.

11

Furthermore, in 1922 a League of Nations document recognized the established borders of Nagorno-Karabakh (the Nagorno-Karabakh oblast) but failed to recognize the borders of Azerbaijan. The party believes that Nagorno-Karabakh was forcefully given to Azerbaijan by the Bolsheviks, and was therefore the decision of a political party, enjoying no legal international basis, something also claimed for the Nakhijevan territory.

In short, the party maintains that Nagorno-Karabakh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan and independence for the Nagorno-Karabakh region therefore cannot be considered as a matter of Azeri territorial integrity. The party also considers Nagorno- Karabakh´s struggle for independence as totally legal, stressing that it has a 90 % ethnically Armenian population and should have the right to self determination. The party is committed to the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh reestablished through what is considered the liberation war of 1988.

The party was actively involved in the hostilities of 1988-1994, including the interviewee (who was Commander in Chief of the Armenian National Army (Volunteers) in 1990) and around 100 other members. These members participated in the war up until the cease-fire of 1994.

The party claims to have collaborations with all veterans’ organizations from the conflict. This is in preparation for inevitable future Azeri aggression, which the party would consider an opportunity to liberate more territory. However the party stressed that they will not initiate conflict, as they are wary of criticism from the international community. The party furthermore claims that more of the territory surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh could have been liberated during the hostilities had it not been for the later involvement of Russian forces.

Regarding the movement of IDPs, the party was actively involved in managing the flow of refugees into Armenia, 1989-1994. The party claims to have helped hundreds of thousands of refugees, the majority of whom are today citizens of Armenia, but still hope to be able to return. Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh region, the party has relations with political parties and authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh, including a sister party, and collaborations with the people that are still living in the liberated regions.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The party concedes that the OSCE Minsk Group is responsible for the major international efforts in resolution of the conflict. However, regarding the Madrid principles there are several points that they do not support. Firstly, what the party perceives as significant ambiguity regarding the right of refuges and IDPs to return back to their places of origin. For example the party maintains that no international security guarantee would in reality be

12

enough for troubled victims of the war who suffered personal traumas and fled their homes. Secondly, regarding territorial integrity – the party maintains that Nagorno-Karabakh has never been part of Azerbaijan, and therefore is not an issue to be discussed. The party also expresses it surprise at the lack of discussion of the ethnic cleansing and genocide it claims was committed by the Azeris.

Regarding foreign involvement, due to the high levels of mistrust between Armenia and Azerbaijan the party considers the OSCE Minsk Group (specifically its co-chairs U.S, Russia and France) as the best qualified and most legitimate body to deal with the situation. The party considers Iran, as an Islamic state and Armenian neighbour, as a neutral actor and possible mediator due to their regional position. Turkey however could have no such role as Ankara and Baku have the same policy. As Armenia is situated in a core transit region, the party suggests that other Asian countries such as Iran, India and China join the effort for peace.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is extremely hostile to people contacts and civil society activity, claiming that the nations of the region are fundamentally hostile towards one other and are enemies. The party further maintains that according to historical maps of the region’s territories, only Armenia exists with no accommodation for Turkey and Azerbaijan. The party maintains therefore that there is nothing to discuss with these nations and is against any possibility of cooperation, adamantly excluding any opportunity to work with them.

Regarding the free movement of people the party would consider this a right for enemies of the state to freely enter Armenian territory. The party has made public declarations that ethnic Armenians and ethnic Turks cannot live together, claiming that since co-habitation in the region 600 years ago there has not been peace.

■ Other information

The AAO contested the parliamentary elections in 1996, 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 3800 members of which around 85% are men and 15% women. It currently has no members of parliament. The party has its own media outlet at www.hayary.org and publishes a monthly journal named "Armenian Aryans".

13

ARMENIAN DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL (RAMKAVAR) PARTY

The Armenian Democratic

Liberal (Ramkavar) Party

was established in 1991

and is led by Harutyun

Arakelian (Party Chairman)

since 2003.

www.hrak.am

14

Armenian Democratic Liberal (Ramkavar) Party A R M E N I A

The position of the Armenian Democratic Liberal (Ramkavar) Party (ADLP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the ADLP, Harutyun Arakelian, held in Yerevan on 15th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The ADLP believes that Azerbaijan is preoccupied with lobbying the international community to regard Armenia as the aggressor in this conflict. The party laments that the conflict is now very much politicized, with the main goal no longer being to find a solution, and considers international law as the only means to a resolution. Formulated over the last seven years, the position of the ADLP is that the conflict of 1988-1994 was genocide against Armenians, starting in several cities of Azerbaijan, where entire Armenian populations were killed by Azeris (both the authorities and militia gangs). These killings were progressing towards Nagorno-Karabakh in early 1990s, and the conflict was therefore started as one of self-defence to prevent similar atrocities in Nagorno-Karabakh. This effort was supported by native Armenians and the international diaspora alike, who were essential in ensuring the victory of the war and prevention of further genocide. Neither the party nor any of its senior leaders were directly involved in armed hostilities between 1988-94 and the party does not have any official links with veteran organizations from the war. However, some party members are veterans, and the party provides for families of veterans and veterans themselves with humanitarian aid.

Regarding resolution, the ADLP highlights the future intention of both counties to join EU, and the practice that all disputes between union countries must be solved by the international court, which they are confident will see the issue resolved with those guilty being brought to justice for the genocide committed against Armenians. Evidence of this genocide is claimed by both eye witness accounts and legal documents. The party notes however that if the solution is to be found in international law, it will only be done at the expense of the national interests of all the great powers. The ADLP also believes that the liberated lands around Nagorno-Karabakh should be retained by Nagorno-Karabakh as a “payment” for all the suffering that Azerbaijan has put Armenians through. Further

elaboration on the party’s position is to be found on its web-site (www.hrak.am).

15

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The ADLP is critical of the OSCE Minsk Group, claiming that it has not achieved any serious results on Nagorno-Karabakh over the last 16 years, and blames the national self-interest of the co-chairs of the group for this. Furthermore, it is the ADLP’s belief that both the Armenian and Azeri authorities lack the democratic legitimacy to push for the peace process, which is further undermined by the exclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities from the process. The authority of the president of Armenia is limited only to the borders of the republic of Armenia – as is written in the constitution, and therefore he does not have the credentials to compromise on any land swap involving third countries outside the borders of his state.

The party itself only has semi-official contact with the authorities and the president in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The ADLP criticizes the “secret” nature of the Minsk group, noting that publications of their work are only released ad hoc through the international, Azeri and Armenian media. This undermines their credibility. In regard to the Madrid principles the ADLP reserves judgment, as the party has not seen the official document itself and therefore cannot make any statements about it. The ADLP considers other parties which express their position on the principles “agents” to several groups that are trying to impose a solution on the conflict, citing their access to information as suspicious given that nothing has been officially published.

With regard to the involvement of outside powers the ADLP stresses the importance of international law. The ADLP believes the EU should be mandated by the UN to carry out the peace process and conflict resolution, and that the issues should be settled in the international court at the Hague. The EU would be an influential actor as all three South Caucasian countries wish to join the EU, and the EU has already gained experience in dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The ADLP believe that since both Armenia and Azerbaijan are not democratic states, the conditions for NGOs to succeed in their work is not very high. Although NGOs receive their grants and funds from international organisations, their access is controlled by the government, which limits their ability to work freely.

The ADLP believes that NGO level contributions cannot have any success since they are not working freely. They believe that although NGOs maintain to their financiers that that are totally free, in reality, since they are subject to government pressure they cannot operate

16

freely. The ADLP does concede however that there are exceptions, however these exceptions are not getting funding and do not have much needed access to the mass media. All spheres of society are already monopolized with little room for NGO manoeuvre.

In terms of people to people confidence building the ADLP considers this primarily an economic question. As the South Caucasian countries’ economies are too small to be significant on the world market individually, they should create a common market to attract international investors. The ADLP is confident that this will happen in the future, however recognises the current obstacles to such a union due to poor regional relations (Georgia- Russia; Azerbaijan-Armenia and Iran; Armenia-Turkey and Azerbaijan). Although there is much potential in the region as a transit region, economic integration will be impossible in the near future as peace remains elusive. The ADLP maintains hope however that in the future the three countries will be forced to sit down and discuss their common future together, since the conflicts that are present now are not beneficial for any of them.

■ Other information

The ADLP has contested all parliamentary elections of the last twenty years. It claims to have around 2000 members of which 50% are men and 50% women. It currently has no members of parliament. Media outlets www.louysworld.com, www.7or.am, www.yeshay.am, www.armar.am, are considered friendly to the party.

17

ARMENIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS

The Armenian National Congress has no legal status, and describes itself as a political force, established in 2008 during a mass demonstration. It is led by Levon Ter-Petrossian, first President of Armenia, who assumed the position with the alliance’s inception. www.anc.am

18

Armenian National Congress A R M E N I A

The position of the Armenian National Congress (ANC) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the head of ANC International Relations Committee Vladimir Karapetyan, held in Yerevan, June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The ANC’s position is that there should be a balanced solution, and that as the main party in the conflict is the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic itself, whatever agreement its authorities accept the alliance will also support. However, since the mediation effort is secret (such as the 2007 Madrid Principles and its updated version) the ANC cannot comment on whether the proposed solution for Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh is acceptable. What has been revealed of the principles unofficially however the ANC considers unbalanced and therefore has concerns regarding them. It maintains that the peace resolution should include mutual concessions from all sides.

The ANC has made several declarations and statements on its position which are available on its webpage (www.anc.am), and also has a foreign relations commission, which often comments on the negotiation process.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 many representatives from the ANC took part in the war, and some of them are members in the veterans union “Yerkrapah”, that was formed after the cease-fire agreement was signed in 1994. As the veterans organizations are not political entities, the ANC does not have official relations with them only maintaining unofficial contact through its members who are part of these organizations. It does not have any special relationships with organizations, parties, the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh or the refugees from the conflict.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The ANC believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is doing a quite useful job, but is concerned by what it perceives as a stall in their progress since January 2010, (up to June 2010) there have been no presidential or foreign ministerial meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents and foreign ministers, suggesting that the Group has been less active.

19

The ANC is also concerned about statements from the Azerbaijani leadership sceptical about the role of the co-chairs with regards to attaining a settlement, remaining devoted to the Minsk process as the only viable format for the conflict resolution.

Regarding the Madrid principles the ANC has not outlined its position, since the principles have not been officially published and therefore the alliance cannot comment on their content based on reliable sources.

Regarding the involvement of international actors, the ANC believes that only the co-chairs of the Minsk Group are the right ones to handle the conflict resolution. It maintains that Turkey cannot play a constructive role in the conflict settlement, since their position is very similar to the one that Azerbaijan holds, and believes that Turkey’s closure of the border with Armenia was a hostile act by international law.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The ANC believes that the contributions of NGOs are very useful, and that the two nations are benefitting from more NGO level contributions which are positively shaping the environment for the parties involved in the conflict. The ANC also believes however that NGOs and their initiatives could be more active in promoting people to people contacts between the peoples living in Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, and in highlighting for the people what kind of benefits and advantages they stand to gain after the conflict is settled. NGOs may also play an important role by organizing conferences which include think-tanks and specialists on conflict resolution.

Regarding the free movement of people, the ANC has no specific position and has not considered the issue seriously before, as Azerbaijan continues to say that there cannot be any form of contact, cooperation or open borders before a final agreement. In principle however the ANC is supportive, but considers it impossible due to the Azeri position.

■ Other information The ANC claims to have 80,000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women. Internationally the alliance has a branch in the US in Los Angeles, California.

20

ARMENIAN

REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION - DASHNAKTSUTYUN

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation – Dashnaktsutyun, was established in 1890 as part of the national liberation struggle against the Ottoman and Russian Empires. It was banned in Armenia during the 1990s but later emerged as part of a coalition government. The party left the coalition in 2009 over disagreements with the governing coalition on foreign policy. It has 16 members of parliament. www.arfd.am

21

Armenian Revolutionary Federation – Dashnaktsutyun A R M E N I A

The Position of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), popularly known as Dashnaks, on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Bureau member Vahan Hovhannissyan MP, held

in Yerevan on 14th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The ARF believes that Nagorno-Karabakh is a historical part of Armenia and has belonged to Armenia for at least 3000 years. It has never been a part of independent Azerbaijan because such a state did not exist before 1918. Even after Azerbaijan emerged as an independent state it was only after one and a half years that the Bolsheviks gave Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan along with other Armenian territories as a way of punishing Armenia for continuing to fight against the Turkish Army and for resisting Bolshevism. Other territories were also given to Turkey. The bolsheviks carved the borders in such a way that no republic in the South Caucasus could move towards independence without the agreement of the others, thus laying the basis for the internal conflicts, one of which is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Compared to other Armenian territories that were given to Azerbaijan, where Armenians were cleared out, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh were more resilient, and since they had a tradition of their own statehood were anxious to keep their borders. The borders were consciously created in a way so that Armenia did not share borders with Nagorno-Karabakh. When the Karabakhi Armenians peacefully started campaigning to improve their social and economic rights, their financial situation and for developing their autonomous rights the answer from Azerbaijan was a classic Turkish response, namely bloodshed and attacks on Armenians in Azerbaijan – not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but in other parts of Azerbaijan too.

Stepanakert was bombed and destroyed. The Karabakhi Armenians had no other choice but to liberate themselves and the territories around them. Some people call them occupied territories but the ARF thinks this is a security belt of territories that have always been Armenian and populated by Armenians who are the owners of these lands.

22

The ARF understands that resolving the disagreements with Azerbaijan must be based on mutual concessions and cannot be one sided. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic can never be part of the Azerbaijani state. It can never have a subordinated relationship with Azerbaijan. Furthermore the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic must have a border with Armenia – not a corridor, but a wide common border. The status of Nagorno-Karabakh must include the possibility of self defence and sovereignity.

The ARF was mobilised during the Karabakh conflict which it considers a national liberation war. One in eight of its members died in the war, and whoever could carry arms was there. The ARF Nagorno-Karabakh branch lost many of its members.

The ARF has a special commission that works with veterans, but this work is mainly in the social sphere, not political. The party does not believe that veterans as a category should have a special involvement in politics. They can exert a moral influence but not a political one. The ARF is a federation and it has an affiliate in Nagorno-Karabakh which is autonomous.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The ARF evaluates the work of the OSCE Minsk Group relatively highly, because in the last sixteen years they have collected a fantastic amount of material. The process is long but this is to be expected. The problem with the Minsk Group is that they are under pressure and sometimes they forget that one needs to not only deal with the consequences of the conflict. The OSCE Minsk Group should not only deal with the consequences of the conflict, by for example saying that Azerbaijan has lost territory and so we must give Azerbaijan territory and everything will be ok. The Minsk Group should deal with the root causes of the conflict, the reasons for why it happened. However the OSCE Minsk Group is working in the right direction, which is why Azerbaijan continuously talks about moving the negotiations to other fora, for example the United Nations. However the ARF believes that the Madrid Principals are very dangerous to the Armenian national interest and to Armenian security.

Russia, Iran, the US and the European Union have no fixed position on the issue but they have different interests. Some are interested in routes, some in railroads, some in hydrocarbons and some in democracy. These difficult interests create a difficult and complicated picture. It is difficult to separate them from each other since all the interests of the different political parties are interconnected. It is not possible to please only one side, so maybe it is not such a good thing to have so many different players.

As regards Turkey, the ARF states categorically that Turkey can never have a part in the peace process or have any role in this matter.

23

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The ARF is no longer convinced that NGOs could play an important role in terms of creating contacts between civil society in Armenia and Azerbaijan and to weaken the confrontation and hatred between the two nations. Despite shortcomings in Armenian democracy NGOs are relatively free. However in Azerbaijan, as well as in Turkey, NGOs are under direct government control and do the bidding of their government. Armenian and Azerbaijani NGOs therefore do not stand equally.

All the sides are in a difficult position and the Karabakh problem cannot be resolved in the near future. The ARF is in favour of small steps which are not connected to territory or war, environmental issues for example. It is in favour of border trading, as well as of the removal of sniper posts in the border area. It is also in favour of Armenia selling electricity to Azerbaijani regions which lack it.

The ARF supports people to people interaction that can change people’s perceptions of one other. In Azerbaijan they even have fairy tales for children that portray Armenians as monsters. In that environment NGOs can do very little, but they can try! The ARF has no official position on free movement of people between Armenia and Azerbaijan prior to the signing of a peace agreement.

■ Other information The ARF is a long standing member of the Socialist International, the global platform of centre-left parties. The Party has contested all elections since 1991. It claims to have 7000 members in its Armenia branch and an active youth branch.

24

CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION PARTY

The Christian Democratic Union Party was established in 1991 and is led by Khosrov Harutyunyan (Party Chairman) who was Prime Minister of Armenia from 30 July 1992 to 2 February 1993. www.acdu.am

25

Christian Democratic Union

Party

A R M E N I A

The position of the Christian Democratic Union Party (CDUP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the CDUP, Khosrov Harutyunyan held in Yerevan on 14th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The CDUP expects that any conflict settlement will be based on solutions that will give a guarantee that the conflict will not start again. This means firm guarantees for the security of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. This will require concessions from all sides in the conflict. The opinion of the people of Nagorno- Karabakh that they should not be subordinated to the republic of Azerbaijan needs to be taken into account. Nagorno-Karabakh has never been a part of an independent Azerbaijani state, but was given to the Azerbaijan SSR during the Soviet era by order of Stalin. This was Stalin’s way of keeping both Armenia and Azerbaijan under control.

During the seventy years of Soviet rule the Azerbaijani authorities tried their best to push the Armenians in both Nagorno-Karabakh and in Nakhichevan out of the territory. In 1988 the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, peacefully and within the legal framework of the Soviet Union, addressed the authorities of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the central authorities in Moscow, informing them that they wanted to be part of Armenia. The response from Azerbaijan was armed intervention in several cities. It was Azerbaijan’s provocations that led to the start of the war: their armed response to the peaceful call for self-determination and their expulsion of Armenians from Azerbaijan, as well as from their historic home, Nagorno- Karabakh. The 1988 peaceful appeal of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh remains until this day unanswered.

26

The CDUP believes that the most important issue is to ensure the safety of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and this can be achieved only if the international community recognizes the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh for self-determination.

CDUP believes that there is great mistrust between Azerbaijanis and the people in Nagorno- Karabakh – the people in Azerbaijan do not care about the people in Nagorno-Karabakh and the people in Nagorno-Karabakh distrust the Azerbaijanis. The lack of care comes from both the Azerbaijani authorities, as well as the Azerbaijani NGOs. They do not feel a need to engage with the people in Nagorno-Karabakh and they believe the matter will eventually be solved through military means.

The leadership and members of the CDUP were directly involved in the conflict, including in the fighting.

The CDUP has a sister party in Nagorno-Karabakh and keeps informal relations with veterans organizations and other political forces in Nagorno-Karabakh.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The CDUP attaches great importance to the OSCE Minsk process that is the only international platform that is able to deal with the conflict professionally. The party has a very positive attitude towards the Minsk process (the current CDUP Chairman was involved in the initial establishment of the Minsk Group during OSCE meetings in the early nineties). The CDUP believes that were it not for the Minsk process regional security would have been much worse off. Whilst others criticize the Minsk Group for not having delivered results for sixteen years, the CDUP believes that they have managed to keep the peace.

There is no official CDUP position on the Madrid Principles but the party Chairman has stated his position in a number of statements and interviews. His position is that the points underlying the Madrid principles have been at the heart of the negotiations over the last decade. The Madrid principles as articulated since 2007 are now the basis for the continuing negotiations. The most important element is that as a result the international community now recognizes the importance of the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh in the process. In this regard the proposal to hold a referendum is a positive development.

Regarding the involvement of external actors in the conflict and conflict settlement process, the CDUP believes that Russia, the US and France , as co-Chair of the Minsk process have strategic interests in the region and that by ensuring the security of the people of Nagorno- Karabakh they are making the conflict resolution process more stable. The same cannot be said about Turkey. Turkey in 1992, when the Minsk Group was being formed, pledged to be an impartial mediator in the conflict, but a year later it closed its borders with Armenia, an

27

act which in international law is considered as aggression. Turkey is therefore absolutely incapable of playing a positive and unbiased role in the conflict. When Turkey recently expressed a wish to participate actively in the peace process, there was also a reaction from Iran, which also offered to play a similar role. The OSCE Minsk Group as it is presently composed is the best option.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The CDUP believes that informal contacts through civil society are the best way towards the resolution of the conflict. There should be a parallel process to the Minsk Group framework, a process of civil society activities as a means to develop confidence building between the two nations. Peace will only be viable and long lasting if these two parallel processes move together.

The CDUP is totally positive towards the idea of free movement of Armenians and Azerbaijanis between the two countries. However Azerbaijani society is totally controlled by the authorities who continuously depict Armenia as an aggressor and an enemy making Azerbaijani attitude towards Armenians very negative. In a recent poll in Azerbaijan 85% of all respondents, most of them young people, said that their main enemies were Armenians. Under these circumstances civil society work is very difficult. Part of the problem is that the Azerbaijan Government has not done anything to help the refugees and IDPs that were displaced by the conflict and has housed them in ghettos. The refugees in Azerbaijan are now political tools and this has also created a lot of hatred towards Armenians. In Armenia, the government had also to deal with around 400,000 refugees, but these were given a lot of assistance and help to rebuild their lives so there is not a similar problem.

■ Other information The CDUP contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 2000 members of which around 65% are men and 35% women. It currently has no members of parliament. Since June 2008 the party is affiliated to the European Christian Political movement - ECPM, www.ecpm.info.

28

COMMUNIST PARTY OF ARMENIA

The Communist Party of Armenia was established November 1920, at first as an underground party, before later being registered according to the law. It is currently led by Ruben Tovmasyan (Secretary- General) who assumed the position in August 2003.

29

Communist Party of Armenia A R M E N I A

The position of the Communist Party of Armenia (CPA) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Secretary-General of the CPA, Ruben Tovmasyan held in Yerevan on 22nd June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have defended their own lands, homes and families during a war that was imposed by Azerbaijan, and that the bloodshed was started because of the provocations and the ethnic cleansing which began in the different cities and villages in both Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. The CPA believes that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have already exercised their right to self-determination and that this is the right way for all nations in legal terms to gain their independence. The party maintains that according to the terms and rules of democracy and the rights of nations, the right to self-determination is the basic right for the peoples and nations of the world to live in freedom. The party believes that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are without fault, and will therefore continue to support whatever they have done and will do.

The party also highlights that Nagorno-Karabakh possesses the core institutions for democratic rule, with a President and an acting parliament which have been voted in by elections overseen by external observers and deemed democratic. The party is surprised and disappointed that the Council of Europe does not recognize these elections, which are both very competitive and democratic.

The party is furthermore unpleasantly surprised by the resolutions adopted by the Council of Europe, since it considers them not aimed at finding a final peaceful settlement and a viable peace in Nagorno-Karabakh, but at pushing Azerbaijan to start a new war. The CPA considers the most important aim to be keeping the peace, and calls therefore for the three sides to immediately sign a peace agreement prior to any final settlement.

The CPA has always supported the existence of Nagorno-Karabakh and its right of self- determination, and condemns the aggressive policy of Azerbaijan, something it has stated clearly in different declarations and statements.

30

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the party does not outline clearly whether members of the senior leadership were directly involved in the hostilities but maintains that all Armenians (across the world) that could participate or contribute, regardless of their political affiliation, participated and contributed in the war in the best way that they could, in defence of Azeri aggression. The party claims however that the leaders of the self- defence of Nagorno-Karabakh (from the late 1980s to early 1990s) were also at the time the leaders of the regional entities of the Communist parties both in Armenia and in Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

The CPA enjoys close collaborations with the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) Communist Party and has been holding different events with them. In all the events that are held in either Stepanakert or in Armenia by the Communist Party, the CPA invites the leaders from the Communist Party in Artsakh to Armenia, and the leaders from the CPA are in turn invited to Stepanakert. Without the participation of the Artsakh Communist Party the CPA would not hold any events in Nagorno-Karabakh, and their collaboration is very wide and touches upon every possible aspect. Regarding veteran organizations, the party is involved with the “Union of Soviet Officers” based in Armenia which is actively cooperating with similar organizations in Nagorno-Karabakh.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party believes that the work of the OSCE Minsk Group does not have a specific approach towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict. Regarding the EU the party cannot understand the resolution adopted by the EU parliament which it considers very much one sided – blaming only Armenia as the aggressor and occupier, and not recognizing the history of the conflict.

The party is also sceptical of the role of the Council of Europe which it claims is going to re- establish their commission on Nagorno-Karabakh, which will be chaired by the Turkish speaker of the Council. The party completely rejects this considering the Turkish chair to have been very rude on a visit to Armenia and believes that he will be very biased due to the historical baggage between the two countries. In contrast to this the party believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is doing a good job and that a new European commission is therefore the wrong way to go and will not contribute to peace.

The party supports the Armenian President’s position in regards to the Madrid principles.

The CPA maintains that Russia is the only actor that can play a major role in resolving the conflict, since according to historical perspective the region has not always been in line with the liberal approaches of the international community and other great powers. Due to this, the party believes that Russia is the only country that may be trusted to carry out its role

31

satisfactorily.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding the role of NGOs, as the party believes that the conflict has been internationalized (gaining greater saliency in the wider international perspective) and become so much more complex and difficult, informal NGO level contributions and people to people contacts cannot have significant benefits for the peace process. The party complains that aggressive military statements and cease-fire violations by the Azeri side are occurring on a daily basis, and therefore it is difficult to see how NGOs can do anything to contribute to the peace process.

