BEYOND THE KARABAKH CONFLICT: The Story of Village Exchange Sevil Huseynova, Arsen Hakobyan, Sergey Rumyantsev 2012 BEYOND THE KARABAKH CONFLICT: The Story of Village Exchange Sevil Huseynova, Arsen Hakobyan, Sergey Rumyantsev Scientific editors: Alexander Iskandaryan, Viktor Voronkov Editor in chief: Nino Lejava The second edition of the Russian language publication: “Кызыл-Шафаг и Керкендж: История Обмена Селами в Ситуации Карабахского Конфликта” published in 2008 by Heinrich Boell Foundation South Caucasus Regional Office. © Heinrich Böll Foundation South Caucasus Regional Office, 2012 38, Zovreti st., Tbilisi 0160, Georgia T +995 32 238 04 67/68, +995 32 291 37 39 | F +995 32 291 28 97 E [email protected] | W www.ge.boell.org | F www.facebook.com/hbf.caucasus ISBN 978-9941-0-5043-5 CONTENTS FROM THE PUBLISHER 7 PREFACE 9 CHAPTER 1. DANGER AT THE DOOR 13 CHAPTER 2. CIVIL SELF-DEFENSE 23 CHAPTER 3. THE IDEA OF A VILLAGE EXCHANGE 44 CHAPTER 4. CIVIL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNES 63 CHAPTER 5. THE EXCHANGE 74 CHAPTER 6. LEADERS AND ORCHESTRATORS OF THE EXCHANGE 92 CHAPTER 7. THE EXCHANGE: CO-RESIDENCE 110 CHAPTER 8. LIVING IN A NEW PLACE 126 CHAPTER 9. MOTHERLAND, MOTHERLAND! 158 CONCLUSION 173 5 FROM THE PUBLISHER n the second half of the 1980s, with the beginning of the Armenian-Azer- baijani military escalation in Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani residents of Kyzyl-Shafag, a village in northern Armenia, and Armenian residents of Kerkenj, a village in central Azerbaijan, met through their own initiative to Inegotiate a peaceful exchange of their villages. On the one hand, that decision was a painful result of the ethno-political tension created by nationalists on both sides who sought to exile representatives of the “enemy ethnos” from their countries. On the other hand, however, without any support or interference from any political authorities, the wine growers of Kerkenj and the mountain people of Kyzyl-Shafag demonstrated great responsibility in enabling both parties to overcome the crisis in a peaceful, dignified way, thus setting a powerful example for civic interethnic cooperation in the midst of political conflict. Agreements between Armenians and Azerbaijanis to exchange houses and property and take care of family graves have remained valid despite all the horrors of the Karabakh conflict. This is just one important aspect of an impressive but largely suppressed story of the past twenty years that the Caucasus can tell. Almost two decades after the village exchange occurred, young sociologists and anthropologists from Armenia and Azerbaijan joined as a part of a working group, supported by the Heinrich Boell Foundation’s South Caucasus Regional Scholarship Program. They sought to document this story in as much detail as possible, taking into consideration viewpoints of both sides. Perhaps when pitching the idea for the project, our fellows did not realize that they themselves were creating a new example of interethnic cooperation at the time of political crisis. Though on a different level and in another context, with far fewer personal consequences, what the authors say about Kerkenj and Kyzyl-Shafag residents in the preface applies to themselves as well: “The project … conducted during the … conflict demanded that all of the participants demonstrated a high level of courage, team spirit, ability to withstand provocations, controlled emotions, and most importantly, see the other party also as victims of the situation, the same as themselves, not as enemies with 7 whom no dialogue was possible… This first and foremost required peaceful contact between representatives of both sides.” Over the past twenty years the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has further widened the gap between Armenian and Azerbaijani societies. What used to be quite ordinary for the “heroes of the story” told in this book – that is, essentially peaceful coexistence with Armenian or Azerbaijani neighbours respectively – is not only a tale of the remote past for representatives of the younger generation on both sides, but also something that is frequently claimed to be politically and culturally impossible, and thus undesired. Cooperating beyond hermetically sealed state borders requires courage in itself. Mutual understanding within the joint project calls for much patience, flexibility, and willingness to compromise. The authors of this book live and operate in societies that have completely opposite narratives of anything related to the Karabakh conflict, which also impacts the views promoted in academic environments. Even the smallest details of wording in each publication present a potential cause for conflict. We are glad that our fellows have gone the distance and completed this challenging journey, thereby demonstrating