These were the last words of an article I read in Turkish Daily News last week (August 4 2009). The article was on Arab Palestinian conflict and the prospects for peace. It was by Shaikh Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa. What stroke me the most in this article was the author's approach to the conflict and so I would like to share some of it with you...
"Our biggest mistake has been to assume that you can simply switch peace on like a light bulb. The reality is that peace is a process, contingent on a good idea but also requiring a great deal of campaigning- patiently and repeatedly targeting all parties (yes, that includes public as well!)
[...]
It is in our interest to speak up now for two reasons. First, we all be safer once we drain the pool of antipathy in which hatemongers from both sides swim. Second, peace will bring prosperity.
[...]
What we don't need is the continued reflexive rejection of any initiative that seeks to melt the ice.
[...]
All sides need to take simultanious, good faith action if peace is to have a chance. A real, lasting peace requires comprehensive engagement and reconciliation at the human level. This will happen only if we address and settle the core issue dividing th Arab and the Israeli peoples, the first being the question of the Palestine and occupied Arab lands... We should move toward real peace now by consulting and educating our people and by reaching out to the Israeli public to highlight the benefits of a genuine peace
[...]
...dialogue must be enhanced for genuine progress. We all, together, need the first crucial step to lay the groundwork to effectively achieve peace. So we must all invest more in communication (which should also include not being judged or punished for it!) once we built peace...the day-to-day experience would move minds and gradually build a relationship of trust and mutual interest, without which long- term peacemaking is impossible. When stability pays, conflict becomes too costly. We must do more now, to achieve peace".
I think most of the above mentioned ideas can as easily apply for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. I know some might call me naive but I truly believe that it could be done as long as there is some genuine will. So far however i have failed to see that sparkle in most of the people as some are tired of talkig about it, some are sick of it, some hate it while some have no idea what to say. What is left is only fragile strirng of hope vested deep inside of many others who actually do want peace...
11 comments:
Arzu, I totally agree. We need to push for peace instead of the "continued reflexive rejection of any initiative that seeks to melt the ice..."
Unfortunately, however, it seems that many of those active in this area seem to spend more time looking for reasons to reject a peace settlement than accept one.
At the end of the day, the question is really one of how much do people want peace. I join you in calls for the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
Hopefully, others will too because there seems to be some concern that rejection of that possibility will pretty much mark the end of the negotiation process.
And when negotiations break down, what happens next? None of us should want to go down the road of military conflict again. The effects would be devastating.
More than that, as an outsider from the U.K. looking in, albeit being half-Armenian, I really hope that Armenians and Azeris can live together in peace again.
Isn't that something worth fighting for with words and ideas for the sake of future generations?
Incidentally, I recently had a conversation with a regional analyst on the need to talk openly about peace and reconciliation, and to introduce transparency into civil society initiatives, and quite logically he responded that the mood in both Armenia and Azerbaijan is not quite conducive to that. Such an approach is fraught with risks, he said.
True, I responded, but what isn't in this region? Protesting against rigged elections is also risky as we saw in Azerbaijan in 2005 and Armenia in 2008. So too is speaking out against human rights violations and corruption. However, people do speak out against such things so isn't it about time we took the same approach towards peace and regional stability and cooperation?
Well, anyway, naive or not, I'm with you on this one. Hopefully, where much, but not all, of civil society has failed us in this area, we can now start the ball rolling to encourage a grassroots movement of people who do have that "sparkle" and if that happens there can be said to be hope for the region. If not, well, the future looks bleak...
Hello Onnik and Arzu,
Lots of political analytics tries to apply the same approach to Nagorny Karaback conflict. But you can solve the problem not seeing the root. The Palestinian & Israel conflict and Nagorny Karaback conflict they’re absolutely different. Externally yes. Both of the parts want piece of land but if you go the deep of the root you see totally different picture.
