Interview with Lyudmila Harutyunan, PhD, director of Yerevan State University’s Regional Center for Integration and Conflict Resolution.

What position does the Karabakh conflict occupy in respect to its impact on Armenia, the Armenian nation, and society?

The Nagorno Karabakh problem has had various stages of development, and it is very important to distinguish the state, the society, the nation, and the individuals – the Armenians- at each stage. The impact of the Karabakh conflict was on the nation during the first stage. The conflict didn't influence society in any way because society was within the USSR and its structure couldn't be changed. The role of the Nagorno Karabakh problem was very significant from the standpoint of the state system. The Karabakh problem forced the state to think about the challenges that it faced; the nation also faced the challenges.

We should not forget that the 20 th century was very important in the history and future of the Armenian people. The 20 th century started with the humiliation of our nation. Indeed, I consider the Armenian Genocide of 1915 the humiliation of a nation. As a person who carries the memory of the Genocide, I perceive it as a denial by the Ottoman Empire of the right of Armenians to live in Western Armenia. The Nagorno Karabakh problem came forth to reject that denial. The Armenian nation became consolidated when it faced the denial of its rights once again at the end of 20 th century.

Unfortunately, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict has not been resolved, and the nation has arrived in a situation of “neither war nor peace”. Being in this situation complicated the process of the democratization of society, and society suffered considerably, as it was impossible to build up a state system and a society simultaneously. Society suffered in the process of building up the state system. I addressed the people gathered at Freedom Square in 1991 with the words, “My victorious and defeated people.” The greatest tragedy of the incompleteness of Karabakh conflict was that Armenians gave everything that was required—blood, lives, victims, relatives, and won the war, but they didn't get what they expected in return.

The people finished the Karabakh conflict in the trenches and then handed it over to the authorities at the time, who began negotiations. It is my view that our leaders have yet to appropriately evaluate what victory means to our people. It was not by chance that after the Tatars, the Armenian people gave the largest number of heroes to the Great Patriotic War (World War II). The Great Patriotic War was the first chance for Armenians to achieve victory after the Genocide. The trench stage of the Karabakh conflict was the second chance. Once this victory was achieved, the Armenians wanted their victory to be recognized by the world and its leaders first, and then to be accepted by Azerbaijan. That didn't happen. The information blockade began and it was prohibited to say anything negative about Azerbaijanis.

Once the Karabakh conflict was over in the trenches, we wrapped it up very quickly, ran to the negotiating table, and said: ”We won, so recognize our victory.” But our victory was not recognized and the spirit of our people was broken. The Armenians won and took back what had previously been taken away from them. But each time they were told that it was not theirs; nor did anyone remember that there had been a war and bloodshed, that there were victims. The historical link has been interrupted in the Karabakh problem. After any war the sides face serious moral problems, if the problem is not in their own hands. Modern-day wars have one very interesting feature: people fight and die, and then foreigners come and impose the resolution. The warring sides are removed from the solution of the problem, which considerably disheartens society. You are told continuously that you have no influence on the outcome of the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. We did nothing and just waited for what would be decided on the banks of Seine River or somewhere else both during the Armenian Genocide in 1915 and during the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh problem.

What have been the economic, human, and other losses and gains of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

The human losses have been very great. The economic losses also are evident: unemployment, low salaries, the blockade, exclusion from regional projects, etc. However I consider it a greater loss that our political-geographical coordinates have nor been determined yet. We knew where we lived and what we were until 1991. The entire region is not organized today. The Nagorno Karabakh conflict has numerous coordinates. It is a regional problem. The state of “neither war, nor peace” has destroyed people's sense of safety. The parties to the negotiation of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict speak of different things and don't understand each other today. One side talks about safety and the other about occupation. The polarization of society, by which some people gave up their lives on the battlefields and the others get rich, should also be mentioned among the losses. Of course there were some gains as well: the establishment of the state system and the army, the unification of the nation. The greatest achievement in my opinion is that Armenians declared for the first time that they were free, they were nor victims anymore. I think Azerbaijan also gain something as a result of the Karabakh war. It was the Karabakh conflict that helped Azerbaijanis to consolidate. Azerbaijanis began to think about why they had lost. Just the fact that Azerbaijanis began to think about establishing a Diaspora and to talk about refugees was also a positive achievement for them.

What is the relation of the societies of our countries towards the established status quo? Whose side is time on in the Karabakh conflict?

