Even though many believed a second Trump presidency was unlikely or even impossible, his re-election last November demonstrated how many people prefer to favour dreams over reality, transforming fears into self-fulfilling prophecies. This is a situation that can best describe how Track II diplomacy in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has been conducted over time. As a result, there is little to no agreement between the sides, the blatantly obvious is ignored, and meetings become performative at best or simply a continuation of the conflict at worst.
In many cases, participants are not even inclined to work towards solutions but to instead articulate partisan positions that shut down all possibility for real discussion. In the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, any resolution of the three-decades-long conflict thus remains the sole preserve of governments. Instead, what civil society initiatives exist simply regurgitate the same approaches of old even if they hardly succeeded then let alone would fare differently today. Few are willing to think out of the box or even ask the right questions.
[…]
This is perilous and has proven counter-productive in the past. Since the November 2020 ceasefire agreement, both the region and the world have undergone significant changes. The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. highlights this perfectly, underscoring the need for more problem-solving and risk-aware approaches. Track II dialogue should focus on developing a range of short, medium, and long-term recommendations to decision makers taking into account potential challenges and scenarios along the way, allowing adaptability and scalability with that in mind.
Arguably, only this can arguably prevent continued disappointment and its likely consequences. Moreover, a genuine discussion that is public, transparent, and inclusive, including among the populations, must start. It is already late.
The full piece is available here.