their professional and personal maturity. We hope that this example will inspire other young scholars in the South Caucasus who will be able to study history and contemporary society out of the bounds of political and ethnic categories and regardless of state borders. Heinrich Boell Foundation South Caucasus Regional Office 8 PREFACE e managed to part ways without a war” – this is the leit- motif of a variety of politicians’ statements, claiming to one extent or another to have actively participated in the pro- cesses preceding the disintegration of the USSR. While “Wfrom the perspective of the South Caucasus republics such claims appear more than arguable1, nevertheless, the information collected as part of the research project that forms the basis of this book concerns just the example of success- ful conflict resolution. Truth be told, politicians and government officials cannot be credited with the success of this undertaking, as it is rather the result of a civic initiative that took place within the process of ethnic separation during the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Many specialists attempt to analyze the specifics of the processes of ethnic separation related to the dissolution of the previously unitary political space and establishment of nation states in former Soviet republics. On the one hand, we find Rogers Brubaker’s point of view to be relevant.2 He proposes to review the practice of processes of ethnic separation in post-Soviet countries as post- imperial and places this case in the broader context of earlier collapsed political formations, such as the Ottoman Empire or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. All in all, Brubaker says that after the collapse of the USSR, much as after the collapse of other empires at the end of the World War I, the “national principle was applied with unrelenting rigor at that time by way of relocating groups of people”3. However, Brubaker’s macro-model cannot and should not take into consideration all particular characteristics of the array of practices that have been used in the processes of forced ethnic separation. We have analyzed the specific case of residents of two communities exchanging villages as an example 1 This is the case of different perspectives, foreseen by Raymond Aron when he said “perhaps to historians of the future, it will seem that in the global diplomatic space, the absence of a big war equals big peace” (Aron R., The History of the 20th century: The Anthology. Moscow: Ladomir, 2007, p. 68). However, to both historians and ordinary people of the small nation states in the South Caucasus, local wars are quite large-scale in the sense of their effect on these communities. 2 Brubaker, R. Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism. Available at http:// abimperio.net/scgi-bin/ aishow.pl ?state=showa&idart=576&idlang =2&Code= 3 Aron R., ibid, p. 27. 9 of a civic initiative which thus escapes the horrors of forcible deportation and its possible outcomes: the loss of property and threat to their lives. Naturally we understand that the very emergence of the necessity of such an initiative was caused by the kindling conflict that determined the day-to-day life of the Armenian and Azerbaijani village residents, the course of which they were not able to control. At the same time, in the environment of the rapid deterioration of the Soviet regime and emergence of the new power – that of the national movement, the village residents had several options as to how to resolve the situation. The decision they reached gave them hope for preserving the unity and integrity of their communities and, to the extent possible, their property as well. It must be understood that it was very difficult to come to that collective decision, and even more difficult to implement it. The project of village exchange, conducted during the ever-escalating conflict, demanded that all of the participants demonstrated a high level of courage, team spirit, ability to withstand provocations, controlled emotions, and most importantly, see the other party also as victims of the situation, same as themselves, not as enemies with whom no dialogue was possible. Both parties involved in the future exchange were taken hostage by the confrontation, which was stoked by politicians. However, when they refused to take their cue from the circumstances and short- sighted decisions of government officials and politicians, they managed to find a dignified way out of this most complex situation in which they happened to get involved due to the force of circumstances. This first of all required peaceful contact between representatives of both communities – the Azerbaijani from the village of Kyzyl-Shafag and Armenians from the village of Kerkenj. Two parties, the Azerbaijani and Armenian rural communes