My first visit to Nagorno Karabakh in 1994
It is now 31 years since I first travelled from London to the South Caucasus to report on what was then Nagorno-Karabakh. Since that time, I have covered nearly every aspect of the conflict – Azerbaijani prisoners of war and civilian hostages during my first visit to Karabakh in 1994; ethnic Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan struggling to rebuild their lives in Armenia later that same year and again from 1999; and, throughout the 2000s, the ever-present threat of landmines and unexploded ordnance scattered across the seven formerly occupied Azerbaijani regions surrounding Karabakh. Those dangers continue to claim lives even today.
From conversations with Zori Balayan and meeting with Seta Melkonyan in 1994 before interviewing her in 1999, accompanying Tom de Waal as he traveled through Karabakh researching Black Garden in the very early 2000s, and in the here and now, from Benyamin Poghosyan and Mikayel Zolyan last year, I have always found it important to speak to everyone. From former Lebanese Armenian commander Jirair Sefilyan in the late 2000s to the National Democratic Pole’s Vahe Gasparyan last year, and recent refugees from Karabakh when I visited in 2024, and residents of Tavush earlier this year, it is vital that everyone is heard. And all sides.
From Farid Shafiyev to Vasif Huseynov in Azerbaijan, and from Boris Navasardian to Hrant Mikaelyan in Armenia, in this day and age there is not even the need to meet when they can be heard on YouTube. There is also what many others write and publish online. It remains essential, however, to listen to diverse and even opposing views, something the international media, let alone niche market foreign- funded local outlets, choose not to do.
Rank and file citizens, however, remain excluded. Yet, border communities in both counties will increasingly find themselves in close proximity to each other again and the long and difficult process of reconciliation, where direct communication is essential, must finally begin. It was really only individuals such as the late Georgi Vanyan and some others that attempted to bring actual people, including from districts such as Noyemberyan and Qazakh, together. I was fortunate to document some of that work on the ground. Sadly, others in Armenian civil society and allegedly the security services of the countries involved opposed it.
From 2008 onwards, I did at least harness new and social media tools to connect young Armenians and Azerbaijanis online, the only way to do so across the closed border. None of that was sufficient, however. Online, people tend to immerse themselves in echo chambers, something that is clearly evident today. The same is true when it comes to consuming media in general. From 2009 until today, my personal work focused instead on alternative and counter-narratives – including offering positive examples where the two peoples already live together in mixed villages and towns.
Some welcomed this, especially in Azerbaijan, and even including now presidential advisor Hikmet Hajiyev. Sadly, and like Vanyan before me, even 15 years ago in Armenia, where many believed they would remain victorious, such ideas were met with hostility and derision. Accepting it would be tantamount to admitting Karabakh would never be independent or that territory captured in the early 1990s would have to be returned. The reality, however unpalatable to some, is that the political entity’s future was always tied to its gradual integration within Azerbaijan even if only because of geography. Those were activists, of course. The citizenry seemed more realistic.
I remember on one of my many visits to Lachin in the early 2000s that the Armenian family from Yerevan, then eking out a shockingly desperate living in the remnants of what had been the home of an Azerbaijani family just years before, kept an old photograph of its former inhabitants. “They looked like normal people,” the head of the household said sadly. It was a moment of empathy with 650,000 Azerbaijanis forced to flee in the early 1990s that offered some much needed hope for the future.
Further pain has been experienced since, especially in September 2023 with the exodus of 100,000 ethnic Armenians from Karabakh. Nonetheless, and for the first time in recent history, last week’s meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and US President Donald Trump at the White House, offered another glimpse of hope. It felt as if normalising relations could be on the horizon this time. Criticism of Trump’s role in this process is of course valid. The summit did seem more about his own insatiable quest for a Noble Peace Prize than the wellbeing of those that have suffered to date.
Nonetheless, earlier this year residents of Bagratashen, an Armenian village just across the border from its ethnic Azerbaijani counterpart, Sadakhlo, in neighbouring Georgia, told me they believed peace would only come if the American or Russian presidents wanted it. Like it or not, Trump’s involvement could do just that. Assuming, of course, the U.S. remains true to the task at hand and does not seek to erode the primacy of local agency.
There is of course much to critique of both the summit and the declaration, but now is not the time. Criticism is easy before actual details and informed discussion emerge. That has always been the case in this conflict. Today it might be even more so given parliamentary elections scheduled for Armenia next year and the flood of local and foreign misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda that will emerge. Time has never been on the side of an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement.
This is the time to support, not obstruct, such an opportunity. There will be challenges, but those can be addressed if there is genuine political will and open discussion rather than incessant argument. There do remain legitimate concerns to address, but they must be approached constructively and not with the intention of derailing the peace process for personal, ideological, or geopolitical interests or ambitions. Moreover, the opinions of the citizenry must be heard too. They should no longer be excluded, marginalised, or even silenced.
This was the mistake the opposition and some foreign commentators and civil society actors have made over the past three decades. Nobody says it will be easy, but if there is the opportunity to end this conflict then it must be seized. There is little point in opposing peace if there is nothing actual to offer in its stead. Iran’s concerns must somehow be addressed, true, and it would be better for Armenia to maintain healthy relations with Russia, highlighting another important issue. It would be better that geopolitical rivalry doesn’t first tear the region apart. The potential consequences of that are unthinkable.
–
Slightly edited version of my piece published by Commonspace on 14 August available here.
