The devil is in the details

We have been hearing frequent calls recently for the creation of an atmosphere of trust between the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides of the Nagornyy-Karabakh conflict. Local and international NGOs, as well as representatives of the Armenian and Azerbaijani intellectual elite are particularly active in this. The media sometimes oppose the use of force in addressing the Nagornyy-Karabakh conflict and emphasizes the role of public diplomacy. While these appeals are progressive in essence, they often hide less flattering goals. Often these appeals create the wrong impression about the actual state of affairs and divert attention from the problem. 

The point is that nobody has yet rejected the possibility of a peaceful settlement to the conflict, despite the fact that Azerbaijan reserves the right, in the worst case scenario, to liberate the occupied lands by military force. On the other hand, Azerbaijan does not harbour any animosity towards the Armenian people who, like the Azerbaijani people themselves, fell victim to the aggression of Armenian ultra nationalists. Nevertheless, to say that both sides to the conflict shoulder equal responsibility in this matter is inaccurate to say the least. 

Many influential international organizations admit that there is an atmosphere of ethnic and religious tolerance in Azerbaijan. Everybody knows full well how things stand, in this respect, in mono-ethnic Armenia. 

Back in 1988, an Armenian youngster was arrested on suspicion of murdering an elderly Azerbaijani man. Asked by V. Kondratyev, a former member of the republican organizational committee of the Nagornyy-Karabakh Autonomous Republic from the Armenian side, why he had done this, he said proudly: "Don't you understand that Turks should be killed as enemies of our people?" Armenian youths are raised in this same spirit. Armenian scholars and intelligentsia play a central role in shaping this image of the enemy in the youth consciousness. To substantiate the argument, let us recall one exchange between the academies of sciences of the Azerbaijani and Armenian Soviet republics. 

At the end of the 1980s, 250 Azerbaijani intellectuals approached the president of the Armenian Soviet Academy of Sciences, requesting his help in compelling Armenians to abandon their territorial claims and their fuelling of ethnic hatred towards Azerbaijanis and Turks.

"We would be very grateful if you could appeal to your intellectuals and put a halt to the excesses of your fellow citizens. How can you demand your neighbours lands? Azerbaijan is not a pie from which a slice can be cut. For the third time in less than 100 years, Armenians are acting as instigators of brutal clashes between brotherly nations. Who else, except you, can stop the angry crowds?" - the Azerbaijani appeal read. 

Members of the Armenian Soviet Academy of Sciences responded rudely. Their response was filled with insults towards Azerbaijani science and the people in general: "Azerbaijani scientists! We do not even know how to address you. Both of these words need to be put in square brackets it seems…the descendants of Tamerlane, the Turk-Seljuks and Ottomans have never had their own lands. They could not have possibly owned any lands because they were nomads and cattle breeders. How could they own lands if they only left murders, robberies and violence in their wake…we recommend making your people a bit more cultured - if this is possible at all."

This clearly racist message was not signed by the president of the Academy of Sciences despite the fact that he was supposed to respond to the Azerbaijani appeal. Nor did he voice any protest. His silence was a demonstration of solidarity with his subordinates. At the same time, R. Kazaryan, a member of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, said at a rally in Yerevan: "For the first time in many decades we have a chance to cleanse Armenia." Another academic, V. Ambartsumyan, shared the same sentiments, saying "Armenia without Turks, that is, without Azerbaijanis". They eventually did what they meant to do. Currently, there is no need to discuss ethnic or religious tolerance in Armenia given that only Armenians live there. 

As we see, this is not about creating an atmosphere of trust. This is about attempts to obscure the main issue with endless discussions - the withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from Azerbaijani territories in compliance with the demands of the international law. A new generation of people have grown up in Azerbaijan over the past 25 years. These people have not witnessed the brutal actions perpetrated by Armenia during the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Hypothetically, Azerbaijan's ethnic and religious tolerance may now play in favour of Armenia. This is a story of good cop, bad cop: first came the intellectuals who infected the Armenian people with the chauvinistic nationalist virus. After they attained their malign goals, the purportedly "moderate" intellectuals came onto the scene. The latter are now emphasizing good neighbourly relations but continue to brainwash Armenian youth.  

Words by the late Azerbaijani philosopher, academic T. Kocarli, are particularly relevant in this context: "We were sincerely committed to friendship. We were perfectly honest in our friendship. We believed in the power of the law of good neighbourly relations. Animosity against Armenians never crossed our minds. We never prepared for the war with Armenians. Moreover, we failed to derive lessons from our own history."

The actions of the Armenian and Azerbaijani government agencies have diverged widely. While the Armenian authorities, who immediately participated in the extermination of the peaceful population in Karabakh, continue anti-Azerbaijani and anti-Turkish propaganda, official Baku has never declared the whole of the Armenian nation as its enemy. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has said this on more than one occasion: "Our main enemies are the global Armenian diaspora and hypocritical politicians steeped in corruption and bribery and the members of some parliaments and political figures who thrive on money paid by the Armenian lobby. 

In the meantime, the Armenian national security strategy, which was adopted in January 2007, recognizes Azerbaijan and its strategic relations with Turkey as the main foreign threat to Armenia's and Karabakh's security. This does not need any further comment. 

What is the meaning of the Armenian president's bragging regarding the Xocali genocide and his personal participation in it for the Armenian people? Will it facilitate the creation of an atmosphere of mutual trust? It is important to answer these questions. Most importantly, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev told Rossiya-24 in April: "We are often accused of showing reluctance in confidence building, that Azerbaijan is reluctant to establish a firm ceasefire regime on the contact line. However, first and foremost, the ceasefire regime is violated by both sides. On the other hand, unless we make progress in the negotiation process, which envisages de-occupation, no other measures seem to be particularly significant.