Winter 2000 (8.4)
In Search of Peace for Nagorno-Karabakh
U.S. Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh by Betty Blair
Left: U.S. Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh and
U.S. Ambassador William Taylor meeting with President Heydar
Aliyev. Cavanaugh is in charge of negotiations for Nagorno-Karabakh,
and Taylor administers aid to the former NIS countries.
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh
is now entering its ninth year.
Among the long-range problems that must be resolved in the region,
there is no higher priority. Is there an end in sight to this
conflict that has killed tens of thousands of people and left
nearly one million Azerbaijani civilians homeless?
Though the conflict involves a rather small area in a mostly
mountainous region in the foothills of the Caucasus, the politics
are so complex that it now requires international cooperation
Betty Blair interviewed U.S. Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh to get
his perspective on this process. Cavanaugh is Special Negotiator
for Nagorno-Karabakh and the Newly Independent States (NIS),
representing the United States in its role as one of the three
co-chairs of the Minsk Group of the OSCE (Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe).
The Minsk Group is the official international institution commissioned
to seek ways to end the conflict. The Minsk Group, established
on March 24, 1992, consists of 13 of the 55 OSCE member states
from Europe, Central Asia and North America. The co-chairmanship
is led by three nations: the United States, France and Russia.
Other Minsk Group members include Norway, Austria, Belarus, Germany,
Italy, Sweden, Finland, Turkey as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Recently Ambassador Cavanaugh initiated an Outreach Program to
meet with Americans who are concerned about these problems. Of
course, it's quite easy to find Armenians living here in the
United States, but Azerbaijanis from the Republic are few and
far between. Cavanaugh's office at the U.S. State Department
in Washington, D.C. was interested in finding ways to reach out
to the Azerbaijani community as well. That's when they contacted
Azerbaijan International magazine.
This interview took place on November 8, 2000. The discussion
that follows shows the depth of knowledge that Cavanaugh has
about the region, as well as his personal determination and commitment
to make a difference in the lives of the people whose destinies
have been shattered by this catastrophic war.
The question remains: Can peace can be attained? Can relationships
be healed and recreated between neighbors who used to share so
much together? Cavanaugh believes that peace is possible and
tirelessly pursues practical ways to rebuild trust and confidence
in a process that he's convinced "can't happen soon enough."
Ambassador Cavanaugh, in your travels throughout the U.S.
as Special Negotiator for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, I'm
wondering what concerns the American-Armenian community has about
the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh? What are they saying?
These past several months, I've been trying to reach out to American
citizens about these issues. I believe it's important for them
to know what we're doing at the State Department on foreign policy
in areas that concern them. In terms of Nagorno-Karabakh, there's
significant interest among the Armenian-American community, the
American academic community and American business. I've spoken
to Armenian-American groups in California, New York and Michigan.
I've met with company representatives who are looking to invest
in the region and trying to find out what's going on there. I've
also addressed university audiences at Stanford [Palo Alto, California]
and Wayne State [Detroit, Michigan]. About 10 days ago, I spoke
at a Harvard [Cambridge, Massachusetts] seminar on the Caspian
Above: OSCE Minsk Group co-chair
who are responsible for negotiations for Nagorno-Karabakh met
in "No-man's land" on the border between Azerbaijan
and Armenia with the respective governors of the regions. Left:
Russian co-chair Nikolai Gribkov, Armenian governor Armen Ghularian,
U.S. co-chair Carey Cavanaugh, Azerbaijani governor Avaz Orujov,
and French co-chair Jean-Jacques Gaillarde. Summer 2000.
What aspects of the peace process are they concerned about?
They want to know: How can it be moved forward? How can it be
resolved? There's a concern that it's very difficult for the
Armenian economy to normalize until there's a peace settlement.
So there's a lot of support for a resolution.
The other thing that you pick up from a foreign policy perspective
is their concern about Armenia's lack of relations and problematic
history with Turkey: How can that be dealt with? How can it be
advanced? In the past few months, there have been some major
issues on the question of the "Genocide Resolution"
that was passed by the International Relations Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives.
In regard to Karabakh, Armenians understand the realities of
what President Aliyev [Azerbaijan] and President Kocharian [Armenia]
have been saying over the past year. These two leaders have had
several sessions of direct dialogue, which has altered the dynamics
of the peace process. They've made very clear their desire to
find a solution. I believe that they're committed to finding
a resolution to this conflict. And they've been telling their
people that to achieve a peaceful resolution, there have to be
serious compromises. This has been a common refrain for them.
