Trailblasing in Yerevan: my thoughts from the memorable trip

The AnewZ Opinion section provides a platform for independent voices to share expert perspectives on global and regional issues. The views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not represent the official position of AnewZ

This September, I had a chance to visit Yerevan for the 108th edition of the Rose-Roth seminar, traditionally held by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly since 1990 and intended for post-socialist countries.

Of course, receiving an invitation to participate in an event in Armenia was a huge surprise, despite numerous steps towards normalisation taken in the recent months, the wounds of conflict are still fresh, and the latest full-scale fighting in Karabakh happened a couple of years ago.

The historic Washington Agreement, which signalled the advent of a new reality in the South Caucasus, would be signed later — and, of course, defined the spirit and major messages of the seminar. It is rather symbolic that the first visit of an Azerbaijani political expert to Armenia since the 44-day war was organised within the confines of the NATO event at the time when the United States, NATO’s major power, is taking historic efforts to secure a long-awaited peace between Baku and Yerevan.

We’re now living through a very special phase of our history. Between 1994 and 2020, a number of attempts to push the two countries to peace through the efforts of civil society, activists, people of science and art were made, and for a certain period of time small- and large-group visits, became a rather common thing. These programs had high and low points; they featured both sincere champions of peace as well as many opportunists, such as the notorious "human rights representative" of the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" Ruben Ohanjanyan, who decided to use his visit to Baku as an opportunity to offend Azerbaijanis. And while these visits could have helped some people in Armenia to start thinking over the degree of injustice done to Azerbaijan, their failure to trigger any larger sociopolitical movement in favour of the end of occupation and restoration of a just peace over time served to instill feelings of frustration and disappointment among most Azerbaijanis, and complacency among Armenians; while the latter came to view the occupation of Azerbaijani territories as something constant and natural, the former developed a deep-seated skepticism regarding any chances to secure justice with peaceful means.

In 2025, we have found ourselves in a rather opposite situation. While Baku in 2023 fully restored its sovereignty and launched an ambitious plan of the "Great Return" to the liberated lands, Armenian government eventually recognised Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and accepted Baku’s major conditions regarding the delimitation of the border, the status of communications (enshrined in the Washington memorandum as Trumps’ Road for Peace and Prosperity- TRIPP), and the post-conflict future of the region in general. Both leaders have on a number of occasions emphasised that the conflict is already behind. Moreover, Prime Minister Pashinyan, aware of the risks related to revanchist feelings and opportunist politicians keen to ride on them in order to come to power (après nous- le deluge!), put forward two crucial narratives — 'Real Armenia’ and 'The Fourth Republic' which, should they succeed, can bring Armenia towards a long-term peace and harmonious co-existence with all its neighbours. It is important that the trend for normalisation goes beyond mere statements- recently, Yerevan announced that it would stop adorning its entry stamp with the image of the Mount Ararat (Agridag), in a symbolic move that should persuade Baku and Ankara in its good intentions. And still, despite this unprecedentedly positive dynamics on the governmental level, mutual visits- until September 2025- had virtually stopped.

This is why I felt immense responsibility when going to Yerevan. Compared to 1990’s and 2000’s, the whole generations have formed in Armenia and Azerbaijan who were born already after the conflict broke out, and many of them can hardly imagine an Azerbaijani or an Armenian citizen visiting, and let alone speaking at an event. This reality poses an additional layer of risk- that of dehumanisation out of ignorance, when the absence of contacts becomes self-perpetuating. Any phrase I was to say there was bound to be reported, viewed through a magnifying glass, interpreted and speculated about. My speech was set for a very special panel, that brought together an Armenian and a Turkish speaker along with me to ponder the prospects for peace in the South Caucasus.

The event went remarkably well, though. The tone was set by the organising team from NATO, who emphasised the significance of this panel and expressed hope that it would be a wonderful beginning. Armenian officials who spoke at the opening session of the seminar, including the Chairman of the Security Council Armen Grigoryan, Minister of Defence Suren Papikyan and a few others, were all remarkably positive, in stark contrast to the rhetoric we would hear even a year ago. At some points their messages strongly resembled messages from the Azerbaijani side, emphasising the just and balanced nature of the principles enshrined in the Washington memorandum, the willingness to finally close the long dark chapter of our countries’ history, opening borders, while particularly hailing the role of President Trump’s administration in this breakthrough. The panel was a success, too- all three of us speakers spoke about the historic character of the moment, and stressed the need to harmonise a wider social shift towards reconciliation with the high-level process. We didn’t shy away from raising the difficult issues: the bitter pedigree of the war such as the landmine peril, the fate of thousands of people who went missing in the first war, deep mutual mistrust and hate narratives still lingering on, etc.

Communicating with media felt even more responsible- partly because it is the media who, at the end of the day set the popular agenda and influence minds, partly due to the conflict background which makes the weight of every word incredibly heavy. I must say that the improvised press conference went much more smoothly than I would have expected, and gave the Armenian journalists their due for not trying to provoke or confront me. The questions revealed very clearly on which issues there are widespread concerns in Armenia- the timeframe and sequence of the delimitation process, the status of Armenian prisoners currently being prosecuted in Baku and the possibility of their release, and constitutional changes that Azerbaijan demands. An honest conversation about these issues will not resolve all the differences in an instance, of course, but it can alleviate the biggest fears and boost support for the peace agenda in Armenia.

My two-day stay in Yerevan was not without its difficulties, of course. Security protocol means that it is virtually impossible to move anywhere if it is not overtly envisaged in the programme of the visit. Azerbaijani credit cards, obviously, didn’t work. I’m sure that many more details of this kind would have surfaced, if I had to stay longer. At the same time, Baku and Yerevan, quite paradoxically, have a visa free regime for each other as CIS member states. So, if the governments want to launch a stream of mutual visits by Azerbaijani and Armenian citizens, all the aforementioned technicalities should be carefully thought over. Fulfilling the mammoth task of carefully filtering and controlling potential visitors without going too heavy on security will be crucial. And it would be a grave mistake to miss the opportunities created by the present moment. The first victim of any conflict is nuance, and to restore it after decades of fighting, it is necessary to restore, step by step, more reliable and trustworthy communication. If every dialogue turns into a standoff, it will sooner or later move from words back to the regional chessboard. It is precisely for this reason that radical nationalists in Armenia right now would do everything in their power to prevent such visits from occurring, and in general ban any communication framework which doesn’t consider an Azerbaijani the Enemy, hoping that by shielding the narrative sphere from talking to Azerbaijanis they will be able to preserve the extreme version of nationalism they preach. Refusing to speak to each other will most likely leave us in limbo where malign powers will happily resort to exploiting this conflict for the sake of keeping the South Caucasus weak and vulnerable.  

Copied