News - Yerevan-Baku mutual visits: how they were discussed in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Cross-visits by representatives of Azerbaijan and Armenia's civil society were among the topics discussed most intensively in the media in Yerevan and in Baku. Civil visit to Baku: an opportunity for dialogue, or a new source of internal political disagreement Within the framework of the initiative named "Bridge of Peace," on November 21–22 a group of Armenian civil society representatives was in Baku. The group included Areg Kocharian, president of the Center for Security Policy Research; Naira Sultanian, executive director of the Democracy Development Foundation; political scientist Narek Minasyan; Boris Navassardyan, president of the Yerevan Press Club; and historian Samvel Meliksetyan. In Baku they met Azerbaijani colleagues Farhad Mamedov, Rusif Huseynov, Kamala Mamedova, Ramil Iskanderli, and Fuad Abdulllayev. During the visit, the initiative’s members met with Hekmet Hajiyev, the president’s aide and head of the foreign policy department of the president’s administration. Immediately after returning, the visiting figures held a press conference to share their impressions, saying they felt safe, and had visited sights and museums. Areg Kocharian immediately stated that the visits would be ongoing — in different formats and in both countries. At the press conference he conveyed Hajiyev’s messages: the war is over, there is no longer a war for Azerbaijan, they want to move toward peace, and moreover they want to build long-term peace with Armenia, and finally Azerbaijan has no territorial claims against Armenia. "Hajiyev is more than an aide to Ilham Aliyev. He is a very serious man, and he participates in essentially all negotiations and is the main person with whom the president consults" — these messages were paraphrased by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s chief adviser Žirair Liparyan on Public Television. While civil society representatives view the visit as an important, small step toward dialogue and mutual trust, Armenian opposition political and expert circles are more critical, viewing the visit as a process serving Azerbaijan’s political agenda. The question of the return of Armenians detained in Baku Within the political field, representatives of civil society visiting Baku were among the most vocal critics from the Armenian side: representatives of the Dashnaktsutyun party (Hay Dat), or the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF-D). Arthur Khachatryan, a member of parliament from the opposition and from the ARF-D, reacted to the Armenian civil society delegation’s visit to Azerbaijan with irony: "Obviously those five will not demand the release of Armenian prisoners, they will not touch on the right of residents of Artsakh to return, they will not speak about the peoples’ right to self-determination, and I do not think they will demand the removal of Azerbaijani occupying forces from Armenia and the lifting of the blockade... So what will they discuss — how to love each other and Nikol Pashinyan?". His party colleague, Kristine Vardanyan, noted on Factor TV that the issue is not the visit or the talks themselves, but the agenda and outcomes. "Overall, I have no problem with the visit to Baku, with the talks, or with reciprocal visits. I have a problem with the agenda of these visits... I ask: were those people aware that we have prisoners in Baku? Do they know such a thing exists? If there is an opportunity, go to Baku to visit Armenian soldiers who are prisoners there. Because we have no information about their condition," Vardanyan said. It turned out that civil society representatives raised the topic of Armenian prisoners in Baku during their meeting with Hajiyev. "No restrictions were placed on us regarding raising the prisoners’ issue. We tried to phrase our words diplomatically and to justify them delicately so that, as a result, trust would develop between the parties. As a result, we hope these problems will be resolved quickly," Naira Sultanian said at the same press conference. According to her, Hajiyev assured that active negotiations on this matter are underway. EMA president Boris Navassardyan specified that for them visiting Armenian prisoners in Baku was not a priority; rather, what mattered more was their return, which may receive a certain solution. "That issue is being discussed and may receive a definite solution, but what the solution will be, we will probably see in the near future," he added. Independence of civil society In the discussions around the visit, the most frequently raised question concerns the independence of civil society. Critics argue that Armenian representatives who went to Baku cannot act as independent civil actors. On the other side, doubts are raised about the independence of Azerbaijan’s civil society, given that, in Azerbaijan, independent civil society practically does not exist in political science terms; NGOs operate under tight government control, and opposition initiatives are suppressed. "Aliyev and his accomplices’ all the efforts to this end