President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev received Abdinur Dahir Fidow, the newly appointed Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Federal Republic of Somalia to Azerbaijan, on April 14, AzerNEWS reports.
Day: April 14, 2026
“Bridge of Peace” in Azerbaijan
On 10–12 April, the fourth bilateral meeting under the “Bridge of Peace” initiative took place in Gabala.
Nineteen experts from Armenia travelled to Azerbaijan, along with representatives of media outlets and NGOs. They crossed a formally delimited and demarcated section of the land border. The delegation also included a cameraman from Armenia’s Public Television.
In the organisers’ press releases, the crossing is described as a technical and procedural step, but also as a symbolic stage in the normalisation process.
This was not just a single event. Coordinators framed the border crossing as evidence of a “reality of peace” — a practical test aimed at restoring a sense of normal, everyday relations after conflict.
In other words, the message is that for political agreements to hold, trust between societies must gradually become part of daily life.
What is the “Bridge of Peace” initiative and how did it begin?
The “Bridge of Peace” is presented as a Track 1.5 dialogue format that does not replace official negotiations but complements them. Within this framework, experts, civil society representatives and media actors engage directly, exchange ideas and help prepare their societies for peace.
In the initiative’s press releases, the dialogue is linked to the peace agenda endorsed at the Azerbaijan–Armenia–United States summit held in Washington on 8 August 2025. Following the meeting, the US State Department announced the publication of the final documents, while both Azerbaijan and Armenia released the text of the joint statement on their official platforms.
The first bilateral roundtable took place in Yerevan on 21–22 October 2025. This was followed by a working visit by Armenian representatives to Azerbaijan on 21–22 November 2025. The third meeting was held on 13–14 February 2026 in an expanded format in the Armenian town of Tsaghkadzor.
The fourth meeting in Gabala: agenda and format
According to official press releases, the meeting held on 10–12 April focused on three main areas:
- the current state of the peace process;
- the activities of participants in both countries and their outcomes;
- the impact of the regional geopolitical situation on the peace process.
Organisers also noted that separate sessions addressed how to promote peace in the public sphere and how to strengthen trust in the next stages.
The outcomes of the meeting were presented at a press conference in Gabala. It was emphasised that some of the four sessions focused on political and geopolitical issues, while others examined the role of civil society and future areas of work.
Particular emphasis was placed on the idea of “dialogue without intermediaries” and on state support. Coordinators stressed that this format differs from platforms of previous years, which involved donors or external mediators.
Official signals and public diplomacy
As part of the visit, participants also met Hikmet Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan. In a post on X, he said the meeting lasted more than two hours.
He stressed that Azerbaijan is “fully committed to the Washington agenda” and highlighted the need to expand trade, transit links and people-to-people contacts to generate the economic benefits of peace.
In the same post, Hajiyev noted that against the backdrop of regional and global tensions, the importance of a sustainable peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia is growing, while revanchist rhetoric in Armenia’s domestic politics poses risks to stability.
Farhad Mammadov, the Azerbaijani coordinator of the initiative, told Trend that its key feature is “direct communication without intermediaries”. He said that in previous years, dialogue formats were typically built around the involvement of third parties, whereas the current process continues with state support.
Areg Kochinyan, the Armenian coordinator, described the fourth meeting as a “significant achievement” in comments to AZERTAC.
He said the initiative had initially faced criticism and scepticism over its sustainability, but that the continuation of meetings had shown those doubts to be unfounded. Kochinyan also spoke of plans to prepare joint articles and research, and to hold joint events in the near future.
Optimism and caution coexist in Azerbaijan
In Azerbaijan’s public discourse, attitudes towards such initiatives are shaped by two contrasting sentiments. On the one hand, there is caution rooted in the memory of conflict; on the other, a pragmatic interest in whether the logic of “peace after war” can prove viable.
The main symbol of the Gabala meeting — the crossing of the land border — can also be seen in this context as a tool of public diplomacy aimed at softening perceptions of the other side as an enemy. Kochinyan’s emphasis on “preparing societies for peace” and Hajiyev’s remarks on people-to-people contacts reinforce this interpretation.
At the same time, the issue of “red lines” for the sustainability of the process remains relevant in Baku. Political volatility in Armenia, the electoral agenda and the constitutional question are viewed as key factors in anchoring peace at an institutional level.
In an interview with 1news.az, Kochinyan pointed to upcoming elections as an indicator of public support. Meanwhile, Armenian analytical sources note that Azerbaijan continues to view amendments to Armenia’s constitution as one of the conditions for concluding a peace agreement; cautious statements from the Azerbaijani side about the “risk of revanchism” are also framed within this context.
What added value does the Gabala meeting bring to the peace process?
The meeting in Gabala does not replace a peace agreement, but it serves three practical functions.
- First, it helps embed trust in everyday practice. The crossing of the border and the functioning of procedures demonstrate what “normal relations” could look like in reality.
- Second, it contributes to public legitimacy. By bringing into discussion the results of debates held within their own societies, participants may help governments gauge public sentiment and identify risks at an early stage.