Regarding the free movement of people, the party believes it necessary to look at the historical background, which illustrates the different experience between Armenians and Azeris as more advantageous for the Azeris. The party maintains that although all Armenians in Azerbaijan lost their properties and many also lost their lives as a result of ethnic cleansing, the Azeris in Armenia exchanged houses with Armenians in Azerbaijan, or sold their houses. Furthermore, as Armenians lived successful lives in the cities of Azerbaijan, compared to the Azeris who lived in villages in Armenia, this exchange of houses was more advantageous for the Azeris. Free-movement of people would not correct this injustice and therefore should not be permitted until a final solution to the conflict is reached and the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is established legally.

■ Other information

The CPA has contested all parliamentary elections since 1990 and claims to have 20,000 members of which around 65% are men and 35% women. It currently holds no seats in parliament. Internationally it is affiliated to the Union of Communist Parties, and actively participates in Communist Party events all around the world.

32

CONSERVATIVE PARTY

OF ARMENIA

The Conservative Party of Armenia was established in

1990 and is led by Mikayel Hayrapetyan (Party

Chairman) who assumed the position in 1998.

www.conservative.am

33

Conservative Party of Armenia A R M E N I A

The position of the Conservative Party of Armenia (CPA) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the CPA, Mikayel Hayrapetyan held in Yerevan on 18th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The party maintains that after the collapse of Soviet Union the Nagorno-Karabakh issue should have been settled according to the principles of territorial integrity and the right to self determination. The party believes that the Russian empire negatively contributed to the conflict and thinks that negative Russian influence is still being exercised in the South Caucasus and in all the former USSR regions. The party holds that if Russian influence were to leave the region the conflict will be much easier to solve under the basic principles of “Caucasian house”.

The party believes that to resolve the conflict all the KGB archives of the three South Caucasian states should be opened, as this will make it obvious who is in power in the South Caucasus – revealing that all three states are totally dependent on Russia. The party maintains therefore that if all the corrupt authorities of all three states are removed, the conflict will be easier to resolve.

The party does not have any specific statements about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and what the party has published about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is available on its webpage (www.conservative.am)

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, none of the senior leadership actively participated, but many of the party’s members did, some of whom were killed. The party does not have any special relationship with veteran’s organizations but the Chairman was the editor in chief of newspaper “Yerkrapah”, before joining the party, which is the official newspaper of the Yerkrapah veteran´s organization. The party does not have any special relations with organizations, parties or the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

34

The party bases its evaluation of the OSCE Minsk process in terms of Christian values, quoting Luke 6:44 that as “the tree should be recognized by its fruit”, the process should be evaluated by the results that it has brought. The party believes that thus far it has not borne any results, and therefore it cannot evaluate the process itself. Despite this however the party generally supports the process, recognizing that without the efforts of the group there would still be ongoing hostilities.

Regarding the Madrid principles the party is unwilling to offer any official statements, since the principles are still classified.

Regarding the role of the international community, the party maintains that their efforts should be to try to eliminate the borders in the South Caucasus. The party points to the hostilities between Georgia and Russia in 2008, which it believes showed that Russian imperialism still plays a big role in the region, and that this is something the international community must recognize. The party however believes that short of Russian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, the international community will not accept that the conflict is imposed by Russian imperialism, and is not the product of a dispute between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The party considers both Azerbaijan and Armenia to be victims of Russian imperialism as well as victims of their respective nationalisms.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that people to people contacts are the most efficient ones for achieving a lasting solution to the conflict, because both the authorities in Armenia and in Azerbaijan are agents of the Russian secret service (which is still the same as the Soviet-era KGB and has not changed) and are delivering their services to the Russian empire and not to their own nations.

The party has not made any official declarations about cross-border initiatives and interactions, but is supportive towards them and is confident that they will provide the best benefits for both nations.

■ Other information The CPA contested the parliamentary elections in 1990, 1999 and 2007 and claims to have 3000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women.

35

CONSTITUTIONAL

RIGHTS UNION

The Constitutional Rights Union was established from a civil society group by party convention in 1989, and is led by Hayk Babukhanyan (Party Chairman) who has held the position from 2006.

www.iravunq.com

36

Constitutional Rights Union A R M E N I A

The position of the Constitutional Rights Union (CRU) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the CRU, Hayk Babukhanyan held in Yerevan on 18th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The party’s position on the conflict was made clear at the very outset of the conflict (1988), and the party has been actively involved in the process with the party Chairman a member

of the Independence Commission. The party considers the resolution of 1st December 1989 on the reunion of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as one of its successes. The resolution was adopted at a joint session of the Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenian parliaments in 1989 during the Soviet era and the resolution was included in the Armenian declaration of independence in 1990.

The party’s general position is that Nagorno-Karabakh should be independent from Azerbaijan as well as from Armenia – something the party considers a concession from the side of Armenia, and a necessity given the difficult climate in the region. The party views claims for Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence as in concurrence with the wave of quests for independence among all break away states in the region.

The party draws parallels to the case of Kosovo, where Kosovo and Albania wanted to be reunified into the state of Albania but the international community’s approach was that it should be an independent state and should not be reunited with Albania. It furthermore refers to the case of South Ossetia, which the party believes should be reunited with North Ossetia, but recognizes the international community’s view that breakaway regions should be independent entities and not parts of recognized states. Following from this, the party maintains that Nagorno-Karabakh (which it considers a region of Armenia, according to the resolution of1989) should be independent, since this seems to be the current international norm and considers this again to be a concession from the Armenian side which should be appreciated by Azerbaijan.

Since 1989 the party has been publishing the bi-weekly newspaper “Iravunq” (“Rights”) which is the party’s official media outlet, and has produced all the party’s statements and declarations regarding the conflict. This material is also available on the party’s webpage

37

(www.iravunq.com)

The party was actively involved in the hostilities of 1989-94 establishing Brigades that participated in the defence of Armenia’s borders. A lot of the party membership, including board members, actively participated in the war and ran supply routes delivering different cargos to Nagorno-Karabakh during the war. Board member Mr. Vardan Astvatsatryan in particular participated very actively in these kinds of activities, and the party’s Chief Editor was an officer in the Armenian army. The party has good relations with all the veteran organizations from the war and is actively cooperating with them, both officially and unofficially.

The party also maintains official relations with all the refugee organizations, and deals a lot with refugee issues, one of its main activities being to help refugees get back their lost properties or seek compensation, as well as offer general support and aid. The party also has official relations with the elected authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh and supports them very much.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party sees the logic behind the OSCE Minsk process, and is looking forward to and supporting the Group’s work and its aim of reaching a final settlement to the conflict. The party also supports the Group’s efforts to find multilateral peace agreements between the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Azerbaijan and Armenia, however it has been disappointed by the length of time required for them to finalize the settlement.

Regarding the Madrid principles, the party stresses that as long as they are taken purely as principles, they may act as a basis for negotiations. However when the principles are being referred to not purely as principles but as a roadmap for conflict resolution, and talk about removing Armenian troops from the territory and postponing the status of Nagorno- Karabakh - the party is totally against them, and strongly opposes making a roadmap out of the Madrid principles. Instead the party maintains that the first step towards a final settlement should rather be recognition of the interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh’s elected authorities, which will enable them to participate in the peace process and negotiations. All other issues - such as the issue of IDPs and refugees’ right to return, the withdrawal of troops of both sides from any territory (since there are also Armenian territories which are being controlled by Azeri troops), and the issue of recognition of the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh - should all be resolved in a single legal package.

Regarding the role of other international actors the party believes that Turkey has proved itself to be directly involved on one side of the conflict with all the consequences which follow from this. Turkey will continue to be considered biased until they open their borders

38

and re-establish diplomatic relations with the Republic of Armenia. Regarding Iran the party recognises that they have a role to play (out of national interest) but does not think that they are capable of performing on the same level that the OSCE co-chair countries do. The party does not have any other specific opinions about any other countries.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party of course recognises and appreciates any positive contribution to the peace process at any level. However it believes that the efforts being carried out by civil society are being abused by the Azeri leadership which influences such work negatively.

Regarding the free movement of people before a final peace agreement the party has a positive attitude, but maintains that both countries must guarantee full security. The party claims that there are no negative attitudes amongst the Armenian public towards Azeris and they feel very much secure in Armenia. This is the result of a very tolerant and positive “propaganda” about Azeris coming from the Armenian media. However this cannot be said of Azerbaijan, where the media produces negative propaganda with elements of intolerance, and propaganda of hatred is being produced by the Azeri authority, creating an overwhelming intolerance amongst the public in Azerbaijan towards Armenians. This has unfortunately on occasion resulted in causalities and the loss of human life. The party cites the example of an Armenian military officer who was killed whilst asleep in Hungary in 2005 by an Azeri officer, which was subsequently portrayed as an act of heroism in Azerbaijan.

■ Other information The CRU has contested the parliamentary elections from 1990 onwards and claims to have 5000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

39

DEMOCRATIC PARTY

OF ARMENIA

The Democratic Party of Armenia was established in

1991 and is led by Aram G. Sargsyan (Party Chairman)

who assumed the position with the party’s creation.

40

Democratic Party of Armenia A R M E N I A

The position of the Democratic Party of Armenia (DPA) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the DPA, Aram G. Sargsyan held in Yerevan on 16th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party considers an exact position difficult to outline, however it maintains that the fundamental principles of conflict resolution are that it should be peaceful and based on mutual concession. The principle of mutual concession should apply primarily to the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, a status which it considers has been reached in a highly legal way according to the internal legislation of the Soviet Union and under international law. The party considers the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its statehood as very much in line with international norms.

As the party has attentively followed the process for many years, it has issued over this time numerous speeches and declarations regarding the matter. The party established a committee in defense of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1996 that included around 25 political parties and NGOs, which contributed to the process by making resolutions and declarations for the settlement of the conflict.

The party has been actively organizing and participating in meetings in Moscow with political parties from Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan and Armenia. This was part of a joint Russian-American project established by the US State Department and Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As a result of six years of these meetings the party has issued a comprehensive package of solutions to the conflict, named the ‘Framework Agreement’, which was presented to all parties of the conflict. This met with limited success as although the first group of representatives from Azerbaijan which participated agreed to the package, the second group (during the process Azerbaijan decided to send a new group to the negotiations) did not.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 many of the party members participated in the war, but not any of the senior leadership, which contributed to the process in non-combat roles. The Chairman of the party was for example an adviser to the Armenian president from 1998- 1999 and therefore involved in the conflict at a strategic policy level. Regarding veteran organizations the party has no official relationships, but does enjoy good private relations with them.

41

The party also has friendly relations with the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as with many of the NGOs in the territory, maintaining both official and unofficial relations with them. Senior members of the party have on several occasions held meetings with the government officials from Nagorno-Karabakh, with the exception of the Prime Minister.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party considers the work of the Minsk Group as a necessity and regards the efforts put forward by it as priceless. The party credits the group with having very much contributed to the process by maintaining the cease-fire between the parties. The DPA however objects strongly to what is considers the Minsk Group working beyond its remit, seeking to resolve the whole matter comprehensively rather than working to its mandate of only resolving the conflict. The party considers them two very specific and different issues, one a problem with Nagorno-Karabakh in a wider regional perspective and the other a problem between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan. The party also believes the conflict a product of unresolved issues, something it criticizes the Minsk Group for not discussing as the core reasons for the conflict. The DPA believes that the issue must be discussed in international legal terms and not only within a political framework.

The party considers a political solution impossible, since the Azeris regard the region as theirs, while Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh fundamentally disagree with them, and therefore an impartial jury is required to decide on a legally binding decision regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. The party believes that there are only six possible solutions to the conflict (1) Legal, (2) Political, (3) Economic integration, (4) War, (5) Preservation of the status quo, and (6) Possible union of the states in South Caucasus, including the unrecognized regions, to begin an integration process with the European Union.

The party is unsupportive of the Madrid principles and calls for their abandonment, as it believes that they can never be realized. The party considers the principles unrealistic as on a daily basis Azerbaijan is making military statements claiming that they are going to start a war to regain the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding areas.

The party is also skeptical of the possibility of peacekeepers which would alter the balance of power in an already problematic region. Iran for example has very difficult relations with both the EU and the US and would never agree to the presence of peace keepers (including NATO troops) in the region. The DPA also objects to the Madrid principles as it considers them as biased, assuming that only the Armenian side should make concessions, with the withdraw of their troops from Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding regions. The party considers the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as the primary issue and does not agree with the principle that it should be considered secondary, and has called on the prime minister of Nagorno-Karabakh to withdraw his initial agreement to the principles.

42

Regarding the role of international actors, the party maintains that the co-chairs within the Minsk Group are the most appropriate for the job and fully adequate, as all the international bodies are presented through France, Russia and the US. Turkey, however, cannot participate in any capacity, as they are considered the defenders of Azerbaijan. The DPA believes that when Turkey closed its borders with Armenia this was a sign of aggression according to international law, something however the international community does not criticizes Turkey for, and highlights the irony that whilst Turkey is criticizing Israel for blockading Gaza, they are doing just the same to Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that confidence building measures are very important for finding a final and comprehensive solution and insuring that trust can emerge between the parties before the final settlement. The party is involved in such work, arranging on an annual basis an international conference in Yerevan which Azeris are invited to with security guarantees, unfortunately however they do not always participate. The party believes that the people of Armenia are very friendly towards Azeris, but unfortunately this cannot be said for Armenians travelling to Azerbaijan.

Regarding free movement the party maintains it is already contributing to this, and is ready to receive and invite Azeris to Armenia. However the party believes that the reluctance of Azeris to visit Armenia is due to the fact that they are demoralized and consider themselves a defeated nation, and cannot accept the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh people can sustain a statehood and national life independent of Azerbaijan. The party however advocates that the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan should be reopened and that the border regions should be renovated, something which is in both nation’s interest. However, for this to happen President Aliyev must cease from repeating or making any aggressive military statements.

■ Other information

The DPA contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003 and claims to have 3750 members of which around 75% are men and 25% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

43

HERITAGE PARTY

The Heritage Party was established in

2002 and is led by Raffi Hovhannisyan

(Party Chairman) who assumed the

position in 2003.

www.heritage.am

44

Heritage Party A R M E N I A

The position of the Heritage Party (HP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Senior MP Stepan Safaryan held in

Yerevan on 15th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party insists that Nagorno-Karabakh should be recognized as an independent state, believing that it has declared its independence according to the Soviet legislation as well as under international law, and has moreover strengthened its own internal democratic institutions over the last 19 years. The HP notes that Nagorno-Karabakh had a president before Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and therefore deserves to be diplomatically recognized. The party maintains this position not only as Armenians or nationalists, but because both Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia paid a high price and suffered greatly during the war, and that now after two decades it would be impossible to reincorporate Nagorno- Karabakh into Azerbaijan. Though the party believes that there are topics for negotiation with Azerbaijan, the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh identity and sovereignty is non- negotiable and non-revisable due to the history of the conflict. The historical memories of discrimination during the Soviet era and the memories of genocide and occupation over hundreds of years, make it impossible to incorporate Nagorno-Karabakh into Azerbaijan.

The party has outlined its position on the conflict fully in its party program – Resolutions 3, 4 and 5 at the last Party Congress. The HP has also put into circulation in the parliament a draft of a law that refers to the recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, arguing that the Republic of Armenia should recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

None of the party was directly involved in the armed hostilities of 1989-94, but some members (including senior members) assisted with the distribution and administration of humanitarian aid during the war. The party notes that as the veteran organizations and unions are not political entities it does not maintain official relations, only unofficial ones with some, wishing to keep intact the un-politicized nature of these organizations.

Regarding refugees from the conflict one senior member (secretary fraction) was actively involved in prisoner exchange and their organization is still working with refugees, enjoying strong links with refugee organizations. This member has also been active in parliament,

45

circulating a draft that highlights refugees often forgotten in the negotiations. The main purpose of this draft however was to bring attention to the subject of ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan (Baku) against Armenians, and to create a legal basis for compensation of lost properties. The party however laments what it considers a monocular focus on Azerbaijani refugees in negotiations, and neglect of those from Armenia.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The HP considers the OSCE Minsk process as the optimal framework for the peace process and negotiations. The party appreciates that the conflict is very complicated to deal with, and applauds the OSCE’s efforts in managing the conflict and ongoing situation. The party however highlights that they have off course not been successful in ultimately solving the conflict. Despite this the HP maintains in general a positive attitude towards the Minsk Group, but is critical towards its terminology and the absence of Nagorno-Karabakh from its negotiations. The party is furthermore critical of the principle that the Group does not take into consideration the historical and legal background to the conflict.

The HP maintains a wholly negative attitude towards the Madrid Principles, considering them as invalid since Nagorno-Karabakh has not participated in the negotiations since 1998, and as Armenia and Azerbaijan do not have the right to negotiate for them. The party considers issues of territorial integrity problematic as they remain highly disputable, it will not for example be drawn into discussion on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as this would facilitate a need to discuss the territorial integrity of Nagorno-Karabakh as well. It maintains that it is difficult to discuss questions of territorial integrity since the countries of the region gained their borders during the Soviet period - arguing therefore that Azeri claims on Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be maintained as the territory was awarded to Azerbaijan by the Bolsheviks, an act lacking legitimacy.

The party also objects to the Group’s label of Armenia as the aggressor and occupier, as Azerbaijan started the war and the reaction of Nagorno-Karabakh can only be regarded as self defence. The HP also criticizes the change in language and tone from the European side in the early 1990s, as though during the Soviet era Nagorno-Karabakh’s quest for self- determination was welcomed by the Europeans, when the Soviet Union collapsed this quest was condemned – the party considers this a double standard. The party believes that fully comprehensive approach towards the conflict is needed, including consideration of all legal aspects.

Regarding international involvement the party believes that all actors play both negative and positive roles. For example, though Russian influence in the Caucasus cannot be ignored for obvious historical and strategic reasons, they are not interested in a conflict settlement,

46

since the current situation is favourable for them. Russia uses the conflict in order to maintain influence over the region. Although all the international actors want to have some kind of settlement, they use the conflict as leverage to keep control over the region, sharing the same logic. The party however believes that there is a distinction as Europe and the US are more interested in a change in the region compared to Russia which wishes to maintain the status quo. The party considers Turkey very openly biased on the Azerbaijani side – something Turkey never hides – and that it operates according to the principle of ‘two states one nation’ with Azerbaijan, having assisted the Azeri’s in the conflict in numerous ways from 1991 up until the present. Furthermore as Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 due to the conflict, and will not reopen it until the conflict is resolved, Turkey´s involvement in the negotiations or in the OSCE Minsk group is unacceptable. The party however believes that Iran has managed to maintain a degree of neutrality.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that civil society organisations should be strongly and actively involved in the peace process. The HP notes that under the rule of Heydar Aliyev NGOs were allowed to work and cooperate with Armenians (taking part in regional and bilateral projects), contributing significantly to confidence building. However in the Ilham Aliyev era it is forbidden for Azerbaijani NGOs to participate in projects aimed at confidence building. The party prefers the period of Heydar Aliyev, as it considers contact between the two nations as very important with a large role to play in mutual trust and confidence building. The party believes these kinds of activities to be very important and is in favour of them and increased interaction.

Regarding the free movement of people though the party believes that it would be nice, but it is not sure to what extent it would be possible before a final peace agreement. The party believes it would be more beneficial to start building communications between Azerbaijani and Armenian parliamentarians, something not done since 2001 when the last group of Azerbaijani parliamentarians visited under Heydar Aliyev´s rule. Regarding such initiatives however the party is wary that they are negatively manipulated both in Armenia and Azerbaijan in different forms and different ways. Despite this however it remains committed to continued contact, visits and hearing different views both in Yerevan and Baku as essential for both sides to understanding one another.

■ Other information

The HP contested the parliamentary elections in 2007 currently has 7 members of parliament. It claims to have a membership of 5000 people.

47

LABOUR SOCIALIST

PARTY OF ARMENIA

The Labour Socialist Party of Armenia was established

in January 1996 and is led by Movses Shahverdyan

(Party Chairman) who has held the position since the

party’s inception.

48

Labour Socialist Party of Armenia (HASK) A R M E N I A

The position of the Labour Socialist Party of Armenia (LSPA) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the LSPA, Movses Shahverdyan held in Yerevan on 17th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party is keenly aware of the history of Nagorno-Karabakh, and maintains that the conflict should be settled by taking the historical justifications into consideration, as the conflict remains a very specific historical issue.

The party believes that the conflict remains centered on the two fundamental principles of territorial integrity and self-determination, but maintains that the principle of historical justice should also be taken into consideration. The party’s position on the conflict is based out of consideration for the following historiography of the territory.

The party notes that in 1918 Turkish efforts to establish three independent states in the South Caucasus led to first the emergence of the state of Azerbaijan. At the time the South Caucasus was part of the Russian empire and was divided into five regions (Baku, Yerevan, Yelizavetopol, Tbilisi and Kutaisi). Azeris declared that Azerbaijan should include Baku and Yelizavetopol, nothing more. Georgians claimed their sovereignty over Tbilisi and Kutiasi. For Armenians the region of Yerevan remained which constituted parts of the Nakhijevan autonomous republic and some parts of present Armenia. The Yelizavetopol region included Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian region Zangezur. The party believes that this was an unjust composition for Armenia, since the majority of their historical land was claimed by other states with no historical justification.

Between 1918 and 1920 however these states remained independent entities, and many territorial conflicts emerged between these three republics. After the establishment of the Soviet Union it became less important which state had control over which territory, as when Soviet rule was established in those territories, Armenians could not object to their land

49

being part of the Azeri state. After the breakup of the Soviet Union however, and the independence of these three states, these historical grievances were reawakened when Nagorno-Karabakh became part of Azerbaijan.

The party furthermore maintains that Nagorno-Karabakh is the only historically Armenian territory where Armenians have been successful in keeping the majority of the population Armenian, out of a total land area of 300,000 km². Given this historical basis, the party believes it impossible that anyone can agree to have Nagorno-Karabakh as part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The party views the origins of the conflict in Azerbaijan’s rejection of the right to self- determination for the Nagorno-Karabakh people, and as a result of the war Armenians were successful not only in maintaining Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state but also in liberating the surrounding areas which it considers Armenian’s historical lands.

In short the party maintains that with regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and settlement, there must be due consideration for the historical truths and acceptance of the de facto situation that Armenia has control over Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding areas. The party has declared this position several times and on several occasions since 1998.

Regarding involvement in the hostilities of 1989-94 the Chairman was Deputy Chief of a battalion in the Armenian army and is a retired officer with the rank of Major, and many of the party membership also took part in the conflict. The party maintains friendly but unofficial relations with the veteran organizations from the war, and has close collaborations with refugee organizations working with Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan, however it does not enjoy special relations with the elected authorities of Nagorno- Karabakh.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party is quite supportive towards the OSCE Minsk Group, considering it very professional and holds a positive attitude towards their work. The party attentively follows the process and remains interested in seeing its result.

The party has expressed its position on the Madrid principles directly to the incumbent president of Armenia during a meeting he held with all the leaders of the political parties on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. The party considers the most disturbing issue regarding the principles the fact that they have not been made public and are not circulating in the Republic of Armenia. The party looks forward to their official publication and distribution, at which point it will make an official statement regarding them.

Regarding the involvement of international actors the party is concerned that when conflict

50

erupts between minor states and unimportant actors in the international system, great powers which become involved are quite capable of imposing solutions on the parties and forcing them to agree on things. The party believes that if the major powers reach a consensus on what should happen with the conflict resolution, neither Azerbaijan, Armenia nor Nagorno-Karabakh would have the luxury to decide on or reject the solution being presented to them.

The party opposes the position of Russia - which claims that the solution is to be found by consensus between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh - as unrealistic since the positions of these three are irreconcilable and as long as they are not forced to accept a position by external actors it will be impossible to get them to agree on common ground.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that even in the long term, NGOs cannot assume that they will be able to play the same role in the South Caucasus as they do in Europe, as the region is comprised of quite different nations with different destinies, principles, cultures, histories and values. The party maintains that considering this reality, the conflict settlement should be delivered by the authorities and not through civil society.

The party however is concerned that the propaganda which is being presented from both sides is not supportive towards the peaceful settlement of the conflict. It notes that when President Aliyev of Azerbaijan is talking about a military solution on a daily basis it is impossible to see how civil society can be successful in efforts of track-two diplomacy.

Regarding the free movement of people the party believes that this is totally dependent on the approaches and positions of the two country’s leaders. If there exists goodwill between all the authorities (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh) it will be possible to start cross-border initiatives, since the people living in the border regions have no problems with this. The party recognises that the two nations have been living side by side for a very long time, and must therefore look forward to finding a solution to the issue. However the main responsibility for solving these issues lies on the shoulders of the authorities.

■ Other information

The LSPA has not contested any of the parliamentary elections in the last 20 years and therefore has no members in parliament. It claims to have 2700 members of which around 70% are men and 30% women.

51

LIBERAL PARTY OF ARMENIA

The Liberal Party of Armenia was

established in 2004 and is led by

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan (Party

Chairman) who has held the position

since February 2004.

52

Liberal Party of Armenia A R M E N I A

The position of the Liberal Party of Armenia (LPA) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the

LPA, Hovhannes Hovhannisyan held in Yerevan on 16th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party’s position is based on the assumption that if left unresolved in the longer term the conflict may develop into an active war. The party supports the peace process and thinks that the conflict should be settled through peaceful negotiations, but believes that a resolution to the conflict must come from the Armenian and Azeri authorities, and is skeptical of the role of the OSCE Minsk Group in the peace process.

The party claims that that during the last number of years the Minsk Group has lost authority in the eyes of Armenians and Azeris, and blames the group for the inactive and nonproductive work of the process, considering this likely to lead to a new war.

The party also feels that the Armenian and the Azeri authorities are not committed to finding a final and comprehensive solution, and it believes that for the incumbent Armenian authorities the unresolved situation of the conflict presents an opportunity to hold onto power indefinitely. The party considers the authority of Armenia to be corrupt and accuses it of creating a monopolistic and undemocratic system of power in Armenia, considering the system of government totally criminalized.

