Topchubashov Center Deputy Director and international relations expert Murad Muradov participated in the 108th NATO Parliamentary Assembly Seminar in Yerevan, Armenia, becoming one of the first to travel to Armenia after the war on a crucial mission. He successfully participated in a panel discussion on the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia and regional dynamics.
In an exclusive interview with Global Art magazine, conducted by Editor-in-Chief Jamala Nakhchivani, Mr. Muradov candidly shared his impressions of the trip, the seminar's atmosphere, and the importance of cultural exchange as a bridge between peoples.
Murad Muradov and Jamala Nakhchivani, Editor-in-Chief of Global Art Magazine
— Hello, Murad Bey! Welcome to Global Art Magazine. Please tell us about the event you attended.
— Hello! Thank you for the invitation!
I participated in the 108th Rose-Roth Seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, held in Armenia. The event was not bilateral, but rather international in nature. This is a regular EU-NATO seminar, held since the 1990s primarily for countries in Eastern Europe and the post-socialist region.
The latest seminar took place in Yerevan. In July of this year, I received an invitation from one of my partners, who recommended me to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the organization directly implementing this project. The invitation included my speaking on a panel discussion on the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia and regional dynamics.
Frankly, this came as a surprise to me. Just a year ago, such a possibility seemed unlikely—relations between our countries remained extremely tense, with expert circles even discussing the risk of further escalation. Nevertheless, in mid-2025, I received an invitation to visit Armenia, and I certainly viewed it as a serious and responsible step.
It's important to note that such meetings hadn't been held since 2019, before the war began. While individual participants in sporting events may have attended, there had been no such visits from political experts. The visit of an Azerbaijani representative to Yerevan marked the first time since journalists from Azerbaijan visited Armenia in the fall of 2019.
I carefully prepared for the trip, my speech, and the topic of the panel itself, which was dedicated to peace negotiations and the post-conflict future of the South Caucasus. The discussion included representatives from Armenia, Turkey, and a moderator representing an organization based in The Hague. He particularly emphasized that this panel was the first in history with such a large group of participants. I think that says a lot.
— What were your thoughts as you set out on this trip, and how did you prepare yourself during the process? After all, you were essentially the first representative of Azerbaijan to travel to Armenia after the war. Obviously, this was fraught with special responsibility.
— That's a whole other story, you might say. I was indeed the only representative of Azerbaijan among the participants, and, of course, the trip required careful coordination and meticulous planning for every step. All the details of my stay were coordinated with the relevant authorities. Upon arrival in Yerevan, I was met by representatives of the security service and the protocol department of the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in full compliance with diplomatic protocol.
I traveled to Yerevan on my own: the organizers purchased tickets for me via Istanbul, which was the only possible route. I had official letters from the organizers, as well as from the Armenian side, confirming and guaranteeing my safety. Of course, there was a certain risk. I even suspected the airline might be wary, fearing possible complications. But fortunately, everything went smoothly: my documents were accepted, I was allowed on board without any questions, and I departed. I think I'm probably the first person from Azerbaijan to fly this way.
Everything in Yerevan was perfectly organized. I was met in the airport's VIP lounge; I didn't have to deal with general services or customs. All transportation around the city was done in a company car. Hotel security was also constantly monitored. Even at night, two people were on duty on the floor just in case, which underscored the responsibility of the host.
— How would you evaluate the event itself? To what extent, in your opinion, were its objectives achieved?
— The seminar's primary audience consisted of members of parliament from various countries. Some of them, frankly, had a fairly general understanding of international policy issues; European parliaments, on the other hand, are mostly focused on domestic issues, such as the economy, taxes, and social policy, and rarely delve into foreign policy.
Nevertheless, interest in the region was palpable, especially on the part of the European participants, many of whom, for example, were surprised by the very news of trilateral talks between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and US President Donald Trump. They were genuinely interested in what to expect next and what steps the parties were actually taking.
Of course, the questions varied widely. Some representatives, especially from France, asked rather pointed, even provocative questions. For example, how Azerbaijan intends to build peace if, in their view, it neglects Armenian cultural heritage. At times, specific episodes in relations between Azerbaijan and France that were not directly related to the seminar's topic came up. I tried to respond calmly, reasonably, and with restraint, avoiding unnecessary discussions.
Overall, the event was a success. Interest in Azerbaijan was obvious, and the comments were mostly positive. At the final session, the organizers specifically noted my participation, emphasizing that the very possibility of such a trip was a significant step in the process of peaceful communication. This was a symbolic moment, since NATO, as a large international organization that does not include either Azerbaijan or Armenia, can play an objective and constructive role in developing dialogue in the South Caucasus.
— Did you feel the importance of the moment while you were there, realizing that you were the first Azerbaijani representative to visit Armenia since the war?