- Third, it signals a shift towards tangible outputs. Coordinators have announced plans to produce joint articles and research, and to hold joint events, suggesting an effort to move the dialogue beyond discussion and towards materials that could have a real impact.
If these goals are achieved, the idea of expanding the dialogue to a regional level — for example, by involving additional expert platforms with participation from Georgia — may appear more realistic. However, the key condition remains the achievement of basic agreements between Baku and Yerevan.
Overall, the fourth meeting in Gabala can be seen as a cautiously encouraging step.
As independent analysts note, long-term sustainability depends not only on diplomatic documents, but also on the willingness of both societies to move away from conflict-driven narratives, as well as on the direction of domestic political dynamics.
“Bridge of Peace” in Azerbaijan
🇦🇿🇦🇲 “Azerbaijan is unequivocally committed to peace in the South Caucasus” – Armenian cultural figure in an interview wCaliber.AzWgC4
#Caliber #Azerbaijan #Armenia #PeaceProcess #SouthCaucasus #Diplomacaliber.az/en/post/azerba…XvtZ
— Caliber English (@CaliberEnglish) Apr 14, 2026
Armenian experts return from Azerbaijan
Nineteen representatives of Armenian civil society have returned from the Azerbaijani city of Gabala, where they held another meeting with Azerbaijani counterparts as part of the Peace Bridge initiative. After returning from Azerbaijan, they met with journalists. They outlined what they discussed and what results they achieved.
Areg Kochinyan, a political analyst and head of the Armenian Council analytical centre, coordinates the Armenian side of the initiative. He said the very fact that Armenian and Azerbaijani experts have now met four times marks a significant achievement. He also noted that participants want to continue working together.
“These visits help advance the peace agenda and foster peace between the societies of Armenia and Azerbaijan. To some extent, they also support the peace agenda promoted by the authorities of both countries,” Kochinyan said.
He noted that Azerbaijani colleagues showed interest in the outcome of Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary elections in June.
However, Kochinyan stressed that their questions remained appropriate. He said they recognised that the issue is Armenia’s internal matter and did not try to interfere or influence it in any way, even though “the future of the peace process largely depends on this factor”.
The main points raised during the press conference involved five Armenian co-founders of the initiative. The report also includes impressions from the JAMnews editor in Armenia who joined the trip.
- ‘Changing Armenia’s constitution is our decision, not others’,’ Pashinyan says in briefing
- Yerevan discusses the potential for linking energy systems of Armenia and Azerbaijan
- ‘First economic deal since independence’: Azerbaijani petrol arrives in Armenia
The fourth meeting of the Peace Bridge initiative took place on 10–12 April. Representatives of NGOs, media and analytical centres from both Armenia and Azerbaijan took part. This marked the second visit of Armenian experts to Azerbaijan. The first visit involved five founding members, while the second brought together an expanded group of 19 experts.
Participants alternate the round tables between Armenia and Azerbaijan. During the last two meetings, in both countries, participants did not travel by air. They crossed the interstate land border at the Tavush–Gazakh section instead. This part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border has already been delimited and demarcated. Participants completed all required border and passport procedures.
After the meeting in Gabala, organisers said it took place in an “atmosphere of constructive dialogue and frank discussions”.
Participants in Gabala also met Hikmet Hajiyev, head of the foreign policy department of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan. They discussed regional security, the progress of the peace process and the role of civil society in normalising relations between the two countries.
“There are topics we are not yet ready to discuss”
During a press conference in Yerevan, participants in the Peace Bridge initiative told journalists that discussions in Gabala covered a wide range of issues. They addressed Armenian-Azerbaijani relations in detail. Topics included the peace treaty, the unblocking of communications and potential cooperation between the two countries in various fields.
They told journalists that no topics are formally off-limits. However, they said both sides are not yet ready to discuss some issues in depth.
“Both sides are not yet able to discuss the past. They are not ready. They have not healed their wounds or overcome the pain. This initiative is about the moment when we will be able to address even these very painful issues,” said Naira Sultanyan, director of the Democracy Development Foundation.
Among the topics discussed, political analyst Areg Kochinyan highlighted the potential for cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan in hydrocarbons and electricity.
He also said that experts involved in the initiative are developing ideas and proposals to strengthen the peace process. One of these initiatives has already started. It involves a series of joint programmes by the Yerevan and Baku press clubs.
According to Boris Navasardyan, honorary president of the Yerevan Press Club, both Azerbaijani partners and local media show strong interest in the initiative:
“The current atmosphere and the intensity of contacts give grounds for optimism. Once the official Armenian-Azerbaijani format becomes more active, more specific initiatives will follow. These will involve concrete organisations and individuals participating in the 20+20 format of the Peace Bridge initiative. We will see progress in very specific thematic areas.”
Participants in the Peace Bridge initiative also do not rule out the creation of new formats. In particular, they are considering work in separate clusters. This could later include cooperation between business representatives, environmental experts, economists and specialists from other fields in both countries.
