April 6, 2005. Theme: The role of society in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict

Laura Baghdasaryan. The role of society in the settlement of the conflict.

I would like to suggest the following questions for discussion:

1. What do sociological surveys of our populations provide us with? Can they give us an idea of the real state of public opinion?
2. What is society's role in the process of normalizing relations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis?
3. Who are the subjects of the settlement - the leaders of our countries, the elites of the societies, or the societies as a whole? If, of course, we disregard the "outside" factor.

Alexander Iskandaryan. Isaac and acceleration. Are there clever women?

To Laura Baghdasaryan. 1. I am not going to lecture you here, but sociological surveys are a very delicate thing. A slight lack of professionalism in compiling the questionnaire or the slightest deviation from the representative sampling can transform the picture beyond recognition. Take it from an old wolf... Let alone absolutizing even the most qualified sociology is the worst thing a scientist can do. 2. The role of society in the process of normalizing relations between Armenians and Azerbaijanis is very great. Between Armenia and Azerbaijan it is insignificant. I'm not talking about diasporas but about inhabitants of our countries. 3. All three, naturally.

We don't perceive each other "as is undesirable"; on the contrary, we perceive each other just "as is desirable". This is the ABC that experts worked out a long time ago. Dehumanization (depriving an adversary of individual features) is a simple and comfortable way of explaining reality. All Jews are greedy, all women are silly, all Russians are drunkards, all Azerbaijanis are wild, and all Armenians are sly. Clear and simple. Thus it turns out that all 180,000 Azerbaijanis left Armenia in tears of grief prompted by the irrational extrusion law of physics, and Armenians in Sumgait , Baku , Ganja, Shamkhor and elsewhere were killed exclusively by the refugees from Kapan who had been subjected to Armenian torture, and the citizens of Baku and other angels rescued them. It is easy this way, see? The reverse of the stereotype "all women are silly" is not "all women are intellectual", but "women are diverse". And not all Russians are teetotalers, and Jews are not uninterested in money without exception. Both are diverse. This is the beginning of the destruction of stereotypes.

Arif Yunusov. Isaac Newton, Jews, Bush, and Iskandaryan.

Laura's questions: 1. I don't want to appear like a mentor either but I completely agree with Alexander about the conditional character of the results of sociological surveys. It doesn't ensue from this at all that they are not needed; this wouldn't be the right approach either. Simply, there are certain conditions and nuances which should be taken into consideration. This concerns the representative sampling, who conducts the survey, how the questions are prepared, and why the survey is conducted. On the other hand, surveys should be conducted on a regular basis to show what the dynamics are.

This is even more important. Because surveys record (well or badly, precisely or not) the situation at a specific given moment, after which there may be a dramatic change, as a result of any number of internal or external factors. For example, our survey has shown that four out of 995 Azerbaijani respondents consider Armenia a friendly country to Azerbaijan . For the Armenian side, this is a very small number and an opportunity to talk about how aggressive Azerbaijanis are and how impossible it is for the two peoples to live together. But for me these results are cause for optimism, since before it was hard to find even one person like that.

Today this number is four; tomorrow, if this figure grows, it will be clear that more favorable processes are taking place inside Azerbaijani society. Everything should be considered in terms of the dynamics. 2. In many respects I again agree with Alik-between our people it is great enough, but between our countries only partly, because of geopolitical other external factors that exist. 3. Here again I fully agree with Alik - everything is closely interconnected and it is impossible to separate one thing from the other.

Karine Nalchadjyan

In my last message I started to talk about the existence of psychological resources for the therapy of neuroticized societies and for the normalization of our relations. What resources do I have in mind? I shall digress slightly to talk about the psychology of an individual. Certainly, a person should look ahead and make realistic plans; that's normal. But it requires a certain optimal internal balance, mental health, and maturity. And if these elements are not present, therapy is necessary. A neurotic who doesn't wish to be treated, who persistently resists treatment, and who doesn't want to or cannot analyze himself is a hopeless neurotic. It is only possible to work effectively with an individual when he is ready for it.

A psychologist's work is usually directed back to the history of the life of the person because mental traumas from which he suffers today are there, as a rule. But the traumatic traces of the past are resistant and unwilling to emerge. The patient persistently wants to speak about the present, believing that all discussions of the past are empty words, a waste of time, etc. A lot of effort and patience are required from the psychologist to help the patient overcome unwillingness, oblivion, and silence and to take him back to the past in order to elicit the TRUTH, even if that is, in the patient's view, most unfair, terrible, not to his advantage...