— Absolutely. Although, I admit, even on the way there, I had no idea what the event would look like in terms of venue. In my mind, it seemed like a large-scale international forum, with a large stage, numerous participants, the press, and television cameras. Of course, at some point I became a little anxious. After all, the situation was unique and challenging. But fortunately, the format turned out to be more intimate: the event took place in a hotel conference room, in a fairly calm and professional atmosphere. The audience, of course, was quite large.
The most memorable moment for me was when local journalists started approaching me. I admit, I felt a certain amount of anxiety before meeting with the press, as journalists often don't behave like analysts and experts accustomed to smoothing things over; they can deliberately ask very challenging and even provocative questions to attract the public's attention. However, the interaction went smoothly. This, in my opinion, was a highlight of the trip.
— How did you like the trip overall?
— The program was clearly structured—it was developed by the organizers, NATO, in collaboration with the host country. Everything proceeded within the strict confines of official protocol, without deviating from the schedule. In addition to the seminar itself, the program included dinner. We were taken to a former carpet factory, now a workshop and museum-restaurant named after a well-known Armenian carpet-weaving family. We had dinner with music and a short tour.
We also had a tour of the Matenadaran, the Museum of Ancient Manuscripts. As someone interested in the history of the region, this was particularly intriguing. We know that interpretations of ancient sources and artifacts have often been the subject of controversy—after all, some Armenian historians have used them to claim that Karabakh and many Azerbaijani territories are historically Armenian lands, and that they supposedly have superior rights to them, and so on. Therefore, I approached this tour with some trepidation. However, I must say that the tour was conducted in a civilized manner. The guide was likely informed of the group's composition and tried to maintain a neutral tone, avoiding harsh interpretations. For example, in one of the rooms, we were shown fragments of a unique document from the early Middle Ages—the same text written in three languages and three different alphabets: Armenian, Albanian, and Georgian. The guide calmly noted this fact without any subjective commentary. Also, the maps presented in the exhibition consistently featured Caucasian Albania, which is certainly important, as such exhibits themselves speak to the multilayered history of our country.
Finally, I was given a short walk through central Yerevan—along Marshal Baghramyan Avenue and Republic Square, a Soviet-era architectural complex with fountains. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to see anything else.
— How important do you think is the role of cultural dialogue and exchange between countries, especially in our region?
— I am convinced that culture is always a creative force. It can become the language through which even the most complex nations can understand each other. Unfortunately, history knows many cases where culture has become an instrument of destruction, where demagogues have attempted to appropriate heritage and use it as a weapon against the "other side." But ultimately, culture always unites.
If we look at the history of our conflict, we see that it is precisely the cultural figures—writers, artists, musicians, thinkers—who more often than others have found words capable of reaching people's souls and reminding them of their common humanity. After all, the language of art is international, and that is precisely its strength. It provides the basis for using culture as a bridge between people.
It is crucial that both the state and society move in this direction together and in concert, as there are too many painful issues that cannot be ignored, otherwise they will continue to fuel tensions. We need to soberly consider what we're ready for today and what requires time and maturation. I believe there are factors that could serve, say, as a good bridge for further development and as symbols of trust today.
The most striking example is the Armenian church in central Baku. It still stands in the city center, is under the protection of the Azerbaijani state, and even houses the archives of the Armenian community in Baku. I believe that in the future, it would be entirely possible to organize visits by specialists in architecture and church history so they could verify the condition of these artifacts. This would send a strong message.
There are other areas as well. Many Azerbaijanis and Armenians, whose parents or grandparents were once forced to leave their homes due to the conflict, dream of seeing the houses and streets where their ancestors once lived, and the cemeteries where they are buried. This is also part of our heritage, right? Perhaps, over time, it will be possible to organize small joint festivals on the border, featuring musicians, artists, and cultural figures from both sides.
Painting, after all, knows no boundaries. While in music we can argue about the origins of melody, the roots of rhythm, and whose instrument is playing, painting is easier; it's a relatively "neutral" art form with a universal language.
Incidentally, I remember the Armenian public figure Georgi Vanyan, who, back in the 2010s, tried to establish cultural dialogue and took many steps toward reconciliation. He held screenings of Azerbaijani films in Yerevan and called for recognition of the Azerbaijanis' right to return to their lands. For this, he was considered a traitor, threatened, and subjected to harassment. But today the situation has changed; under the new conditions, there is already a more positive dynamic. If we start small, with one or two joint projects, seminars, or cultural days, and then move forward, we can gradually build an atmosphere of trust. The more such contacts there are, the less opportunity there will be for destructive forces, for example, attempts to subsequently label someone a traitor, etc.
Reality itself dictates that we are moving in this direction, and I sincerely hope that this process will not be interrupted.
— Thank you and sincerely wish you continued success!
Interview conducted by Jamala Nakhchivani, Editor-in-Chief of Global Art Magazine
