Opinion: LAURENCE BROERS - Armenia and Azerbaijan: what can societies do when political judgement errs?

 

In this op-ed for the opendemocracy.org website Dr Laurence Broers discusses the challenges facing civil society activists in the aftermath of the Safarov case.

Recent weeks have ushered in a new low point for those working towards a peaceful resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorny Karabakh.

President Ilham Aliyev's pardon of Ramil Safarov, convicted of the brutal murder of an Armenian army officer in Budapest in 2004 and extradited back to Azerbaijan, appeared to reward ethnic hatred and dealt a huge blow to any sense of trust between Armenians and Azeris.

All of the worst stereotypes about Azeris and Azerbaijan circulating in Armenian websites and chatrooms seemed to be confirmed. Years of intensive public relations work to introduce little-known Azerbaijan to the wider world unraveled.

Ethnic stereotypes are particularly hard to shift in a context where people cannot talk to each other. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that Armenian and Azerbaijani societies live in different worlds, living by their own separate interpretations of the conflict dividing them.

With borders closed and travel across the conflict closed to all but a tiny handful of experts, Armenians and Azeris no longer have direct contact on which to base their perceptions of each other. They are connected instead by an information war, waged on state-controlled TV at home and in the bullet-points of lobbying groups abroad.

Armenians and Azeris: how incompatible are they?

As Caucasus expert and Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington D.C. Thomas de Waal has pointed out, Ramil Safarov's pardon is a golden windfall for those who argue that Armenians and Azeris are incompatible, and that they cannot live together.

Ironically, this is a line usually heard on the Armenian side of the conflict, where people are more satisfied with the status quo and the current segregation of Armenians and Azeris. In a newly antagonized and embittered environment, what hope is there for Armenian-Azeri dialogue?

A new multimedia handbook published this month by a London-based peacebuilding organisation shows that different visions are possible. Its been written to accompany Dialogue Through Film, a unique film-making initiative supported by Conciliation Resources since 2006.

The initiative brings together young Armenians and Azeris and supports them to produce short documentaries about the conflict that stands between them. In a context where hate-speech thrives, Dialogue Through Film has held out the prospect of a fresh language of moving images: moving both in terms of the emotional content, but also in terms of shifting perceptions.

Over 30 young film-makers have taken part, and through a series of film showings carried out over the last two years across Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorny Karabakh, thousands of Armenians and Azeris have watched their films.

A human history of the Karabakh conflict

The films, up to half-an-hour long, provide a human history of the Karabakh conflict. They document experiences as diverse as the fate of mixed marriages, Armenian-Azeri prisoner exchanges, online war-gaming and lives of Armenian and Azerbaijani refugees.

This human history and the experiences of those bringing the films to wider audiences are brought together in Dialogue Through Film - A Handbook. Published in Armenian, Azeri, Russian and English, it contains interviews with participants and film protagonists, suggestions and recommendations on how to set up a screening, and 20 short films on DVD - everything that's needed to organize your own film showings and debates.

A far cry from the easy stereotypes of government-controlled media or anonymous internet postings, Dialogue Through Film offers a different vision: young people seeking their own answers to the question of why the Karabakh war happened and the human cost involved.

But this is no rose-tinted vision. These films openly confront the legacies of a tragic war, including occupation, torture, life in displacement, injury and personal loss. At often-difficult meetings, all of the films have been watched and edited together in Tbilisi. There are many uncomfortable moments for all audiences, whatever their nationality.

Yet in the words of one young viewer from Armenia: "if films like these only showed how well Armenians and Azeris get on, they would be of no use and no interest".

Dissenting voices: ‘Not in my name'

The presidential pardon of Ramil Safarov has cut the ground from under initiatives like this. For Armenians, it will now be even harder to see beyond the ‘Ramil Safarov' in every Azeri. Participation in confidence-building activities will seem more illusory and dangerous than ever.

Yet it has also provoked a range of responses from within Azerbaijan itself. Some local commentators, as well as Azeris in the blogosphere, have distanced themselves from Safarov's rehabilitation and the damage to Azerbaijan's moral image. This disquiet shows that many Azeris are unhappy with a stark vision of ethnic hatred, and with closing off normal dialogue with Armenians.

On both sides this is a time to reflect on what societies can do when political judgment errs. It is a moment when those holding more moderate views must not be cowed by hard-line hysteria, and wherever they can, say "not in my name".

Initiatives such as Dialogue Through Film show that alternatives are possible. The challenge now will be to weather the storm and keep these alternatives alive as cold war between Armenia and Azerbaijan deepens.

 

 

Dr Laurence Broers is Caucasus Projects Manager at Conciliation Resources. This op-ed appeared first on the website www.opendemocracy.org

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.
Editor's choice
News
Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Donald Tusk: "One for all, and all for one! Otherwise we are finished."

Europe is rattled by events in Venezuela, and there are serious concerns that US disregard for international law may have consequences close to home.  The BBC diplomatic correspondent, James Landale, said, the question is how Europe may respond in the longer term to America's military operation in Venezuela. Will it provide a catalyst for the continent to take greater responsibility for its own security in the face of so much instability from what many see as an unreliable ally? Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, appears to have answered the question, saying on social media: "No-one will take seriously a weak and divided Europe: neither enemy nor ally. It is already clear now. "We must finally believe in our own strength, we must continue to arm ourselves, we must stay united like never before. One for all, and all for one. Otherwise, we are finished." The US seizing of Venezuela's leader has faced strong criticism from both America's friends and foes at an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, held on Monday, 5 January. Many member states agreed with the US that Nicolás Maduro had been an illegitimate and repressive leader. But many also condemned the US military action as a breach of international law and the UN Charter, and they demanded a democratic transition that reflected the will of the Venezuelan people. (click the image to read the full article).

Popular

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.