Karabagh Forum at Tufts Unfolds Quietly
By Editor on Oct 31, 2009 in Armenia
Elin Suleymanov, Consul General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles, at the recent Tufts University forum on Nagorno Karabagh.
By Thomas C. Nash
Special to the Mirror-Spectator
MEDFORD, Mass. – In the midst of talk of the Armenia-Turkey protocols for establishing ties, Tufts University held a symposium on September 26 on the Nagorno Karabagh conflict that occurred off the radar for all but a few academics and analysts.
The organizers, two professors at the Tufts Fletcher School of Law Diplomacy and the US State Department-sponsored Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, have refused to say why the symposium was not better publicized locally to an Armenian community that has long had close ties with the school.
In addition, organizers avoided questions relating to why the symposium featured speakers who currently hold positions in the Azeri government while waiting until the last minute to invite a representative from the Armenian embassy, and not including Nagorno Karabagh officials at all.
“We didn’t have time,” said Phil Gamaghelyan, co-director of the Imagine Center, who arranged the September 26 symposium’s speakers with the Fletcher School’s Contemporary Turkish Studies Program Director Andrew Hess and International Conflict Management Prof. Eileen Babbitt. “It came together very last minute.”
Joyce Barsam, who heads a scholarship fund for young Armenian government officials to attend the Fletcher School and is on Fletcher’s Board of Overseers, says otherwise. She said Gamaghelyan approached her months ago looking for funding.
“We determined it wasn’t part of our mission,” Barsam said. “We decided we did not need to support Azerbaijan’s presence there.”
In addition to Bentley’s Prof. Asbed Kotchikian and Armenian Embassy Deputy Chief of Mission Varuzhan Nersessian, the first panel, titled “Challenges and Prospects of the Nagorno Karabagh Peace Process in the Context of New Regional Realities,” included Taleh Ziyadov from the Azerbaijani Diplomatic Academy at Cambridge University and Elin Suleymanov, consul general of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles, and Rouben Shugarian, currently on the faculty on Fletcher, who was the former ambassador of Armenia to the US.
The panel was disrupted at one point by Nagorno Karabagh Representative Robert Avetisyan, who demanded to know why a representative from the republic had not been included in the panel.
“I feel like the whole thing was tilted toward highlighting the Azeris,” said Barsam, who attended the first day of the symposium (a second was closed to the public). “Why they had a conference on Nagorno Karabagh and didn’t give people from Nagorno Karabagh [an opportunity] to speak, I have no idea. It was a bewilderment to me why the conference took place in the first place.”
The Nagorno Karabagh office did not respond to a request for comment. Kotchikian, who will speak at a forum organized by Babbitt at Harvard on November 18, said the symposium provided a chance for an “exchange of ideas,” eschewing the suggestion that the last-minute addition of Nersessian stacked the discussion in favor of the Azeri side.
“The level of discourse could have been much higher, with representatives from a more balanced perspective,” he said. “I’ve worked in the past with officials from Azerbaijan. At the end of the day, I don’t do politics.”
“Unfortunately there was no opportunity for Armenians to select who they wanted,” Barsam said. “It was an attempt to bring Armenians and Azeris together … and unfortunately I feel the people who represented Armenia’s case were unable to be prepared and those are on the Azeri side knew well in advance.
“The timing was not good for Armenians, and the set up was not good for Armenians.”
The seminar was co-sponsored by the International Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program and the Southwest Asia and Islamic Civilization Program, both of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy; the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School and Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation.
Neither Babbitt nor Hess could be reached for comment.
George | Nov 1, 2009 | Reply
There is no such a thing as “Karabagh officials”. Those guys will become “officials” when they are officially recognized as such, i.e. after (IF!!!!) NK’s hypothetical recognition! For now they are unofficial leaders of the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabagh. Yet, there are also the unofficial leaders of Karabagh’s Azeri community. If you care about NK’s presence, you should invite the representatives from both communities.
Besides, the article fails to mention that up until the very last moment, Vardan Oskanian was supposed to attend and withdrew at the last moment. He has ties to her foundation and is Armenia’s former FM. Former Armenian Ambassador spoke there as well. The Azerbaijani side can equally claim the lack of balance.
Phil Gamaghelyan | Nov 1, 2009 | Reply
Dear readers, dear editors,
first, I would like to thank the Armenian Mirror-Spectator for writing about the Symposium on NK at Fletcher and for criticism. Please also allow me to clarify what I see as few mis-perceptions in this article.
