After Azerbaijan and Armenia initialed the text of the peace agreement during the Washington meeting on August 8, efforts towards confidence-building between the two countries accelerated. Following the meeting at the leaders' level, meetings also took place between foreign ministers, deputies, NGOs, and journalists.
However, it is known that trust cannot be limited to being built only among the populations living in both countries. At the same time, trust and confidence must also be established between Azerbaijanis and Armenians living all over the world. Here, the greatest responsibility falls on diaspora organizations. From this perspective, the issue of meetings between diaspora representatives in the next stage seems inevitable.
Elshad Eyvazli, director of “Modern Media Group”, in his statement to Modern.az, first drew attention to the approach demonstrated by the Azerbaijani and Armenian diasporas until now:
“The Azerbaijani diaspora has always based its activities on the principles of civil values, humanism, and mutual respect. Azerbaijanis living in foreign countries have preferred to integrate into societies, abide by laws, and play a useful role in the social life of their host countries. The main line of diaspora activity, alongside the preservation of national identity, has been to stay away from conflict rhetoric. Even during the long years when Armenia kept Azerbaijani lands under occupation, this line did not change. The Azerbaijani diaspora has refrained from emotional reactions, demonstrating patience and restraint. They have tried to express their positions on legal, cultural, and informational platforms.
In contrast, the activities of the Armenian diaspora have been more aggressive and destructive in nature. The ideological foundations of the policy of occupation have always been propagated in foreign countries as well. The falsification of historical facts has been carried out systematically. Attempts to appropriate the cultural heritage belonging to the Azerbaijani people have gained widespread momentum. These attempts were not limited to the academic and information spheres. Behaviors disrupting public order have also been observed in various countries.
Particularly, during the 44-day Patriotic War, this aggression manifested itself openly. Groups unable to accept Armenia's military defeat resorted to physical violence. Attacks against Azerbaijanis did not escape the attention of international media. These events demonstrated the true nature of the Armenian diaspora to the global community. Despite all this, Azerbaijanis abroad maintained their composure and preferred to take a stance within the framework of law.
Today, however, a completely new geopolitical reality has formed. Azerbaijan is a victorious state and has restored its territorial integrity. This fact also affects the psychological and political position of the diaspora. Azerbaijanis living in various countries around the world feel a sense of pride. They are no longer in a defensive position. They act as representatives of a state that has achieved results.”
E. Eyvazli emphasized that in such circumstances, the possibility of contacts with Armenians on various platforms seems natural:
“If heads of state, foreign ministers, economic bodies, NGO and media representatives, and deputies are conducting dialogue, there should also be communication at the diaspora level. Naturally, these meetings do not mean erasing the past. Historical memory is preserved, but the future demands a more rational approach.
Therefore, I am not against holding meetings between Azerbaijani and Armenian diaspora representatives in various countries. However, I would like to emphasize once again that we must never forget the past. We should even strive to make the Armenian diaspora condemn Armenia's policy of occupation, its actions against humanity, and its propensity for committing genocides. Our media should also work in this direction.”
Azer Allahveranov, a deputy of the Milli Majlis, noted that at first glance, it can be assumed that contacts between diasporas could add color to the establishment, intensification, and development of relations between different segments of societies:
“The ideas expressed by President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Abu Dhabi necessitate the establishment and development of relations between various segments of society. The statements made by the leaders of the two countries regarding the normalization of relations are a call to mobilize efforts for the formation of a sufficiently positive environment. Naturally, Mr. Ilham Aliyev's remarks on intensifying relations between civil society institutions, as well as his thoughts on confidence-building, which he particularly emphasized in previous interviews and speeches, necessitate the implementation of certain works towards establishing, intensifying, and developing relations between different segments of the societies of both countries. From this perspective, at first glance, it can be assumed that contacts between diaspora organizations can also add color to this process. But there is a very sensitive point here. The English have a saying: "do no harm." Currently, the peace-building process between the two states is quite fragile. There are many sensitive points here that all need to be taken into account. In particular, such contacts are not unequivocally welcomed in Armenian society. There are still forces within society with a certain revanchist mood, who are used through various channels to exert pressure and influence against Armenia's political leadership. They even accuse Nikol Pashinyan of treason over such issues. This indicates that there is a need to take these steps with some consideration for possible negative outcomes. The diaspora is also one of those sensitive points. For a long time, Armenian diaspora organizations have been a kind of patrons of Armenia's policy of occupation against Azerbaijan, implementing the policy of occupation effectively. Even today, Armenian diaspora organizations operating in various countries do not have an unequivocal stance regarding Armenia. Armenian diaspora organizations mostly exhibit an approach that fosters enmity with Azerbaijan and encourages aggressive actions against neighboring states, and they try to confront Nikol Pashinyan with the harshest stance. It is true that the Armenian Prime Minister tries to avoid possible blows. The Prime Minister met with Armenian diaspora organizations while in France and Abu Dhabi. At the very least, he discusses the state's specific interest and work in the peace-building process with Azerbaijan. But still, these forces do not retreat one step from their goals. In particular, by basing their activities on utopian ideas such as "Great Armenia, from sea to sea," which constitute the main essence of Armenia's ideological line, they also try to drag Armenia into another political abyss.”
A. Allahveranov stated that from this perspective, if the diaspora's participation in the confidence-building process is possible with noble intentions, it can influence the overall process:
“But this cannot be said about Armenian diasporas in most countries. Therefore, I believe that when discussing the establishment of relations with diaspora organizations operating in certain countries and the holding of those meetings, it is absolutely essential to achieve very serious successes in the direction of normalizing relations between the two states. Only after this can those successes be projected onto other areas in the next stage. In particular, by transforming these successes into relations between the societies of the two countries and, by expanding the geography somewhat, between diaspora organizations operating in various countries, it is possible to positively influence the overall process. For this, diaspora organizations operating abroad, in addition to building their activities in unison and parallel with Armenia's political leadership, must organize their activities in accordance with the strategic course defined by Armenia regarding peace-building. In such a case, meetings between diasporas may be possible. However, the path leading to this is still very long. I believe that until then, efforts should be made to take the next very important steps towards normalizing relations between the two states and achieving joint successes.”