The party therefore believes that none of the parties have a genuine willingness to solve the problem, and that under these circumstances there are only two ways to solve the conflict, either through a new war or employing the method for solving the Yugoslavian crisis in 1995 (the Dayton accords)

The party however maintains that the conflict should be resolved through the following four principles (1) Common borders with Armenia; (2) A peaceful resolution of the conflict based on mutual concessions; (3) Recognition of the right to self-determination for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, which should be recognized by the international community; (4) The provision of security guarantees by the international community for the people of Nagorno- Karabakh.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 the senior leadership was not involved in the armed conflict, but was involved in the delivery of humanitarian aid to refugees. The party Chairman visited Nagorno-Karabakh during the war on several occasions and therefore gained firsthand knowledge of the circumstances on the ground. The party however does

53

not enjoy any official relations with veteran organizations of the conflict, only unofficial ones, and though the party had good relations with the previous authorities (up to Presidential level) it does not maintain good contacts with the current authorities.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party’s objections to the role of the OSCE Minsk Group have developed from the Chairman’s previous experience of working with the OSCE co-chairs, during which time he observed the lack of consensus amongst the Group, and therefore is skeptical about their ability to push for a final and viable peace settlement to the conflict.

The party maintains that over the last 18 years of the conflict, every time there has been progress and the opportunity to solve the conflict in a short time frame, at least one of the co-chairs has done its best to break the agreement, with at least one of the co-chairs blocking the parties from finalizing the agreement. The party believes that this is due to the fact that the national and geopolitical interests of the co-chairs have always been greater than their willingness to solve the conflict, making the conflict almost impossible to resolve in a peaceful way.

Regarding the Madrid principles, the party believes that they should have already led to a resolution of the conflict, and finds the lack of process over the last two years very suspicious. The fact that the Azerbaijani side does not seem to agree with the principles is giving the incumbent Armenian President Sarksyan the opportunity to claim that the Azeris are not willing to accept a peaceful resolution to the conflict. However, earlier this year the Azeri President Aliyev (on 9th January 2010, during a meeting with Russian President Medvedev) declared that his country is totally in favor of the principles – that they accept them as a basis for conflict resolution. From this the party concludes that the Armenian side simply does not have a response to the commitment to the principles coming from the Azeri President, and that this shows that the present Armenian administration does not have the capacity to make foreign policy decisions on its own. The party maintains that Russia is to a large extent influencing the present administration in Armenia, which has resulted in the Armenian administration’s failure to serve the national interest of Armenia.

Regarding the involvement of Iran and Turkey, the party believes that they cannot be objectively included in any phase of the conflict settlement. The party is also skeptical about European involvement in the conflict, believing that Europe lacks any comprehensive understanding of the conflict and has its own self-interested opinions about it. Concerning Russia, the party believes that it regards the conflict as a tool to strengthen its regional role and ambitions in the South Caucasus. Regarding US involvement, the party maintains that although universal liberal values (in terms of human rights, freedom and liberty) have been advocated by the US in the past, these values are no longer their first priority, and have been superseded by their political interests in the region.

54

The party furthermore blames the policies of the international community as resulting in the coming to power in both Armenia and Azerbaijan of undemocratic regimes, who have successfully been strengthening their regimes over this time.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is unsupportive of NGO level contributions, believing that over the last ten years the informal contacts between Armenians and Azeris have been private and non-inclusive. The party maintains that that the groups included in these types of programs never changes, and new actors have not been introduced resulting in a form of a secret society.

The party therefore considers the level of positive contributions from NGOs to be almost zero, and that the majority of the public has in no way been affected by their efforts – something the party regards as extremely poor. The party is especially critical of the use of media in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, claiming that there are no independent media outlets in both countries, and that TV outlets are used solely for propaganda in favor of the incumbent authorities. The information given to publics in both countries is therefore totally opposite to one another.

The party believes that both nations have gone backwards over the last ten years in terms of the conflict resolution process, and that hatred between the nations has increased. The party considers the two incumbent administrations in Armenia and Azerbaijan as responsible for this.

Regarding the free movement of people the party considers this unrealistic and utopian. However the party recognizes that Armenians are tired of the situation and would like to enjoy the right of free movement. Unfortunately, this desire for free movement and the possibility of people to people contacts between both nations is being prevented by both the Armenian and Azerbaijani administrations.

The party believes that in Armenia and Azerbaijan there exists a very sensitive and difficult social environment where the people are pushing the authorities to guarantee social welfare provision for them. To avoid this responsibility the governments are blaming the unsolved conflict for their inability to provide social welfare, increasing mutual hatred between the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan. This, unfortunately, is working to the benefit of the nationalistic parties.

■ Other information

The LPA contested the parliamentary elections 2007 and claims to have 5600 members of which around 40% are men and 60% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

55

NATIONAL

CONCILIATION

PARTY

The National Conciliation Party was established in

2000 and is led by Aram Harutyunyan (Party

Chairman) who assumed the position at the party’s

inception.

56

National Conciliation Party A R M E N I A

The position of the National Conciliation Party (NCP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the NCP, Aram Harutyunyan, held in Yerevan on 17th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future Regarding the conflict the party draws a parallel with the German scholar Hilbert’s attempt to solve a mathematical formula, which no one had been able to solve for over 300 years. Hilbert said that “Yes, I can solve it but I won’t kill the chicken that is coming with golden eggs”. In the analogy the party considers the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as a golden egg for the great powers that are involved in the resolution process, which they will never be able to solve since they have conflicting strategic and geopolitical interests in the region. It has thus far not been possible to find common ground on which the Azeris, Armenians, residents of Nagorno-Karabakh and the international community can agree on.

The party maintains that this was illustrated during the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, following which the great powers agreed on a consensus to resolve the issue but were unable to implement it. The party furthermore believes that the longevity of the cease-fire highlights that both the mediators and the parties that are directly involved in the conflict do not want any kind of change to the status quo, as they understand that it would harm their national interests.

The party accepts that there must be a principle of mutual concession made by both sides, but that the issues of freedom and self-determination are priceless and non-negotiable. The party stresses that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have a God given right to freedom and to defend their right to self-determination, which they have done not only legally but also through the war that was imposed on them by Azerbaijan.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 the Chairman participated in the liberation of the Lachin corridor during 1992-1993, and the party has many members who participated in the war as well as others who were killed.

The party holds meetings with both veterans’ organizations and individual veterans from the war, and is trying to help them in any way they can. During the parliamentary election in

57

2007, the third candidate on the party’s list was the legendary Commander in Chief of the “Arabo Armed Group/Freedom Fighters” (Manvel Yeyhiazanyon), who greatly participated in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. The party is also actively collaborating in particular with an NGO for mothers of soldiers killed in the hostilities.

The party also sustains very close relations with refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh and is also helping them in any way that they can. The party advocates democracy and human rights in Nagorno-Karabakh, and is not supporting any specific political party, cooperating with all of them. The party therefore does not have any special relations with any of the political parties, and furthermore since the conflict has not been settled the party believes that any kind of official relations may harm the situation by politicizing it.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party is very supportive towards the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, and considers the composition of the OSCE Minsk group as very balanced, believing it to be the most comprehensive platform to deal with the issue. However, despite this the conflict has still not been resolved and although (according to the media) several times over the last 5 years a final agreement was close to being signed, the Group has failed to achieve success. The great powers´ different approaches towards the conflict settlement are harming any kind of possibility for a final settlement.

The party maintains however that despite this, the pure existence of the OSCE Minsk group proves that there is a peace process, which is very much welcome, and one which has created the platform for frequent contacts between the Azeri, Armenian and Nagorno- Karabakh authorities, which is something that should be supported.

The party however remains pessimistic that the issue can be resolved as regardless of which leader is in power in Armenia they will never agree to have Nagorno-Karabakh subordinated to Azerbaijan, and likewise, no authority in Azerbaijan will ever agree to have Nagorno- Karabakh as a free state.

In short, the party believes that the prevailing attitude held by the parties in the conflict may be summarized as “There are only two types of opinions about this conflict and one opinion is mine and the other is wrong”.

The party believes that the composition of the Madrid Principles, as they have been published in different unofficial sources, allows all parties to pick up principles that are in line with their own national interest.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party believes that the great powers have their own national interests and therefore cannot be impartial towards the conflict.

58

The party maintains that any kind of mediating role for Turkey is unacceptable, as they are directly involved in the conflict, illustrated by the fact that they closed their borders with Armenia. Iran is facing international isolation and therefore cannot participate in the conflict, even though the Islamic Republic has adopted a very balanced position. When it comes to Russia, the EU and US a final settlement of the conflict is being postponed since it is not in their core interest to reach a final settlement. For the US and Russia in particular a change in the status quo of the region would be dangerous, difficult and undesirable.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity Regarding informal level contributions the party thinks that they should be supported and has a positive attitude toward any kind of initiative. Unfortunately, the party believes that the two nations are not ready for direct talks or contacts. There exists a negative environment in Azerbaijani society beyond the authorities. For example, the Armenian Boxing team had bad experiences during the international competition in Baku, where the public were very hostile towards them.

The party considers the question of free movement before a final peace settlement as a difficult one to answer, but believes that it should be implemented only after the final settlement of the conflict, as it is not safe for Armenians to walk in Baku or in any other place in Azerbaijan.

The party maintains that unfortunately, such movement must be excluded in the near future as although Azeri journalists and politicians are coming to Armenia without needing to worry about their security, freely moving around without even needing to have bodyguards, Armenians do not enjoy the same situation in Azerbaijan.

■ Other information The NCP contested the parliamentary elections in 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 5000 members of which around 40% are men and 60% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

59

NATIONAL

DEMOCRATIC UNION

The National Democratic Union was established in

1991 and is led by Vazgen Manukyan, who was the

first Prime Minister of independent Armenia, and

Defence Minister in 1992/3 during the Karabakh War.

60

National Democratic Union A R M E N I A

The Position of the National Democratic Union (NDU) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

Chairman of the NDU, Vazgen Manukyan held in Yerevan on 14th June 2010.

■ Position on the future of Nagorno-Karabakh The NDU excludes the possibility of Nagorno-Karabakh being in any form part of Azerbaijan. However if Azerbaijan agrees to Nagorno-Karabakh being an independent state than there are no problems in terms of returning the IDPs etc.

When the Soviet Union collapsed Nagorno-Karabakh was already separated from Azerbaijan and there was a lot of sympathy in the international community for the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and its people. The clashes that occurred between the Azerbaijani Army and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh eventually led to a full scale war. Nagorno-Karabakh, helped by Armenia, won the war despite the fact that the Azerbaijani Army was twice as big as the combined Armenian-Nagorno-Karabakh forces.

As Prime Minister and later Defence Minister of Armenia during the time of the conflict the Chairman of the NDU played an important role during the conflict. Other party members fought in the conflict and some were even field commanders.

The Party does not have any structured relationship with veteran organizations or with the current Nagorno-Karabakh leadership but keeps informal contacts with all political forces in Karabakh.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The NDU thinks that the OSCE Minsk Group plays a very important role in the search for a peaceful solution to the conflict and that they should continue their work as it sees no alternative to them. The NDU may disagree with the opinions of the Minsk Group, but not with their work. They must refrain from working towards a solution whose outcome is that Nagorno-Karabakh becomes part of Azerbaijan. The NDU disagrees with the Madrid

61

principles, as they have been published, which they consider as having been written in a very ambiguous way.

The NDU is not against the participation of any country in the peace process, except for Turkey. Turkey’s position is biased and they cannot be mediators in the conflict. Nonetheless all countries are also pushing for their national interest as they engage with the peace process.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The National Democratic Union believes that people to people contacts have an important role to play in the peace process. The problems for interaction come from Azerbaijan not from the Armenian side. There is not an anti-Azerbaijani feeling in Armenia, but there exists a lot of anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan. The Party is in favour of free movement of people between the two countries and for economic and trade relations as a basis for helping resolve the conflict.

■ Other information

The National Democratic Union contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 2000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women. It currently has no members of parliament. The party has informal contacts with diaspora organizations but is not affiliated to any international platform.

62

NEW TIMES

PARTY

The New Times Party was established in 2003 and is

led by Dr. Aram Karapetyan (Party Chairman) who has

held the position since the party’s inception.

63

New Times Party A R M E N I A

The position of the New Times Party (NTP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the NTP, Dr.

Aram Karapetyan held in Yerevan on 17th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

For the party the main and primary concern of the conflict resolution is to secure the status of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, with all other points being negotiable. In reference to negotiations between the Armenian and Azeri Presidents mediated by Russia however, the party believes that the main points proposed – the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and their replacement with peace keepers, and postponement of the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh – are wrong and the party is totally against any such developments and will never support them.

The party and its senior leaders were directly involved in armed hostilities between 1989-94, but does not wish to elaborate on their involvement. The party does not have any special relationships with veterans or organizations representing veterans from the conflict, and does not have any special relations with organizations, parties or the authorities in Nagorno- Karabakh, nor refugees from the conflict.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party claims that it cannot have a position on the OSCE Minsk process as it believes there is no such process and that it is merely an illusion.

The party does not have a position regarding the Madrid principles either as they have not been officially published. The party claims to be well informed about the process, but as no one has presented any official document, they cannot give any comments about it.

Regarding the involvement of international actors, the party believes that all the great powers have different approaches towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict since their principles and opinions towards the conflict and its settlement are completely opposite to one other.

64

The party maintains however that Turkey is an exception since it is directly involved in the conflict, blockading the borders and behaving as an aggressor towards Armenia. The party believes that the international community has not achieved anything, and therefore advocates direct talks between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as the only means to find a solution. The party suggests a framework which would include two representatives from Azerbaijan, one that is representing the authority and one that is representing the Azeri refuges from Nagorno-Karabakh, as this way there would be a fair representation of all the parties included in the peace talks, since it would be Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh on one side and the two representatives from Azerbaijan on the other side.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is not supportive of NGO activity, as the Chairman has been actively participating in such programmes and remains sceptical of their utility. In his view the Dortmund Initiatives, a joint initiative supported by the US State Department and the Russian Foreign Ministry, which he participated in for two years had no positive results and he therefore remains very pessimistic with regards to these kinds of efforts and their contributions to the peace process.

Regarding the free movement of people the party believes that all the borders should be opened and people should be able to enjoy free movements. Transportation routes and facilities should also be opened for facilitating peaceful relations between the two nations. The party is totally supportive of establishing diplomatic relations with both Azerbaijan and Turkey prior to the final settlement of the conflict, and does not see any linkage between diplomatic relations and the unresolved disputes between the countries.

■ Other information

The NTP contested the parliamentary elections in 2007 and claims to have 25,000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women.

65

PEOPLE’S PARTY

The People’s Party was established in 1995

and is led by

Dr. Tigran Karapetyan (Party Chairman)

who has held the position since 2003.

www.diplomat.am

66

People’s Party A R M E N I A

The position of the People’s Party (PP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the PP, Dr. Tigran

Karapetyan held in Yerevan on 16th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future As the conflict has evolved so has the position of the party. At the very outset of the conflict, the position of the party was to maintain the status quo. However following the conclusion of armed hostilities with the signing of the 1994 cease-fire agreement, which included the signature of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the party feels that Nagorno-Karabakh has been excluded from negotiations. This is a situation that the party is not satisfied with, and is furthermore frustrated by given the position of the Republic of Armenia which declares that two Armenian states exist - the Republic of Armenian and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The party also objects to the participation of Armenia in the negotiations without the participation of Nagorno-Karabakh as abnormal, and believes that both states should participate in negotiations. The party draws parallels with the case of Kosovo, where representatives from Kosovo were at the negotiation table themselves, and not represented by Albania as proxy, which although helping Kosovo was not directly involved in the process.

The party also considers it abnormal that Nagorno-Karabakh has declared independence but not been internationally recognized, citing the international norm that indigenous people that live in a certain territory should be able to employ their right of self-determination.

The party believes that if the process involves any Armenian withdrawal from any part of Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding areas, this will be unacceptable to the Armenian people and will be considered a threat to national security. In the case of new hostilities erupting the party maintains that they are ready to go and fight to the very end. The party’s position is one of absolutely no concessions, as it believes that any concession will inevitably lead to the loss of Armenian sovereignty and statehood.

Numerous members of the party participated directly in the hostilities of 1989-94, and the party maintains active and positive relations with the veteran organizations as it considers them as freedom fighters and national heroes, and therefore as a very important segment of Armenian society. The party is actively collaborating with the government of Nagorno- Karabakh but does not enjoy close relationships with them.

67

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party evaluates the work of the Minsk Group as incomprehensive, as the negotiations are only being held among the elites and not the people – something which will not lead to a viable and lasting peace. The party considers it necessary to implement several kinds of trust building measures as well.

The party is critical that though the mediators have been discussing mutual concession for several years now, they have yielded few results. The party believes that any kind of concession from the Azerbaijani side will only give them license to demand more one-sided concessions from the Armenia side which is the direct way towards a new war.

Regarding the Madrid principles, the party takes issues with points regarding the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the point on the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the surrounding areas of Nagorno-Karabakh. The party believes that these two concessions are not balanced, as though the status of Nagorno-Karabakh should been postponed to be decided by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh in 10-15 years time, Armenian troops should be withdrawn immediately. Furthermore, the party believes that the territories are like holy things for Armenians and Armenians will therefore never agree to withdraw from any part of what they consider their homeland.

Regarding international involvement the party believes that in general the international community is not very much interested in a final settlement of the conflict, since they have different approaches to the conflict settlement and different national interests in this regard. Russia for example wants to keep this territory divided and under its direct influence. The other actors: Europe and the US want to increase their presence in the region, since they hope to gain access to the energy resources of the Caspian and direct links to Central Asia. The party also believes that Turkey wants the Armenian troops to withdraw from the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh in order to gain direct access to the territory via Nakhijevan and the Armenian Goris region.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party laments the limited role of civil society for conflict resolution in both nations, blaming the authorities from both countries, as although they sometimes agree to push for certain concessions which would increase people to people contacts, as the people are not ready for these concessions they are never finalized.

Regarding the return of IDPs the party supports the idea but considers it impossible in reality, especially from the Azeri side. The party notes that whilst Azeris from Armenia that fled to Azerbaijan were able to sell their properties, in Azerbaijan the Armenians had the direct threat of ethnic cleansing and they all therefore lost their properties and many also lost their lives. The party claims that in Armenia there was not the same experience of ethnic cleansing against Azeris, and that when the Azeris fled they did not lose their

68

properties and not a single Azeri was killed during the process. The party also maintains that the international community does know the truth about the ethnic cleansing in different regions of Azerbaijan.

■ Other information

The Christian Democratic Union Party contested the parliamentary elections in 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 18,000 members of which around 95% are men and 5% women. It currently has no members of parliament. The party also produces its own newspaper the "Kochnak" magazine

69

PROSPEROUS ARMENIA PARTY

The Prosperous Armenia

Party was established in

2004 and is led by Gagik

Tsarukyan (Party

Chairman) who has held

the position since 30th April

2004.

www.bhk.am

70

Prosperous Armenia Party A R M E N I A

The position of the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the

spokesperson of the PAP, Khachik Galstyan held in Yerevan on 15th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future As part of the ruling coalition the PAP considers its viewpoint on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process as very important. The party considers Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state, and maintains that this is an irrevocable fact. One of the main objectives of the PAP is to secure the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s statehood and independence. The party also believes that the Republic of Armenia should do all in its power to sustain the peaceful and secure existence of Nagorno-Karabakh and its people.

The party has actively expressed its views regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, and on the principles over which the conflict is being negotiated. In February 2009 Chairman Tsarukyan set out definitively the party’s current position on the conflict, and over the last two years the party has made several speeches, declarations and issued resolutions that define the position of the party. The PAP is actively engaged with Russian think-tanks in formulating its viewpoints regarding the conflict and its settlement process, and has publically announced the principles which it supports as the basis for the process.

Regarding involvement in the hostilities of 1989-94 some party members, including MPs, were directly involved in the armed hostilities – however only as Volunteer Defense Forces, not as part of the Regular Army. The party has been actively involved in charitable works towards veterans of the conflict, helping in particular the Veterans Union. The PAP is involved in delivering humanitarian aid with special attention to the border regions which were heavily bombarded by the Azeri regular army.

The party enjoys wide scale cooperation (inter-parliamentarian cooperation) with the parliament of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, holding joint sessions to discuss common political issues and has good relationships with both the political parties and NGOs of Nagorno-Karabakh. The PAP was also actively involved in the last elections in Nagorno- Karabakh as observers.

71

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The party maintains that the OSCE Minsk Group is the only legitimate body to deal with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and therefore it will only support them. One of the party’s members is also the head of the Armenian delegation to the OSCE parliamentarian assembly. The PAP uses this involvement to share its understanding and objective view on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process with the OSCE. The party furthermore believes that for the last 18 years (since 1992) the Minsk Group has proved to be the only legitimate, professional body to deal with the issue and to have the capacity to work towards a peaceful settlement in an objective manner.

Regarding the Madrid principles the party has publically expressed that they are acceptable and should be fully employed. The party believes that the principles will deliver the opportunity for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to employ their right to self determination in an unambiguous and straight forward way. The party however maintains that the interim status (awarded before the final settlement of the conflict) should not involve a downgrading of the current legal and international status enjoyed by Nagorno-Karabakh Republic today. Furthermore, the Republic of Azerbaijan must accept the existence of an independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as immutable fact from the very outset of the peace process, in order for the process to continue and this should be a precondition for starting the process.

Regarding the role of foreign actors the party believes that despite the recent Turkish- Armenian rapprochement, the Turkish-Armenian relationship cannot be linked to the peace process. Nagorno-Karabakh should not pay the price for the normalization of the Turkish- Armenian relations and this is something that all the actors involved, including the international community, should realize. The PAP supports all active mediation from the Russian Federation which is considers very important and priceless in order to create stability in the region. The party however recognizes the regional geopolitical dimension to the conflict and therefore advocates an inclusive and balanced approach regarding regional involvement. The PAP furthermore advocates positive involvement from the EU with regards to conflict resolution and transformation as very important, as it will in the future provide a common reference lowering the contradiction between the sides in terms of values and principles, helping the two sides to find and implement a final solution.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

72

Regarding the role of informal NGO level contributions the party supports all efforts, considering these contributions to be very powerful and encourages greater contributions. The party believes that for a comprehensive solution it is important to have interaction between all parties at all levels, as this will make them more cooperative and will ease contradictions, enabling a final peaceful agreement. The current lack of cooperation between the two sides deepens the lack of trust between their nations and peoples. The PAP claims that the Armenian side is very constructive and understands that the peace process should undergo collaboration between all parties and segments of society, which must come to support the final settlement of the process.

The party maintains that the possible return of IDPs and refuges should be dealt with only after the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh is determined in legal terms. As long as recognised diplomatic ties do not exist and Azerbaijan continues to block Armenian borders, the party believes that it is too early to consider the free movements of nations, ie. movement over the borders of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

■ Other information

The PAP contested the parliamentary elections in 2007 gaining 29 members of parliament. The party has its own Television media outlet the "Kentron" TV channel.

73

REPUBLICAN

PARTY

OF ARMENIA

The Republican Party of Armenia was established on

2nd April 1990 from a national independence

movement, and is led by Serzh Sargsyan (Party

Chairman) who assumed the position in 2007.

www.hhk.am

74

Republican Party of Armenia A R M E N I A

The position of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Member of Parliament and senior member of the RPA Eduard Sharmazanov, held in

Yerevan on 15th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The RPA maintains that the conflict should have a peaceful resolution and is totally against any military solution, which they believe has been advocated by the Azeri side. The party considers the platform presented by the OSCE Minsk group as the most justified one and supports it as the only way to proceed. It is also in support of the Madrid principles and considers them a good starting point for the peaceful settlement of the conflict. The party made its position clear at the parliamentary and presidential elections that they support the Madrid principles, and position themselves firmly on the following three points:

Firstly, that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic cannot be subordinated to and included in the Azerbaijan Republic. This position is based on the view that Nagorno-Karabakh became independent according to the internal legislation of the Soviet Union and according to international law and that not for a single day has Nagorno-Karabakh ever been part of an independent Azerbaijan Republic. It is considered a matter of fact that according to internal Soviet legislation Nagorno-Karabakh became independent before the Republic of Azerbaijan established its independence.

Secondly, that Nagorno-Karabakh should have a common land border with Armenia.

Thirdly, that the international community and actors dealing with the conflict should give firm security guarantees for Nagorno-Karabakh and its people.

The party has held these points consistently over the last years and they have not changed, they remain the party’s primary concerns with regards to the peaceful settlement of the conflict.

The party has issued several statements and declarations to this effect, including those of the Chairman of the party and current President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan. These are widely available from numerous sources, including the internet.

75

All of the leaders of the RPA were actively involved in the hostilities of 1989-94. The founder of the party, Ashot Navasardyan, was a political prisoner during the Soviet era for 11 years. In 1989 he established the Liberation Army of Armenia, which has actively fought for the security of the borders of the Armenian Republic and the independence of Nagorno- Karabakh. The co-founder of the party Vazgen Sargsyan was also actively involved in the war, playing a management and organizational role. Andranik Markaryan (long time Prime Minister of Armenia) also contributed to the war and was also a political prisoner during the Soviet era, and actively fought for the independence of Armenia. The President, from the beginning of the war, was the Defense Army Commander of Nagorno-Karabakh before moving to become Defense Minister of Armenia, and later signed the cease-fire agreement. The majority of RPA members and people affiliated with the party have not only been actively involved in the war, but also in the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh government.

The party maintains close links with veteran organizations and due to a common national conservative ideology has been actively collaborating with them

The party considers Armenia the protector of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s security and has therefore established very good relationships and cooperation, both with the authorities and the political parties (both opposition and ruling parties). During the last elections in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic the National Assembly of Armenia sent a delegation with 12 MPs to observe the election, which the interviewee headed personally.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The party continues to support the process and believes that as long as negotiations continue there exists a positive dynamic which they will continue to support, based in the co-chairs’ and the international community’s commitment to a peaceful settlement to the conflict. The party highlights the references to the right to self determination in official documents presented at the Athens summit, 2009, as a positive development which they welcome. They maintain that the corner stone in negotiations is the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Regarding the Madrid principles, as outlined by the President, the party accepts them as a starting point for the negotiations, but does not agree on all points that have been presented in the mass media. The party maintains the three points outlined above as immutable. It also maintains that the Republic of Azerbaijan has been inconsistent in their position/attitude towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict and the Madrid Principles and has on a regular basis used military rhetoric harmful to the peace process.