“Humanitarian issues should not be politicised”
Naira Sultanyan said Armenian and Azerbaijani partners jointly shape the discussion agenda, without interference from the authorities:
“We mainly focus on three issues. These are the problems that concern us, the obstacles to the peace process, and the opportunities we do not want to miss.”
She stressed that Armenian participants once again raised the issue of detainees held in Azerbaijan, as well as missing persons:
“We had an open and frank discussion. We once again underlined that the issue of detainees does not fit into the logic of the peace process. The process has moved much further ahead. These issues must be resolved to guarantee further progress in the peace process.”
She also said participants are trying to understand how they can help build trust between the sides. The aim is to create an environment where humanitarian issues become “less toxic, are not politicised and are not used as instruments of pressure.”
“Armenia and Azerbaijan face shared challenges”
Representatives of Armenian and Azerbaijani civil society also discussed the regional situation. Political analyst Narek Minasyan said both sides agree on one point. The war in Ukraine on the one hand, and developments around Iran on the other, create serious challenges for the South Caucasus. He described the region as “now effectively an island of stability and peace”.
Participants in the initiative believe it is in the interests of both Yerevan and Baku to prevent further escalation. They want to avoid any expansion of conflict and seek a resolution as soon as possible:
“The Azerbaijani side delivered a fairly clear message on this. In their view, Armenia and Azerbaijan are in the same boat when it comes to security. The regional challenges we face are shared. We therefore need to assess the current situation and try to strengthen it.”
He also stressed that discussions led experts to a shared conclusion. The current level of relations between the two countries has created a certain “security immunity”. Without it, there would be a “significant risk of interference by third countries and an expansion of the geography of the conflict in the region.”
“There are concerns about the implementation of the TRIPP programme”
Experts also discussed how regional developments could affect the implementation of the TRIPP project.
“Trump route for international peace and prosperity” (TRIPP) is a proposed road that will connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenian territory.
For several years, Yerevan and Baku failed to reach an agreement on this issue. Azerbaijan demanded a route it referred to as the “Zangezur corridor”. Armenian authorities said they were ready to unblock all transport links. However, they rejected the term “corridor”, as it implies a loss of control and, therefore, sovereignty over the territory.
Only on 8 August, in Washington, did the sides reach an agreement. They agreed that the road would remain under Armenia’s sovereign control. The United States would take part in the unblocking process as a business partner. As a result, the project became known as the “Trump route”, named after the mediator.
“We are trying to understand what solutions are possible if events drag on, if a war in Iran continues, or if TRIPP is suddenly seen as infrastructure that could come under attack during a conflict,” said another participant in the initiative, political analyst Samvel Meliksetyan.
He said both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides share these concerns. He stressed that the connection with Nakhchivan remains a key issue for Baku:
“The possibility of unblocking depends on efforts from the Armenian side as well. We have become used to closed borders. We have not developed as a transit country. When you are not a transit country, you do not think about road quality in terms of competitiveness.”
Meliksetyan said Armenia needs to develop high-quality transport links and technical solutions to remain competitive. He gave an example from his trip to Gabala. Armenian experts travelled on the Ganja–Gabala train, which runs at around 100 km/h. Train speeds on Armenian railways are significantly lower.
“This is not about forgetting the past”
Areg Kochinyan stressed that representatives of state institutions in both Armenia and Azerbaijan told participants during meetings that peace between the two countries has already been established. At the same time, he rejected accusations that the initiative seeks to erase the tragedies experienced by the two societies:
“The initiative is not about forgetting the past, or changing, adjusting or editing it. It aims to build new narratives and new opportunities alongside existing narratives, history and reality.”
The political analyst said no one can guarantee the success of the initiative or of the peace process as a whole. However, he added that “there will never be peace” without sustained efforts in this direction:
“In my view, even the signing of a peace agreement is not the end point of peace, but the starting point. From that moment, the real process of building peace between societies and shaping genuine peace will begin.”
“An insider’s perspective”
Naira Martikyan, JAMnews editor in Armenia, also took part in the round table. She shared her impressions with colleagues from the Armenian editorial team:
“I will say straight away that my impressions are positive and encouraging. I returned with greater confidence that peace has been established. During the sessions and informal conversations with colleagues, I saw that there is a genuine willingness for peace in Azerbaijan. This was also confirmed by Hikmet Hajiyev, head of the foreign policy department of the Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan:
‘Peace has been established. Azerbaijan fully supports the peace agenda,’ he said.
Moreover, he asked us to convey to our societies that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been resolved.
We are in a unique situation. A war is taking place right next to us, in Iran. At the same time, two neighbouring countries with a long history of conflict are discussing how to build cooperation across a wide range of areas.
After two meetings with Azerbaijani colleagues, I believe this direct and open dialogue benefits both sides. Experts from Armenia and Azerbaijan are putting forward interesting and even unexpected proposals. These ideas could change life in both countries and across the region.
Overall, this is a very positive process. What matters now is that it continues and reaches the stage where ideas turn into practical results.”
Armenian experts return from Azerbaijan