Russian politician urges Armenia, Azerbaijan to make deal
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
22 Mar 04
The Russian president’s former special representative for the Nagornyy
Karabakh settlement has called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to “weed out
the harmful seeds of propaganda”. In an article, headlined “Opium for
its own people” and published by Mediamax on 22 March, Vladimir
Kazimirov called on the mediators to help the conflicting parties make
compromises. Mediamax quoted the envoy as saying that “manipulation of
public opinion deepens mutual distrust” which hinders the settlement
of the conflict. The following is the text of the report in English by
the Armenian news agency Mediamax headlined “Armenia-Azerbaijan:
Former mediator’s view on the sides’ propaganda”; subheadings have
been inserted editorially:
A month has passed since Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan’s brutal
murder committed by Azerbaijani serviceman Ramil Safarov in Budapest
on 19 February.
This crime has not only aroused a new wave of mutual hostility in
Armenia and Azerbaijan but has also become a motive for discussing the
role of propaganda in the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict.
In this connection, we find it expedient to present in our regular
Weekly Review excerpts from the article entitled “Opium for its own
people” by the Russian president’s former special representative for
the Karabakh conflict settlement and deputy chairman of the Russian
Diplomats’ Association Council, Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov. The
article was presented to Mediamax by Vladimir Kazimirov personally.
Weed out harmful seeds of propaganda
There is a direct link between talks on the settlement of a conflict
and propaganda around it. The less is the progress in the negotiating
process, the more the sides need verbal cover-up “to compensate”
it. But, as a matter of fact, there is a lack not only of progress but
also of negotiations. Shifts in them would demand from the authorities
and professional propagandists quite another approach to the public.
One of the main tasks of the settlement is to prepare the sides’
public opinion for inevitable mutual compromises. And it is necessary
to weed out the harmful seeds of propaganda right where they spring
up: to expose the Azerbaijani propaganda in Azerbaijan and the
Armenian in Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh. Each side is not at all
impeccable in this conflict, that is why the parties to the conflict
must be shown that they should make compromises, suffer some
inevitable losses in order to achieve a peace agreement.
The role of the media and international mediators is also of great
importance here. But for the fear of going “against the current” the
media could greatly contribute to the settlement [sentence as
published]. The power of inertia is great, but after destroying false
theses not every propagandist will dare to again sow the same
seeds. The mediators can help the sides take a more realistic approach
to vexed issues, help them get rid of the illusions that their
propaganda creates and is about to give dividends. A common reader
should know as well that he is being brainwashed by their authorities
and their subordinate propagandists. Let us look at some concrete
examples.
Propaganda in Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh
1. Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh take great pains to hush up a
widely-known secret – the Armenian regular army participated in the
hostilities of 1991-94, and they are still stationed in Nagornyy
Karabakh and the territories occupied outside it. The result is the
derivative propaganda cliche, as for instance in the very name of the
conflict and in the description of Armenia’s role in the conflict and
its settlement.
2. The name of the conflict has for years been a matter of dispute. In
purely ethnic sense, the words “Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict” would
be correct. But this way Baku is trying to turn the conflict into a
matter between two states – Armenia and Azerbaijan, making Nagornyy
Karabakh just a subject of controversy, removing the Nagornyy Karabakh
problem as such and ousting the Karabakh people from the
talks. International organizations, particularly the UN and the OSCE,
prefer the most correct and natural name “Nagornyy Karabakh conflict”.
Yerevan and Stepanakert [Xankandi] have been trying recently to rename
it “Karabakh-Azerbaijan [conflict]”, obscuring Armenia’s role and
saying that it is not a party to the conflict but only a guarantor of
Nagornyy Karabakh’s security. The Russian diplomacy tried its best to
persuade Yerevan not to hide behind Stepanakert’s back but to
recognize itself a party to the conflict. Propaganda tricks cannot
mislead the mediators and international organizations, they are
obliged to proceed from the realities of life and not from artificial
schemes.
3. Zealously and even obsessively, Armenians call “liberated” the
Azerbaijani territories occupied by them outside Nagornyy Karabakh. If
the word “occupied” grates, let us call them seized. These territories
were captured by Armenian troops during the hostilities of
1992-94. The occupation was the result of the war, its severe
logic. However, Armenians alter the term not only because they are
ashamed to be called occupants. This is a claim to represent these
territories as originally Armenian, which were earlier annexed to
Azerbaijan. Even if there is some truth in this, there is no need to
revive the dispute of old ages in the 21st century, to give the
impression of the desire to rebuild Greater Armenia, which is often
used by Azerbaijani propaganda.