The party maintains the current composition of the OSCE Minsk group as the most suitable

76

one to deal with the conflict. They consider the co-chairs to be doing a good job and to be contributing to the peaceful settlement of the conflict. Russia in particular is to be applauded for its latest active efforts and involvement, and Iran’s mediating role as a balance is also appreciated. Turkey however has no role to play, not in any capacity, since they are supporting one side of the conflict, both politically and militarily. The party intransigently maintains that Turkey cannot be involved in the conflict settlement and will never support them being a part of the negotiations. The party claims that theoretically Greece has more rights to be a mediator in the conflict between Turkey and Cyprus than Turkey has the right to be a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Turkey should better deal with their internal problems, in terms of the Kurdish issue, the Cyprus issue and their own democratic issues.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Any kind of support to the peaceful process is warmly supported from the RPA. However the party is wary that unreliable NGOs can harm the peace process and the positive achievements that have been reached so far. Therefore the party believes that peace negotiations should be conducted by the OSCE Minsk Group alone and not in any other format.

Regarding the movement of people, the most important issue for the party is the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The free movement of people is a secondary issue to be dealt with only after the final peace agreement. The party looks forward to the awarding of Nagorno-Karabakh’s final de jure status, as after that negotiations about the return of IDPs and refugees can begin. The party believes that the situation cannot be solved by starting with the end result; but by looking at the causes of the problem – that questions of IDPs and refugees can only be addressed once the cause of their displacement is resolved.

■ Other information

The RPA has contested all the parliamentary elections of the last twenty years and claims to have 135,000 members of which around 70% are men and 30% women. It currently has 65 members of parliament. The party has its own media outlet at www.hhk.am

77

SARDRAPAT

MOVEMENT

The “Sardrapat” Movement was established as a civil

society initiative group on 13 October 2009. The

movement contests the incumbent authorities as

undemocratic and aims to bring the power back to the

people.

78

“Sardarapat” Movement A R M E N I A

The position of the "Sardarapat" Movement (SM) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with member Jirayr

Sefilyan held in Yerevan on 22nd June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The movement believes that there is no conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh, only a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and considers the Nagorno-Karabakh issue already resolved - remaining tensions the result of other unresolved issues with Azerbaijan such as the issue of Nakhijevan.

The movement maintains that the de facto union between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh should be legalized as soon as possible with regards to the international law, and considers Armenian policy towards Nagorno-Karabakh since 1992 as wrong since it has treated it as a separate independent state. The SM maintains that the national liberation movement that started in 1988 was aimed at reuniting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, which was illegally annexed from Armenia during the Soviet era. The Armenian policy since 1992 has therefore been detached from the national feelings of the Armenia people, and the SM therefore disapproves of it.

The SM therefore supports the status quo situation that was established after the cease-fire in 1994 and believes that any kind of change to it is not only against the national interest of Armenia, but also has the capacity to upset the regional security environment in the South Caucasus.

Members of the senior leadership were directly involved in armed hostilities between 1989- 94, the interviewee was for example the Commander in Chief for a Special Battalion involved in the liberation of Sushi. Up until 1999 he served in the army in several different positions, including senior positions in the Defence Ministry. Many of the movement’s members also actively participated in the war. The movement stresses its very close cooperation with individual veterans, but only enjoys unofficial relations with the organizations representing veterans.

79

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

Regarding the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group the movement believes that they are not putting full effort into finding a solution to the conflict, and that individuals within the group are only serving their own national interests in the region. As long as the conflict remains unresolved the great powers involved in the peace process will continue to use this as leverage over Armenian and Azerbaijan.

To the extent that the Madrid principles have been accurately published unofficially in various media sources the movement strongly opposes the principles, and believes that they do not serve the national interest of the Republic of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. In particular the movement strongly opposes the first principle which refers to the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories, as it considers these as liberated regions and which should not be withdrawn from by a single inch. As the principles are aimed at changing the status quo which the movement supports, it is strongly against them.

Regarding the involvement of international actors the SM maintains that mediation and good will from any party is welcome, with the exception of Turkey which should be totally excluded as it is currently an enemy state to Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

With regards to NGOs the SM believes that they haven´t made any positive contributions so far, with efforts only being superficial and achieving few results. The movement also believes that the majority of NGOs (which are funded by the West) are only trying to serve their own special interests and have not been contributing to a resolution.

Regarding the free movement of people, the SM is not against giving access to Armenian transit routes to anyone under international law. However, as Armenia is being blockaded from both the Turkish and the Azerbaijani side, such free movement is impossible. For example although there exists a railway from Kars to Gumri, as well as one from Nakhijevan to Azerbaijan via Armenia, instead of utilising these Turkey and Azerbaijan have constructed a new railway from Baku to Kars via Georgia – the SM considers this project the act of an enemy, and believes that as this project has European sponsors, its aim is to isolate Armenia.

■ Other information

The SM has two own media outlets www.azatagrum.org and www.sardarapat.org; as well as pages on facebook.

80

SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC

(HNCHAKYAN) PARTY

The Social Democratic (Hnchakyan) Party was established in 1887 in Geneva as a revolutionary struggle and national liberation movement. It is currently led by Vahan Shirkhanyan (Party Chairman) who has held the position since 2009.

81

Social Democratic (Hnchakyan) Party A R M E N I A

The position of the Social Democratic (Hnchakyan) Party (SDHP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with

the Chairman of the SDHP, Vahan Shirkhanyan held in Yerevan on 16th June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party outlined its position on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process comprehensively at the 2009 party convention. The SDHP maintains that the independence and sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh, including the regions surrounding its territory, should be recognized.

The party was actively involved in the hostilities of 1989-1994, Chariman Shirkhanyan being the first leader of the Armenian Defense Body, and chairman of the Defense Committee. When the Committee became the Ministry of Defense he became the First Deputy Minister for Defense, a position which he held for numerous years. The party claims to have many veterans of the war amongst its membership, including freedom fighters. These fighters have maintained strong private relations and collaborations with their military friends in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the party has conducted many meetings with the Nagorno- Karabakh authorities. The party also enjoys a very wide range of collaborations with the youth and veteran organizations of Nagorno-Karabakh.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The party has a very negative attitude towards the OSCE Minsk process, and evaluates the work and efforts of the Group negatively. The party believes that the war is over and the cease-fire is signed not because of the efforts from the Minsk group, but because of the fighting and work that they have done themselves. The SDHP believes that although the Group has been working since 1992, there have not been any positive developments since 1994 when the cease-fire agreement were signed. In fact the party claims that developments have been negative with mutual trust between the parties declining, and that the situation today is worse than in 1994. The party is sceptical that the mediators are really

82

trying to find peace in the region, sighting the following examples:

(1) That the former American co-chair Stephen Mann was at the time he worked for the

Minsk Group also responsible for the Caspian Energy Program and manager of the BTC project, and therefore could not be an impartial mediator in the conflict since he held other interests.

(2) The next American co-chair, Mathew Bryza was (during 2007-2008) actively discussing the Trans-Caspian Pipeline with President Aliyev and he is now the new ambassador to Azerbaijan.

The party believes that this provides example of why the Minsk Group’s motives cannot be trusted, and that the great powers are only interested in a conflict settlement to ensure their capability to access Caspian oil and the gas of Azerbaijan.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party considers their implementation as the direct way to a new war, as it considers the principles to be biased as they outline the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the liberated Nagorno-Karabakh; that the Azeri refugees should have the right of return; and the postponement of deciding the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, the party rejects the principles as they do not mention the return of Armenian refugees which number over 800,000.

The principles also do not include reference to the origin and the real essence of the conflict. The party believes that the conflict erupted between two nations and not two authorities, between Armenian freedom fighters and the Azerbaijani regular army in the early 1990s. The SDHP maintains that the war is a result of a triangle of: hatred – referring to the military; atrocities – referring to the people; enemies – referring to the authorities

The mediators are trying to make peace between the authorities, but do not enjoy the trust of the people in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Any kind of solution that is not comprehensive and does not satisfy the other sides of the triangle, the people and the military, will lead to a new war. Confidence building measures within these two - among the nations and the combatants from the war - is therefore essential and any agreement without these two points will be useless. In particular the party believes that the veterans (which number several thousand from both Armenia and Azerbaijan) must be satisfied otherwise a new war is possible regardless of the position of the authorities, and systematic meetings between the combats from Armenia and Azerbaijan must be pursued.

Regarding Turkey, the party maintains that it cannot be involved in any capacity or in any framework, since it is deepening the mistrust between the conflicting parties. The SDHP also believes that Turkey was a full scale party of the war, acting as an ally to Azerbaijan. The party also believes that as they have invested billions of dollars in the oil and gas industry in Azerbaijan, the co-chairs of the Minsk Group should also not be involved.

83

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that people to people contacts and civil society activity are extremely important. Such efforts should however be conducted by the organizations that have been directly involved in the war, and contacts should be made by the parties that have a specific understanding informed by personal experience of the conflict, including hardliners reluctant to find a peaceful solution. This is because Armenians and Azeris lost 30,000 lives - meaning that there are 60,000 parents who lost their children during the war - an unsatisfactory resolution could bring up new conflicts if these people are not content with the peace settlement.

The party also considers free movement as a positive thing. Cross-border interaction however should be conducted through confidence building measures between the nation’s peoples. The party believes that it will be easy to start cross-border trade, particularly on the entire border of the autonomous Nakhijevan republic.

■ Other information The SDHP contested the parliamentary elections in 1990 and 2007 and claims to have 2300 members of which around 90% are men and 10% women. It currently has no members of parliament. The party has branches in 22 countries across the world, and is particularly strong amongst the Armenian diaspora communities of France and Lebanon.

84

UNION OF NATIONAL SELF DETERMINATION PARTY

The Union for National Self-Determination Party was

established in 1987 as an underground organization, and is

led by Paruyr Hayrikyan (Party Chairman) who has held the

position since the party’s inception.

www.aimusd.org

85

Union for National Self- Determination Party A R M E N I A

The position of the Union for National Self-Determination Party (UNSDP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview

with the Chairman of the UNSDP, Paruyr Hayrikyan held in Yerevan on 17th

June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

In 1988 the party made an appeal for the creation of the two nation-states of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and for the main goal of these new states to become free and democratic countries. This was highly provocative towards the Soviet Union, and as a result the Chairman was arrested and deported to Ethiopia. The party’s main position on the conflict is that it was created by Moscow from the very beginning. In the present however the party believes that conflict resolution must follow democratic principles, and that the people should participate in the decision making processes as this will facilitate finding a solution to the conflict.

The party considers its name as outlining cleary its position as one seeking the right to national self-determination in the region. The party’s commitment to self-determination is not only limited to Nagorno-Karabakh however. It considers it the main principle of all international relations, maintaining that there is no principle of territorial integrity without the right to self-determination and to sustain territorial integrity, territories must first be established by employing the right of self-determination. Furthermore, the principle of territorial integrity is established to sustain stability and security in international relations, but there cannot be any security if human rights are not respected and protected. Territorial integrity should therefore not take precedence over human rights. This is the core belief of the party and is illustrated in all its statements and declarations.

The party was actively involved in the hostilities of 1989-1994. The Armenian national hero Movses Gorgrsyan, killed in 1990, was one of the five founders of the UNSDP. The Chairman was a commander in the Lachin corridor (from 1992), and was nominated as a prefect by the National Assembly and the President with the task of establishing refugee camps. During this time more than 50 of the members of the UNSDP were killed while defending the refugees.

86

The party however believes that it is not good for political parties to be involved in armed hostilities, and therefore although the members of the party that participated were volunteers, they were not armed combatants but were there to build refugee settlements. Before the war the Chairman was good friends with the Azeri foreign minister, as they were both members of a Coordinating Center that included all democratic movements under the Soviet Union, and as a result of their friendship many hostages captured during the fighting were released. However when he became a commander in Lachin this relationship ended, as he became actively involved in the conflict.

Although the party has many veterans within its membership, it holds no special relations with veteran organizations. In 1988 the party established a charity organization (as a sister organization to the party) which worked in Nagorno-Karabakh for a number of years, however today the party does not enjoy special relations with organisations and parties, the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh or refugees from the conflict.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party has always claimed that the internationalization of the issue is good for the conflict, and is therefore very positive towards the OSCE Minsk process. The party has maintained this position as it believes that in cases where a conflict becomes internationalized, international law is given a bigger role to play in the conflict resolution. Furthermore, in the absence of international involvement, if the conflict was to be resolved internally, national interests overrule international law.

Regarding the Madrid principles, the party believes that as they do not distinguish between the principles of international law and international agreement, they cannot be supported. The party also objects to the principles of the invariability of borders, arguing that if this was maintained in the cases of Kosovo and Germany they would not have been established and reunified respectively. The party also does not recognize the legitimacy of the borders established by the Soviet Union, drawing parallels between those drawn in the region by Josef Stalin as the same as the so-called borders of Europe drawn by Adolf Hitler. The party moreover points to the borders of the region drawn by the League of Nations in 1920, as a historical precedent which enjoyed greater consensus.

Regarding the involvement of other international actors, the party believes that the region should move towards EU integration and greater integration with Western countries.

The party furthermore believes in the exclusion of any kind of role for Turkey and Russia in the conflict settlement, since they were directly involved in the conflict - Turkey as an ally to Azerbaijan and Russia as supplying weapons to all parties in the conflict (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh). The party does not consider Russia as a friend of Armenia, as it has supplied weapons to Azerbaijan which it may use in a future conflict.

The party however is very supportive of the European approach towards the conflict which it considers very comprehensive, having taken into consideration all the aspects of the

87

conflict. The party has maintained for some 15 years the position that the integration of Armenia and Azerbaijan into the EU would make the conflict senseless, and therefore believes it should be pursued as a lasting solution to the conflict.

The party does not hold a position on the involvement of Iran.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The party believes that neither Armenian nor Azerbaijani NGOs have a role to play in the conflict. The party also maintains that track-two diplomacy regarding the conflict is ineffectual, and argues that this is something recognised internally by NGOs conducting it. The party believes that the only means to resolving the conflict is a political solution.

The party however concedes that unofficial people to people contacts may have a positive role to play in terms of lowering the amount of hatred between the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan and their perceptions of one another as enemies. The party considers this activity as particularly important as new generations are being brought up with ingrained hatred towards one other, and these activities can play a big role in undermining that hatred. NGOs have an important role therefore to play in stimulating informal contacts and bringing the two nations closer together.

Regarding the free movement of people, the party has maintained for many years that even if the conflict is ongoing all the borders, including the borders with the Nakhijevan autonomous republic, must be reopened. The party believes that all kinds of cross-border interaction should be stimulated, including free movements of people but also free trade in order to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The party however remains pessimistic, and considers such a border regime as unworkable, since both administrations in Armenia and Azerbaijan are still very hostile towards one another, with several political leaders in both countries still not recognizing that they cannot change their neighbours and must therefore learn to live together.

■ Other information The UNSDP contested the parliamentary elections in 1990, 1995 and 1999 and claims to have 4000 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

88

UNITED LABOUR

PARTY

The United Labour Party was established in 2002 and

is led by Gurgen Arsenyan (Party Chairman) who has

held the position since 21st September 2002.

www.ulp.am

89

United Labour Party A R M E N I A

The position of the United Labour Party (ULP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the

ULP, Gurgen Arsenyan held in Yerevan on 23rd June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that after the collapse of the Soviet Union Armenians experienced ethnic cleansing both in Nagorno-Karabakh and in Azerbaijan. The party draws a linkage between the genocide that happen during the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century and the ethnic cleansing that occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh and different cities of Azerbaijan during the 1990s, and believes that Armenia’s failure to act 100 years ago allowed the current armed hostilities to develop. The gap between the two nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan has only widened, resulting in the current state of affairs. The position of the party towards the conflict resolution process is that the issue should be overcome by a legally binding expression of popular will from the people of Nagorno- Karabakh. The party maintains that any kind of “good” war is ten times worse than the “worst” of negotiations.

The party has made the following two declarations regarding the conflict resolution: (1) That the final borders must completely conform to the line of contact existing today, and (2) The solution should be equally bad or equally good for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and the people of Azerbaijan, and a common ground should be found.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 the Chairman was personally involved in armed combat and was a member of the Independence Army of Armenia which was created before the Republic of Armenia was declared, and later transformed into the Republican Party of Armenia. During the armed hostilities many of the party’s members were killed in combat. The party enjoys warm relationships with the veteran organizations, since many of the members of these organizations were also members in the Independence Army, and much of the party’s membership are also members of the veteran organizations. The party also has working relations with all of the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh and organizations representing the refugees from the conflict.

90

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement Regarding the OSCE Minsk Group the party evaluates the efforts being done by them as very positive, since they have been contributing to the peace since the cease-fire in 1994, and any peace is better than war. The party also highly appreciates the efforts and willingness of the co-chairs in the Minsk Group to solve the conflict.

The party appreciates, welcomes and is very much supportive of the Madrid principles, believing that by employing the principles a more serious solution is possible and that the process can move forward with them.

Regarding the involvement of international actors, the party is supportive of the three co- chair framework of the OSCE Minsk Group, and believes that this should be preserved considering it premature to have other states entering the peace process. The possible involvement of Turkey in the peace process is not acceptable, given Turkey’s participation in the blockade of Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is supportive of the involvement of NGOs as it believes that any kind of informal contact and interaction between the two nations can bring them closer to a more positive environment of mutual understanding. This is essential given the huge amount of negative propaganda coming from both countries which undermines the possibility of creating such an environment. Civil society initiatives from both sides can also lower the likelihood of retributions being sought and weakens groups that are calling for revenge. The party believes that such activity will also decrease the possibility of a future war, something which must be avoided at all costs as any future war would destroy both countries.

Regarding free movement, the party is supportive of the idea of having good relations with all Armenia’s neighbours. The party maintains that no Azeri has any problem to move freely in Armenia, however it is ignorant of the situation for Armenians in Azerbaijan and cannot comment on this.

91

■ Other information The ULP contested the parliamentary elections in 2003 and 2007 and claims to have 3500 members of which around 60% are men and 40% women. The Party Chairman, Gurgen Arsenian served as an MP from 2000-2007 and the party had six MPs in the Parliament between 2003-2007. It currently has no members of parliament.

92

UNITED LIBERAL NATIONAL PARTY (MIAK)

The United Liberal National Party

(MIAK) was established in 2007 and is

currently led by Ara Hovsepyan

(Secretary-General) who assumed the

position in 2009.

www.miak.am

93

United Liberal National Party (MIAK) A R M E N I A

The position of the United Liberal National Party (ULNP) (abbreviated in Armenian as MIAK) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Secretary-General of the ULNP, Ara

Hovsepyan held in Yerevan on 21st June 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future The position of the party regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is fundamentally that whatever resolution is reached it should reflect the popular will and the interests of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (those the party considers as current residents of Nagorno- Karabakh) and therefore no resolution can be negotiated or agreed without the acceptance from the residents and citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh. Furthermore, the resolution should reflect the two principles of national self-determination and territorial integrity, with both principles being regarded of equal importance.

Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh issue the party follows the lead of President Serzh Sargsyan and welcomes the steps the President is taking to negotiate a final solution, believing that they are both appropriate and in line with the national interest of Armenia.

None of the senior leadership was involved in the hostilities of 1989-94, and the party does not have any special relationships with veteran organizations, or with the authorities of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party regards the OSCE Minsk process as the most viable framework amongst all available options which has proven itself to be the most longstanding, providing an opportunity for Armenia and Azerbaijan to meet, negotiate, discuss and exchange views. The party believes that the OSCE Minsk process has not expired itself and still enjoys potential to continue.

94

Regarding the Madrid principles, the party has not publically expressed its position, and as it is following the Presidential line does not feel the need to express its position since it is identical to that of the President, the party wholeheartedly supporting his approach on the issue.

Regarding other international actors the party believes that any regional countries or actors that can contribute to the peace process should be welcomed to participate, but their participation must be in a structured way so as not to detract from the work of the existing framework, the OSCE Minsk Group. The party maintains that the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have a big role to play in negotiations for resolving the conflict, and that after 15 years of direct involvement in the negotiations of the conflict they have developed and gained a lot of knowledge and experience, and therefore can continue to play a valuable role.

The party hopes that Turkey can play a more constructive role and believes that it has the potential to certainly do so in the future. However Turkey’s continued close relations with Azerbaijan prevent it from being an impartial regional force and a country that can contribute effectively to the peace process. The party also highlights Turkey’s failure to ratify the Armenian-Turkish protocol for re-establishing diplomatic ties and re-opening the borders, and believes that if Turkey had been more pragmatic in their approach towards the conflict, a solution may have already been reached.

The party considers that Iran has adopted the correct position in regard to the conflicting parties on its border, acting as an impartial neighbour to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and behaving in a manner sensitive to its own Armenian and Azeri minorities.

The party maintains that there is certainly more that the EU can do for the process, in particular with regards to different political and economic programs, and criticizes the EU therefore as currently underutilizing its potential.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that NGOs definitely have a role to play prior to a formal settlement, and that they should therefore be more active. The party highlights that in the past NGOs were much more active and that there existed quite a lot of direct contacts between Armenian and Azeri groups, with additional contacts established through third parties - predominately organisations and platforms either located in, or acting through Georgia. Over the last several years however these contacts have weakened. The party suggests that this is due to a government policy in Azerbaijan that tries to minimize any kind of relations or informal contacts between any groups from the two countries. The party maintains that though there is willingness for such activity on the Armenian side, there is much less willingness

95

from Azerbaijan. Regarding the free movement of people, the party has not considered this in depth before, but believes that it is unrealistic and would have little point, due to issues of security which would prevent any such initiative from being implemented before a final agreement is reached. Furthermore the party maintains that although one good project for example may be the opening of the railway which connects Nakhijevan to Azerbaijan, by-passing Armenia, people would not accept such an opening before they knew clearly that their futures were secure - suggesting that cross-border initiatives and people to people interactions that go beyond simple discussions fora,- and may impact economic and security issues - before a final agreement, are completely unrealistic.

■ Other information

The ULNP contested the parliamentary elections in 2007 and claims to have 1500 members of which around 50% are men and 50% women. It currently has no members of parliament.

96

KARABAKH:

THE BIG DEBATE

Part 2

The views of Azerbaijani Political Parties

on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and

conflict resolution process

97

AZADLIG PARTY

The Azadlig Party was established in 1995

with the aim of bringing ‘citizen nationalism’

to Azerbaijani politics. It is currently led by

Ahmad Oruj (Party Chairman) who assumed

the position in 1995.

98

Azadlig Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Azadlig Party (AP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with AP Chairman, Ahmad Oruj, held in Baku on 24th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The public organizations and political parties of Azerbaijan organized a forum regarding the conflict and the AP Chairman is the head of that forum. In one of the meetings the forum prepared a proposal for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and sent it personally to the Azerbaijani President. When information about the proposal, as well as the forum’s working committee, was published in the media the former American ambassador to Azerbaijan contacted the forum. The party is therefore highly engaged with the conflict resolution process.

The party thinks that the conflict must be resolved based on the principle of human rights, referring to both the rights of the people who used to live in Nagorno- Karabakh and the ones who live there now. The party maintains that it is conceptually wrong to have an ethnic and territorial approach to the conflict. Such methods and approaches will not find a solution to the conflict and will even deepen the problem. The party asserts that if its concept is not accepted by the current government, the party will implement it when they come to power.

The content of the party’s concept is the following: that Azerbaijan should openly state its policy regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh resolution to the international community, which would first be to continue with the negotiation process but only for a limited period of one year, after which if it fails to yield any results, Azerbaijan must once again openly state to the international community that they will start anti- terrorist operations in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. The anti- terrorist operations would not be done in secret and should only begin after military, economic, social and other preparations have been taken into account.

The military operations would proceed as follows: Azerbaijan will divide the Nagorno-Karabakh territory into three different parts and start the operation in non- inhabited areas. Each stage and each action will have a timeframe. It will be publicly declared that a couple of zones in Nagorno-Karabakh will be free from military

99

operations so the citizens can go there and be provided with food and shelter, and Azerbaijan will allow international humanitarian actors access (for example the Red Cross) and if Armenia will not permit humanitarian aid to the people in Nagorno- Karabakh Azerbaijan will provide it from the air. A general amnesty will be provided for each Armenian that doesn’t use arms against Azerbaijan, regardless if they have fought against Azerbaijan previously. Invalids crippled by the military operation will be given compensation, even if they don´t claim Azerbaijani citizenship. Azerbaijan will provide social and economic aid through an international actor, neutral countries can take part in this process, but Azerbaijan will take the financial responsibility.

The main goal of this concept is to neutralize the separatist regions with the main military target being military personnel and bases, not civilians or inhabited areas. In the presence of international entities Armenians will be given cultural, social and economic liberty but within the context of territorial integrity for Azerbaijan.

In 1999 the party organized a rally in front of the US Embassy protesting US financial support to Nagorno-Karabakh. In 2010 the party conducted a similar protest in front of the Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan regarding the Madrid principles, urging them to refuse the Principles.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the Chairman of the party was at that time a correspondent for the “Mukhalifet” newspaper on the front line. The Chairman’s home village is surrounded by Armenian villages and in 1985 the Armenians started to make territorial claims on his village. He didn´t take part in the following military operations, but his brother, who is also a member of the party, was a battalion commander.