I've heard those ideas expressed on the Azerbaijani side by
President Aliyev. But President Kocharian is saying the same
thing to his people?
They're both saying exactly the same thing. In the Armenian community
in the U.S., I've found a very solid understanding of that. They
realize that it's a difficult situation on the ground. If you
want to bring this kind of conflict to an end, then of course,
there has to be compromise. They're not aware of the exact details
that the presidents have been discussing. We, ourselves, cannot
disclose that either because of the delicacy of the negotiations.
But the Armenian-American Diaspora is supportive of the idea
that serious compromise must be made to find peace.
Let's talk about your work as Special Negotiator. First of
all, how long have you been at your assignment?
I've been the Special Negotiator for a little over a year now,
but I also worked on these problems in 1994-1996. After I finished
graduate school [University of Notre Dame], I taught International
Affairs in Ohio and joined the U.S. Foreign Service in 1984.
I started working on Soviet affairs in 1988 and was assigned
to Moscow in 1989-1991. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union,
I also traveled to the Caucasus. After its collapse, I was selected
to open up the U.S. Embassy in Georgia in April 1992 because
I had worked closely with Shevardnadze when he was Foreign Minister
So you opened up the Georgia office?
While I was there, we bought the Embassy building, hired the
staff and set everything up. We also brought in several planeloads
of economic assistance. I did it all rather quickly because I
was en route to another assignment.
For at least 10 years I've been working, off and on, with issues
related to this region-peacekeeping and trouble-shooting, sometimes
in work related to Georgia; sometimes, Nagorno-Karabakh; sometimes,
Greek and Turkish problems and Cyprus. I was also in Switzerland
helping to resolve the problem of "Nazi Gold" and Holocaust
era assets. When that was wrapped up, I came back to work on
the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.
Do you speak Russian?
Yes. That makes things a lot easier. It gives you the ability
to have personal conversations without intermediaries, which
is important both with leaders and ordinary citizens.
Without all the acrobatics of translations that you have to
go through otherwise.
It also gives you the chance to establish a deeper personal relationship
with decision-makers, which I think is important in this kind
of work. Leaders need to be able to communicate well with you
and have confidence in you. This has certainly been the case
with President Aliyev.
What about the other two co-chairs [of the Minsk Group]? Of
course, the Russian representative [Nikolai Gribkov] speaks Russian.
The French co-chair [Jean-Jacques Gaillarde] does, too. In fact,
all three co-chairs speak Russian and all three speak English.
I'm probably the weakest when it comes to speaking French. I
speak some. Having worked before in Rome, however, I must admit
my French has a bit of an Italian accent to it.
The other two OSCE co-chairs started about the same time that
I did. This is normally a two- to three-year assignment, so there's
been periodic rotation.
I was wondering about the background of the U.S. situation.
How many ambassadors have represented the United States up until
now? As I understand, Ambassador Maresca started this back in
1992. [See Interview with Maresca in AI 4.1, Spring 1996.]
Yes, Jack Maresca was the first person involved with the Minsk
Group. At the time, he was also working on Cyprus and other OSCE
issues. I think the first full-time person was Jim Collins, who
did it for a short while before replacing Strobe Talbott as Ambassador-at-Large
for the NIS. Collins is now our Ambassador in Moscow. Then came
Joe Presel, Lynn Pascoe, Don Keyser and then me.
That's quite a few of you.
Well, it's a big conflict that has been going on for quite a
Isn't it difficult when you have five to six different people
dealing with the same issue over just an eight-year period?
Not really because when Joe Presel was working on this, I was
working on it as well. So this kind of arrangement has been an
So there's overlap there?
Yes. For example, when I worked on these issues in 1994, in addition
to President Aliyev, I dealt with Arkady Ghukasyan, then "Foreign
Minister" of Nagorno-Karabakh, and now its leader.
I also dealt with Robert Kocharian, then leader at Stepanakert
[Armenian name for the capital city of Nagorno-Karabakh, which
Azerbaijanis refer to as "Khankandi"] and Vartan Oskanian,
currently Foreign Minister of Armenia. So I have long-term, established
relationships with all these players.
Is it a full-time job?
