Elnur Aslanov

The year 2009 is coming to an end. When we analyse the past year, marked by global financial uncertainty, it becomes clear that everything around us is changing at a disastrously high speed.

Before we have had chance to get fully accustomed to e-mail and blog culture, we are forming new spaces and chat with each other via social networks. 4G is replacing 3G, innovations are transforming our perception of realities every day, television becomes 3D, we are not satisfied with cell phones as receivers. The Internet has become an integral part of our lives and we cannot imagine ourselves beyond the virtual area. This influences our consciousness, the appearance of new behavioural norms and stereotypes, our everyday life and relations with the surrounding world. We find it easier to communicate in the virtual space but are losing a sense of closeness in the real world.

Yet not only attitudes are changing. As was to be expected, the attitude to the system of international relations is changing too. Relations between the subjects of international law, states and other structures are becoming different. It is quite obvious that international relations have never been known for their high moral definitions and have always been in line with Lord Palmerston's quotation about friends and interests. But today they are becoming even more cynical.

Naturally, this affects the behaviour of anyone who gets information from the media. Today, by pre-empting the policy of the superpowers, the media define their agenda. Strange as it may seem, at a time when mankind is experiencing one of the most peaceful periods of coexistence, with the lowest number of wars and conflicts on Earth in the past 50-100 years, it is the media that are escalating new confrontations and conflicts.

If we say that the media are a system for the transmission and analysis of information, the question may arise – whose interests does this information serve? Independent, unbiased and objective information today has become as rare as vegetation in the Sahara. It is hard to find an international information agency that mostly publishes unbiased information about a region or country. At the same time, the position of one party, mostly subjective, is presented as the right one. This meets the interests of lobby groups and different political power centres.

No more than a year ago I had to work hard to get an article about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict published on Radio Liberty’s website in response to a number of articles by Armenian representatives. Almost a week after the article was published, the website posted an article by the so-called "representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic in the United States” without the cuts to which my article had been subjected. Radio Liberty was not interested in publishing a response from the Azerbaijani side.

Of course, we must not forget Machiavelli's principle that the end justifies the means and the most powerful means in the 21st century are the mass media.

The media have become a mouthpiece to intensify conflicts, muddy global issues and escalate violence. Ideas that cause controversy and sow enmity are expressed in the media. Every day we face one-sided information on TV channels that forget to present the positions of the opposite sides. Fabricated stunts on different issues are organized under the banner of democracy. The rights and protection of the freedom of the media have become big business for a number of international non-governmental and even governmental organizations that receive large funds for different projects and initiatives. Anyone can find a problem at any time or make one up.

The stronger and more independent the state, the harsher the dispute with it. If in its foreign policy a state prefers national interests to the mercantile interests of international officials bound to the political interests of centres of power, it is easy to find a pretext to accuse it or smear it. All that is required is the desire and the mass media at one's disposal.

The 21st century has become a centre of dependent press, reminiscent of the "cold war" when we were divided by an iron curtain. What is dividing us now? Nothing. But has anything changed? No, nothing.

The dependence of the press on external interests and the total absence of objectivity is becoming a decisive factor in the information age. One example is a film on the Karabakh conflict shown by Euronews TV channel several days ago. It is not that it was Armenia that occupied Azerbaijani land, though the film featured different things. It is not even that the film did not present Azerbaijan’s position and that such an influential channel as Euronews should preserve parity in its reporting. What is most embarrassing is that this has happened at a time of negotiations between presidents, statements of the OSCE Minsk Group mediators, the active participation of the leaders of the superpowers, in short at a time of opportunity for change and for a breakthrough in the region for the sake of security and stability. One might ask: who is not interested in peace in the South Caucasus? Who does not want to see justice and peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia? Who wants to see the tears of mothers who have lost their sons on both sides of the front?

Just a week before the material was broadcast on Euronews, the Armenian diaspora in the USA raised more than 15 million dollars in donations for the restoration of Shusha. I do not think it is necessary to ask how the money collected by the diaspora is spent, or how Euronews earns its money. But information presented by such an influential TV channel should be impartial and contain at least a minimum of facts. I do not rule out the possibility that the journalist might have acted on personal interests in preparing the material, but why did the channel leadership allow this material on air?

Today it is obvious that the domestic political and economic situation in Armenia is tough and Armenia is seeking to preserve the status quo in the region. It does not want peace in the region. A war, even in conditions of reconciliation, always implies big money that can be spent not only on armaments but also on underpinning the political future of the regime. The Armenian leadership understands this and acts against the interests of the Armenian public, which is looking forward to the restoration of peace and stability in the region. Unfortunately, the heads of media such as Euronews also find it difficult to understand this truth and they prefer mercantile interests to possible positive transformations in the South Caucasus. Clearly the spirits of ideas of the Arthashastra is still alive for some Western media, and especially Euronews: "If you have a peaceful neighbour, attack him, even without good reason, but if your neighbour is tough and aggresive, then sweettalk him."