The party has close relations with the veterans’ organizations as they always attend their Karabakh forum and members of the Officers Union took part in the preparation of the strategic proposal mentioned above. The veterans’ organizations are very positive towards the party’s concept. Regarding IDP communities, as two of the party’s deputies are IDPs the party has very tight relations with their communities and organizes anniversary events together with organizations representing them. The party takes part in all events organized by the ‘Karabakh Liberation Organization’ which was also represented in the anti-terrorist document.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

In terms of keeping the cease-fire the party´s evaluation of the OSCE Minsk Group is very positive, since they have managed to keep it intact. However, the party maintains that they don´t have any serious mechanism to put pressure on the aggressor, and

100

considers it a fact that the co-chairs are using the conflict to fulfill their own national interests. Despite this the party thinks that the negotiation process between the two parties must continue to be under the mediation of the Group even during the military operation, as their involvement will help to achieve a real peace and halt the military operation earlier.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party is against them since they are not based on the principle of human rights, and even if it is accepted that they can bring a settlement, the international peace keepers introduced will only keep their eyes on the IDPs that return to their homelands. The Principles are furthermore directly fulfilling the interests of the Armenian side and the document is more about giving a present to the aggressor than reaching a fair settlement. The party does not and never will accept the Principles, as they will not solve the conflict and will ethnically divide the territory, and are basically fulfilling the ill intended dream of Armenia. The European countries are furthermore trying to create a union regardless of ethnicity in the region, and due to the Armenian dream, they want to create a mono-ethnic nation and secure the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of this agenda.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party considers Russia the creator of the conflict and believes that it uses it as a leverage to maintain their presence in the region. Russia understands that if the conflict was resolved, Armenia would not need them anymore and they would not be able to stay in the region.

There are two factors that define the role of Iran: (1) Iran is not interested in the resolution of the conflict, they understand that if the region develops, the EU and US will increase their presence in the region, which is not in their interests. (2) Iran wants Azerbaijan to be weak and even collapse so they support Armenia.

Turkey is trying to integrate into the EU and they have a zero problem policy towards their neighbors and are trying to normalize their relations with Armenia. Moreover, they are trying to become a regional leader, in a positive way, and the party is therefore positive towards them and their involvement in the resolution process.

In general, the party also has a positive attitude towards the US, but believes that they are trying to court Armenia in order to decrease the influence of Russia over them, and is therefore ready to keep the process ongoing by allowing Azerbaijan to lose its territories.

The party thinks that the most objective entity is the EU, since they don´t have an ethnic approach and wish to extend the EU region to the Caspian Sea and decrease their dependence on Russia for energy security.

101

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party highly appreciates the position of and contributions from neutral NGOs, but does not appreciate the role of the NGOs which are under the influence of Armenian Diaspora communities, which are trying to convince Azerbaijanis to concede their territories.

The party notes that although Armenians and Azerbaijanis meet in Georgia and Russia through joint businesses and conferences etc without any problems, cross- border movement before a final settlement would be impossible, since Azerbaijan does not recognize the borders around the occupied territories as they are now. The party does not harbour feelings of revenge but is adamant that there must exist a sense of justice.

■ Other information

The AP claims to have around 5000 members of which 50% are men and 50% are women. Internationally it has relations with Diaspora communities in Germany, the Netherlands, the US, Russia and Taiwan. The Party contested the 2010 elections but has no MPs.

102

Azerbaijan Democratic Party

The Azerbaijan Democratic Party was

established on 26th January 1991, on the eve of

the collapse of the Soviet Union and is led by

Sardar Jalaloghlu (Party Chairman) who

assumed the position in 2007.

103

Azerbaijan Democratic Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party (ADP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the Chairman of the ADP, Sardar Jalaloghlu, (accompanied by 1st Deputy Chairman Hasrat Rustamov and Deputy Chairman Taliyat Aliev) held in Baku on 12th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party believes that a final solution to the conflict requires an appreciation of the main historical reasons for dispute, which is something currently neglected by the international community.

The party maintains that historically Armenians only appeared in the region after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and that the Russians pitted the Armenians against the Turks and Iran as part of their strategy for dominance in the region. During the first war between Russia and Iran, Russia succeeded in moving more than 150,000 Armenians from Iran into the region, especially to the Nagorno-Karabakh, and this is something supported by documents available in the Russian state archives. The territory of Armenia is therefore

historically Azerbaijani territory. During the 14th and 16th Centuries Yerevan was named Revan (meaning ‘smooth’ in Azerbaijani) and it continued under the rule of Safavid Empire of Azerbaijan. There were many villages and settlements in the Western Azerbaijan (current Armenia) called Almalik (meaning ‘apple orchard’ in Azeri). Armenians gradually changed the original Turkic toponyms to new fake Armenian ones in order to falsify the history of the region and the people after the Soviet rule was established in the region.

During the Russian-Ottoman war which followed the Russian-Iran war, Russia used Armenians that lived in Ottoman territory against the Ottoman administration. As a result, the Ottoman Sultan deported them to Syria and Iraq. Armenians claim that more than 1.5 million were killed during this time, but as they cannot support this with evidence such as mass graves, the party remains sceptical of Armenian claims of

104

genocide. During this period the deported individuals managed to create a new state, suggesting that it is increasingly unlikely that they suffered genocide. Furthermore, the party maintains that if Armenians were killed in great numbers, as they claim they were, it would not have been possible for them to appear in the South Caucasus region, having not lived there historically.

The ADP claims that within the last 2000 years there is no source that confirms the existence of an Armenian state in the South Caucasus, and maintains that historically they are not originally from the region. In 1920 according to Russian statistics, only 30% of the local population of Yerevan was Armenian. The party states further evidence in the etymology of Armenia, claiming that the word Ermenistan doesn’t have any historical links with contemporary Armenia, but is named for the Turkic tribe of Ermen. Armenians call themselves as Hay and the country Hayastan, which the word comes from the word “Hay tribes”. So, they appropriated this name (Armenia) when the state was established. The historical facts confirm that the Armenians are not aboriginal people in the Caucasus and they massively appeared in the region only 180 years ago.

The party maintains that the Turkish-Soviet treaty of 1921 outlined the return of Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan as it was fostered by Turkey after the collapse of Tsar Russia until Soviet rule established in the region. Turkey protected Nakhchivan from armed intervention by Bolsheviks, Armenian dashnaks and other invaders. By the treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia signed in 1921 in presence of Mikoyan Armenia recognized the Nagorno-Karabakh as the integral part of Azerbaijan and took on a commitment that it will never have a claim again towards Azerbaijan over the Nagorno Karabagh region. However there was a conspiracy between the Soviet Union and Armenia, which saw the districts remain with Armenia as a gift - in contradiction to the treaty which stated that Armenia should never have a claim on Nagorno-Karabakh. After the Soviet Union was established, over 70% of the population in Armenia were Azerbaijanis, however the demographic balance in Armenia was altered with massive numbers of Azerbaijanis (more than 1 million) being deported from Armenia three times during the Soviet era. After deportation they replaced them with Armenians coming from Syria, Iraq and other places in the world. The party further maintains that only 10% of the Armenians currently living in Armenia are originally from the region.

The party believes that in 1988/1989 ethnic-cleansing occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh against Azeris resulting in the current demographic situation of an Armenian majority. The party believes that Armenians who have historically lived in the region know that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan, and that they want a real resolution to the conflict. Newly arriving Armenians however are very radical.

Regarding resolution of the conflict the party maintains that the conflict is not between

105

Armenia and Azerbaijan, but is a result of Russian policy as they don´t want the conflict to be solved. The party believes that Armenian illegal and sick minded territorial claims towards Turkey, Georgia (Javakheti), Iran and even Russia (Stavropol) mean that they also have no interest in resolving the conflict. Armenia should not be understood as an independent actor in the conflict but as an instrument in the hands of Russia.

In 1993 Azerbaijan was very weak and a peace agreement was almost signed, Russia recognized this and blocked it - proving that Russia doesn’t want a solution to the conflict. In 1993 following a coup Azerbaijan was without a central government, which Russia and Armenia took full advantage of, occupying even more territories. This resulted in a lot of IDPs which have created a very difficult situation in Azerbaijan. The UN has also passed four resolutions on the conflict stating that Nagorno-Karabakh statehood cannot be considered as long as Azerbaijani territories remain occupied.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, when the conflict started the Chairman was one of the political leaders in the self-defense movement of Nakhchivan, which was a movement against Armenian aggression. The party believes that the government has a very aggressive policy towards veterans’ organizations, it has almost destroyed all of them. The party used to have a committee for protection of the rights of veterans. There are many Karabagh war veterans and family members of the veterans among the members of the party.

Regarding organizations representing IDPs, the party maintains that no opposition party in Azerbaijan has any close relations with these groups. They are kept isolated by the government and are used as a political instrument before the elections, for corruption reasons and for other purposes. The party also claims that the exact number of IDPs is unknown since the government exaggerates the number in order to get more international aid. They also use the IDP community against pressures for democratic liberalization from the international community, claiming that there are insufficient resources for democratic developments given such a huge IDP community.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party expresses concern that since the beginning of the OSCE Minsk Group’s work there has been no meetings with civil society groups or opposition parties, and evaluates the Group’s role as highly negative, claiming that even the co-chairs themselves confess that they are not taking any serious steps towards conflict resolution. Russia, France and the US have several times supported Nagorno- Karabakh and Armenia both militarily (in the case of Russia), financially (in the case of the US) and culturally and morally (in the case of France). Furthermore, the Group´s approach is against the resolution adopted by the UN - since they are not

106

discussing the issue regarding the surrounding occupied areas, and are only discussing the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The party also believes that the Group is only taking into consideration the political factors and is not taking international law into consideration. The party cites the UN convention that an aggressor cannot use the result of their aggression to their favor in the negotiation process, and despite this the Group is urging Azerbaijan to compromise over the still occupied territories. The Group has also neglected the public opinion of Azerbaijan, never having held meetings with opposition parties or civil society groups, and is trying to solve the conflict on their own. After a meeting with Russian President Medvedev, the Minister of Defense of Armenia declared that unless Azerbaijan recognized the independent status of Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia would not remove its troops from the occupied territories or hold any negotiations with the Azerbaijani side. The party believes this suggests that Russia will always encourage Armenia not to be constructive.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party maintains that the Group wants to give Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, as it is a ‘Christian club’ that is not objective and is not taking into consideration the international law.

The party holds the following positions on the involvement of other international actors: Iran - with a huge Azerbaijani Diaspora in the north (around 30 million) Iran is not interested in seeing a stronger Azerbaijan, since they are afraid that the northern part of the country would seek secession and unification with a strong Azerbaijan. Due to internal problems with their Azerbaijani Diaspora therefore, Iran supports Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Turkey - wants the resolution to be carried out according to international law, but because of the Turkish-Armenian issue the international community rejects Turkey as an objective actor. The party supports Turkey’s accession to the OSCE Minsk Group as a co-chair.

US - is interested in democratization of the region and wants to decrease the role of Russia in Armenia and is therefore competing with Russia for Armenia as a patron. The US Congress is for example supporting Nagorno-Karabakh financially.

Russia - Armenia is the only country in the region that accepts Russian military presence on their territory. Russia wants Armenia to be stronger in the region but under its control. The party believes that the name of the disputed territory proves that the conflict is between Russia and Azerbaijan, and has nothing to do with Armenia, as Nagorno means ‘mountains’ in Russian and Karabakh is an Azerbaijani word – there is no Armenian linguistic influence.

107

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding the role of NGO’s the party maintains that since both countries are not democracies, and civil society remains under government control, they have no platform to work on. Domestically, only pro-government NGOs are allowed to participate, and internationally, NGOs only issue the statements that they are instructed to by the international community. Opinions about the real situation are not interesting to the international community.

Regarding people to people contacts the party is not against them, unless Armenia is trying to use them to strengthen the military and economy of Nagorno-Karabakh. The free movement of people may be abused to strengthen the separatists in Nagorno- Karabakh and harm the peace process, and therefore it is unwise to have such movements before a final peace agreement, since they may deepen the problem. The party maintains that Azerbaijan cannot be opened up to Armenia as longs as they continue to occupy parts of Azerbaijan. The party maintains that before the conflict 300,000 Armenians lived prosperously in Azerbaijan without any problems, and that Azerbaijanis are not nationalists and even now there are about 30,000 Armenians who live in Baku and other big cities of Azerbaijan despite the ongoing conflict, whilst unfortunately no Azerbaijani remains in Armenia.

■ Other information

The ADP contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010, and claims to have around 10,000 members of which around 90% are men and 10% women. It currently has no members of parliament. The party publishes its own unofficial newspaper, the “Hurriyyet”.

108

Azerbaijan Liberal Party

The Azerbaijan Liberal Party was established

in 1995 and is led by Dr. Lale Shovkat

Hajiyeva, who has led the party since its

inception.

www.lalashevket.az

109

Azerbaijan Liberal Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Azerbaijan Liberal Party (ALP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Acting ALP Chairman, Avaz Temirkhan, held in Baku on 20th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict must be resolved in a peaceful way based on the equality of the people in Nagorno-Karabakh. When human rights are violated the whole peace process breaks down, and therefore it must progress grounded in equality between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as well as Armenia must also be respected. The rights of the Azerbaijanis who used to live in Nagorno-Karabakh must also be honored, the first step being the return of IDPs to their homeland. If they don’t wish to return then they must be awarded citizenship for the territory where they are, Armenia must recognize Azerbaijanis and the same goes for Armenians living in Azerbaijan. Also historically, there were hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis deported from Armenia by Stalin and their right to citizenship must be restored. Importantly, it is up to the IDPs whether they move or stay, and this is something that the international community doesn’t understand or acknowledge. The biggest victims however are the displaced Azerbaijanis who used to live in Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and the surrounding areas that are now occupied.

Only after the restoration of Azerbaijani territorial integrity can discussion begin on the Armenian community. The party believes that the Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh can be given any status they want, but only under the sovereignty of Azerbaijan. The other precondition is that Armenia must give the same status to the Azerbaijani community living in Armenia.

The party believes that a commission must be established to investigate human rights violations committed against Azerbaijanis during the Soviet-era, led by the UN together with the OSCE as well as representatives from Armenia and Azerbaijan. The party maintains that the findings of such a commission would make it clear that the

110

right to self-determination should be granted to Azerbaijanis, not Armenians, as from 1920 to 1991 the Azerbaijanis living in Armenia were subject to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, the international community would realize that Armenia used to be part of Azerbaijan, since Azerbaijan included Yerevan.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, neither the leader of the party nor the acting Chairman took part in the war, but several members of the party did. The party usually supports and takes part in events run by veterans’ organizations and has members who were commanders during the war. Regarding IDPs, the party fielded a candidate for the last election who was an IDP and has local branches covering IDP communities.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party maintains that the OSCE Minsk Group should act as a mediator, but is not satisfied with their work, and believes that all the co-chairs are under great influence from their Armenian Diasporas. The Group’s position is not fair towards Azerbaijan and is only based on their own interests. They fail to recognize Armenia as the aggressor and have done nothing to put a pressure on them, putting equality between the aggressor and victim. The party warns that Azerbaijan will soon lose its patience with the situation, and that accepting an ongoing deadlock would be sign of accepting secession. The party is realistic and recognizes that the co-chairs of the Group will respond more readily to economic and political forces rather than the international law.

The party believes that 2 of the 6 Madrid Principles are inadmissible – (1) Determination of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and (2) International peace keepers in the region which will have the right to decide over the security in the surrounding areas. The party considers the second unnecessary as during the last 17 years there have only been a few minor shootings around the borders, and therefore does not see a need for such a mission when the cease-fire has been quite successful. Regarding the first, the party maintains that it will only serve the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh.

As for the involvement of other international actors, the party considers Azerbaijan to be at the epicenter of the world, and as the road from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean runs through Azerbaijan, each member of the international community involved in the issue has their own interests in Azerbaijan. The party takes issue with the current composition of the OSCE Minsk Group, which does not allow Iran’s participation in

111

the peace process, and also believes that Turkey must be a co-chair in the Group.

The party also believes that Armenia cannot survive without Turkey, and considers it incomprehensible that although Armenia is asking Turkey for support, at the same time they don´t want them to be part of the peace process.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding informal level contributions the party maintains that public diplomacy has contributed numerous times towards the conflict resolution. The party is not against meetings between the two parties, but believes that if they cannot have the final say, they will be able to achieve little.

Concerning the free movement of people the party believes that it is not possible now, and that Armenia must first recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. However, the party does believe that such activities could work to decrease the hatred felt between the nations. The party suggests that the EU must pressure Armenia to recognize territorial integrity, so that such movements can begin, and this is activity that the party would eagerly contribute to.

■ Other information

The ALP contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 25,000 members of which 70% are men and 30% are women. It currently has no members in parliament.

112

Azerbaijan Peoples Party

The Azerbaijan Peoples Party was established

with the Presidential election of 1998. It is led

by Qiyas Sadigov, who assumed the position in

2005.

113

Azerbaijan Peoples Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Azerbaijan Peoples Party (APP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the founder of the Party Panah Huseyn MP, held in Baku on 13th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that although the international community regards this as a conflict, the APP considers it as pure aggression by Armenia towards Azerbaijan, since they started the war. As long as there are Armenian military troops on Azerbaijani land, this will remain the party’s position. The Chairman was Prime Minister from 1992-1993 during the Popular Front government and during that time he did not see a single Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian during the mediations – mediations only being held with the Armenian president – highlighting that the hostilities were an aggressive act by Armenia towards Azerbaijan. Essentially, the party maintains that only after Armenia withdraws their troops can a negotiation process begin - one which includes the Armenian community living in Nagorno- Karabakh and addresses their grievances. In 1992 when the Chairman was prime minister, he met with the prime minister of Armenia and representatives from both the Armenian as well as Azerbaijani community living in Nagorno-Karabakh. The Chairman maintains therefore that it is possible to involve all parties in negotiations, however this must be preceded by the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories.

The party believes that significant contradictions remain between the public opinions in Azerbaijan and Armenia. Although there exists mistrust amongst Armenians regarding the security situation for Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan is able to guarantee the security and national identification of Armenians living there. The party wants ethnic Armenians to be citizens of Azerbaijan and this is something that the party considers very possible. The party rejects misleading information from Armenia which claims that they cannot live in Azerbaijan and that the only option therefore is independence. The party maintains that as long as the

114

territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is maintained, a common agreement may be reached with Armenia.

The party also suggests that theoretically, if Azerbaijan-Armenia-Georgia could create a common “Caucasian house” (in which all the countries were equally represented) the importance of Nagorno-Karabakh and the reasons for the conflict would be automatically reduced.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, only a few of the party’s members did not take part, and the party maintains cooperation with “Council of Karabakh War Veterans” organization and the “Karabakh Liberation Organization”. The party also has local branches that cover IDP communities, and has close relations with IDPs within the “Karabakh Forum”.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party is not satisfied with the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group and believes that if the Group´s co-chairs really wanted to solve the conflict, they would have done so already. The party also maintains that if the OSCE has not interfered in the first place by introducing a ceasefire, and become an obstacle to the process, Azerbaijan would probably have sorted out the situation themselves in a matter of months through a new war.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party does not share the position of the government, and believes that in reality there are no renewed Principles – with disputes regarding the referendum over Nagorno-Karabakh and the role of international peace keepers remaining central.

As for the role of other international actors, the party recognizes the geopolitical factors which shape the region and maintains therefore that the roles of Russia, Iran and the US should be considered seriously. The party also believes that Turkey´s role should be increased, and would like to see Turkey become more active regarding conflict resolution as currently only the US and Russia are playing a major role. France for example does not play the same role in Azerbaijan that it has elsewhere, such as in Georgia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that informal level contributions of course have a role to play,

115

however not an important one – although the party is careful not to underestimate the work of NGOs, conceding that they can contribute, it maintains that they won’t be able to solve the conflict. Therefore whilst the party does not have high expectations regarding their role, it is not against them.

The party is however totally against the free movement of people prior to a final solution. The party suggests that even if it were possible, it would be comparable to Nazi Germany being at war with the UK and at the same time having tourist exchange activities. Only if Armenia withdrew their troops would it be possible to have some people to people contacts in terms of opening railways etc.

■ Other information

The APP contested the parliamentary elections in 2000, 2005 and 2010, and claims to have around 5000 members of which 80% are men and 20% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament.

116

Azerbaijan Popular Front Party

The Azerbaijan Popular Front Party was established in 1989 on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is currently led by Ali Kerimli (Party Chairman), who assumed the position in 1999.

117

Azerbaijan Popular Front Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party (APFP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Deputy APFP Chairman, Nuraddin Mammadli, held in Baku on 22nd July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party supports the resolution of the conflict in accordance with the international law, and maintains that the most important thing is the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which cannot in anyway be violated. The main issue of concern for the party is that the international organizations dealing with the issue (first and foremost the OSCE Minsk Group) are putting the aggressor and victim on the same level, and value the principle of territorial integrity and the right to self-determination equally.

The APFP is one of the oldest parties in Azerbaijan and has a very established position with regards to the conflict. It also has a special unit working for the conflict settlement.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the party suffered the highest numbers of casualties from the war as it created many military units which defended Azerbaijani territories from the joint Armenian-Russian aggression. There are also some Karabakh war veterans in the leadership of the party, who are also invalids.

The party used to have close relations with both individuals and organizations representing veterans, but over the last number of years many civil society organizations, including veterans’ organizations, changed their position and became pro-government organizations and are now under the umbrella of the government.

Regarding IDP communities, the party has local branches representing all IDP districts. 30% of the party’s leadership is from refugee and IDP communities. Unfortunately however the party does not have the opportunity to meet regularly with the IDP

118

communities as communication with them is very restricted, when representatives from the party try to enter these communities they are arrested by the police.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party adopts a realist perspective on international involvement, and therefore does not believe that if the resolution process was given to another international entity the peace process would have been anything different. The OSCE Minsk Group has operated in accordance with their mandate, but since they don´t have a mechanism to implement measures, such as sanctions for example, they can´t put pressure on Armenia to withdraw their troops from the occupied territories and liberate them. The party maintains that the Group has a very strange approach, since they are urging Azerbaijan to compromise, which is unjust as Azerbaijan has been the subject of Armenian aggression and should therefore not have to compromise. The party believes that the continuation of such an unjust approach might lead to the prolonging of the conflict for another 100 years.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party accepts the document in general, except for Paragraph Four which outlines the determination of the status of Nagorno- Karabakh through a referendum that will be conducted by only the population living in Nagorno-Karabakh. The party maintains that this will be a violation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and remove the territory from Azerbaijani jurisdiction. The party also believes that this paragraph, if implemented, would create an undesirable and awful precedent in the world, which would justify actions of aggression.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party believes that the key to the resolution is in the hands of Russia, as Armenia is in fact run by Russia. Russia understands that if they let the Nagorno-Karabakh problem be resolved it will completely lose its leverage and influence in the South Caucasus. Unless the West neutralizes the Russian influence over Armenia the conflict will not be resolved. The party also believes that currently the only country that takes real initiatives is Turkey. The development of Armenia in the fullest sense depends on the normalization of relations with Turkey and Turkey understands that they can, in this way, influence the resolution of the conflict. Iran on the other hand is an ally of Armenia and they play a very special role for the economic survival of Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

119

The party believes that for any resolution of any conflict in the world there is a certain role for public diplomacy to play. Furthermore as no conflict can continue forever, and the conflicting parties must live together as neighbours, informal meetings can and must assist in the resolution process.

Regarding the free movement of people, the party believes that although it is desirable, unfortunately it would be impossible before the final peace agreement is signed. There are only a few people in Azerbaijan that have not been greatly impacted by the war. Many thousands of people either lost loved ones or became invalids, and up to 1 million Azerbaijanis became refugees and IDPs. It would be extremely difficult to start such movement before the final peace agreement is signed – first, all the parties must reach a political decision, then sign the agreement, then open communications, then start economic projects and only after all that could movement between the societies begin in order to build trust. The party maintains that it is also very important that both countries become democracies. If Azerbaijan were a more democratic country it would be more desirable for Armenians to be a part of Azerbaijan - in terms of security, economy and social welfare. The same goes for Azerbaijani refugees, if Armenia was more democratic it would be more desirable for Azerbaijanis to settle there.

■ Other information

The APFP contested the parliamentary elections in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010. It currently has no members in parliament

.

120

Citizenship and Development Party

The Citizenship and Development Party was established in 2005 as a result of division within the Azerbaijan National Independence Party. It is led by Ali Aliyev (Party Chairman) who assumed the position in 2006.

121

Citizenship and Development Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Citizen and Development Party (CDP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with CDP Chairman Ali Aliyev, held in Baku on 14th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The CDP maintains that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was created by Russia 180 years ago, and bases this on historical facts which show that the Russian Tsar wanted to create a buffer zone. When the Soviet Union was established the political leadership exacerbated the conflict so that they could have leverage in the region and manage it through a divide and rule strategy. This was the same case with Abkhazia, South Ossetia and other break away regions in the post-Soviet era which were all created out of similar historical factors. When independence movements started in the 1980s, Russia revived the conflicts in order to be able to interfere in the politics of the region.

The position of the CDP is that the conflict should be resolved in a peaceful way, as the people of Azerbaijan have already suffered greatly. For example, as a consequence of the conflict a massacre on the Azerbaijani population occurred in Nagorno-Karabakh. This bloody military operation was implemented by the Russian military Unit 366, in order to keep control over the region.

The party strongly believes that the ethnically Armenian population in Nagorno- Karabakh are Azerbaijani citizens and should accept the rule and laws of Azerbaijan. Although they have the right to live in the region, separatist movements cannot be encouraged. The most important issue however is the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and this should be recognized by the international community. The CDP respects the right to self-determination, but believe that Armenians have already exercised it when the Republic of Armenia was established, and so therefore do not have a right to exercise it in Nagorno-Karabakh also.

122

The party maintains that if the Armenian community of forty to fifty thousand people does not want to live side-by-side with Azerbaijanis then they can move to Armenia. The CDP also believes that following the restoration of the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, social and economic support will be provided for the Armenians living in Nagorno- Karabakh. The party recognizes Russia’s interest in maintaining its influence in the region, but suggests that as Azerbaijan is growing stronger perhaps soon it will be able to liberate its territories from Armenian occupation without any compromise and perhaps even take back its historical Zangezeur and other regions that were forciblely given to Armenia at the start of Soviet rule.

