REACTION TO SURPRISE TRACK II DIPLOMATIC MISSION TO NK

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BAKU 000837 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/CARC; E.O. 12958:N/A TAGS: PREL PBTS PGOV AM RU AJ SUBJECT: REACTION TO SURPRISE TRACK II DIPLOMATIC MISSION TO NK SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED; NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION. ¶1. (U) On June 28, Armenian Ambassador to Russia Armen Smbatian and Azerbaijani Ambassador to Russia Polad Bulbuloglu visited the region of Nagorno Karabakh, accompanied by representatives of the Armenian and Azerbaijani intellectual elite. While there, Smbatian and Bulbuloglu reportedly met with Arkadi Ghukasian, president of the so-called "Nagorno Karabakh Republic." The parties traveled to Khankandi and Shusha before moving on to Yerevan to visit Armenian President Robert Kocharian, and then traveled to Baku in order to visit Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. On Friday, June 29 Bulbuloglu and his colleagues held a press conference in Baku in order to discuss their trip, its purpose and its outcome (septel). ¶2. (SBU) Reaction to the trip was mixed, but generally positive. While the GOAJ initially seemed to distance itself from the trip, GOAJ statements - and President Aliyev's June 29 meeting with the Azerbaijani delegation - indicate that the trip was carried out with GOAJ support and approval. Many analysts and newspapers, however, complain that the GOAJ has not provided enough information on the reasoning behind the Track II mission, and question why, if the government wanted the meetings to be unofficial, an Ambassador was sent as the head of the Azerbaijani delegation on this mission. Azerbaijani Government Reaction -------------- 3 (SBU) News of the surprise June 28 mission firstbroke in Azerbaijan on the evening of June 28. he Foreign Ministry appears to have been caught ff-guard by the Mission. MFA Spokesman Khazar Ibahim told the press on June 28 that "the trip to Krabakh is the personal initiative of the two ambssadors - the former ministers of culture of Azerbaijan and Armenia." Ibrahim explained that a meeting with "representatives of the Nagorno Karabakh community" took place in Khankandi. He emphasized that those meetings "cannot be viewed as recognition of Karabakh as a party to the conflict since it happened at the personal initiatives of the ambassadors." Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor Novruz Mammadov later told the press on June 28 that "without the consent of the (Azerbaijani) leadership, the trip would not have taken place." He cautioned that the trip did not indicate a change in Azerbaijan's policy toward NK: "Still, Azerbaijan has not changed its position on the possible integration of (Nagorno Karabakh) into the negotiation process." Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov told the press on July 2 that "within the context of the Minsk Group negotiations, there are opportunities for the participation of community representatives - both of the Armenian and Azerbaijani communities of Nagorno Karabakh." He said that "once the question of occupation is decided, opportunities for negotiations between communities and their representatives and the government Azerbaijan will probably be created." Initial Public Reaction Critical -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Although most analysts and political leaders initially greeted news of the surprise Track II mission with concern and questions, reaction warmed over the weekend, as the public digested the details from Bulbuloglu's press conference. Not surprisingly, Karabakh Liberation Organization leader Akif Nagi condemned Bulbuloglu's visit to Karabakh as "a disgrace and dishonour," and called for the resignation of Ambassador Bulbuloglu, according to Azerbaijani news agency Turan. Nagi demanded that Bulbuloglu and the parties provide additional information regarding the trip and who they met while on the trip. (Nagi and other KLO members also tried to disrupt Bulbuloglu's press conference, septel.) ¶5. (SBU) Opposition leaders also were initially critical of the Track II mission. Sardar Jalaloglu, acting chair of the Azerbaijan Democratic Party, emphasized the risk involved in Bulbuloglu's trip. Jalaloglu said that the Ambassador was not authorized to speak on behalf of the state, and considers it "dangerous" to present Nagorno Karabakh as a party to the conflict. Still, Jalaloglu noted that because he considers the citizens of Nagorno Karabakh to be Azerbaijan's citizens, it is therefore "not reasonable" to give a political opinion of the visit. Isa Gambar, chairman of opposition party Musavat, said that "there is a definite need for more information from (official) Baku about this trip." Gambar reportedly expressed great surprise upon hearing about the trip. ¶6. (SBU) Nizami Bahmanov, leader of the Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh in exile, was far more welcoming of the mission, telling the press that "every citizen of Shusha, every citizen of Azerbaijan who is temporarily displaced sooner or later should return to his or her land." Moreover, Bahmanov stated his belief that the visit would prove critical to developing an environment of BAKU 00000837 002 OF 003 mutual trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and expressed hope that the trip will prove Azerbaijan's commitment to peaceful negotiation. But Opinion Warms as More Details Emerge -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Following Bulbuloglu's June 29 press conference, public opinion of the Track II initiative slowly warmed. Anar Mammadkhanov, an MP, said that "I view this visit - as well as the meetings with