have failed. It should be noted that the Azerbaijani side only held open meetings with its influence agents; these have no relation to the Armenian people or Armenian civil society," according to Iskhan Saghatelyan, a deputy representing the ARF. Haik Mamikonyan? from the "Way Up" faction in the Armenian parliament took a sharp line: "In general, what does it mean to talk about civil society representatives? They are people paid to praise Pashinyan. And in Azerbaijan the concept of civil society is basically nonsensical from a political science point of view. There cannot be civil society in Azerbaijan. Therefore I will not comment on this meeting at all." He even joked that the only practical outcome would be to eat black caviar in Baku. Yet the participants of the process and a number of other experts repudiated this assessment, stressing that Armenia’s civil society is multi-layered, holds diverse positions, and does not represent governmental or opposition lines. They say such initiatives demonstrate civil society’s strength and independence, and that these formats can fill diplomatic gaps and create direct links between societies. Areg Kocharian responded sharply to these criticisms: "Whoever is against Armenian–Azerbaijani or Armenian–Turkish settlement is either a foreign agent, a scoundrel, or a politically naive fool who does not understand what he is talking about." In his view, politicians are embittered, afraid, and insecure and behave accordingly for their political interests. "They ask — how can we go to Baku when the blood of Armenian soldiers has been shed there, or when there are prisoners there?" historian Samvel Meliksetyan raises the question and immediately answers: "That is precisely why we must go, so that more blood will not be shed. I am confident we can achieve peace; if I were not confident, I would not go." The historian compares post-Soviet era conflicts and stresses that in no conflict has there been such a total dividing, border closures, lack of diplomatic ties, or aggressive approaches to contact. "It is not normal that visits, contacts, and interactions are treated as betrayal or sabotage. Not at all. Even in wartime you must negotiate. I am honest about my beliefs, and I am confident that Armenian–Azerbaijani peace is possible." Thus, the "Bridge of Peace" has become a barrier in Armenia’s political and civil life. The heated debate over cross-border exchanges shows that Armenian–Azerbaijani dialogue remains a sensitive issue. Hasmik Hmbardzumyan "Bridge of Peace": The Armenian and Azerbaijani direct dialogue perspectives Since the Washington declaration was signed on August 8 this year by the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the United States, a number of follow-up steps were taken aimed at normalizing the relations between the two countries. The most notable among them were civil society cross-visits. A key feature of these meetings was that they were organized exclusively by the sides themselves, without mediators. The first such meeting took place in Yerevan on October 21–22. When the Azerbaijan Airlines aircraft landed at Zvartnots Airport, many media outlets and experts announced that this was AZAL’s first landing in Yerevan in 30 years, although a number of analysts soon reminded that direct flights had occurred in 2006 and 2011. Azerbaijani media described the visit to Armenia as a "historic step." An analytical piece by Report noted that meetings without mediators advance the peace agenda. "An important factor is that civil society representatives meet and speak without mediators, with only their governments’ support. Independently organized meetings create additional responsibility for the peace process’s sides." Discussions touched on possible directions for the Armenian–Azerbaijani peace process, humanitarian issues, economic and logistical prospects under normalization, and steps to strengthen trust. Attention was paid to developing joint action programs and future cooperation prospects. The delegation also met with Armenia’s Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan. He said: "I highly appreciated such meetings as part of the process of normalizing Armenian–Azerbaijani relations because they aim to establish positive exchanges among people. Involving different layers of society in this work will only contribute to strengthening peace." After leaving Yerevan, political analyst Farhad Mamedov, speaking on ITV Public Channel, said such meetings are of great importance for pushing the peace agenda forward. He shared his impressions and noted that the Armenian participants supported the process of peace establishment and normalization, and that whether society fully backs it will become known after the 2026 parliamentary elections. Rusif Huseynov of the Topchubashov Center said in a YouTube interview that the Armenian public did not unanimously accept the visit. He explained that this is linked to Armenia’s internal political processes. He stressed that perceptions of reality are often distorted by media coverage and expressed confidence that as the number of such trips increases, public