Regarding veterans’ organizations and those representing the IDP communities, the party believes that they should receive the highest degree of respect and therefore maintains good relations with them. The CDP has many local branches covering the occupied territories, and through these branches it has relationships with IDP communities and is trying to help them in any way they can to improve their situation. Although the party has contacts with these groups, they don’t have access to the IDP camps which are overcrowded, due to restrictions from the government.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party believes that the OSCE Minsk Process isn’t taking into consideration the interest of Azerbaijan and is indeed harming the situation for Azerbaijan, since they are putting the aggressor and the victim of aggression on an equal level. The co-chairs are trying to solve the conflict with regards to their own national interests in the region. They are putting pressure on Azerbaijan rather than Armenia to compromise in the negotiations.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the CDP maintains that they serve to concede Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. The renewed Principles also discuss the possibility of a referendum to be decided by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh only, which is totally against the constitution of Azerbaijan. The international community is therefore exploiting the weakness of the Azerbaijani government, in the fact that it lacks democratic legitimacy and does not enjoy public support in Azerbaijan.

The party maintains that Azerbaijan needs to protect Nagorno-Karabakh in the same way that the UK defended the Falkland Islands, and to treat Armenians in the same way that Spain is treating the Basque people.

The party also considers it a double standard that the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Russian occupation in Georgia, but does not criticize the Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh and the seven adjacent districts, and

123

suggests that this is because in this case one of the conflicting countries is Christian and the other Muslim.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party maintains that it is the OSCE Minsk Group which has the mandate to carry out a mission regarding the conflict and that the international community has handed over everything to them. The party however believes that Azerbaijan should resist the efforts of the Group, despite pressure to follow the approaches that are recommended by them, as the work of the Group is not objective.

The CDP maintains that Russia is the creator of the conflict and wants to keep its control over the region. They are the military ally of Armenia and took an active role in the conflict and were in the front line together with Armenia.

The party highlights that there are more than 500,000 Armenians living in France, constituting a large electoral cleavage. Through this large Diaspora community, Armenia is able to influence the position of France with regards to the conflict as they play an influential role in the domestic politics of France. They are for example totally against Turkish membership in the EU, which had formed the basis of French opposition to Turkish accession. France cannot therefore be considered a neutral country. For the US it is the same as in France, as many Armenians are living in the US and have a big impact on the internal politics of the country. For example, they successfully applied a lot of pressure to recognize the genocide during the American election. Despite this however, and in comparison to other countries, the US is relatively neutral.

The party believes that to make the OSCE Minsk Group more neutral and increase its credibility, France should be removed and Turkey and Germany should be introduced as co-chairs.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party considers informal level contacts as a manipulative approach to the conflict, and is highly sceptical of the positive role NGOs may play and doubts that they could produce any fruitful outcome.

The party maintains that free movement of people would be impossible prior to a final peace agreement, and believes that a real approach should allow the wounds to be healed incrementally. Since 5000 people disappeared in Nagorno-Karabakh during the conflict, the party believes it too dangerous for Azerbaijanis to go to Armenia, and claims that it was the leadership in Armenia who initiated the war and killed harmless people. Both the current and former Presidents of Armenia and other high ranking Armenian officials actively participated in this killing.

124

■ Other information

The CDP has contested the 2010 parliamentary elections and claims to have around 5000 members of which 85% are men and 15% are women. It currently has no members in parliament.

125

Civil Solidarity

Party

The Civil Solidarity Party was established on 6th September 1992 with the aim of spreading ideas of civil solidarity amongst society in response to the emergence of separatist movements in different regions of Azerbaijan. It is led by Dr. Sabir Rustamkhanly (Party Chairman), who has led the party since its inception.

www.vhp.az

126

Civil Solidarity Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Civil Solidarity Party (CSP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with CSP Chairman, Dr. Sabir Rustamkhanly, held in Baku on 12th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that if you look at the position of all the political parties, the civil society organizations and other social groups in Azerbaijan, the position amongst them is almost the same when it comes to the conflict. There is not a single person in Azerbaijan that wouldn´t agree to the fact that Armenia is the aggressor and that they need to withdraw their troops from the occupied territories, and that this is a precondition for discussion on the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The party believes that there is no easy solution to the conflict and that the issue should be dealt with according to international law. The documents that have been put forward by different international actors should be implemented, for example those from the OSCE Minsk Group, as well as from other international organizations which insist on the withdrawal of Armenian troops, with some even naming Armenia as the aggressor in the conflict. The last resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly for example stated that Armenia must withdraw their troops from all occupied territories, immediately, fully and without any pre-conditions.

Although according to international law the international community should not accept the outcome of Armenian aggression or support its attempts to maintain the status quo, unfortunately both the US and Russia are supporting Armenia - the US Congress through financial support and Russia by military aid.

The party is in favor of a peaceful resolution since it does not want more people to get killed. However, the party maintains that Azerbaijan did not fight a war against Armenia, but against Russia as Russia is giving Armenia US$1 billion in military aid. Russia also has military units in Armenia constituting of more than 30,000 Russian soldiers with modern equipment and technology. This equipment is later relocated to Nagorno-Karabakh, which is very dangerous, and even the Russian military leaving

127

Georgia were relocated to Nagorno-Karabakh. Although the international community is providing Georgia with help and support, they are not offering Azerbaijan any.

The citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh are more Azerbaijani than Russian compared to the people living in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, since Russia provided them with Russian citizenship, but Russia is nevertheless interfering with the people in Nagorno-Karabakh. This is because Russia does not want to leave the Caucasus. Throughout the history of the region Russia has always helped Armenians. Armenia was created in the historical land of Azerbaijan (with even Yerevan belonging to Azerbaijan) and it was Russia that established them there. In 1918 all three nations in the South Caucasus tried to declare their independence but in Armenia only 30% of the citizens in Yerevan were Armenians. Azerbaijan conceded Yerevan so that the Armenians could have an administrative center, however according to the agreement in exchange Armenia had to give up their claim over Nagorno-Karabakh - which was unfounded as they don’t even share a border with the territory - and Armenia has of course not honored this agreement.

Regarding the veterans’ organizations the party enjoys good relations with them and has hosted different events with them in the past. As for IDP organizations, each year the party visits different IDP camps, focusing on charity work and humanitarian aid. The Chairman also used to be the head of the special committee on IDPs and refugees affairs in the parliament. During this time IDPs came to the party to raise their issues and the Chairman presented them and gave speeches about them to more than 30 different countries, as his main task in the parliament was to raise the issue to the international community’s attention. Many of the party’s members are IDPs, and the party has local branches in the surrounding IDP communities.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party has labeled the OSCE Minsk Group a “tourist organization”, since they are travelling around in the region, but nothing comes out of the meetings that they are holding. The founding objective of the Group was to get the two conflicting parties together and to encourage them to move towards a peaceful resolution, but in the last 17 years it has failed to achieve any results. One of the parties in the conflict is the aggressor and the logic should be for them to withdraw, however the Group devolves responsibility to Armenia and Azerbaijan to first establish an agreement which it may then mediate. The international law states that Armenian troops should be withdrawn but there is no functional mechanism that can implement this, and Armenia refuses to cooperate. The party believes that if the international law was in favor of Armenia then the international community would have implemented it

128

immediately, they however unfortunately only wish to prolong the conflict.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party does not agree with them and claims that there is no one in Azerbaijan that could. This is because the Principles speak about returning only five out of the seven occupied territories, with Lachin and Kelbajar to be returned first after a five year period. Furthermore, they outline the introduction of international peace keepers to the region, to create a buffer zone between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. The hidden agenda behind this policy is to cut Nagorno-Karabakh away from Azerbaijan. Also, according to the constitution of Azerbaijan, a referendum cannot be implemented in only one region but must be conducted in the whole country. The Principles are moreover unclear on how the IDPs will return to their homelands.

The party maintains that it has been clearly indicated by the Council of Europe (2001) that the right to self-determination cannot be employed through aggression and secession, as this is against the international law, and should be exercised within the context of territorial integrity. This has not been recognized in the Principles. In order to avoid the continuation of war however, Azerbaijan has agreed to the Principles, but Armenia is still not willing to accept them and has not agreed to anything. The party maintains that Armenia has no desire to solve the conflict by peaceful means, and that the Principles are therefore just a waste of time - a position the party believes is confirmed by statements coming from the officials in Armenia. Even if the Armenian President was to agree to them, he would not be able to get the rest of Armenia to follow his line, and would probably be killed or at least removed from his office.

The party believes that in the current circumstances, Azerbaijan does not have any other option than to liberate the territories by military means. The international community does not recognize the pressure Azerbaijan is under given its 1 million IDPs that are living in very poor conditions, and does not wish to protect their rights, being only concerned with the 50,000 Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh. The party wants Armenians and Azerbaijanis to live together peacefully in Nagorno- Karabakh, and although there are currently around 30,000 Armenians living in Azerbaijan safely you cannot find a single Azerbaijani living in Armenia.

The party maintains that Armenia has territorial claims against all its neighbors, and believes that accepting any alteration to the borders would therefore be a dangerous precedent. The party suggests that this may even lead to Armenia making territorial claims in California and France, where they have big Diaspora communities, as this would follow the same logic. The party claims that Armenians are very good at playing the victim and fooling the international community.

Regarding other international actors, the party believes that both Iran and Russia are supporting Armenia, as well as France due to its huge Armenian community. The US

129

accepts that Azerbaijani regions are occupied but refuses to recognize Armenia as the aggressor. Azerbaijan doesn´t get any support from the “freedom program of the US”, but Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh do.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party does not support NGO level contributions, and believes that this type of work will only serve to erode society’s remembrance of what happened and will not positively contribute to the solution of the conflict. The party views the activities of local NGOs which receive international funding as negative, as they are trying to make the people of Azerbaijan forget the past and are saying that Armenians and Azerbaijanis should live together like brothers.

The party claims that statements coming from the local NGOs do not say anything about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, and in order to follow the line that their international donors want are instead raising the issues of human rights etc. The party believes that discussion on the rights of national minorities is very subjective, because although minorities generally have a good situation in Azerbaijan it becomes very problematic when referring specifically to the Armenians living in Nagorno- Karabakh.

Regarding people to people contacts the party highlights that they already exist abroad in other countries, but do not contribute positively to the resolution and will not do so in the future either, since political decisions are not decided by individuals at this level.

■ Other information

The CSP contested the parliamentary elections in 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 20,000 members of which 85% are men and 15% are women. It currently has 3 members in parliament. The party also publishes its own newspaper the “Vatandash Hamrayliyi”.

130

Classical Popular Front Party

The Classical Popular Front Party was established in March 2006 following a division within the Popular Front Party after the death of its leader. It is led by Mirmahmud Fattayev (Party Chairman) who assumed the position at the party’s inception, www. KXCP.org

131

Classical Popular Front Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Classical Popular Front Party (CPFP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with CPFP

Chairman Mirmahmud Fattayev, held in Baku on 14th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party believes that the conflict is an important international issue and not an internal issue for only the South Caucasus, as it goes beyond the borders of the region. This is clear by the number of international organizations that are dealing with the issue, and numerous international documents addressing different aspects of the conflict.

The party believes that the government has only taken steps that are actually against Azerbaijan’s interests and have compromised them greatly. The party believes that is has become clear that the conflict cannot be resolved in a peaceful way. Under Azerbaijan’s first president, and under the rule of Heydar Aliyev, the conflict has continued to be at the centre of politics. The fact that leading international organizations like the OSCE and UN can´t contribute to the conflict resolution positively, makes the party pessimistic for other means of finding a resolution to the conflict.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, almost all members of the party participated in the war, and believe that they wouldn´t have a right to live now if they didn´t take part in the war. 6,000 members from the Popular Front Party (when it was united as a movement) died during the war. The party maintains that members of the current political leadership in Armenia were commanders during the war and participated in the massacre of civilians, and the current president in Armenia has declared in speeches that he is proud of the actions of the Armenian military during the armed hostilities, including ethnic cleansing.

The party has local branches representing IDP communities, covering 95% of the Azerbaijani territory, and knows well their problems and tries to present them to the

132

government and the international community. The party also enjoys close relations with veterans’ organizations and Karabakh Liberation Organization. The CPFP shares the same position as those organizations when it comes to the conflict resolution, and maintains that it is supportive towards military operations, regarding itself as a pro-war party, believing that if the occupied territories cannot be regained by peaceful means a new conflict must be initiated.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

Regarding the performance of the OSCE Minsk Group the party believes that the only reason for their establishment was to regulate and manage the negotiation process, and that they haven´t contributed anything positive, despite resolutions adopted by the UN.

The party stresses the point that as Russia is the creator of the problem, they should be the ones who now try to solve it. The party also believes that France regards Armenia as their ‘best friend’ and this is why the co-chairs won’t do anything fair and are not contributing positively. The OSCE Minsk Group is pressuring Azerbaijan into unjust compromises, as it is their territories which are occupied. The party believes furthermore that the main goal of the OSCE mission is to maintain the status quo and freeze the conflict, rather than work positively towards a final solution.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party views them as a step-by-step secession of territories to Armenia and nothing else and is therefore totally against them. The party believes that the terminology used by the international community – differentiating between the ‘Mountainous Karabakh’ and surrounding ‘Karabakh’ areas – highlights that they have accepted a de facto separation and therefore support the position of the Armenian aggressor.

The party considers the role of other international actors as the most important question regarding the conflict. Starting with the actors which stand behind the aggressor, the party believes that although Russia has penetrated the South Caucasus since 1828, from 25th May 1993 after the late president Abulfaz Elchibey succeeded the withdrawal of Russian troops from Azerbaijan Russia has no longer had military presence in Azerbaijan. Russia’s involvement in the region has only been negative – for example the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh was not only done by Armenia, but also by Russia. The party considers it foolish to believe that Russia may have a positive contribution towards the process.

The party maintains that Iranian statehood is a myth, as it has only existed since 1937, and that the majority of Iran’s leadership is of Turkic origin. Historically Azerbaijan was

133

divided between the Russian and Persian Empires but after the peace treaty, two-thirds of Azerbaijan was given to Iran. For this reason Iran cannot have a positive role to play since they are afraid of a strong Azerbaijan, and the CPFP is against their involvement in the conflict. Furthermore it believes that Iran and Russia are fundamentally of the same position.

The party believes that Turkey can play (and is playing) a very positive role, and that they should therefore be represented in the co-chairs. The party highlights that the latest development between Armenia and Turkey (the rapprochement), shows that Turkish intentions are very clear and sincere, but this was snubbed by Armenia and Russia resulting in no improvement.

The CPFP claims that the international community cannot help Azerbaijan or contribute to a resolution since they cannot apply pressure on the aggressor through the initiatives and documents they have presented. The CPFP believes that conflict resolution is a national task, and that the only international role should be one of renewed mediation following a new war to liberate Azerbaijani territories from occupation.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that NGO level relations should be separated from government level relations, as the party is against governmental level meetings, except for negotiations which it considers important. Regarding the visits of international representatives to the region, this must be carefully managed. For example during her visit to the region, Baroness Knox travelled to Nagorno-Karabakh through Armenia, which to Azerbaijanis is a sign that the international representatives regard Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Armenia. The UK government must be careful to prevent these kinds of insensitive actions - if they want to go to Nagorno-Karabakh they must ask the Azerbaijani government how to get there. International representatives also observed and declared the elections in Nagorno- Karabakh as fair, and this is a serious threat to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In general however the party understands that NGO level contributions have a positive role to play.

Regarding the free movement of people before a final settlement, although in theory this may seem possible, in reality and actual practice it would be impossible. 260,000-280,000 Azerbaijani people have been deported from Western Azerbaijan only since 1988, and any movement must begin with their right to return. The CPFP is also keen to note that when Armenia was established in 1918 the territory was only 9,000 square kilometres, but after the establishment of Soviet Union Armenia became 29,000 square kilometres with land taken from Azerbaijan. For this reason the party believes that any compromise

134

would be a sign of secession.

■ Other information

The CPFP has not contested any parliamentary elections but claims to have around 20,000 members of which 93% are men and 7% are women.

135

Democratic Reforms Party

The Democratic Reforms Party was

established in 2005 in response to popular

demands from Azerbaijani youths looking for

a European style party. It is led by Dr. Asim

Mollazade (Party Chairman) who assumed the

position at the party’s inception.

www.demreforms.org

136

Democratic Reforms Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Democratic Reforms Party (DRP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with DRP Chairman, Dr. Asim Mollazade, held in Baku on 15th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party urges Armenia to agree to peace and withdraw their troops from the occupied territories. The party supports a peaceful settlement to the conflict and maintains that opportunities and frameworks exist for this. The party believes that the occupation of Azerbaijani territories has created a humanitarian disaster for Azerbaijan. All sides should strongly exert an effort to destroy the hatred that exists between the two nations; and this should be achieved at both a political and civil society/NGO level. The conflicting parties should work to create a Caucasian family, but this rests on the partnership of Armenia. Azerbaijan and Georgia have already created a good partnership. The party maintains that it does not want a hungry and angry neighbor, and that the parties should therefore work towards a win-win strategy which is deeply needed.

Armenia is currently receiving military aid from Russia, but Armenia should try to improve their relations and cooperate with their neighbors including Turkey. Armenia should try to become an independent country, and as its people are leaving in large numbers, even for Turkey, Armenia needs its neighbors.

Instead of spending money on arms the party believes that Azerbaijan should be allocating its resources to build up the country. The party is ready to give security guarantees to Armenian communities living in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as autonomy and even establish a land corridor between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. The region needs peace, as the situation is very fragile, and people are being killed on the borderlines. The party supports the current isolation of Armenia, as this is the only way without using violence to urge Armenia to agree to peace. The majority of the new generation in Azerbaijan has never met an Armenian, increasing public pressure for non peaceful solutions.

The party is ready to cooperate with anyone that is ready for peace, and rejects the

137

nationalistic trends of the countries. The party maintains that a bad peace is much better than a good war.

Regarding the IDP communities the party is trying to help them solve their social and health problems, as well as provide for their education. The party is also participating in special programs for rehabilitation, and has local branches in the IDP communities.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

Regarding the OSCE Minsk process, the party believes that the biggest issue is the incorrect legal approach of Armenia, which unnecessarily creates tensions. For example the principle of self-determination does not need to contradict the principle of territorial integrity, and does not necessarily involve creating a new state.

The problem is the aggressive and radical opinions that exist amongst the Armenian Diaspora, and their strong feelings of revenge. There party believes that there exists a lot of hatred and this needs to be gotten rid of, and the rights of minorities must be protected institutionally as in Europe. Although the party criticizes the work of the OSCE and their lack of results, as there exists no alternative, it urges them to continue.

The party supports any project or document that supports the peace process, and therefore support the Madrid Principles which they believe constitutes a road map which should be followed in a step-by-step process.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party cooperates with all the big parties in the EU and US, which is part of their strategy for European-Atlantic integrity. The party also cooperates with Islamic states, since they have cultures similar to Azerbaijan, but still supports the idea of secularism. The party maintains that Turkey wants peace in the region, and urges the US and EU to be more active. Regarding Russia the party supports a partnership, as it believes that Azerbaijan also shares the same culture and language.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is supportive towards informal level contributions, but believes there first must be a withdrawal of Armenian troops, as only then such contributions can play an active role in the process. However, at the moment it will not serve anything good and it will be a waste of money and time. When the time comes and these levels of

138

contributions become important, the party will be ready to participate and contribute.

The party maintains that the free movement of people is only possible after a final agreement, and believes that the current negotiation efforts from the Armenian side are a disingenuous imitation.

■ Other information

The DRP contested the parliamentary elections in 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 8000 members of which 55% are men and 45% are women. It currently has 1 member in the parliament.

139

Great

Structure

Party

The Great Structure Party was established in

2003 and is led by Dr. Fazil Mustafa (Party

Chairman), who has led the party since 2005.

www.bgp-az.info

140

Great Structure Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Great Structure Party (GSP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with GSP Chairman, Dr. Fazil Mustafa, held in Baku on 21st July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party’s general position is that the resolution should be based on economic cooperation but since Azerbaijan has a neighbor which has adopted an adversarial position, this is very difficult. The most important issue which must be addressed before a final peace can be reached is that Armenia must withdraw their troops from the occupied surrounding territories. These regions are not part of Nagorno- Karabakh so there is no reason to keep them under occupation. The party is very committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The party also maintains that the conflict should be resolved within the international law and that Armenia must be recognized as the aggressor. Only after this has been achieved will there be a successful peace process. If Armenia and Azerbaijan are kept on an equal level, any process will have zero effect.

The party has normal relations with both individuals and organizations representing veterans, and raises their issues during election time gaining great support from them. Regarding the IDP communities the party does not have very close relations with them, but also supports and helps them to raise their issues, gaining their support during election periods.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The Chairman is a member of the parliamentary assembly to the OSCE, and raises his

141

opinions about the process in parliament, which are wholly negative. The Chairman maintains that the OSCE Minsk Group are only trying to serve the interests of the co- chairs and that their goal is the secession of Azerbaijani territories. The party therefore does not trust the Group.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party thinks that they are totally against Azerbaijan´s interests, and constitute a real danger to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.

As for the role of other international actors, the party believes that except for Turkey all other members of the international community lack a constructive role in the process. The party made a proposal to replace France with Turkey, since all of the current co-chairs protect the position of Armenia. Russia is giving military support to Armenia, France supports it politically and culturally, and the US is providing them with financial aid. Iran is trying to increase their economic and political support to Armenia. The party maintains that although the international community normally has conflicted interests over any given issue, in this conflict they seem to have a common position and that is to support Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding informal level contributions, as the elimination of hatred between the two nations is not a task that can be achieved quickly, these kind of contributions to the peace process should begin before the final agreement, so that when it is achieved it will have stable ground to build on. There will be resistance from both nations but attempts must nevertheless be made to decrease the mutual hatred.

The party thinks that the free movement of people prior to a final solution would be impossible, and that according to the rules of war, this can only happen after a peace agreement is signed. The party is however very positive towards NGO level meetings and for experts to meet, but considers it unrealistic to think that common people could meet freely under the current circumstances.

■ Other information

The GSP contested the parliamentary elections in 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 3000 members of which 90% are men and 10% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament.

142

Greens’ Party of Azerbaijan

The Greens’ Party of Azerbaijan was established

on 16th December 2006 in response to the

increasing number of ecological, economic and

social problems in Azerbaijan. Co-Chairmen of the

Party are Dr. Mayis Gulaliyev (Party Chairman)

and Dr Tarana Mamedova

www.azerbaijangreens.org

143

Greens’ Party of Azerbaijan A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Greens’ Party of Azerbaijan (GPA) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with GPA co- Chairman, Dr. Mayis Gulaliyev, held in Baku on 15th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that the conflict was not an ethnic one in the beginning, but a conflict about territory. But it was transformed into an ethnical one to keep under control both sides, ie Armenian and Azerbaijani societies. So from the point of view of the majority in Azerbaijan the conflict is based in the following: Armenia wants to see Nagorno-Karabakh as independent or as a territory included in Armenia. Azerbaijan society maintains that the most important thing is the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Both sides however demand a peaceful solution. The party regards the conflict as a conflict between the citizens (including the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh) and the government of Azerbaijan. This tension needs to be resolved, not only politically, but also socially, philosophically and economically. The government can´t provide human security for its people, but needs to be able to provide both physical and moral security for both the Armenians and Azerbaijanis living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The party has outlined its position in a document named “25 steps towards Nagorno- Karabakh”, which was distributed to the Green parties in Europe. It includes developments regarding social and educational issues to reincorporate Nagorno- Karabakh into Azerbaijan, and to develop peace between the two communities. The Azerbaijani constitution should also be changed to make Azerbaijan into a democratic state. The document states that all citizens of Azerbaijan, including the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh, have the right to use oil revenues, not only as money, but through investment to improve the educational and health system, as well as to increase the standard of life. Only a minority in Azerbaijan has benefited from the oil resources and that´s why they are interested in freezing the conflict.

144

The party believes that the conflict is connected with oil and gas production and transportation and it is an instrument to keep under control Azerbaijani and Armenian societies like a “Sword of Democles”. A solution of the conflict will only be possible if “good governance” can be developed in Azerbaijan. According to GPA Azerbaijani society needs to see Nagorno-Karabakh not only as a piece of land but also that the people who lived and live there need to be part of Azerbaijani society, but instead they are moving away from Azerbaijan step-by-step.

GPA believes that only by providing “good governance” will Azerbaijan be able to create social, economic and political environment for all nationalities, including Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, to be integrated in Azerbaijan society. Azerbaijan government should stop any ethnically hostile policy towards Armenians and support opening of the borders between Turkey and Armenia. Azerbaijan must stop the blockade of humanitarian goods to Armenia and nullify all pretexts of the Armenian government to blockade Nakhichevan.

Some of the party’s members are veterans and according to their stories the hostilities of 1989-94 between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Many of them did not want to fight, since all wars include tragedies and deaths and are dangerous for everyone. The party’s members are therefore committed to resolving the conflict in a peaceful way. The party has also held meetings with Armenian war veterans.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party maintains that the OSCE Minsk Group works under the control of the US, which wants to control the process until they have taken what they want regarding oil resources. The party believes that the US are not interested in solving the conflict, and are trying to press the governments to create convenient economic and political environment for US companies to have high benefits and to have security. So the countries that are geographically far from the Caucasus region are not interested in solving the conflict and try to use the conflict to control regional countries. GPA believe that if Armenia and Azerbaijan want to solve the conflict they must discuss this issue with the regional states - such as Russia, Iran and Turkey - as only these countries are interested in regional stability and regional security is built regional integration.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party believes that they cannot bring about a peaceful resolution to the conflict. As for the role of other international actors, the party believes that it is very important to have regional integration and that the roles of Turkey, Russia, Iran and the South Caucasian countries are therefore very

145

important. The US is not interested in regional security or integration, and is trying to divide the states in the region in order to be able to isolate Iran. They want access to Iranian oil and gas resources and do not want Iran’s development and stability. They are not interested in solving the conflict and they are trying to penetrate the region and station military troops there so that they can put pressure on Iran.

