ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTACTS BETWEEN PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN DESERVES ATTENTION: AZERI POLITICAL SCIENTIST
news.az
Nov 12 2009
Azerbaijan
Rasim Aghayev News.Az interviews political scientist Rasim Aghayev
on his attitude to a dialogue between representatives of Armenian
and Azerbaijan mass media held in Moscow.
"I suppose there cannot be two opinions on this issue. Certainly,
if we want the peace solution to this conflict and have initiated
a peacekeeping process to a certain extent, have a breakthrough
in one direction, have prospects in another, Karabakh direction,
establishment of contacts between public representatives deserves
attention. We have at war for already twenty years. These are mostly
presidents and foreign ministers that contact with each other.
Sometimes it occurred on the level of several deputies or ministers
who attended some international conferences in Yerevan or in Baku and
several small human rights organizations. It means that in fact wide
masses remain beyond this process. Therefore, public involvement in
this process is important and expedient.
This especially refers to journalists. Certainly, intellectuals
influence the process but journalists’ position will have the
greatest impact on formation of images. Why do we need intellectuals’
rapprochement? It is necessary because intellectuals, most Armenians…
Though let’s not speak who did more, or did less. First of all,
intellectuals are to be blamed for what has happened between the
peoples. It first created enmity and then turned unable to offer the
best way of conflict settlement. And now it must settle the issues of
hatred, enmity that sometimes lead to racism and misanthropy and so
on. Therefore, if the intellectuals form any serious understanding and
serious attitude towards it in the result, it will be wonderful. If
not, it would be a disaster for both Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
Second. Journalists have also made a serious and negative contribution
to this process. They are exaggerating and misinforming the public.
These were very incompetent people, who became correspondents of
some newspapers and so on after perestroika. But let’s remember
that the first strike came from Zorit Balayan, correspondent of the
"Literaturnaya qazeta". He is neither a writer nor a publicist, but
anyway he was a journalist in one of the most influential newspapers
of the USSR. The newspapers that served to Soviet intellectuals
were widely spread among it. And Zoriy Balayan made a large negative
contribution in relation to both nations. On the other hand he is in
fact one of those who created a myth of Armenian Nagorno Karabakh,
distorted history, falsified it in the most primitive way.
Nevertheless, it was accepted.
Therefore, journalists’ duty is to improve the process at the current
stage. Little should be done for it. I remember that in 1991 a similar
meeting was held in Moscow in autumn as well. Sabir Rustamkhanly and
several other people attended alongside me. Armenia also sent its
representatives. And at that time we managed to create and write down
a single position in relation to journalists’ conduct and improvement
of mass media. We found mutually appropriate forms and signed a
protocol of intentions. Yet, this issue was not developed as some
fire exchanges were recorded on the front line and everything failed.
Though I want to note that the experience of peacekeeping process
outlines a rule. As soon as we record a serious achievement or
reconciliation, or come to some coordinated positions, establishment
of contacts and trust, immediately different groups of the so-called
insane ultranationalists rise here and then provocative strikes are
heard in Armenia and in the diaspora, including in Moscow. First the
propaganda and then real fire exchanges are observed on the border
and the initiated thaw is frustrated.
Therefore, I think it is correct and we should start from smaller
things. It is necessary to agree on some definite points regarding
what should not be done. Certainly, we should prevent insulting
speeches and historical interpretations. We should not interfere with
the negotiation process unless basic principles of resolution are
published. Some painful spots that need anesthesia can be found. It
can be done and it may have a positive impact on the process.
Certainly, we should send people that hold indirect propaganda – a
newspaper editor or director of the agency. We should not forget that
television channels are especially able to influence the perception and
formation of opinions so that to attain some practical implementation
of possible agreements. But gradually, I think there is a need to
expand such an artistic circle of such mutual communication regardless
of how test with intellectuals and journalists end. We should attract
new social grouping. We should also involve scientists to this
process. I suppose it would be possible to hold a single conference,
for example, not on the history of Karabakh but on the correlation
of principles of self-determination and territorial integrity and
discuss how much they comply with the current realities.
What to prefer? And are they not outdated? And we should also study
an international approach to these problems. Or apply a historical
approach, which means consider the development history and perception
of this principle. I think scientists could join the process.
Opportunities are wide here, we should just practice it. And, on the
whole, the fact that this process is controlled by ambassadors Polad
Bulbuloghlu and Smbtyan may also enter the history as a "policy of
two ambassadors", or the "ambassadors’ initiative". It is necessary to
develop a single formula of "the ambassadors’ initiative" and further
develop it under the auspices of two popular figures that are famous
in Azerbaijan, in Armenia and the post-Soviet area. This might help. I
want to say that this case is promising though if you remember it
faced resistance in our country and in Armenia in the beginning.