By AZE.US
Armenian and Azerbaijani participants in the “Bridge of Peace” initiative have offered differing assessments of the public controversy that followed a foreign diplomatic visit to Karabakh. The Azerbaijani group condemned attacks on diplomats and called for cultural heritage disputes to be addressed through professional dialogue.
Armenian participant Boris Navasardyan described the episode as a serious test for the initiative. There has been no announcement that the project has ended or formally split.
Navasardyan, honorary president of the Yerevan Press Club and a member of the initiative’s Armenian group, discussed the disagreements during CivilNet’s weekly review program.
Members of the diplomatic corps accredited to Azerbaijan visited the Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur economic regions on Sept. 11-12. Azerbaijani presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev accompanied the delegation.
The way the history and cultural heritage of the Gandzasar monastery was presented during the visit became a particular source of controversy in Armenia.
The Armenian and Azerbaijani groups subsequently issued differing public assessments of the episode.
What the Azerbaijani Group Said
The Azerbaijani initiative group expressed disappointment with the reaction of some Armenian media outlets and public figures to the diplomats’ trip.
Its statement said visits by foreign ambassadors to Azerbaijan’s sovereign territory should not become a subject of political attacks. Public criticism directed at the diplomats and the countries they represent, the group argued, was inconsistent with Armenia’s recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.
The Azerbaijani participants also addressed the cultural heritage dispute. They said monuments located within Azerbaijan are protected by the state and that disagreements over history and heritage should be discussed through reciprocity and open professional dialogue.
Representatives of civil society in both countries had created a dedicated platform within the Bridge of Peace initiative for precisely such sensitive discussions.
The Azerbaijani group also warned that forces opposed to normalization could exploit the public reaction to undermine the peace process.
The statement was signed by Farhad Mammadov, Kamala Mammadova, Rusif Huseynov, Dilara Efendiyeva and Ramil Iskenderli.
Navasardyan: The Visit Itself Was Not the Issue
Navasardyan acknowledged Azerbaijan’s right to invite foreign diplomats to its territory and show them reconstruction work carried out after the conflict.
He said the dissatisfaction in Armenian society was caused not by the visit itself but by the language used to present the history and cultural heritage of Gandzasar.
Such issues are especially sensitive for people whose identity and family history are connected to Karabakh, he said.
Navasardyan argued that a dispute over a single cultural monument should not by itself destroy civic dialogue. The parties could establish rules for discussing the most sensitive historical and religious issues and agree on a more careful approach.
His greater concern was the possibility that the public disagreement reflected deeper problems in the broader normalization process.
That remains Navasardyan’s assessment. Neither side has formally announced the end of the Bridge of Peace initiative or the withdrawal of its participants.
A Test for Civic Dialogue
Bridge of Peace was created as a platform for communication between representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian civil society.
Participants had planned to move from general statements supporting peace to thematic expert groups dealing with economics, environmental issues, cultural heritage and other areas of potential cooperation.
The Gandzasar dispute demonstrated how difficult it can be to move from broad appeals for peace to questions that directly affect national identity and historical memory.
Navasardyan called the episode the initiative’s most significant test so far. He did not, however, accept it as proof that civic diplomacy is pointless.
The Yerevan Press Club has worked on Azerbaijani-Armenian dialogue for about 30 years, he said. Contacts between civil society groups have repeatedly faced setbacks, but abandoning dialogue has never produced a viable alternative.
“Those who do not try achieve nothing,” Navasardyan said.
Why Trust Remains Fragile
Navasardyan said participants in civic dialogue may have overestimated their ability to resolve difficult issues solely through bilateral engagement.
The Azerbaijani-Armenian process continues to be shaped by outside forces, including U.S. policy, Russia’s actions and wider international instability.
The United States played an important role in advancing recent agreements between Baku and Yerevan, including TRIPP. If Washington becomes more focused on domestic political challenges, other regional powers may gain more room to influence the process.
Russia, despite losing some of its previous position in the South Caucasus, still retains political, economic and other forms of leverage.
Navasardyan pointed to Vladimir Putin’s contacts with Nikol Pashinyan and Ilham Aliyev. He suggested that Moscow may seek to obstruct arrangements it views as contrary to Russian interests.
He stressed, however, that this was only one possible explanation. There is currently no evidence proving a direct connection between outside pressure and the disagreement within the civic initiative.
Tensions Strengthen Opponents of Peace
The public dispute is already affecting attitudes in both societies.
Navasardyan said it gives additional arguments to those who distrust the peace process, oppose normalization or favor a return to information warfare.
In recent years, he argued, support for continuing the conflict had gradually declined, while advocates of stability and regional cooperation had become more visible.
The latest controversy may temporarily reverse that trend.
What happens next will depend on the actions of the two governments, diplomats and civil-society representatives. Harsh rhetoric could narrow the space for negotiations, while direct professional engagement could help prevent further escalation.
Two Levels of Civic Diplomacy
Navasardyan distinguished between two forms of public engagement.
Traditional “Track Two” diplomacy involves independent contacts among experts and nongovernmental organizations. Their initiatives do not have to fully align with official state policy.
He expects those contacts to continue, although their intensity may fluctuate.
More vulnerable is the so-called “Track 1.5” format, involving experts who enjoy a degree of confidence from their governments. That work depends on continued interest from official institutions.
If the state agenda changes or governments lose interest in deeper engagement, the space for such dialogue can quickly shrink.
For that reason, Navasardyan said the disagreements surrounding Bridge of Peace could reflect difficulties not only in civic diplomacy but also at the official level. No evidence has yet confirmed that interpretation.
An Isolated Dispute or a Longer Complication?
The implications will depend on the scale of the disagreement.
If the dispute is limited to one issue – the presentation of cultural heritage – tensions may gradually ease after a professional discussion.
If the broader principles underlying normalization over the past year are changing, the period of mistrust could last much longer.
Navasardyan also pointed to a recent speech in which Pashinyan described the concept of “Western Azerbaijan” as a serious threat to Armenia’s security. The Armenian prime minister had previously sought to soften public discussion of the subject.
Navasardyan said the return to such language could signal a shift in the political and public atmosphere. That, too, is his interpretation rather than evidence that the parties have abandoned the peace process.
Can Bridge of Peace Continue?
Navasardyan said he had no intention of abandoning either his priorities or his participation in civic dialogue.
Temporary political or informational gains, he argued, cannot outweigh the value of stable coexistence, development across the South Caucasus and normal relations between neighboring states.
The future of the initiative will depend on whether its Armenian and Azerbaijani participants can continue speaking directly without presenting their own historical interpretations as positions already accepted by the other side.
The Gandzasar dispute has exposed serious disagreements, but it does not yet justify claims that Bridge of Peace has collapsed or ceased operating.
The central question is whether participants can use their first major dispute to establish rules for future dialogue – or whether the public controversy will erode the initiative’s remaining trust.
AZE.US