Russia has good relations with Armenia and has a big military base on Armenian territory and is trying to keep their control over the region. If Azerbaijan invites NATO to the region, Russia will use Nagorno-Karabakh as an instrument against both Azerbaijan and NATO. The party is against NATO expansion in the South Caucasus, and believes that the region should be neutral. The region is very attractive to the West, however the party believes that as a very small country Azerbaijan cannot block US interests in the region.

Both Turkey and Iran are interested in solving the conflict since they don´t have any problems with Nagorno-Karabakh, and are only interested in creating security around their borders. Turkey depends on regional integration, and this is why Turkey tried to open its borders with Armenia. The party thinks that the growing influence of Turkey and Iran in Armenia could help resolve the conflict.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party supports all levels of contact and thinks that NGO level contributions are useful since any kind of contact can build bridges between the two nations. It doesn´t necessarily need to be done in Georgia only, and should also happen in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh – as all these contacts can build trust between the two parties.

The party has tried over the last two years to bring “Green” groups and organizations together for joint projects. Unfortunately, in Azerbaijan however, not only the government but also the public are strongly against such initiatives. Due to these efforts the party is no longer invited to public discussions and meetings in Azerbaijan. The party is concerned that in Azerbaijan all the opposition parties are talking about a new war, and although the government and the President are committed to a peaceful resolution, this is only a political strategy to appease Western influences.

■ Other information

The official status of the GPA is an ‘unregistered political party’. It has contested the 2010 parliamentary elections and currently has no members in parliament. It claims to have around 1800 members of which around 50% are men and 50% are women.

146

Justice

Party

The Justice Party was established in 1994 with

the aim of giving support to the

democratization process in Azerbaijan. It is

led by Dr. Ellyas Ismouylov (Party Chairman),

who assumed the position in 2000.

www.adalatparty.az

147

Justice Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Justice Party (JP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Deputy JP Chairman, Mutallim Rahimly, held in Baku on 17th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party thinks that Azerbaijan should resolve the conflict by itself. The OSCE Minsk Group cannot resolve the conflict, and the increased number of mediators makes resolution even more problematic. The party is for a peaceful resolution, but does not rule out the possibility of a military solution also.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, many of the party’s membership participated, and at the time the Chairman was in the leadership of the country. Since the party was established after the war, it in itself did not take part in the war.

As for veterans’ organizations the party has special criteria for awarding veteran status, and therefore has an autonomous group of veterans within the party who hold their own sessions. The party does not have any special relations with the other veterans’ organizations, but does meet with them through different events.

Regarding IDP communities the party has local branches in Aghdam, Lachin, Shusha, Qubadly and Jabrayil. However the party claims that the government limits the opportunities for political parties to have close relations with the organizations representing IDPs.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is a powerless entity and will not be able to solve the problem. The proposals that they offer are rejected by Armenia and the Group doesn’t have a mechanism to force Armenia to agree to anything.

148

Regarding the Madrid Principles, as they have not been officially published the party considers it difficult to offer a final position. It does however suggest that if the principle of territorial integrity is protected then the party will be for the Principles. However it cannot give definitive support as it does not know what other compromises the Principles may entail.

As for the role of other international actors, the party does not draw distinctions between the members of the international community with regards to their involvement in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The party considers it clear that if the US and Russia want to resolve the conflict they may do so. Regarding the other individual countries within the international community, the party believes that resolving the conflict is not their priority in the region and that they are all more concerned with their own national interests.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that the role of NGOs should be to make Armenia understand that they are the aggressor and that they should withdraw their troops from the occupied territories, so that the conflict may be resolved.

Regarding the free movement of people prior to a final solution, the party believes this will only be possible after Armenian troops have been withdrawn. The party maintains that the Armenian nation is not Azerbaijan’s enemy, but blames some aggressive individuals within certain parties, such as the Dashnaksutyun party, and believes that the people of Armenia must take a stand against them. The party does not see a problem with having Armenians as Azerbaijani citizens or with Armenians moving back to Azerbaijan after the final agreement is signed.

■ Other information

The JP contested the parliamentary elections in 2005 and 2010, and claims to have around 23,000 members of which 75% are men and 25% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament.

149

Motherland

Party

The Motherland Party was established on 24th

November 1990 as a result of the national

movement in Azerbaijan. It is led by Dr. Fazail

Aghamali (Party Chairman) who assumed the

position with the party’s inception.

150

Motherland Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Motherland Party (MLP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the MLP Chairman, Dr. Fazail Aghamali, held in Baku on 13th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that Nagorno-Karabakh is historically Azerbaijani land. The first Armenians appeared in the region after the peace treaty between the Russian Tsar and Persian Emperor, which saw the Tsar move Armenians from Persia to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Armenians from Turkey were also moved into Nagorno- Karabakh, as well as other regions in Azerbaijan such as Shirvan, Gabala and Oghuz. The main motivation of Russia for this displacement was to establish an Armenian proxy in the region.

The party believes that the creation of an Armenian province only occurred in 1840, and that there is not a single historical source that confirms that Armenians lived in the region before 1840. The MLP also believes that Armenia fosters unfounded territorial claims over Georgia as well.

When the three nations in the South Caucasus declared their independence in 1918, it was very hard for Armenia to create an administrative center or capital city. At that time, due to international pressure on Azerbaijan, the government was forced to compromise and concede Yerevan which at that time had a 90% Azerbaijani population. Under Soviet pressure in 1922, Azerbaijan also had to concede Zangazur (the territory which divides Azerbaijan from Nakhchivan), and that was how Armenia was established. During the Soviet era, Armenia enjoyed the support of the Soviet administration and began to assert its claims over Nagorno-Karabakh, beginning the separatist movement in the territory.

Armenia and Azerbaijan were not allowed to have their own military, but with military help from the Soviet Union Armenia was able to occupy Nagorno-Karabakh and its seven surrounding areas. The party considers the statement made by the Armenians - that it´s not up to Armenia to solve this conflict but the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, as ridiculous, and rejects the Armenian position that the occupation was mainly done for security and self-defense purposes. The party maintains that according to Soviet statistics there were 70,000 Armenians to 40,000

151

Azerbaijanis living in Nagorno-Karabakh at the time, suggesting that claims of a war of self-defense against a population half its size as improbable.

The party will only support a resolution which maintains the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and is completely against Armenian presence within the territory of Azerbaijan based on occupation. The party supports a model of autonomy for Nagorno-Karabakh, and for the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities to live together with security provisions guaranteed by the Azerbaijani authorities for the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh. The party is absolutely for a peaceful resolution, but unfortunately believes that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have completely destroyed the hopes for a peaceful solution to the conflict, and thinks that war has become inevitable in reality.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the Chairman attended military operations and was a commander of one of the volunteer battalions which succeeded in liberating two villages from Armenian occupation. One of the founders of the party took active part in the battle of the Tatar district, displaying great bravery and heroism being later killed in action. The party also has several members that took part in the liberation war. The party has close relations with two of the foremost veterans’ organizations – the “Invalids of Karabakh War” and “Martyr´s Families Society” – and organizes joint events with them.

The party maintained close relations with IDP communities and organizations during the 1990s when their living conditions were poor, but this involvement has declined since the government has increased its efforts by establishing a special program for them. The party has however maintained contact with them, and is providing them with information about the process regarding the conflict and possible future war, as well as informing them that they have the right to return to their homes even if that means the territories must first be liberated through military means.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party is not satisfied with the work of the OSCE Minsk Group and the process, as it believes that the Group is establishing equality between the aggressor and the victim of aggression. The MLP believes that the policy of the co-chairs is to support the position of Armenia as an aggressor, and that the Group doesn´t respect or care about international law. The party maintains that popular opinion in Azerbaijan is in favor of a new war and that this is becoming increasingly inevitable. Ordinary Azerbaijani people regard the position of the international community as a ‘Christian solidarity club’ against Azerbaijan, and that a clash between the great powers’ interests in the region is ultimately undermining conflict resolution – primarily regarding tensions between the US, which wants to penetrate the region, and Russia,

152

which wishes to maintain its monopoly there. Furthermore, the Western powers are afraid of Russia having a final say in the resolution of the conflict, and this is seriously harming the image of the West in the region.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, based on the limited information made available to the party by the President and the Foreign Ministry, the party approves of the government’s approach towards them. As the principle of territorial integrity is included, which the party considers the most important issue, the Madrid Principles have won significant approval from the party.

Regarding the role of international actors, the party is in general not satisfied with the position of the international community. For more than 20 years Azerbaijani territory has been occupied, but the international community has not taken this seriously. However, the party believes that over the last couple of years, the Council of Europe and the EU have adopted a more constructive position with regards to the conflict resolution. As for regional actors, the party maintains that although in theory Iran is supporting Azerbaijan, in reality it supports Armenia. Russia´s position is clear, exclusively supporting Armenia. Turkey is the only actor friendly towards Azerbaijan. The party also maintains that due to the existence of a strong Armenian Diaspora in France, the US and other Western countries, these governments are subject to huge pressure and influence from Armenian groups.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding informal level contributions the party does not believe that they can have any efficacy before a final peace agreement, and that the antagonists of the conflict are the one who should solve it, not the NGOs. The party maintains however that once the conflict is solved informal meetings may contribute positively, and that ordinary people will easily find a common language and build bridges between their communities.

The party believes that the free movement of people before a final peace settlement is simply unacceptable, as it would be a sign from the Azerbaijani side that they accept the aggression coming from Armenia. The party is against any kind of contacts and meetings between the conflicting parties - save formal meetings between the Presidents and Foreign Ministers, and contacts under inter-governmental bodies.

■ Other information

The MLP contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 21,000 members of which 77% are men and 23% are women. It currently has 2 members in parliament. Internationally the party is affiliated to the Diaspora organization “Congress of World Azerbaijanis”.

153

Musavat Party

The Musavat Party was first established in

1911 and restored in 1992 with Azerbaijani

independence. It is led by Isa Gambar (Party

Chairman) who assumed the position at the

party’s restoration.

www.isagambar.blogspot

154

Musavat Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Musavat Party (MP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with the MP Chairman of the Supreme Assembly, Sulhaddin Akbar, held in Baku on 12th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party considers the conflict as one between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with Armenia as the aggressor and occupier of several territories in Azerbaijan. The party is in favor of a peaceful resolution to the conflict and supports a step-by-step peace resolution under the mandate of the OSCE Minsk Group. The MP however does not agree with the approach of the Azerbaijani government and international community. The difference between the MP and Azerbaijani government/international community is that the party wishes to stop Armenian aggression through application of UN resolutions 874 and 884. The party supports these resolutions and believes that the conflict should be solved through international law. The party maintains that when the OSCE Minsk Group was established the first issue discussed was the withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories, and this was to take precedence over determining the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh. Today however, the approach of the international community has deviated from this and is now therefore against international law.

The party maintains that the OSCE Minsk Group´s initial approach in 1992 was:

1st) Withdrawal of Armenian troops

2nd) Liberation of the occupied territories

3rd) Determination of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh

In 1993 Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to follow UN resolution 822, Russia however influenced the administration in Nagorno-Karabakh and they in turn put pressure on

155

Armenia to pull out of the agreement. The former Armenian President recognized this fact and it was highlighted in the Armenian mass media. The UN resolutions fell short of openly naming Armenia as the aggressor in the conflict, but they recognized that Armenia is occupying Azerbaijani territories. The OSCE Minsk Group regards Azerbaijan as the loser and Armenia as the winner in the conflict, and this approach has negatively influenced the negotiation process.

The party believes that the peace process must protect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and take into consideration its constitution. The MP also advocates cultural autonomy for Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, local-self management, economic independence and the guarantee of security for the territory. The party adds that if the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh do not trust Azerbaijani guarantees for security, this can be provided by an international peace keeping force.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 senior members of the party were members of the Popular Front Movement, which was in power 1992-1993 whilst Azerbaijan was engaged in conflict with Armenia. 33 battalions were established and played an important role for the creation of the Azerbaijani army, seeing most of the party’s members participate directly or indirectly in the armed hostilities.

Regarding relations with the veterans’ organizations, the party has no official relations with them, and the party believes that over the last several years the veterans’ organizations have been very passive. Up until 2003 they were very active but their activities decreased during 2005. The party cooperated with them in the past, but as the government has been implementing a very harsh policy towards them, they have become very weak and have been marginalized in political life.

Regarding organizations representing IDPs, the party has a link to the leader of the ‘Karabakh Liberation Organization’ as he used to be a member on the Managing Board of the party, and the two organizations therefore enjoyed close relations. In the last couple of years however the party has cut relations with these organizations as they have become very radical.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is not in-line with their mandate, and is unwilling to put pressure on the aggressor Armenia and is instead supporting them. The party also believes that the international community is pushing the Azerbaijani government towards a policy which has very weak public support and is not in line with the national interest of Azerbaijan.

The party maintains that the composition of the OSCE Minsk Group is also biased as it consists of co-chairs that have strong Armenian Diaspora communities, which results

156

in their support of the Armenian aggressor. For example, Russia is providing Armenia with military assistance and is its military ally, and France and the US are providing Armenia with financial, political and moral support. This is furthermore because all these countries are Christian, something which has unfortunately played a significant role in this conflict.

The party opposes the approach of the international community and believes that it is operating according to a looser-victor dynamic which is totally misleading, as the conflict is a dynamic between victim and aggressor. It further maintains that the approach adopted by the international community is against international law.

The party considers it unacceptable that the international community has a different approach towards other cases, for example Georgia and Moldova, where the international community is supporting their territorial integrity, something it has not done in Azerbaijan. In 2008 when hostilities broke out between Georgia and Russia, the international community forced Russia to withdraw their military presence from the Georgian territory. However they are not putting the same pressure on Armenia with regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Furthermore, since Armenia only has claims on Nagorno-Karabakh, the international community should at least put a pressure on them to withdraw from the surrounding areas.

The party does not support the Madrid Principles as they relegate the issue of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which the party considers as the primary issue.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party believes that there has not been a fair approach from the international community. The party maintains that as Turkey is an ally to Azerbaijan and supports the Azerbaijani position which is in line with international law, they should be considered the only fair player in the conflict resolution process. The party suggests that the most appropriate composition of the OSCE Minsk Group should be Turkey, Russia and the US as co-chairs, and highlights that UN resolutions were only adopted when Turkey was one of the co-chairs.

The party advocates the introduction of democracy to Azerbaijan as well as membership of NATO and the EU. The MP believes that as long as Russia has an advantage in the region (strategically and geopolitically) the conflict will not be resolved. Russia will never let Armenia agree to any settlement, as if the conflict were resolved, Armenian dependence on Russia would decrease.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party is not against informal level contributions, but does not consider the role of NGOs as significant in the peace process. The party believes that the most effective indirect measure must be the extension of EU membership to both countries, which would change the vision of hostile borders for both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

157

Regarding the free movement of people across borders before a final settlement, the party believes that this is not possible due to the level of hostility between the two nations. Armenians for example have been kidnapping Azerbaijani people in the border regions. Furthermore, as there are no diplomatic relations or legal norms that could regulate and manage a process of opening the borders, it is difficult to imagine how it could be implemented in practice.

■ Other information

The Musavat contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have dozens of thousands of members. It currently has no members in parliament. Internationally the party is affiliated to the European Liberal Democrats and Reformists Party.

158

National Independence Party of Azerbaijan

The National Independence Party of Azerbaijan was established in 1991 as part of a national independence movement, and registered officially. It is led by Etibar Mammadov.

www.millet.az

159

National Independence Party of Azerbaijan A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the National Independence Party of Azerbaijan (NIPA) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with NIPA Secretary of Media and Public Relations, Ali Orujlu, Secretary of Work with Municipalities Rashad Bagramov, and the Secretary for International Relations Elshan Mustafayev, held in Baku on 16th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party holds the Nagorno-Karabakh problem as the most important issue for Azerbaijan, as it is not only dangerous for the country, but also for the whole region. Recent incidents in the border regions show that the peace process has not been secured and that minor incidents can escalate into violent events, which is dangerous for the security of the whole region.

The party maintains that the conflict resolution must be in compliance with the legal norms on the principles of territorial integrity and is therefore waiting for the international community to assist and help, but believes there have not been any positive developments so far. This is not only a problem for the Azerbaijani government, but for the whole nation. The party maintains that the situation can only have a political or a military solution. While it but does not want a new war, the party cites UN Statues (No.10) which outline the right to defend sovereign territories. Therefore although Azerbaijan has been trying to solve the conflict in a peaceful way, since it is subject to Armenian aggression, Azerbaijan has been correctly developing its military, so that if a peaceful resolution doesn´t work they may pursue their legal right to liberate and defend their territories.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94 the leader of the party (Etibar Mammadov) formed at that time a National Defense Council aimed at defending Azerbaijani land. In 1992 the leader also made a national appeal

160

for support and after that the Volunteer Self-Defense Battalion was created. Many party members fought in the war under the supervision of this defense army, and the party therefore has many members that are veterans. The party also has close relations with both the individuals and organizations representing veterans. In 1998, during the presidential election, many of these organizations supported the election campaign of the party’s leader. The party also enjoys close relations with the IDP communities and organizations representing them, and has local branches amongst the IDP communities.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

At the beginning of the conflict the party resisted international involvement as it considered the matter a regional conflict. However, since the conflict became internationalized and the OSCE Minsk Group began dealing with the peace process the party came to accept that they must be involved. However the party does not expect any positive outcome from their involvement.

The party is also critical of the composition of the Group’s co-chairs. Russia for example is an official military ally to Armenia and they have signed a bilateral military treaty. Russia also has military units stationed in Armenia and is giving a huge amount of munitions to Armenia, the party therefore considers Russia to be a clearly biased actor in the conflict. France is also a strategically military ally to Armenia and has recently signed a strategic- military cooperation treaty with them, highlighting that they are also a partial actor in the conflict. The party believes that the US is also not a neutral actor in the conflict since they support Nagorno-Karabakh financially. Every year the US stresses the genocide issue for internal political reasons, and has also stopped financial support to Azerbaijan despite continuing to support Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The party maintains that for these reasons the co-chairs are prolonging the process.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party does not support them since they are against the interest of Azerbaijan, and also believes that they will open up room for other separatist movements in different parts of the world. Azerbaijan should award cultural autonomy to the ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh, and this is the maximum level of autonomy that should be given. The party regards the international community’s support of the right to self-determination, which is highlighted in the Principles, but believes that it does not apply to the case of Armenians

161

living in Nagorno-Karabakh since they already have a nation-state in

Armenia. Territorial integrity must be a cornerstone principle, and for Azerbaijan to restore their territorial integrity Armenia must withdraw their troops from the occupied territories, otherwise Azerbaijan may claim the right to liberate them by any means necessary. The party is against the interim status of Nagorno-Karabakh as it is unclear what this mean and under what rules it would operate. Furthermore, the party is against having international peace keepers on Azerbaijani territory, as Azerbaijan is capable of taking care of all of its own citizens. Regarding a referendum, this is against the constitution of Azerbaijan which states that a referendum cannot be carried out in one specific region, and can only be implemented for the whole country.

The party believes that the reason why the US, Russia and France have presented the Madrid Principles is because they have certain self-interests in the region which they hope to further through the deployment of international peace keepers. Azerbaijan is the only country in the region that does not have Russian military forces on their territory and both the US and Russia are eager to get their military troops onto Azerbaijani territory. This is particularly pressing for the US which wishes to establish close access to Iran.

As for Iran itself, since there are many Azerbaijanis living in Iran, it is afraid of Azerbaijan growing stronger and therefore has a clear reason for supporting Armenia. The countries of the EU are taking a stand for Armenia since it is also a Christian country. Azerbaijan is therefore isolated internationally. In the party’s opinion, Turkey is the only actor which adopts a fair position and is committed to conflict resolution, as it knows that this will benefit the whole region.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that currently informal meetings cannot have an effective role to play. There is no precedent to suggest that they have actually worked or resolved anything, and are therefore useless and a waste of time. However, after the final agreement, they may be an effective tool.

Regarding the free movement of people before a final settlement the party considers this impossible, as there exists a ongoing conflict of which Azerbaijan has been the victim. Such a policy would be geared to opening

162

communication and building bridges, but this is not possible at the current

time. The party will therefore oppose any such initiative if it is taken before the final peace agreement as it will also only serve to brainwash people, to make the Azerbaijanis forget about what happened to them and of all their losses.

■ Other information

The NIPA contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 37,000 members of which 75% are men and 25% are women. It currently has no member in parliament. Internationally the party is affiliated to the ‘International Democratic Union’ (of which the party leader is the Deputy Chairman). H organisation of the party is a member of the European Young Conservatives and the International Democrats Union (IYDU). NIPA also co-operates with the European People’s Party.

163

National Salvation Party

The National Salvation Party was established in 1989 to represent the Azerbaijani independence movement and maintain the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. It is led by Vugar Beyturan Oruj (Party Chairman), who assumed the position in 2008.

www.mqp.azersayt.com

165

National Salvation Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the National Salvation Party (NSP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with NSP Chairman, Vugar Bey Turan, held in Baku on 26th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party believes that Armenia started the conflict and that the root of the problem goes back to the Soviet period. The reason for the conflict is that Armenia, without having any legal grounds, started its aggression against Azerbaijan by making territorial claims against it. As a result of the 1989-94 war, parts of Azerbaijan have been occupied and thousands of people were killed. The region became unstable, and the economies of all the regional countries have been greatly impacted. There are also up to 1 million refugees and IDPs in Azerbaijan.

Although the party is committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, as Armenia continues to put many obstacles in the way of such a resolution, the party believes that a military option must now also be considered.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the main reason for the establishment of the NSP was to get the Azerbaijani people united behind one political entity in order to better fight for the liberation of their territories. The party created a battalion to fight in Karabakh and 408 members of the battalion lost their lives in military operations. In 1993 when President Ilham Aliyev came to power the battalion was disbanded.

The party does not have any official relations with veterans’ organizations, but often raises their social and economic problems with the relevant entities. The party shares almost the same position as these organizations with regards to the conflict resolution, and has many veterans amongst its membership.

Regarding IDP communities, the party has close relations with the “International Forum on Karabakh”, headed by Hasan Hasanov, and often organizes joint events with them. The party also has local branches amongst the IDP communities and the majority of the party’s members are IDPs and refugees.

166

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party had high hopes for the OSCE Minsk Group at the beginning of the process, however these hopes have been steadily decreasing. For example the party takes issue with the composition of the group: France is a pro-Armenian state and is giving political, economic and cultural support to Armenia; and Russia gives great military support to Armenia and even has a couple of military bases in Armenia, having signed a treaty of collective defense with Armenia.

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party thinks the document is not a road map that will lead to a fair resolution of the conflict, and completely disagrees with the paragraph which outlines conducting a referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh for exercising the right of self determination. The party considers it obvious that the Principles will lead to the step-by-step secession of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.

As for the role of other international actors, the party believes that the responsibility to resolve the issue lies with the Azerbaijani government, since it´s Azerbaijani territory that has been occupied and it´s their sovereignty that has been violated over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Although other international actors have taken on some roles in the process, because of their own interests in the region and their hidden agendas, their efforts to solve the conflict have resulted in failure.

For example, although Iran is an Islamic country they have supported Armenia out of self-interest. Russia must be excluded from the whole process, since they are interested in maintaining an unending conflict in the region. Turkey however must be applauded for its role since the beginning of the conflict.

The party believes that the EU can play a positive role in a fair resolution of the conflict, but first they must recognize the aggressor and put a distinction between the aggressor and the victim. The party will consider the position of the US positive only if it stops its financial support to the aggressor, i.e. to Nagorno-Karabakh and by extension Armenia.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that since the position of both societies are known to each other, there is no need for people to people contacts and informal meetings before the final peace agreement is signed. However there is a great necessity to hold such informal meetings after the agreement is signed, and informal meetings must serve to bring peace rather than divide the interests of the different parties of the conflict.

167

The party maintains that the free movement of people would be impossible before the final peace agreement is signed. Even after the peace agreement it will take a number of years to decrease and eliminate the psychological barriers between the conflicting communities. In the party’s opinion this problem is not only the product of a territorial dispute, but also the tragedy of 100,000 individuals who suffered greatly in the war.

■ Other information

The NSP has contested the 2010 Parliamentary elections and claims to have around 7000 members of which 80% are men and 20% are women. It currently has no members in parliament. The party has close relations with the ‘Congress of World Azerbaijanis’ as well as Diaspora communities in Sweden, Russia and Iran, and has local branches in Turkey. The party also publishes the “Milli Qurtulus” newspaper.

168

Open

Society

Party

The Open Society Party is led by Rasul Guliyev (Party Chairman) and was established on 14th April 2007 when the supporters of Rasul Guliyev decided to establish a new party.

169

Open Society Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Open Society Party (OSP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with Deputy OSP Chairman, Nizami Mammadov, held in Baku on 13th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that the conflict must be resolved within the context of territorial integrity for Azerbaijan, and that Armenian troops must be withdrawn from occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas. Following their withdrawal, all IDPs should return to their homelands. Only after this can the status of Nagorno-Karabakh be determined, which should be the highest possible level of autonomy established according to the Madrid principles.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the Chairman of the party was the Speaker of the parliament during that time (1993-1996) and before that he was deputy Prime Minister and in charge of the defense policy. The party also has members who participated in the conflict as well as members that are IDPs. Regarding veterans’ organizations, although there used to be strong veterans’ organizations in Azerbaijan the government has been putting a lot of pressure on them, causing many to close down. Currently there only exists organizations that are controlled by the government, and the party does not have close relations with them.