attitudes will become more positive. The Azerbaijani delegation also participated in cultural events and excursions. Huseynov noted that at the Yerevan Museum they visited, both the leadership and the museum staff greeted them very politely. One month later, on November 21–22, five Armenian civil society representatives arrived in Baku. One of them, journalist Boris Navassardyan, had last visited Baku in 2011; the other four were visiting for the first time. According to Azerbaijani media, the meeting of experts lasted about eight hours. As a result, both sides announced that the initiative had been given the name "Bridge of Peace." Ramíl Iskanderli, chairman of the Management Council of Azerbaijan’s NGOs National Forum, stated that an agreement had been reached to intensify joint work in the field of media, broaden direct contacts among experts, and involve civil society more broadly in the peace process. Hikmet Hajiyev, the president’s aide, also met with the delegations and answered their questions. An excursion of Baku was organized for them, including the Heydar Aliyev Center, the Botanical Garden, Shirvanshakh’s Palace, the Maiden Tower (Gyz Galasy), and Ichari Shahar (Old City). At the Saint Gregory the Illuminator Armenian Church, which now functions as a library, visitors were told about 5,000 Armenian books in the collection. Armenian experts gave interviews to Azerbaijani media. Political scientist Samvel Meliksetyan told CBC after walking around the city about his impressions. He emphasized that there are more similarities between the two peoples than many think and that these similarities should form the basis for mutual understanding rather than exclusion. Meliksetyan also recounted conversing in Armenian with an Azerbaijani who years ago had to emigrate from Armenia. He noted that the fact that in the past it was impossible to prevent the mutual suffering is a tragedy; "This is the greatest tragedy for our peoples — we could not control our emotions. At that time Azerbaijanis in Armenia were also carriers of Armenian culture, just as Armenians living in Azerbaijan were part of Azerbaijani culture." Another member of the Armenian delegation visiting Baku, Boris Navassardyan, told CBC in an interview that it is important to organize joint forums with professionals from various fields. He noted that previously such initiatives mostly came from third countries or international organizations; now there is a real opportunity to implement direct bilateral initiatives. "This does not mean we won’t invite partners from other countries, but the agenda and the topics for discussion should be determined by Armenian and Azerbaijani civil society representatives." Navassardyan also stressed the importance of engaging a broader cross-section of the population, from residents of border areas to business representatives, in the peace process, since such contacts can form a basis for rebuilding trust. "I think that such normal, living contact with the people we meet in cafes, restaurants, museums, the botanical garden, and with Baku residents — is a sign that we have good prospects," he added. In an ITV interview, Farkhad Mamedov from the Azerbaijani side stated that the Armenian delegation also raised the issue of the release of those individuals in whose cases criminal proceedings are ongoing in Baku for war crimes. This topic was also discussed in the meeting with Hajiyev. In Armenia, such a step is viewed as important for reinforcing trust in the peace agenda. In response, Hajiyev stated that Azerbaijan has a clear and unequivocal position on this issue. Through the participants from Yerevan, he conveyed to Armenian society that for Azerbaijan the war has ended and the conflict is over. Despite positive assessments in Azerbaijani media, skepticism remains on social networks about whether cross-visits by civil society representatives can yield the desired results. The uncertainty is further conditioned by Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections. Given that the Armenian opposition is against the peace process with Azerbaijan, many believe that if Nikol Pashinyan’s party loses or loses its parliamentary majority, the dialogue could be interrupted. The Bridge of Peace initiative aims to prepare the two societies for the most sustainable peace in the shortest possible time. The sides have announced their intention to expand the roster of the Bridge of Peace participants and to involve people from different layers of society in the dialogue. Although for many years such meetings were held in various countries without broad public visibility, today their open coverage in the media makes the process more transparent and imposes additional responsibility on the sides. At the same time, Azerbaijan believes that the durability of the dialogue largely depends on internal political processes in Armenia and their outcomes. Press Klub.az The material was prepared with the financial support of the European Union. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the author and should not be construed as reflecting the views of the European Union.