Very much so. It's a job that has me and the people in my office
on the road probably 50-60 percent of the time.
How is that? What does your job entail?
I should add that I'm responsible for trying to help resolve,
not only Nagorno-Karabakh, but also conflicts in Georgia. There
are two there: one in Abkhazia and the other in South Ossetia.
I also am involved with helping advance a settlement between
Moldova and Transneister, another breakaway region.
Actually, that's a major difference between myself and the other
co-chairs of the Minsk Group. They only deal with Karabakh. If
you ignore the heavy workload that this sort of arrangement requires,
I believe there are strong advantages to having one diplomat
handle all these conflicts together, instead of in isolation
- one by one. When they're handled together, it provides a broader
perspective. You also end up dealing with a wider variety of
players in Moscow. Effective engagement with Moscow is a key
factor in finding a solution to Karabakh.
In the United States, the broader portfolio also gives me greater
access to our own leadership, including Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright or Vice President Gore or even President Clinton, depending
on what develops in relation to the different conflicts.
I understand that Madeline Albright has been personally involved
with the Karabakh issue over the years. I know that she's met
with President Aliyev and President Kocharian on several occasions.
What do you feel her contribution has been in all of this?
She has made a very significant contribution. The NATO Summit
that took place in Washington in April 1999 on the occasion of
NATO's 50th Anniversary led to the convening of all the NATO
countries and all Partner for Peace Countries. Aliyev and Kocharian
were both there. What she did was basically put them in a room
and say, "Talk to each other," and then she left them
alone. That marked the beginning of their substantive dialogue
together, which has lasted now for more than a year.
So that was the first time that they had spoken together directly?
They had met together earlier in Moscow, but I don't think they
had had serious discussions. I think that when Albright brought
them together, that was the first time that they ended up sitting
down and seriously thinking about what they could do to come
up with a solution. Since then, she has met with them several
times and worked directly with them in trying to move the peace
process forward. And, I might add, so has President Clinton.
In what ways?
He has been particularly engaged since the two presidents began
their direct dialogue. He has had meetings with both of them.
He met them separately at Istanbul at the OSCE Summit, November
1999. He saw them again in Davos, Switzerland, January 2000,
although that was a brief encounter. Secretary Albright had longer
meetings with them there, but Clinton saw them as well.
More recently, he met them when they visited the United States.
Aliyev visited Washington in February 2000 and Kocharian followed
in June. Clinton focused on the peace process with both leaders.
More recently, both were in New York with Clinton in September
for the UN Millennium Summit. These were brief encounters. It
was also the last time that the two presidents met together.
[Since this interview, Aliyev and Kocharian met in Minsk (Belarus)
on December 1, 2000 for the CIS Summit (Commonwealth of Independent
States). They are also expected to meet again in Strasbourg,
France, in January 2001 when the two countries are admitted to
the Council of Europe].
When Aliyev and Kocharian meet together, are the OSCE co-chairs
No. This is a direct dialogue between the two, which I believe
is the best way to find the basic outline for the solution. More
than anyone else, these leaders know what is acceptable and what
is not. They know what their respective populations are willing
to do and what it takes to bring about a settlement.
The Minsk Group co-chairs travel to the region frequently as
well as meet the presidents at various locations around the world.
Our work with them individually can help bridge differences as
they work on the peace process together.
I know that the negotiations are secret right now. Both leaders
are not saying what they're working on. But last winter (1999),
Aliyev told the Azerbaijanis: "I want people to know that
they shouldn't worry about this. It won't be implemented without
Parliament being involved or even a referendum."
That's true. Such a strategy is crucial. The peace agreement
must be acceptable to all parties. It has to involve serious
compromise. There's a desire that it be a peace that can take
effect quickly (if such can be achieved), and that it be very
straightforward and easy for people to understand.
The other aspect that has been clear from the beginning is that
it cannot simply be a deal that the two presidents work out on
paper. It has to go back to the people. There are a variety of
ways that this can be done. One could be parliamentary involvement
or a referendum. The leaders have not finalized exactly how this
will be done, but I know they understand such a process would
give any final agreement the durability necessary to withstand
the passage of leaders.
Would both sides follow the same process in their respective
It depends on how the agreement is reached and also upon the
constitutional provisions in each country. For instance, if both
held referendums, which is possible, there might be slight differences
in how one country's constitution is set up to carry out a referendum.
