The "No war, no peace" situation that the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides currently find themselves in can be perceived differently: as an opportunity to reconsider attitudes and bring them closer together, or as a time-out, a lull before the decisive battle. Different meanings are ascribed to the word "battle". There are those who perceive and apply the word in its literal sense; there are others who believe that war is a chain reaction, a ground for taking revenge and, consequently, not a way out of the existing situation. It is an accepted belief that talk of the resumption of the war is just propaganda aimed first and foremost at the opposite side and the international community, and that the step between the watershed and the war will not be taken. If asked: 'What do the societies want, war or peace?' one's first response would be peace. For peace is the natural state of a contemporary human being. As a matter of fact, surveys we have carried out over the last two years among representatives of various strata of society in Armenia and Azerbaijan confirm this. People cannot easily accept the real possibility of the resumption of military operations; they don't want war, because they have already gone through it. Ordinary people in Azerbaijan say that they don't want war, but they do want to change the existing state of affairs. In Armenia people speak about the war "just in case"-in case they are compelled to accept the war as an inevitable reality.

Although the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies seem to know everything about each other, they portray one another not the way they are but the way they need them to be. When there is no signed peace agreement, hatred is yet another formidable obstacle that can surely be termed a syndrome of societies in the "no war, no peace" situation. This syndrome has affected not only the segments of the population that participated in all the stages of the war but also the generations that grew up under war conditions, that have gotten to know the opposite side through the available information, that perceive specific people within the framework of stereotypes prevalent within their societies.

Here are just a few statistics from our surveys:

Only 38 out of 1,000 citizens of Armenia and 15 people out of the same number of respondents in Azerbaijan had difficulty in mentioning three features characteristic of the opposite side. All others pointed to emphatically negative traits. Moreover, such views were held not only by those who have had the opportunity to associate with "real Armenians" or "real Azerbaijanis" in their lifetime (people of middle age and older) but also by young people between the ages of 16 and 25. The respondents receive information about the rival side and about other people in general mostly from the mass media of their own country, from the Russian media, and from the Internet. There are, certainly, people among the respondents in both countries who get such information through interpersonal contacts (from conversations with their acquaintances, from gossip, and so on) but they make up only 10 out of 2,000.

However, there are other statistics as well that testify that the attitude toward the forces, the organizations, and the people who don't treat the opposite side with animosity is not as it is portrayed. Judging from the mass media material available to Armenian and Azerbaijani readers, one may conclude that contacts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis are accepted with either forced smiles or overt agitation. But our studies show that the attitude toward groups that don't treat the opposite side with enmity should not be considered unambiguously negative. Those who brand such people as spies or traitors or with other similar labels are few among all respondents in both countries.

There are differing views about collaboration between the two states, various segments of the society, and between ordinary citizens. From one point of view such collaboration is impossible and unnecessary unless the Karabakh conflict is settled, since the present contacts between the societies occur exclusively at the initiative of and with financing from international organizations. Therefore, until the settlement, they - the sides - don't need contacts. From another point of view, irrespective of the present situation and developments in the negotiating process, contacts between representatives of the two peoples are necessary and information exchange is extremely important. Supporters of this viewpoint, including myself, know that in this information world, achieving an information vacuum, and moreover - preserving it, is simply impossible. The vacuum is immediately filled with second-hand information, often having nothing to do with reality, and more importantly, not even serving the interests of either party.

In the period of time since the ceasefire on the battlefront, numerous combined efforts have been exerted to make contacts between Armenians and Azerbaijanis possible irrespective of how they have been perceived "over there and at home" and of what the people who are working together have gained as a result of such contacts. It is mainly journalists, journalistic organizations, political scientists, and analysts that have been in contact and cooperated with each other. It is another accepted belief that all discussions and talks in the post-war period have exhausted themselves and cannot render anything new. This view, by the way, is shared by some journalists in both countries, who believe that they will gain nothing new from conversations with representatives of the opposing side (as a rule, politicians, public figures, and experts). Not only because the circle of people participating in live and distant discussions is, in effect, unchanging, but also because under the conditions of an information war the cohesion of public opinion is the pledge to win this war.

The diplomatic struggle between official circles at all levels is taking place against the background of the information war. The societies, on the whole, get information that arises from the completely disconnected "national interests" of the two sides, or as a result of the information "volleyball" according to the following formula: "They said it, we refuted what they said, and they refuted our refutation." Of course, one cannot contend that first-hand information might abruptly promote rapprochement or substitute for the process of settlement. But clearly, few people would deny that the realities of the Armenian-Azerbaijani relationship are notably broader than the awareness of the societies at large and that the views on overcoming the contradictions within the societies are more diverse than what is presented to the outside world.

Hence, we are undertaking to organize a distance dialogue between the very diverse sections of the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies, between people of various occupations, including those people that never associated with and have little knowledge of each other. The views and judgments regarding the outside world and the present state of affairs within the two societies to be expressed in interviews and analytical articles will strengthen some people's confidence that their conceptions are correct; others, on the contrary, will be prompted to new reflections. This is natural. And I have no illusions in this regard. But I am hopeful that the material to be presented to the readers in both countries will be a step toward satisfying the interest in information about the opposite side, an interest that is sustainable, as various surveys, including those conducted by our Center in 2002-2005, attest.

Region Research Center

This initiative is being realized through the combined efforts of the Region Research Center of the Investigative Journalists of Armenia, and the Institute of Peace and Democracy (Azerbaijan) within the framework of the project "Overcoming Stereotypes and Developing a Common Information Space in the Trans-Caucasus" and with the support of Conciliation Resources.