The solution key of this problem is in pocket of Kremlin. Kremlin use this conflict to manipulate Azerbaijan and Armenia. No Armenia and neither Azerbaijan got the benefit from it. Only Russia is benefited from it. Just study the situations in Caucasus beginning of the 20th Century you’ll see the same action Russia did in the end of the 20th century.
SO, Good luck to Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Mr.Newman
I also think that there needs to be more transparency and accountability in civil society working in this area. I know many here in Armenia who are involved in such projects, receive funding from international donors, but whenever we get close to peace display that "reflexive rejection" of a deal.
That's not all of them, but it is many and we might see more of this in the coming weeks and months because of the politicized nature of society. That is, they are willing to sacrifice any chance of peace for internal political reasons.
I consider this to be pretty much playing with fire given the volatility of the region.
On the same subject of transparency, civil society initiatives should be open to the media and other observers. We desperately need positive examples of Armenians and Azeris getting together to break down the negative stereotypes that the local media usually pushes.
Unfortunately, however, few working in this are are willing to open up their projects, which is pretty much allowing the propaganda in the media go unchecked, so is it any wonder that attitudes in the larger body of society never change?
BTW, I interviewed Giorgi Vanyan today -- arguably one of the few genuine voices advocating peace between peoples -- and some interesting points came out, all of which shouldn't surprise anybody. Firstly, there are quite a few villages co-inhabited by Armenians and Azeris in Georgia and even at the height of the war there were no incidents.
And, of course, most peace-building initiatives over the past 15 years have been about receiving grants rather than any genuine desire to resolve conflict. Moreover, as some observers are increasingly beginning to believe, many of these programs are flawed from the outset.
Whether they are closed off from public view or not genuine to begin with, it doesn't matter. The urgent need to engage the public in discussion has been overlooked and the need to amplify an inherent but often repressed desire for peace ignored.
Of course, this suits opposition and government alike, both of which use simplistic arguments about "selling out Karabakh" against the other at different times depending. Otherwise, neither has any concrete policies or ideologies with which to attract the support of citizens.
Much more, but it was a long interview although I'll try to write it up today. Might also include some points in a blog post I've still yet to finish for Frontline, however.
Until then, it reminds me of something Tom de Waal wrote three years ago:
A key point must be made here, which is that these underlying structural tensions in the architecture of the region had little impact on the daily life of the residents living there. As most Armenians and Azerbaijanis will tell you, they traditionally had a better trading relationship with each other than either community did with Georgians; rates of intermarriage were also high. Soviet Karabakhis from both communities tended to be bilingual, on good terms with their neighbours and little concerned by the nationalist narratives being advanced by intellectuals in Yerevan or Baku.
It is an elementary mistake therefore to see the Karabakh conflict as a clash of 'ancient hatreds' or as a religious dispute. Links of culture, business and marriage still bind Armenians and Azerbaijanis together in Moscow, Georgia and Iran – anywhere in fact outside the zone of the Karabakh conflict.
[...]
[...] the heart of the conflict lies within the narrow political narratives that Armenia and Azerbaijan have come to employ both in imagining themselves and the other. To break out of the prison of the conflict, they need to begin the titanic effort of a genuine dialogue about their common future. [...]
http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/origins-dynamics-misperceptions.php
Incidentally, two things that Giorgi Vanyan said today are very poignant and should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the Karabakh Committee has defined the internal political process in Armenia since independence. With no other ideology present, that is as true as it's ever been.
Secondly, much of the problem with finding a solution to the Karabakh conflict started with Ter-Petrossian's controversial "War or Peace" essay which eventually led to his fall.
Instead, argues Vanyan, the approach of civil society and political parties is flawed. The question should not be "War or Peace?"
Instead, there needs to be a genuine desire for peace, but it is instead suppressed by nationalist discourse in society which prevents many from speaking out.
Moreover, even the language used by civil society and political parties relating to "peacebuilding" is in the militaristic plane rather than the "human."
As a result, the focus is now only on territory rather than people and peaceful co-existence.