the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents - as a positive step. Lately, the non-constructive stance of the Armenian leadership has increased the chances that war will break out. But if there is even the smallest chance that we can settle this conflict in a peaceful way, we must seize it. Azerbaijan has once again demonstrated its good will and commitment not only in words, but also in actions." ¶8. (SBU) Rasim Musabayov, an independent political analyst, said that "in my mind, this is all about preparing nations for a compromise. Even though the mission was supposedly 'unofficial,' the delegates are people with public positions. Given the level of the meetings, this clearly had to have been blessed by (the respective governments)." He also emphasized that the delegates were themselves mostly Shusha natives, a fact which, to him, drove home the damaging nature of the division between Karabakh and Azerbaijan. "The main purpose of this trip was to convince Karabakh Armenians that we need to live together," he said. "There is a need to find solutions. These meetings don't harm anyone - and eventually, they may bring about positive results." ¶9. (SBU) Eldar Namazov, an independent political analyst (who also has been involved in Track II initiatives),sought more details on the GOAJ's role. He said that "I have no doubt as to the patriotism of either Polad (Bulbuloglu) or Farhad (Badalbayli),and I am sure that this type of visit was not exclusively conceived of and supported by these men. This was a political initiative that was implemented with the support of the government of Azerbaijan - as a result, the administration should explain the trip's purpose." ¶10. (SBU) The Azerbaijan National Independence Party (ANIP) issued a statement on the recent visit to the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, stating that "ANIP seriously condemns the defeated policy of the administration and the visit to the country-aggressor and occupied territories. It is treated as disrespect to the people of Azerbaijan. This visit demonstrated that the promises given by the administration on settlement of the conflict were not sincere. It serves the goals of the other side. The solution is only possible through military operation and in accordance with the international law provisions Azerbaijani government should use its right to liberate the occupied territories." Coverage of the Trip in Newspapers and Media Sources -------------- -------------- ¶11. (U) The independent and pro-opposition media in Azerbaijan presented mixed but largely positive reactions to the visit. In general, the coverage of the trip on pro-government television and in official newspapers was straightforward, and carried no comment. One 525-ci GAZET article quoted Bulbuloglu as saying that while an older generation that still remembers its neighbors still lives, we should look for ways to communicate and to build bridges. ¶12. (U) On June 29 the independent ZERKALO newspaper carried a front-page article ridiculing the MFA's shrugging the visit off as the Ambassadors' personal initiative. "Ambassadors are personal representatives of Presidents and the initiative must have been sanctioned at the highest level," wrote ZERKALO on June 29. "No, we do not call for Bulbuloglu to be punished. If you are not at war, then you should conduct dialogue at all levels. But one should at least tell the public the truth - including the reasons behind such missions - instead of ascribing them to the personal initiatives of Ambassadors", concluded ZERKALO. ¶13. (U) "The Cursed" headlines a column in the pro-opposition BIZIM YOL newspaper. "I wonder what they talked about with Gukasyan? Did they mind that the emblem and the flag above their heads symbolizes separatism from Azerbaijan? Did Bulbuloglu mind that Gukasyan was the very person who gave the command to destroy his father's bust in Shusha? What nationality do these three people belong to?" wrote a columnist in the pro-opposition AZADLIQ newspaper. ¶14. (U) Another pro-opposition newspaper, YENI MUSAVAT, characterized the visit as an example of "the government starting a dialogue with separatists." The newspaper questioned the purpose BAKU 00000837 003 OF 003 behind the mission launched "apparently under the Kremlin's initiative". Despite what Bulbuluglu says about his own reasons and purposes, he is Azerbaijan's Ambassador to Russia. And as such, his visit to occupied Khankendi can be regarded as nothing more than groveling before the separatists", concluded YENI MUSAVAT. ¶15. (U) Asked by APA news agency about the U.S. position and whether the Minsk Group had a direct role in organizing the visit, Embassy PAO responded that although the Co-Chairs had not organized the visit, the U.S. fully supports such people-to-people exchanges. The PAO continued by noting that such contacts lower tensions and contribute to efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. These remarks were widely reported by the Azerbaijani print and broadcast media. ¶16. (SBU) Comment: Given the heated public criticism that has accompanied other Track II diplomatic missions in the past, reaction to Ambassador Bulbuloglu's initiative has been surprisingly positive. The GOAJ's implicit endorsement of this initiative - as conveyed by President Aliyev's meeting with the Azerbaijani delegation - certainly played a key role in toning down rhetoric in the pro-government and independent press. While we view this Track II initiative as a positive and much-needed step in helping to prepare a climate of peace, the somewhat fumbled roll-out of this initiative indicates that much work still needs to be done to lay the groundwork for sustainable tolerance-building activities. DERSE