The key is to have an agreement that the people themselves support.
Then it will take on a life of its own.
This group of co-chairs [U.S., Russia and France] has been
the negotiating body since 1998, right?
As I recall, the chairmanship of the Minsk Group used to change
You're right. At one point, it was led by the Finns, then the
Swedes, then Russians joined as co-chairs. But this current arrangement
of a triple co-chairmanship seems to be the most effective.
What else does your job entail?
We have frequent contact with other leaders in the region both
directly and also with my counterpart co-chairs. Also, there's
quite a bit of engagement in Washington to develop policy and
work with the U.S. Congress to make sure that Senators and Members
are aware of our efforts and activities. There's also the Outreach
Program that I described earlier, which involves meeting with
Americans who are concerned about these problems. Finally, we
consult with other European countries and other international
I should add that we often make tours in the disputed regions.
On one of our last trips, the Minsk Group co-chairs visited the
Azerbaijani city of Aghdam [now under Armenian occupation]. We
wanted to see the extent of damage that the war had brought and
begin to assess what would be needed to repair the city.
On that same trip, we went to Shusha and Lachin [other occupied
Azerbaijani towns. Shusha is in Nagorno-Karabakh. Lachin, close
to the Armenian border, is a small town through which Armenians
link to Nagorno-Karabakh].
We also visited two major refugee camps. We met hundreds of refugees
at Barda [in central Azerbaijan] where I made a presentation
and spoke to many of them individually so that they would know
what we were trying to do - that our goal is to find a genuine
solution so that they can get back to normal life.
We also went to the Bilasuvar camp, where the refugees have actually
been living in mud huts for the past seven years [as of December
1999]. Some of the children have lived their entire lives there
and are now in first grade. They've seen nothing else of the
world. When you visit camps like this, you realize first-hand
how difficult their life is.
Visiting the refugees helps us focus directly on the urgency
of a peace settlement so that it doesn't become an abstract political
concept. Our ideas are based on concrete human reality. A peace
settlement means rebuilding cities, resettling people and reestablishing
normality in their lives.
On our last visit in the region on July 4, we were concerned
that the cease-fire be maintained. Although the official cease-fire
has been in effect since 1994, still there are shootings that
end in tragic deaths along the line of contact every year.
During this past year alone, about 100 people have been killed
in these border disputes. So on this trip, we traveled to Kazakh,
a town in the northwest corner of Azerbaijan. Then we crossed
over into Armenia. We chose that region because quite a number
of people have been killed there. [The Minsk co-chairs did this
again at a different border crossing in December 2000 after this
interview took place.]
For example, a young Azerbaijani girl had recently been shot.
She was inside her home when a bullet came through the window
and killed her. When we talked to the local governor, he pleaded,
"How can we deal with this? What do I say to people when
these tragic things happen?"
People have also been shot on the Armenian side. Before we crossed
the border, we conferred with both militaries to facilitate our
trip. They had to clear mines. Then they laid down a telephone
line across the border so that we could communicate with the
other side to tell them that we were coming so that no one would
get confused and start shooting.
But we didn't make this trip alone. We invited the Azerbaijani
governor of Kazakh and the local military commander to come along
and meet their counterparts on the Armenian side. We arrived
in that "no-man's land" and stood around together for
the purpose of carrying on a concrete discussion: "What
can be done to reduce the civilian casualties?" It was a
wonderful experience. Both sides talked for hours [in Russian].
Very animated. Very heartfelt and emotional. Violations of the
cease-fire agreement is not an abstract issue for them; they
have to deal with it everyday and explain why these things are
Both Azerbaijanis and Armenians were concerned about the lack
of communication between the two sides, realizing that some of
these flare-ups were accidental and, therefore, could be prevented.
For example, a soldier might accidentally set off his gun, perhaps
just in the process of cleaning it or not handling it properly.
Soldiers on the other side hear those shots and retaliate. Then
the shooting continues back and forth until someone gets killed.
Such incidents have been triggered by something as simple as
the accidental firing of a round, and there's been no mechanism
in place to tell the other side, "A guy dropped his gun
and it went off. Don't worry!"
So we arranged for the telephone line that was set up for our
visit to be kept in place. If that kind of incident occurs again,
then one side can immediately telephone the other side and say:
"It's nothing. It was an accident."
