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. Nevertheless, the process worked ".
Arzu Mamedov
News.Az