Regarding the organizations representing IDP communities, the party maintains that they are totally under the control of the government, which does not want other political parties to have any relations with them, so it is impossible to visit the IDP camps and to get access to information about their situation.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party is very much unsatisfied with the work of the OSCE Minsk Group, as although they have been involved for 17 years, there has not been any positive development regarding the conflict resolution. The party therefore concludes that they are not an efficient entity.

170

Regarding the Madrid Principles the party summaries that there are three basic principles: (1) non use of violence (2) territorial integrity, and (3) the right to self- determination. Whilst the party accepts the first and second principles, it believes that the third one is contradictive towards the first two – so does not accept or agree to the Principles.

As for the role of other international actors, the party maintains that the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict is a legacy from the Soviet Union and therefore regards Russia´s role as very negative. It also views Iran’s role as very negative. The US and Turkey are the main positive actors as they are at least trying to do something concrete.

As for the EU, the party maintains that though there have been many statements, the EU has not made any solid steps, making only soft statements with no serious measures being implemented – only offering recommendations.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party does not see a positive role for NGOs, as it is not within the capacity of civil society to resolve the conflict. The party believes that there must first be a political solution, then civil society can play a role and try to establish contacts between the different parties in terms of trust building measures.

Regarding free movement, the party recognises that Armenia and Azerbaijan are neighbouring countries and that it is therefore the two nation’s destiny to live together. However there should be no free movements before the final peace agreement and only after the agreement is signed, as currently there exists too much hatred between the two nations so it would be unrealistic to start this kind of movement.

■ Other information

The OSP has not contested any parliamentary elections, but claims to have around 20,000 members of which 80% are men and 20% are women. It currently has no members in parliament.

171

Party of Union of Independent Democrats

The Party of Union of Independent Democrats was established in 2004 with the aim of creating a union of intellectuals. It is led by Dr. Ali Masimli (Party Chairman), who has led the party since its inception.

www.milletvekili.az

172

Party of Union of

Independent Democrats

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Party of Union of Independent Democrats (PUID) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with PUID Chairman, Dr. Ali Masimli, held in Baku on 21st

July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party believes that since Azerbaijan is located in a very sensitive geostrategic region it has witnessed a clash of interests between the international superpowers and this is why Azerbaijan has suffered. Looking at the historical political map, Armenia only had very little territory but has now tripled its size, by taking Azerbaijani land with support from Russia. This was the first step of the enlargement of Armenia. The second step was to deport Azerbaijanis from Armenia. The third step started on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Armenia began occupying more parts of Azerbaijani territory.

The party supports the resolution adopted by the UN and believes that the current deadlock of the conflict is due to the fact that the resolution has not been implemented. Furthermore, the party maintains that the UN and the OSCE Minsk Group don´t have the concrete tools to implement the resolutions. The international community is also guilty of a double standard and is not using the power of the international law, but instead attempting to use the power of politics. This is the main source of the current instability. This kind of approach is prolonging and harming the process. The international actors are also prioritizing energy security. The party also believes that the latest development between Russia and Ukraine proves that Azerbaijan´s role is increasing, but as long as the conflict continues it will not be able to play an important role, and therefore must resolve the conflict within the context of international law and justice as quickly as possible.

The conflict is also a social concern for the party, and the leadership has often visited the Baltic States and participated in international events to raise awareness of the

173

impact of the conflict and seek solutions to these problems. The party also actively expresses their opinion in the media.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, the Chairman was in the government at that time, when the Popular Front Party was in power. He was first the Minister of Economy and then was later elected Prime Minister.

The party tries to raise the issues of the IDP communities often at events and in the parliament. Only 20% of all complaint letters are from the Chairman’s district, so the issues from other regions are also addressed to him.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

Regarding the OSCE Minsk Group the party maintains that there exist two kinds of evaluations of their work in Azerbaijani society with regard to this issue: (1) that the Group is keeping the Nagorno-Karabakh case very actual, compared to what they do in Moldova etc. and (2) that they are a powerless organization that can´t take any steps forward and that´s why there is a deadlock situation.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, in general the party appreciates them, except for the paragraph that refers to a referendum that will be implemented only in Nagorno- Karabakh, as such a referendum would lead to the secession of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. Furthermore, according to the Azerbaijani constitution, a referendum cannot only be conducted in one region but must be referred to the whole state. Except from this paragraph the party supports the Principles as a road-map.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party maintains that after the 2008 war in Georgia a new geopolitical situation emerged where the security situation of the region was weakened. Russia proved by raking a dangerous position that they can be involved in and interfere in any regional conflict. The real effective reason why the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict continues is because of Russia. The Party believes that if Russia continues to interfere with the process with the old mindset the problem will remain unresolved.

France has a huge Armenian Diaspora and is therefore taking a very dangerous path. France is trying to make the Armenian genocide claim globally accepted and have even adopted a law where denial of the genocide is a punishable offence. Now such an idea has been taken out of that, those who accept the Armenian genocide should recognise Nagorno Karabakh. This position proves that they cannot have an objective approach with regards to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The US has divided the world into three parts, friends of them, enemies of them and the rest of them. The South Caucasus definitely belongs to the last category, and they are

174

only interested in the security of Caspian oil and gas pipelines. They want to have a resolution, but don’t want an unambiguous resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh problem based on the basic principles of international law and the resolutions and decisions adopted by the international organisations.

Double standards are reflected not only in the position of the above mentioned but also of the neighbouring country, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran on one hand recognises the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan whilst on the other hand it is largely co-operating with Armenia, including in the military field. Therefore we have grounds to think that since Iran does not want Azerbaijan to be a strong country this prevents it from taking an objective position.

Turkey however has proved over the years that they are the only ally of Azerbaijan, as they closed their borders with Armenia as a sign of protest to the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and also played an important role in the adoption of the first UN resolution on the subject. Despite the enormous pressure that has been put on Turkey regarding the border issue with Armenia, they have maintained an objective position.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding the role of informal level contributions the party believes that there should be a wider and more systematic approach to the peace process, and that everything should not be put on the OSCE´s and UN´s shoulders. The role of NGOs should serve to build confidence amongst the people, whilst the UN must focus on finding a real mechanism so that they can implement the resolutions adopted by them.

As for the free movement of people before a final peace settlement, the party draws on past international experience, highlighting that West and East Germany had restricted free movement, but not diplomatic ties. This has been repeated in South Ossetia where Georgia and South Ossetia set up security measures to secure free movement, resulting in the events of 2008. It opened up the borders for smugglers which led to a lot of money coming into South Ossetia. They opened the borders without applying any kind of obligations, so such free movements can bring bad consequences and take the situation back to point zero, so the best solution must be to first liberate the territories. The surrounding areas must be released and obligations should be enforced, then free cross-border movement of people may begin.

■ Other information

The PUID has contested the 2010 parliamentary elections and has one MP. The Party has no general membership.

175

Social

Prosperity

Party

The Social Prosperity Party was established in 1994 and is led by Dr. Khanhuseyn Kazimly (Party Chairman) who assumed the position at the party’s inception.

www.asrp.az

176

Social Prosperity Party

A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Social Prosperity Party (SPP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with SPP Chairman Dr.Khanhuseyn Kazimly, held in Baku on 17th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party believes that the international community is not making genuine efforts to resolve the issue, and that this is very dangerous for the stability of the region and beyond. If one country is occupying 25% of another country’s territory this has serious consequences for the country, for example in terms of the drug trade and other social problems.

The party notes that Azerbaijan is getting stronger both militarily and economically, but is still committed to a peaceful resolution, and for over 20 years Azerbaijan has been asking the international community to put a pressure on Armenia for a peaceful resolution. This has not worked however and the party feels that Azerbaijan is being forced to start a war as the only remaining solution. Despite this reality the party is adamantly against starting a new war.

Many of the party’s members participated in the hostilities of 1989-94, and the party maintains close relations with both veterans and the organizations that representing them. Some of the party’s members were also awarded National Heroes status following the conflict.

The party also has many members who are refugees and IDPs, and the Chairman was elected MP for a district where many IDPs are living. The party is working to provide for them physically and to raise their issues with the government. Although the Azerbaijani government has improved the situation in the IDP communities, there are still issues that haven’t been resolved.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party has a very negative attitude towards the OSCE Minsk Group as they haven´t made any moves forward and are just repeating the same things. Although the party used to have great trust in them, they have become very frustrated by the Group’s lack of performance. The Group failed to implement the resolutions adopted by the UN and this is a major reason behind the party’s lack of confidence in the Group’s ability to

177

resolve the conflict.

The party is not totally against the Madrid Principles as there are some positive elements to them. The principles of territorial integrity and the right for IDPs to return to their homeland are for example very positive. The point regarding the right of self- determination is however misplaced, as this should be consistent with the principles of territorial integrity. Armenia disagrees on this point and is therefore trying to prolong the negotiations. The party also believes that the 1996 Lisbon document had some good points, but it was not respected by the Armenian side. The SPP is also frustrated by the failure of the UN resolutions to be implemented, since the UN is the biggest and most suitable organization for this kind of issue.

Regarding the role of other international actors Armenia is being used as an instrument to fulfill the international community´s national interests in the region and has not got a real positive role in the resolution of the conflict and in the establishment of justice and sustainable peace in the region.

In contrast the party believes that the Turkish approach is much better because they understand that if you want stability in your own country you need to have stability in the whole region. Turkey could therefore play a positive role in the mediation.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that informal level contributions could play a role in the resolution as not a single mother or sister wants to see their son or brother injured or killed in another war, and that´s why this level of contributions could play a positive role in the resolution process. The party believes that there exists a good environment for NGOs in Azerbaijan, as they can do what they want and there is a good environment for freedom of speech and everyone can express themselves in the way they want to.

Regarding the free movement of people the party believes that Azerbaijan is ready for that as many Armenians are already living in Azerbaijan. However it is the Armenian leadership who must make a decision to withdraw their troops from the occupied territories before any kind of cross-border movement can begin.

■ Other information

The SPP contested the parliamentary elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010, and claims to have around 45,000 members of which 70% are men and 30% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament. The party also publishes the “Sosial Rifah” newspaper.

178

Umid

Party

The Hope (Umid) Party was established in 1993

and is led by Iqbal Aga-zade (Party Chairman)

who assumed the position in 2002.

www.umidparty.org

179

Umid Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Umid Party (UP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with UP Chairman Iqbal Aga-zade, held in Baku on 17th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party is first and foremost for a peaceful resolution, and has used its resources as a party to contribute towards a peaceful solution. However the party is skeptical that the contemporary peace process can bring sustainable peace. The general approach of the process is wrong, and in order to reach a sustainable peace a ‘South Caucasian Union’ must be established. Historically the region used to be unified, as the Caucasian Seym (1918) and Zsfsr (1922-1936). These unions however collapsed due to mismanagement and as people became enemies, but now renewed union is possible following an EU model. The party believes that the nations of Armenia and Azerbaijan are not enemies and that it is possible to establish a Union in a very short amount of time. The current political elites are trying to keep the two nations apart by cutting one part of the country away and giving it to the other.

The party maintains that the best approach would be to try and eliminate any possible tension between the nations through a Union, but has lacked financial resources to publicize their plan in Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan. The party strongly believes that it is necessary to involve political parties and public organizations from across the region. The Chairman of the party is the only Nagorno-Karabakh war veteran in Parliament and amongst the Azerbaijani political parties that is against a new war, as he is not afraid of public opinion.

The Chairman was a battalion commander during the hostilities of 1989-94, he was only 22 years old at the time. Many of the party’s members also took part in the liberation war. The party therefore has very close relations with the veterans’ organizations, and claims to be the closest political party to them, with one of the veterans’ organizations situated in the same building as the party HQ. The party also has close relations with the IDP community, and the Chairman considers himself from an IDP community as he was born in the occupied region.

180

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party holds only one conclusion regarding the OSCE Minsk Process, being that in the history of the OSCE there has never been a resolution. The Group is trying to resolve the conflict without success and their approach cannot result in a sustainable peace. Their mission is more about transformation of the conflict and they lack the right mechanisms to exert pressure to move forward.

Regarding the Madrid Principles, the party maintains that the right to self- determination outlined is not in accordance with international law or the Azerbaijani constitution. Furthermore, Armenians have already exercised their right of self- determination when they created their state in the South Caucasus. The party believes that there is nothing to be gained by giving Nagorno-Karabakh, as such a small community (population of 130,000 in 1988 including both Azerbaijanis and Armenians), recognition and the right to self-determination. They furthermore believe it would be a dangerous precedent, which may cause the Azerbaijanis and Armenians living in Georgia to stand up for their right to self-determination and fight against the Georgian government.

Such a concession would also send a misleading message to other national minorities in Azerbaijan. This approach of the OSCE will only create more conflicts in the region, rather than bring a sustainable peace. For this reason the party is against the last paragraph of the Madrid Principles which creates an opportunity for the community living in Nagorno-Karabakh to exercise their right to self-determination through a referendum, which would be a very dangerous precedent for the whole region and other national minorities. This is an objective assessment from the party which wants a sustainable peace in the region.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party believes that Russia is not interested in a conflict resolution, since a resolution would reduce Russia’s presence in the region and therefore does not want the conflict to be resolved, and is in fact proposing a resolution that will only create more conflicts in the region.

The EU and US are interested in finding a resolution to the conflict, but since their approach is flawed it will not bring a sustainable peace to the region - which the party does believe is their genuine aim. The intentions of the EU and US are good but their results poor.

Turkey is on Azerbaijan’s side, but behind the scenes Turkey is trying to have a different policy, not in terms of being against Azerbaijan, but wanting to have good relations with all their neighbors – something they are succeeding with, save with Armenia.

Iran doesn’t want the conflict to be resolved at all and there are two factors for this:

1) Many Azerbaijanis are living in Iran and there are many problems between the

181

two communities. Iran is therefore afraid that Azerbaijan will grow stronger, causing them internal instability.

2) Iran has problems with the West and they are not interested in having international peace keepers along their borders.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

Regarding informal level contributions the party believes that for a real sustainable peace the relations between the two nations must be greatly improved. Organizations that can have a big influence over public opinion must be involved, and these can be political parties as well as NGOs. However, the party believes that on the ground the involvement of NGOs has increased the hatred of the public, as they are regarded as betraying their own nation and are dividing society.

■ Other information

The UP contested the parliamentary elections in 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 57,000 members of which 66% are men and 34% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament.

182

YENI AZERBAIJAN PARTY

The Yeni Azerbaijan Party was established on

21st November 1992, and is the party of

government in Azerbaijan. It is currently led by

President Ilham Aliyev who assumed the position

in 2005.

www.yap.org.az

183

Yeni Azerbaijan Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP) on the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with YAP Deputy Secretary Executive, Siyavoush D. Novruzov, held in Baku on 27th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party’s position is that of the Azerbaijani President, since he is the head of the party. The party wishes to resolve the conflict in a peaceful way and that is why Azerbaijan continues to negotiate, however any resolution must respect the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which is non-negotiable. Although the international peace process hasn´t achieved any results yet it must continue. The party believes that there exists full support for the government’s approach amongst all the political parties and public organizations in Azerbaijan as well as amongst the people of Azerbaijan, and they all therefore share a common approach to the conflict. Though the UN resolutions recognize that Azerbaijani territories are occupied and must be given back to Azerbaijan, Armenia does not accept this. Therefore Azerbaijan does have the right to liberate its territories according to the international law.

Regarding the hostilities of 1989-94, all of the party’s senior membership fought in the war, particularly those in the most senior positions. The Deputy Secretary Executive is himself a war veteran.

The party enjoys close relations with the veterans’ organizations, and the government is planning to provide free housing and transport for veterans as well as construct infrastructure for those living outside of Baku. War veterans will also be provided with greater rights than ordinary people, and the government is already giving them a special pension. Nearly 5000 flats were given to veterans in Baku and Sumgait, complete with full disabled access and rehabilitation centers. If veterans need to go abroad for medical treatment, this will also be provided free of charge by the government.

Regarding the IDP communities, the party has local branches representing all occupied districts and enjoys special relations with them.

184

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement The party recognizes that whilst the OSCE Minsk Group is trying to work towards a solution, they need more power to be able to implement their decisions and resolve the conflict. They are however more on the Armenian side than the Azerbaijani, and if they had done what they were originally mandated to do impartially, peace would have already been achieved.

The party supports the Madrid Principles, but sometimes the Armenia side fails to attend at the negotiations.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party believes that Turkey is the only country or international actor that is really trying to resolve the conflict. As for the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, there are more than 3000 Russian troops in Armenia and all the Armenian borders are protected by the Russian military. Armenia is powerless regarding the conflict as Russia is the one deciding everything. A couple of years ago the government tried to start negotiations, but Russia refused. Russia is using the conflict to maintain its leverage over Armenia, and that is why Armenia will not be integrated into the EU, NATO or any other international entity. The population of Armenia is only 2 million now because of huge emigration from the country due to dissatisfaction.

Iran is also supporting Armenia economically by selling products to Armenia at very low prices, and also providing them with weapons. 37 million Azerbaijanis are living in Iran and more than half of Azerbaijan’s rightful territory is located there, so Iran is worried that if Azerbaijan reclaims Nagorno-Karabakh then it will also attempt to reclaim historically Azerbaijani land in Iran.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity The party believes that public diplomacy has done a good job, Armenian journalist and experts in different fields have come to Baku and Azerbaijani journalists and experts have travelled to Yerevan. LINKS contributed very helpfully with the SCPI project, where meetings were held with 10 MPs from each of the three South Caucasian countries, which greatly benefited efforts at public diplomacy. The SCPI process also brought together groups of experts which worked on issues such as transport and the environment etc, and their recommendations were collated in a single document. When the document was published the Armenians became aware for the first time of how many billions they had lost because of the regional problems. The Armenian government stopped the SCPI process however, as they didn´t want the public in Armenia to see its findings, since they were worried about the reaction. YAP has

185

furthermore held meetings in Baku between world religious leaders, including representatives from Armenia.

Regarding the free movement of people prior to a final solution, the party holds a firm position, being totally against free movements of ordinary people before a final peace agreement is signed. The party notes that there is not even a telephone line between the two countries, so it is therefore premature to consider the free movement of people.

■ Other information

YAP has contested all the parliamentary elections over the last twenty years and claims to have around 516,000 members of which 42% are men and 58% are women. It currently has 74 members in parliament and is the party of government.

186

Yurddash

Party

The Yurddash (Compatriots) Party was

established in 1993 in response to the process of

democratic state building. It is led by Mais Safarli

(Party Chairman), who has led the party since its

inception.

187

Yurddash Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Yurddash Party (YP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with CYP Chairman, Mais Safarli, held in Baku on 26th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that the conflict was started by aggression from Armenia, whose whole intention was to take Azerbaijani territories. This process started however in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was starting to become very weak. Armenia got huge support from Russia and the international Armenian Diaspora when they started to make territorial claims against Azerbaijan. As a result of this support, Armenia launched a separatist movement and started to deport Azerbaijanis from their homelands. Armenia received a huge amount of military ammunition in order to achieve its goals, but Azerbaijan didn´t have any weapons to defend itself with - even the hunting weapons amongst the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh were taken. The party maintains that there remains a strong Russian military presence that supports Armenia in the region.

The party’s position is that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict started with the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territories – a process which received a lot of support from Russia and the other superpowers. Unfortunately, after 17 years of negotiations, no results have been achieved. The party is for the peaceful resolution of the conflict, and therefore regards the OSCE Minsk Group´s mission as important, but unfortunately as there have not been any concrete achievements on the ground, the party supports a new format of negotiations.

The party believes the process cannot be allowed to continue forever, and that Armenia must be given a timeframe (of 6 months to 1 year) within which to take serious steps towards a resolution. If Armenia does not, then Azerbaijan must liberate the territories by military means. The party also believes that following such a liberation war, Azerbaijan should not give a guarantee for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh in the future nor for the Armenian community living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

The party has close relations with almost all of the numerous veterans’ organizations in Azerbaijan, and often takes part in their events and tries to organize joint events with them. Furthermore, the party is trying to help them solve their problems, and the Chairman participated in the adoption of a new law regarding veterans. The party has

188

close relations with the IDP communities, and has local branches in all the IDP communities from the occupied districts. Through these local branches the party always tries to communicate with and help them. The party claims that the IDPs are ready to liberate their homelands by military means and they are awaiting the order to do so from the President.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party thinks that the OSCE Minsk Group’s mission is important and still harbors hope that they will be able to achieve something, but does not expect any real outcome from the process. The party also wants a change to be made in the composition of the Group, with either one of the co-chairs being replaced by Turkey, or Turkey becoming a fourth co-chair.

Regarding the Madrid Principles as the Azerbaijani government has accepted the renewed version, the party supports the position of the government - which is almost the same as the position of the previous President. The party believes that the Principles can work as a base for the resolution of the conflict.

As for the role of other international actors, the party maintains that unfortunately except for the OSCE Minsk Group the other members of the international community are hardly dealing with the issue. The EU is very passive and the UN has four resolutions on the conflict, none of which have been implemented. The only country that the party is satisfied with is Turkey, since they have always taken a fair stand on the issue.

The party is also unsatisfied with the position of Russia as a co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, and believes that Russia could have put an end to the conflict if they wanted to as Armenia is directly under the control of Russia. The party also considers Iran biased as they always support Armenia, and believes that no country should cooperate with a country that has occupied another country.

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party believes that in the sense of presenting different positions between the conflicting parties informal meetings are important and necessary. The party thinks also that both societies should be familiar with not only the position of the President but also the opinions of the wider public. Regarding the free movement of people prior to a final solution the party considers this impossible, as a legal guarantee for free movement would not be possible until the peace treaty was signed by all the parties.

■ Other information

The YP contested elections in 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010 and claims to have around 9500 members of which 57% are men and 53% are women. It currently has no MPs.

189

Whole

Azerbaijan Popular Front

Party

The Whole Azerbaijan Popular Front Party was established in August 2001 from the Popular Front Party through a popular movement. It is currently led by Gudrat Hasanguliyev (Party Chairman) who assumed the position at the party’s inception. www.hasanguliyev.az

190

Whole Azerbaijan Popular Front Party A Z E R B A I J A N

The position of the Whole Azerbaijan Popular Front Party (WAPFP) on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and peace process, based on an interview with WAPFP Chairman Gudrat Hasanguliyev, held in Baku on 16th July 2010.

■ Position on Nagorno-Karabakh and its future

The party maintains that in the current circumstances, it is not possible to have a fair peace process as the international community and the OSCE Minsk Group do not want to recognize Armenia as the aggressor and are unwilling to apply pressure on Armenia to withdraw their troops from the occupied territories. Instead they are putting pressure on Azerbaijan to compromise. This approach is against the UN resolutions and the Helsinki Final Act regarding territorial integrity and viability of borders. The party therefore believes that the only way to liberate the territories is to follow the UN approval given to Azerbaijan, outlining the right to liberate Azerbaijani territories.

The WAPFP is the only political party in Azerbaijan which wants to increase relations with Russia in order to guarantee the neutrality of Russia in the case of another war. The party was in favor of joining NATO, but now rejects the idea as it does not consider the Western countries as fair.

The party has normal relations and cooperation with both individuals and organizations representing refugees and IDPs. The Chairman was elected MP in the frontline districts of Goranboy, Aghdam and Tartar and 10,000 of the party’s voters are IDPs that use to live in these border regions.

■ Position on the peace process and international involvement

The party believes that the OSCE Minsk Group is not working towards finding a fair

191

peace agreement and that the Group just wants Azerbaijan to give up its territories. As the Group does not wish to see a resuming of hostilities, they are prolonging the process and urging Azerbaijan to concede and give up its territories to Armenia. The EU (through France) and the US have the final say on this issue and they are under the influence of the Armenian Diaspora in their countries. Even if the governments change in the US and France they will continue to have the same policy, so the party does not expect to see any fair proposals coming from them. Russia supports and stands firmly behind Armenia only.

The party was one of the first to criticize the Madrid Principles and is totally against them. The party also criticized the composition of the OSCE Minsk Group´s co-chairs, and their speech in Toronto. The party opposes the Principles as the Azerbaijani constitution does not allow for a referendum to be held in one specific region of Azerbaijan, and must be held for the whole country. The Principles therefore do not take into consideration the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and this is against international law.

Amongst the public in Azerbaijan there exist a growing resentment towards both the EU and the West, due to what is perceived as inconsistency in their approach to other conflicts - they do not present the same position towards Nagorno-Karabakh as they do towards the breakaway regions in Georgia. The party considers this particularly unjust as Azerbaijan has a stronger historical claim to Nagorno-Karabakh than Georgia has to Abkhazia.

Regarding the role of other international actors, the party is supportive of other resolutions adopted by the UN´s General Assembly and the Council of Europe which view Armenia as the aggressor and occupier of Azerbaijani territories. These organizations are however powerless, and it remains the responsibility of the great powers therefore to put a pressure on Armenia.

The party considers Iran as the second biggest supporter of Armenia, the main reason for this being the large Azerbaijani community living in Iran which could become a source of instability if Azerbaijan were to grow stronger. Iran is therefore not interested in a real resolution to the conflict.

The party believes that Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan and is taking a fair stand on the issue, but since they are dependent on the EU and the West and are afraid of Russian power, their ability to contribute is very limited. For example, if Turkey became more involved, the international community would start to bring up the Kurdish issue, and that is something Turkey wishes to avoid.

192

■ On people to people contacts and civil society activity

The party considers the role of NGOs as positive, but with regards to this conflict cannot see what they could contribute or what role they would play. Since the conflict is about a territorial claim it should be handled on the political level. The party claims that there is no precedent for NGO level contributions being effective in such circumstances. However, the party is not opposed to informal level contributions and believes that a parallel process of NGO level contributions would not harm the process.

The party supports the free movement of people after the final peace agreement is signed and not before, as any free zone between the three South Caucasian countries would currently be both impossible and dangerous.

■ Other information

The WAPFP contested the parliamentary election in 2005 and claims to have around 13,000 members of which 88% are men and 12% are women. It currently has 1 member in parliament.