Well, doesn't seem like anyone wants to actually engage in this much needed discussion, so I think your post was correct.
[...] So far however i have failed to see that sparkle in most of the people as some are tired of talkig about it, some are sick of it, some hate it while some have no idea what to say. [...]
Nevertheless, in the hope that someone finally does, here's another comment I made on my FB page about yesterday's meeting with Vanyan. Hopefully I'll get round to writing something proper today.
[...] two things that Giorgi Vanyan said today are very poignant and should be acknowledged.
Firstly, the Karabakh Committee has defined the internal political process in Armenia since independence. With no other ideology present, that is as true as it's ever been.
Secondly, much of the problem with finding a solution to the Karabakh conflict started with Ter-Petrossian's controversial "War or Peace" essay which eventually led to his fall.
Instead, argues Vanyan, the approach of civil society and political parties is flawed. The question should not be "War or Peace?"
Instead, there needs to be a genuine desire for peace, but it is instead suppressed by nationalist discourse in society which prevents many from speaking out.
Moreover, even the language used by civil society and political parties relating to "peacebuilding" is in the militaristic plane rather than the "human."
As a result, the focus is now only on territory rather than people and peaceful co-existence.
Meanwhile, as a background to Vanyan, details of his Days of Azerbaijan in Yerevan are at http://www.southcaucasus.com/index.php?page=current&id=1633 and he's got an Azeri film festival planned soon:
Осенью в Армении покажут азербайджанские фильмы
http://vesti.az/news.php?id=12975
ГЕОРГИЙ ВАНЯН: АРМЯНСКОМУ И АЗЕРБАЙДЖАНСКОМУ ОБЩЕСТВАМ НЕОБХОДИМ ДИАЛОГ
http://top7.az/about.asp?vr=ru#topanc
Would be nice to see similar initiatives held in Azerbaijan although from what many people tell me, the current peace plan is more likely to be obstructed by "reflexive rejection" in Armenia over the occupied territories.
Still, let's wait, hope and see. Vanyan also reckons most people here still see the occupied territories as a security buffer zone, but will their voices be heard among the louder nationalist and politically expedient discourse?
The other danger is that they'll be swayed by the propaganda starting to circulate, but I can only hope that people start to think of peaceful co-existence. Then again, perhaps a deal needs to be forced from outside for that to happen?
Well, not the best approach, but in lieu of anything different? We've had 15 years of mainly closed peacebuilding and conflict resolution initiatives which achieved... what? Was there any discussion apart from within those closed and usually disengenious initiatives?
In English:
Giorgi Vanyan: Armenia and Azerbaijan needs dialogue - "Communication is not betrayal; it is a natural human need"
http://bit.ly/8wmyS
[...]
In the past 30 days I have seen at least three publications and views in the leading media sources of Azerbaijan on talking to Armenia, compromising for peace and milestones already achieved. These signs can be critiqued and praises. There will always be more than on opinion about them. However, peace loving minds from both sides and the international community should praise and encourage further developments that will lead on comprise and achieve peace between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh.
[...]
http://www.huliq.com/1/84918/azerbaijan-sends-positive-signals-karabakh
You know many things are wonderful in paper but not doable in reality. I think what the humanity needs to do right now is to wake up and understand the situation we are currently in. I think throughout the past and current history we have heard the same words written in various different forms. Peace, democracy, etc..are very attractive words but they mean nothing. They mean nothing because its truth of exsistance is very limited and short-lived or even a fairytale. So we need to wake up, as Palestinians, as Iraqis, as Azerbaijanis, as Americans, as a citizen of this world and know our real position and act accordingly toward a specific goal. In this world you cannot live without power. Power will bring democracy, it will bring peace and it will bring safety.
By the way, the peace treaty of 1979 is named "peace that ended all peace."!!!
Giorgi Vanyan: Everyone wants peace
http://frontlineclub.com/blogs/onnikkrikorian/2009/08/giorgi-vanyan-everyone-wants-peace.html
Post a Comment