Sometimes even goats, sheep and cattle wander into the cease-fire
zone and step on land mines. An explosion goes off. Everyone
gets frightened, wondering if someone is trying to sneak across
the border. But again, such fears could be allayed simply via
the telephone. So we left that telephone line, and now we're
in the process of getting radios. Last week while there in Azerbaijan
and Armenia, we spoke about this with the two Defense Ministers.
OSCE will provide radio units for both sides all up and down
the border so that the troops will be able to communicate with
The other thing that we did on this last trip was to look at
some of the economic development projects that need to be done.
We went to the Red Bridge - the bridge connecting Georgia with
Azerbaijan. We wanted to see how to enhance some of these transportation
links and roads, because these same road links used to go from
Kazakh [Azerbaijan] to Ijevan [Armenia].
Also when we were in Kazakh, farmers pointed out that they used
to sell their produce in Armenia. In fact, there used to be an
active railway line between the two regions. While in Armenia,
we tried to figure out what would be needed to put the railroad
back in place, as sections of the track have been removed so
that it's non-functional today.
But if there were a peace settlement, it's clear that all these
countries will need to work together for the economic prosperity
of the entire region. We're looking at what could be done to
reestablish the economic infrastructure once a peace settlement
is put in place.
The logical transportation link from Azerbaijan to the West also
goes through Georgia and Armenia. The logical links for Armenian
trade include Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.
Also on that trip, we went to Stepanakert to see the pipeline
that used to bring natural gas from Baku to Karabakh en route
to Nakhchivan [Azerbaijan].
What about the problem of water? When I was in Kazakh in 1994-95,
there were a lot of vineyards that had totally withered and dried
up because the Armenians had stopped the flow of water from the
dam on their side of the border.
Water problems is another area that we've been looking at. Cooperation
on water projects would benefit both sides. Some of these projects
could be put into place even before a peace settlement is completed.
But so many of them depend upon a final resolution. You can do
a little but, absent a solution, it's hard to do the things that
are seriously needed. I think that's what the two Presidents
are realizing. We have to find ways to break this impasse in
order to build the foundation for the future in this region.
The unresolved conflict in the region today places restraints
on everything else that the people and the leadership would like
to undertake. It's clear that Armenia wants to develop its economy.
It's clear that President Aliyev wants to develop a full economy
- not one that relies only on oil and gas - but one that has
a whole variety of sectors, which guarantees that everybody will
be included in the economic development. But the way to secure
economic development requires a peaceful resolution of the conflict
and the re-establishment of economic infrastructure as well as
the return of nearly a million refugees back to their villages
and towns. So every path leading to the future takes you back
to the absolute necessity of finding a peaceful solution.
Can you tell me a bit about what you saw when you went to
Aghdam? That city used to have a population of about 90,000,
It was a significant city, and a significant amount of destruction
has occurred there. That trip led to our organizing a conference
in Geneva of nearly 20 agencies last May because we realized
the scope of what is needed for reconstruction. It's enormous.
We brought together UN agencies, independent agencies, the International
Red Cross, groups like the World Bank and European Union. We're
now starting to plan how we would handle implementation of the
peace - specifically, how we would handle economic reconstruction
of the region and resettlement of the refugees.
You don't displace a million people without stupendous repercussions.
It's going to take an enormous reconstruction effort. I must
say that we were very pleased to see the positive response from
the international community. They are willing to help if a solution
can be found.
But right now, it seems as if humanitarian aid is dwindling
for Azerbaijani refugees.
There are always competing demands on the international community
when it comes to aid for refugees, especially given what is going
on these days in the Sudan and the Far East. But if a peace settlement
can be found, many agencies will do what they can to be involved
with its implementation.
But tell me more about your trip. What was Shusha like?
Shusha is in better shape than Aghdam, obviously. There's much
more of the city left there. It's not fully inhabited. The mosque
is being repaired and renovated now.
And Lachin. There's a road now that the Armenia Diaspora has
built that runs through it connecting Karabakh to Armenia.
The road has been refurbished. It's a very small town.
Every so often, I hear about discussions about land swaps. Can
you talk about that?
As I've said, we've been very straightforward with the presidents,
promising not to talk about any details of what they discuss.
That means we can neither confirm nor deny anything. I think
it's important that both sides are willing to compromise and
find a bolder solution than the kind that the Minsk Group had
offered in the past.
