The monthly Civilitas Foundation discussion on current topics featured as its guest Thomas de Waal, Caucasus analyst and Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in Washington DC. Mr. de Waal spoke with Salpi Ghazarian, Director of the Civilitas Foundation.

Mr. de Waal had just returned from Baku, and in response to Mrs. Ghazarian’s question about whether the conflict can still be called a frozen conflict, he responded that the Karabakh conflict, unlike for example the Cyprus issue, has never been frozen, is at best dormant. He explained that although neither side will want to start a war, ‘stupid reasons’ too can trigger military clashes, and in a situation that is self-monitored, where the line of contact brings the sides very close together, such ‘accidents’ are considered more likely.

He did indicate that Azerbaijan is more inclined to support the most recent proposal brought by the Minsk Group co-chairs in Sochi.

Mrs. Ghazarian asked how it is possible for the Armenian side, which has said yes to every proposal presented by the mediators over the negotiations period, to now find itself in a situation that a negotiated document has been presented which clearly does not appear to be to the liking of the Armenian side, but acceptable to the Azerbaijani side, especially since in October President Sargsyan insisted that an agreement is not even close. Mr. de Waal explained that the ambiguity built into the document, especially over the issue of Karabakh’s status, has been expanded sufficiently to the satisfaction of the Azerbaijani side. Mrs. Ghazarian asked how such ambiguity which is called ‘constructive ambiguity’ can be constructive if the sides don’t approach the negotiations with reciprocal trust and a willingness to reach a lasting solution? Doesn’t the immediate readiness to manipulate the ambiguity to the benefit of one side mean that such ambiguity becomes destructive and further feeds the mutual distrust?

Mr. de Waal agreed that constructive ambiguity specifically, and a peace deal in general resemble a chair with four legs, and in the case of Karabakh, there are currently only two legs – a negotiations process and a ceasefire. But it lacks the other two legs: civic engagement and confidence-building measures.

Mrs. Ghazarian pointed out that the atmosphere of distrust which is clearly harmful to the peace process is fueled by intolerant and militaristic rhetoric, especially from the Azerbaijani side, where it is reinforced at the highest official levels, and therefore reflects policy. Mr. de Waal pointed out that it is important for everyone to acknowledge the pain of the other, to which the audience responded with skepticism, citing the continuing threatening language of Azerbaijani leaders regarding Armenians of Karabakh and Armenia.

Acknowledging that there seems to be little hope of a resolution soon, Mr. de Waal pointed to a need to engage new participation, particularly from the European Union. Mrs. Ghazarian’s response expressed the general Armenian skepticism about putting one’s security and future in the hands of those who are not well-versed and do not share a sense of urgency and destiny.

The audience included diplomats, students, NGO and political activists and former government officials. The discussion was followed by a lively question – answer session.