The peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia is developing dynamically and taking on new forms. One of the key recent milestones was the meeting between representatives of the civil societies of both countries. The initiative carried particular significance due to the participation of Armenian official structures — the Azerbaijani delegation was received by the Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council, Armen Grigoryan.
For the first time in 35 years, an Azerbaijani aircraft landed at Yerevan’s Zvartnots Airport, bringing participants to the meeting. This step was not only logistical but also symbolic — marking a shift from the purely political-diplomatic track toward societal engagement. In this sense, the post-conflict transformation of the South Caucasus is beginning to touch not only issues of security and diplomacy but also horizontal links between societies.
From Mediation to Direct Formats
A defining feature of this stage is that dialogue is being conducted without the patronage of Western institutions — exclusively in a bilateral format. This approach aligns with Baku’s consistent position in favor of direct mechanisms for conflict resolution without external mediation. It was through this format that the issue of returning four villages of Azerbaijan’s Gazakh region was resolved, and the key parameters of the peace agreement were drafted — later finalized with the technical assistance of the United States.
Now, this model is being extended to the sphere of societal communication. The dialogue between civil societies has become part of the broader architecture of post-conflict cooperation — where the main role is played by the parties themselves.
The history of Azerbaijani-Armenian contacts at the NGO level goes back three decades. The first initiatives emerged soon after the 1994 ceasefire. However, by the late 1990s, the process had become largely monopolized by foreign political foundations and agencies pursuing their own agendas.
Such programs were largely declarative — focusing on abstract calls for peace while avoiding core issues such as the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and the plight of displaced persons. As a result, a deep mistrust toward the idea of “bottom-up peacebuilding” took root in Azerbaijani society, which came to associate it with grant-funded projects and symbolic gestures.
A Shift Toward a Pragmatic Model of Dialogue
The Second Karabakh War fundamentally changed the parameters of the conflict and placed the issue of peacebuilding in a new context. Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity, and the earlier externally financed and moral-pressure-based models lost their relevance.
Attempts by some activist groups in 2022 to return the discourse to pre-war templates — insisting that settlement should be carried out exclusively through “non-state peace networks” — drew sharp criticism in Baku. Such arguments contradicted internationally recognized realities and the actual outcomes of the conflict.
After the completion of anti-terrorist operations in 2023, efforts resumed to find new mechanisms for societal dialogue. Unlike earlier approaches, today’s initiatives are based on principles of national responsibility, transparency, and institutional symmetry between the parties.
The Azerbaijani side consistently promotes the idea of integrating the Armenian population of Karabakh into the country’s social and political fabric, viewing civil engagement as an instrument for consolidating long-term peace rather than as a substitute for state diplomacy.
Building a Post-Conflict Consensus
The first meeting in this new format provoked intense debate in the Armenian media space. Certain revanchist circles reacted negatively to the participation of Azerbaijani activists who maintain a pro-national position. This reaction highlights the depth of the ongoing shifts: peacebuilding is no longer an external project but an element of internal social consensus based on recognition of the new political and territorial reality.
The emerging bilateral format of dialogue between the civil societies of Azerbaijan and Armenia reflects a new philosophy of post-conflict governance in the region.
It is rooted in the principles of sovereign peacebuilding, national accountability, and rejection of external paternalism.
This transformation makes the process not merely part of the diplomatic agenda but also an indicator of societal maturity — a readiness to build peace without intermediaries, on the basis of mutual recognition and realism.