But the psychologist knows that one should not be afraid of the truth, for the truth heals. This concerns not only the person, but equally socio-psychological groups, and peoples. One should not trifle with history, castrate it, juggle with it, invent things and then believe in the inventions, poison the younger generation with lies. The falsification of history leads to one thing - the neurotization of the society, to a chaos of selfishness, and to both external and internal conflicts. We are both at this point now. Only when Azerbaijan stops juggling with history (recent and less recent), driving into the heads of its children the fruits of its adults' imaginations will we see a light at the end of the tunnel. Unless the Azerbaijani preachers of "history" stop pretending that they don't know that the Karabakh Armenians are living in their home, and honestly tell this to their people, the hysteria will go on. After all, you know history just as well as we do.

Rasim Musabekov. Comparative polls using a uniform methodology.

Our discussion on the "image of the enemy" has smoothly turned to the traditional channel of disputes concerning recent history, and attempts by each to propagandize his own version. Frankly speaking, I don't see any sense in such swordplay and that's why I've been following the discussion without taking part in it. Everything is quite proper and competent but it is hardly productive. I would be pleased if our young people would discuss these issues in such a tone on various Internet sites. But they prefer to quarrel with each other without watching their language. As to sociological surveys, they are necessary but one should not treat the results as absolute. Like Alexander Iskandaryan, I have conducted dozens of surveys and agree that it is enough to distort the question or to deviate from the representative sampling and the survey will not be worth a penny. From the scientific analytical point of view, it will be work done in vain or wasted money, but from the point of view of propaganda, it will help to score points.

Nevertheless, it would be worthwhile to conduct comparative surveys using a uniform technique not only in Azerbaijan and Armenia but in Georgia as well.

Alexander Iskandaryan. Tigran the Great and neuroses.

Arif, if one of the "realities" of one of the sides is "favorable", it should be taken into consideration who Karabakh belonged to in the time of Tigran the Great-Armenians or Australians? It doesn't mean that ONLY THIS should be taken into account; clearly, the other side and other aspects of reality do exist. But it is impossible not to take into account under whose control Karabakh and the occupied territories are.

Azad Isazade

No doubt, sociological surveys are important but perhaps we should not rely on them as the ultimate truth. First, no sociological survey is an absolutely objective method of research; it contains a certain degree of subjectivity. Even approved psychological tests considered more objective can have divergent results concerning the same patient, depending on the time of testing and the patient's condition. Thus, periodicity makes it possible to observe the dynamics of processes. Therefore, sociological surveys should, perhaps, be conducted at certain time intervals using the same technique in order to observe the relative changes within the society.

Second, I appeal to my colleague, Madame Karine. One may agree with much that you have said but with one reservation: Why do you point to Azerbaijani reality and history so easily, without addressing Armenian reality and history at all. After all, you know Armenian history and reality better. Isn't that a manifestation of stereotypes? By the way, this isn't the first time we've faced a situation where other Armenian brought up Azerbaijani facts and stereotypes but, practically, didn't acknowledge the presence of stereotypes within Armenian society as well. Unfortunately, none of the participants in this forum, including me, is stereotype-free. But the difference, in my opinion, is that the Azerbaijani participants realize to some extent the existence of stereotypes within themselves and try not to manifest them (it is up to the Armenians to judge whether they have succeeded or not), whereas the Armenian participants, I have the impression, have an internal censor who is subconsciously present all the time. It may be that that I am judging the Armenians more critically under the influence of my stereotypes. It's just that I know the Azerbaijani participants better and their statements in Azerbaijan do not differ from their statements at this forum. I would prefer that my words were perceived not as criticism but as the desire to have an objective dialogue.

However, you are free to take it as criticism, and to "jump on" me in order to refute it. The best refutation will be if we speak one "language" and argue with facts from our own history and the situation inside our own country instead of trying to discover "fried" facts about the "opponent".

Alexander Iskandaryan. I shall tell you what you should talk about.

Mr. Isazade, I, for example, shall operate with the facts from the history that I know better. Or from the one that suits the moment better, better supports what I want to say. Citing Newton as an example (as a joke, of course)-I do that not because I want to tease Englishmen or because there are no Armenian physicists, but because I don't know them and the example of Newton seemed to me more opportune. It's not the sole prerogative of ethnic Azerbaijanis to cite examples from Azerbaijani history and vice versa. You can use from Armenian history as much as you want - the examples should just be correct - and do not mention Azerbaijani history at all if you don't want to, that's your right. I am against restricting my intellectual freedom in principle (though I personally did not give examples from Azerbaijani history) for ethical reasons. Zbignew Brzezinski has the right not to speak about Poland and Kissinger not about Israel , and I not about Armenia . And if it seems correct to me I will certainly speak about Azerbaijan . And will not for a moment think about parity. For I am not the "Armenian side"; I am Alexander. That person. And as long as we consider such a distorted idea that an ethnic Armenian has the right to speak about Armenia and an ethnic Chinese has the right to speak about China to be political correctness we will thus limit knowledge for the sake of ethnic stereotypes. Say whatever you want about Armenia ; just do it competently. If you are mistaken you will be corrected. Either by an Armenian or by an Azerbaijani - whoever knows better.