A solution that is encompassing enough so that 25 years from
now, we aren't faced with it all over again.
I think they're committed to that. No one wants a settlement
that won't work. The idea of getting a peace deal that would
only last a year or so makes no sense at this point. You want
something that is definitive enough that people understand it
and support it. Also, you need such an agreement to garner support
from the international community and attract money to get things
fixed. No one wants to invest in economic reconstruction and
then have it destroyed in renewed conflict.
Can you tell me a little bit about the Lisbon Summit [OSCE
Conference in 1996]? The principles that were set out and agreed
upon by the OSCE at that time, are they still in effect?
Certainly. The main point became "respect for territorial
integrity". Territorial integrity is always part of the
discussions going on, not simply as it relates to Nagorno-Karabakh
but also to the situations in Moldova and Georgia. I think what
is important though is not so much to focus on things like-saying,
"We insist on territorial integrity," while someone
else says, "No, we demand self-determination." Rather,
peace will come by focusing on the practical aspects of what
would be a realistic solution.
There are ways to find solutions that do not pose problems for
either "territorial integrity" or "self-determination".
It may call for some creativity, but I think there are ways to
bridge these gaps.
Let me ask you about Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
The fact that U.S. funds are going directly to the Armenian government
but not the Azerbaijani government because of Congressional restraints,
do you believe this "ties your hands" in terms of being
perceived as a fair and honest broker in these negotiations?
I think Azerbaijanis understand.
What makes you feel that way?
Mainly the interaction that I have with President Aliyev.
But the people in the street don't necessarily have the perception
that the U.S. is fair.
Yes, some people on the street might not understand. It's hard
to convey that we are fair because it raises for them the basic
question: "Why is there open assistance on the one side
and these restrictions on the other?" But in our work in
facilitating peace, I think they understand that we really are
an honest broker.
So how do you fit your busy schedule and all this work into
your family life?
The pace of work and the amount of travel required in this job
create a lot of pressure and take a real toll on normal family
life. My boys, for example, are six and 12; sometimes it's quite
upsetting for them. Every time they turn around, they see me
flying away. I spent the Fourth of July in the Caucasus. And
then Halloween. I came home for Thanksgiving and virtually the
next day I flew off to Europe to deal with these problems. My
wife has to carry on life almost like a single mother. In the
end, I think they all understand the importance of this work
but, I'll admit, it's hard.
If you were trying to guess when peace might come between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, what would you predict?
I would say, "Not soon enough!" Having seen the suffering
and needs on both sides, I think the sooner it comes, the better,
because it is desperately needed. It's impossible to say when
the leaders will find a package that works. It depends so much
on their ability, their political support and courage. It's not
unfair to say that some of these steps toward peace that these
political leaders must take may be the most difficult decisions
of their careers, requiring enormous courage.
This is a very unique moment in history because of the dissolution
of the Soviet Union. Do you feel like you're a different person
because of your involvement in these Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations
these past few years? Are you, for example, a different person
today than you were 10 years ago?
Yes, I think in many ways, I am. I've seen a lot of suffering,
but also I see the progress that can be made. This is a very
unique job. It's challenging. Sometimes the task is daunting,
but it comes with enormous opportunities for success in creating
It's not like being involved in business and going out to sell
something. It's not like any other job. Success here affects
millions of people. A solution brings more than a million people
out of camps and back to their homes. So it's rewarding, but
it also carries an enormous responsibility. It gives you some
sense of the responsibility that the leaders of these countries
carry on their shoulders. Although I've visited these refugee
camps and seen these people and talked with them, the respective
leaders have to deal with this all the time. In this position,
you end up engaging in a level of policy that can have an enormous
Someone pointed out to me that the work of a peace negotiator
is, in essence, God's work. In the Bible in the book of Matthew,
it says, "Blessed are the peacemakers." It would be
hard to find a nobler profession than this. The stakes are so
high. The rewards are so valuable. How could such work not change
An OSCE office was established in Baku on November 16, 1999;
and in Armenia on July 22, 1999.
For more information about the mission and activities of the
OSCE, visit Web site: : www.osce.org.
(8.4) Winter 2000.
© Azerbaijan International 2000. All rights reserved.
Back to Index
AI 8.4 (Winter 2000)
| Magazine Choice | Topics