The status quo in the history of Karabakh has been in place since the beginning of the 19 th century, and it has been breached many times. Karabakh has had temporary statuses and no quos. Therefore there was not a problem of Karabakh recognition. Who did they ask, what organization did they apply to, when the Caucasian Bureau took Karabakh and gave it to Azerbaijan? So why do we think that we should apply to someone for the recognition of Karabakh's status today? The elements that comprise the status quo is another important issue. I think there is a status quo between the two sides in respect to forces and, to some extent, to territories as well. The status quo also refers to arms, and finally, the resolution of the problem has been taken from the parties and transferred to international organizations. Nagorno Karabakh had a status and no quo before the Karabakh conflict. We have a quo and no status today. In general, the status is determined by the people, and the people of Nagorno Karabakh determined their status through a referendum in 1991.

Today Armenians say, “Let other nations also recognize the status of Nagorno Karabakh.” I think the condition of neither peace nor war does not permit any discussion of the status quo. One should consider whether Karabakh is viable, has a future and the potential to keep its people, and what should be done to enable Karabakh to become the bearer of its status. Karabakh has found the proper solution. Karabakh sees that Azerbaijan puts forward oil against the status quo, so it puts forward the democracy. Democracy and oil are weighted against each other in this case, and are equivalent in my opinion.

Today Bush says he entered Iraq for democracy and not for oil. Karabakh well understands the requirements of international organizations and speaks their language, unlike Armenia and Azerbaijan. Karabakh can appeal to international organizations at any time saying, “What do you want, democracy? Well, I am building a democracy.” Today Karabakh is opening the way for dialogue. In regard to the question of whose side time is on, I would like to say that I consider it demagogical. Time highlights mistakes and the logic of time is the following: make no mistakes and go forward, and time will spare you.

What predominates in the perceptions that the Azerbaijani and Armenian societies have of each other societies —myths, prejudices, or judgments based on reality? Do Azerbaijanis and Armenians know each other?

I don't think Armenians and Azerbaijanis know each other. Currently Armenians have a more positive attitude towards Azerbaijanis than Azerbaijanis towards Armenians. That is because of the information campaign that created the image of the enemy that was carried out at the state level in Azerbaijan. I think that irrespective of the current situation, Armenians and Azerbaijanis do have the wisdom to understand each other historically. Each time during my regional meetings I discover that I understand my Azerbaijani colleges better than Georgians. The two nations actually are in confusion in the hands of Karabakh war.

Today what is important is not that the Armenians have won, or the Azerbaijanis have lost, but that they still have enough wisdom to admit that they all are winners. Today Azerbaijanis and Armenians have serious problems understanding the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Armenia is of the opinion that it would endanger the fate of the people of Karabakh and leave them vulnerable if it ever stopped protecting Karabakh. But we must understand that the child, Karabakh, has already grown up. Azerbaijani society also has problems: the burdens of having lost prevent an appropriate assessment of the situation.

I asked one of my friends who lives in Karabakh to collect and write down jokes about the war. The most interesting joke was about a boy. The boy was on his way to school when a GRAD artillery cannon went off. The boy turned around and said, “I don't understand! Are you going to keep firing for ten years? What, should I not go to school?” My Azerbaijani colleague didn't understand this joke when I told it him because his wounds were not healed yet. My wounds are healed, so I can think about the child's education. Azerbaijan's greatest mistake is that it still declares that the war will continue. Maybe that helps to consolidate the nation, but it destroys the fortunes of an entire generation. The war is in the past.

The Karabakh conflict has no function anymore for Armenia or Azerbaijan, or for Karabakh. Today it has a function, say, for the Russians, who are trying to increase their influence in the region, for the Europeans, who are trying to reconcile us, for the Georgians, who are getting rich thanks to us. Furthermore, I consider statements that this war was between the governments and not the people to be a bluff. Ultimately, it was precisely the people of the two countries who were at war against each other and were the victims of propaganda.

War has a strong and powerful logic. War may occur only if the image of the enemy is sufficiently mature and there are no other ways to solve the problem. Peace also has its logic. It comes when a war is over and the potential for war is exhausted. Today the war potential is actually exhausted. The Azerbaijanis are trying to stir it up it artificially, which is devastating for the nation. Generally, the truth may lie in the past, present, or future, but peace is built upon the truth of the future.

Can there be a solution to the Karabakh conflict that will satisfy both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani societies?

Yes. And that solution is the recognition of the right of the people of Karabakh to live in this region. Azerbaijan has to talk with Karabakh. That is the rule of 21 st century civilization. That is precisely the language that Karabakh speaks. Karabakh is more advantageous both for Armenia and Azerbaijan as an independent state than within either of them. The Karabakh conflict isn't a problem between Armenians and Azerbaijanis; it is a problem of the formation of the region.