Arif Yunusov

It is necessary to recognize that Karabakh is the native land of both Armenians and Azerbaijanis and that they are to live there, no matter what. And I don't just mean Armenians and Azerbaijanis who live there now, or have lived there very recently according their passports; I also mean the inhabitants of Armenia and Azerbaijan . Thus, our peoples and our republics can become the real guarantors, not international organizations. Simply, today we are very far from that.

To Laura Baghdasaryan. Yes, I agree that in the Azerbaijani media propaganda about Karabakh is, perhaps, an even greater trend than the problem of 1915 in the Armenian press. And it is also true that all the layers of society participate in this process. As regards Armenian aggression and the attitude toward Armenians in this connection, there is a psychological aspect to this. The aggression of Armenians is, in the opinion of Azerbaijanis, of an indirect character and not an independent factor. Thus, among ordinary people, the widespread opinion is that the Armenians themselves would not dare any war or aggression without Russia 's support. In other words, the Armenians (I am sorry for the expression, it is not mine after all) play the role of Russian bludgeon. Russia beats and punishes Azerbaijan for its independent policy with the hand of Armenians. Read the numerous interviews by Vafa Guluzade and by many others and you will understand me. And also, no one in Azerbaijan believes that all this has been done by the Karabakh Armenians. The first reaction to this is that some 140,000 Armenian peasants from Karabakh, most of whom were women, children, and elderly people, could not attack and defeat the eight-million-strong Azerbaijan .

Even together with their compatriots in Armenia and Russia , Armenians could not have achieved such a victory. Only thanks to the Russians. Therefore, Azerbaijanis lost the war not to Armenians but to Russia . And, consequently, there comes the appeal often sounded by Ilham Aliev (most recently last January): "Leave Armenians with us face to face and we shall see how they act!"

Rauf Mirkadirov. The media and societal demand.

The intensity of the references to the Karabakh problem in the media of the parties is connected with the societal demand, which itself is determined by the same "no war no peace" situation. As a matter of fact, the parties have arrived in this situation with equal baggage. The Armenian side has, in practice, achieved the maximum possible through military operations.

However, it is very hard to reap the fruits from the point of view of international legal standards. Well, it is formally possible to achieve international recognition of the de facto, existing independence of Nagorno Karabakh or its unification with Armenia , but only with the consent of Azerbaijan . But Azerbaijan is not ready for this, perhaps to the great and, I believe, sincere regret of distinguished Karine. Therefore, there is no special reason for the Armenian media, i.e. there is no societal demand, to address this subject in the course of slow-moving peace negotiations. As it is not advantageous to even hasten the mediators as long as official Baku is not "ripe" for understanding the "existing realities".

Therefore Yerevan , as against Baku , constantly emphasizes that it is pleased with the work of the OSCE Minsk group though there is no progress in the settlement of the conflict. The logic is simple - if it is impossible to settle the conflict on favorable terms then there is no need to hasten events. Thus, one can establish from time to time the amplification aggressive moods within Azerbaijani society with the indispensable confirmation of one's own peaceful disposition, but no more. One cannot, after all, openly declare the possibility of dividing Azerbaijan in two.

Laura Baghdasaryan. A conversation from the times of our first encounters.

This feels like a conversation from the times of those first encounters between representatives of our countries, when cross-accusations like "your people" "our people" reigned. We recollect, I know, that the majority of the participants invited for this discussion were present at the very first meetings. Arif is right that we talk about our problems virtually. True, he meant that Azerbaijan should have more contact with the inhabitants of Karabakh, but this formulation of his can be safely applied to our discussion as well.

What should we do if, on the one hand, we think that spreading the image of the enemy is a guarantee - just in case, and on the other hand we declare that this is societal demand. In fact, one can get extremely used to the demand then be unable to be weaned from it. After all, justice according to each of the parties is the polar opposite of the other's. The resources of contacts - when the channels of cooperation even between NGOs are being blocked (and I see this tendency today more and more clearly) - will be exhausted along with us. Yes, we are the generation that has been in contact in recent years and has the personal experience of dialogue. What should we do now, write one thing in the media because there is a demand for it, and bring up a new generation of NGO activists for ourselves? Or do you think that without financial support from international organizations we will be able to meet at all, even like this - virtually and simultaneously? What should we do about all this? Read over the text of this conference. A prevalence of modality. In general, correct words. But isn't it too romantic if we take into account both the manner of the discussion and what we really have?