4. The common quirk of propaganda has become an attempt to present the
territorial claims to Azerbaijan as punishment for its attempts to
settle the conflict by force (like the territorial losses of Germany
and Japan as a result of aggression in the World War II). It is very
naive to expect that these arguments will be taken into account during
the settlement and will help gain territories. The real result of such
propaganda is increased tension and further difficulties in settling
the conflict.
Propaganda in Azerbaijan
1. Everybody is being convinced that 20 per cent of Azerbaijani
territory have been occupied, that the country has a million
refugees. But let us make some calculations: the Nagornyy Karabakh
Autonomous Region occupied about 5 per cent of the Azerbaijani Soviet
Socialist Republic, but it is not fully under the Armenians’
control. Outside it, Armenians have occupied only 9 per cent of
Azerbaijani territory. Thus, even if we take Nagornyy Karabakh into
account we cannot get 14 per cent (even in round figures, 15 per cent
and even 10 per cent is closer to the truth than 20 per
cent). However, Nagornyy Karabakh’s “occupation” is not at all
indisputable.
There are indeed many displaced people, 750,000 to 800,000, because of
the conflict in Azerbaijan. But in order to be more persuasive, these
figures are rounded to a million – to all appearances, counting upon
compassion and sympathy for the victim party in the conflict. But they
do not understand that by regularly overstating those already
impressive figures, they undermine confidence and everything happening
in Baku will be considered as exaggeration.
2. Baku often insists on the fulfillment of UN Security Council
resolutions with the aim to liberate the occupied territories. This is
an important demand of four resolutions, but only one of them
[sentence as published]. How can one expect others to fulfil
resolutions, if he did not fulfil them himself? The main demand of all
the resolutions adopted in the heat of the hostilities in 1993 was a
cease-fire. And who violated it, not once or twice? We must not forget
that Azerbaijani leaders either rejected a cease-fire or violated it
hoping to achieve a turning point in the war. Those who did not stop
the hostilities are also to blame for the expansion of occupation and
displacement of civilians. Very few people know the truth about the
end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994. I know for sure that there were
chances to achieve a truce earlier, thus reducing losses of all the
sides. That is why the fuss around the UN Security Council resolutions
can “persuade” only those who do not have more complete and true
information, i.e. “own people” inside the country.
3. Baku insists that international organizations declare Armenia an
aggressor. Moreover, it intentionally “confuses” occupation with
aggression though these are not the same thing. (Germany’s occupation
lasted for many years, and was the USSR an aggressor?) The Karabakh
conflict is a complicated problem, Armenia is its direct participant,
as well as Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh. Curiosity would suggest
searching for precedents: how many countries has the UN Security
Council accused of aggression? The OSCE and other international bodies
do not count here at all. There are hardly one or two such
cases. Sanctions were imposed on Iraq not depending on the percentage
of Kuwait territories it occupied and the duration of occupation but
because it assaulted it. The things are more complicated in
Karabakh. Such distorted propaganda only causes disappointment and an
inferiority complex inside the country: like, everybody is unfair
towards us, the Azerbaijanis.
4. Finding itself in an uncomfortable situation, Baku has practically
disposed itself to a “cold war” against Armenians. Both economic
“shock-absorbers” and any contacts with Armenians (even public ones)
are denied; those who support these contacts are persecuted. In the
civilized society, someone would be glad to implant something like
fundamentalism, revanchism and Armenophobia, which prevent the
elimination of both the reasons and consequences of the conflict.
There are more and more manifestations of fanaticism and extremism
even at the level of public organizations.
5. But the biggest “achievement” of the Azerbaijani propaganda is the
bluff of military revenge. The threats do not have even a real
material basis, not to mention legal and moral ones. Azerbaijan has
assumed commitments to solve disputes peacefully without resorting to
force and threats to use force when joining the OSCE. When joining the
Council of Europe, Azerbaijan (like Armenia) assumed an obligation to
settle the Karabakh conflict peacefully. The truce treaty is of
unlimited duration. And who has miscounted the consequences of
resuming hostilities, their outcome for the parties, losses suffered
by the people, international reaction, etc? Irrational hysteria
undermines the young state’s authority, puts it in a disadvantageous
and inconvenient position, and when uttered by officials in a position
that is ridiculous and humiliating for their country.
Conclusion
The result is doubtless: manipulation of public opinion deepens mutual
distrust, which has already become the main obstacle on the path of
settling the Karabakh conflict. In order to move the conflict
settlement from the deadlock, it is very important to show the
falseness of these manipulators from every side, their detrimental
role.