The author makes a number of allegations about the perceived lack of balance between the two sides. The author claims that the Azerbaijani side was ‘better’ represented and that the Azerbaijani key panelists knew about the event in advance yet the Armenians learned about it at the last minute. I would like to clarify that both sides were represented by one diplomat, and the rest of the panelists were researchers and analysts. Aside from the two diplomats, the first half of the day featured from the Armenian side: a former deputy foreign minister and presently a Fletcher professor, Ruben Sougarian; a Bentley professor, Asbed Kotchkian; and the head of a prominent Yerevan-based think tank, Gayane Novikova. The Azerbaijni side was similarly represented by the head of a Baku-based think tank and two researchers from the Azerbaijani Diplomatic Academy. The second half of the day gave the stage to younger researchers, including PhD and MA students from both sides. The balance, therefore, was maintained as closely as it could have been.
It can be argued, of course, that the panelists from Armenia could have been even stronger. Invitations, in fact, were sent to many more analysts from Armenia who were not able to attend due to a lack of funding. A number of foundations, including the Tavitian Foundation headed by Joyce Barsam described in the article, were approached for funding. Contrary to the allegations presented in the article, the funding request to the Tavitian Foundation was made in order to fund the participation of the Armenian, but not the Azerbaijani, panelists. As funding for the travel of the Armenian participants was not obtained, only those from among the invitees who were able to cover their own travel attended the symposium.
On the allegation that Armenians learned about the event later than the Azerbaijanis: Both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani panelists were invited at the same time and well in advance. For the opening panel, on July 6, 2009 we contacted two Fletcher graduates: the former minister of foreign affairs of Armenia, Vardan Oskanian; and the Azerbaijani Consul in LA, Elin Suleymanov. Both gave their preliminary agreement. As Mr. Oskanian withdrew on July 26 2009, we then contacted another Fletcher graduate, the deputy chief of mission of the Armenian embassy in Washington, Varuzhan Nersessian on was invited on August 26, 2009, still well in advance. Due to a personal emergency, Mr. Nersissian almost withdrew his participation. The personal matter was resolved, luckily, and Mr. Nersissian was able to participate. It might have been this chance of his possible withdrawal that resulted in the Armenian Mirror claim that Mr. Nersissian was invited at the last minute. However, he was not.
The Mirror also mistakenly sees a contradiction between my comment that the decision to move forward with the symposium was made at the last minute, and the observation of Joyce Barsam that we applied for funding well before the event. Indeed, we applied for funding well in advance. The funding, as the newspaper confirms, was declined few weeks before the event, thus putting the event under question. It wasn’t until only a few days prior to the anticipated day of the event that a sufficient number of prominent participants from both sides confirmed their interest and their ability to cover their own expenses; only then was the decision made to move forward. As an academic symposium, it was widely publicized in Boston area universities, including through the Armenian organizations of Harvard and other universities. The event was also publicized on Armenian academic lists, including ARMACAD.
I do agree with the author in his criticism regarding the absence of officials from Nagorno-Karabakh. Very unfortunately, due to the misguided decision of the Armenian government to negotiate on behalf on Nagorno-Karabakh and an equally misguided decision of the Azerbaijani government not to negotiate directly with Nagorno-Karabakh, the people who are directly affected by the conflict are not able to participate in the peace process. I personally strongly disagree with this position. Moreover, we are planning to make this the main topic of the conversation should we have a follow up event.
Once again, I would like to thank the Armenian Mirror-Spectator for taking interest in the event and for its criticism. I would like to point out, however, that the entire article was written to present the event in a negative light, and to find and highlight its shortcomings. I invite the Mirror to take a more balanced approach toward such joint events and consider that despite some shortcomings they might have a positive value, by contributing to peace and cooperation in the Caucasus.
With best regards,
Phil Gamaghelyan
Phil Gamaghelyan is the Co-Director of the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation, an organization that was one of the co-sponsors of the event
Erik Grigoryan | Nov 2, 2009 | Reply
Being aware and a witness of strong & balanced policies and ethics at Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation as well as the reporting culture at the Mirror Spectator I was surprised to find this fairly unbalanced and incoherent reporting. I do hope that the team at Mirror Spectator will keep up with its regular record of strong ethics in journalism and reporting and will not give way to unbalanced reportings like this in the future.
I hope the the coming exciting initiatives by Imagine Center and alike will get a fair & balanced coverage, in the spirit of of the reprint on the Armenian Azerbaijani Dialogue experience in your August 29th issue .
Thank YOu!