The Diagnosis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations in
One Interview
By Armen Minasyan
Panorama.am - 22/06/2013
Lately with the support of research centre Region an on-line interview with
Azerbaijani political scientist Arastun Orujlu has been conducted. Given
the limited nature of communications, such interviews allow us to learn the
standpoint of the opposite side on certain issues. Also, in some cases
through this dialogue it becomes possible to get an idea about the
positions of the conflicting parties while regarding the speaker, who
reflects certain attitudes, as a relevant indicator. Arastun Orujlu's case
is one of such cases. Moreover, in his case only one question is enough for
making conclusions.
As a reporter from Panorama I had asked Mr. Orujlu the following question:
`Azerbaijani lieutenant Ramil Safarov, who had murdered an Armenian
lieutenant with an axe, after being extradited to Azerbaijan in 2012 not
only was exempt from serving the rest of his sentence but also was pardoned
and rewarded by the President, was promoted to a higher military rank, etc.
How do you assess the fact of murdering an unarmed person in peacetime and
respectively the response of the Azerbaijani authorities to this?' I have
posed this question from time to time to different Azerbaijani specialists,
experts and politicians in order to reveal by this their worldview as well
as their sincerity and common sense.
And here is Arastun Orujlu's answer: `I have already expressed my attitude
concerning this fact and it has been negative. Unfortunately the
heroification of any crime is now a commodity which has buyers in both
societies. It is of course lamentable that Aliyev did that; however in this
regard what the Armenian President told American expert Thomas de Waal
about his participation in the killings of Khojaly is not particularly
encouraging either.'
It might seem at first glance that the Azerbaijani expert has given a
sensible response, however two things can be deduced from this answer first, that he is using the manipulation techniques typical of the
Azerbaijani propaganda and second, that he proves, perhaps unwillingly,
that he acts not as an independent thinker but as a servant of that same
propaganda.
First, I must say that I have searched on the internet for Mr. Orujlu's
comments on this question but haven't found anything. The only interview
that he had given on this issue was the teleconference bridge by Radio
Liberty where the Azerbaijani expert indeed talked about this; however he
presented not his attitude but rather his analysis of the situation
portraying Aliyev's actions as those pursuing political and PR agenda.
As for Orujlu's comment on that the heroification of crimes currently has a
high demand, with this we could not agree. However, in this case the
question is who produces this `commodity'. It is one thing if this is done
by separate marginal groups and it is quite another thing if the state as a
whole, headed by the President, is engaged in this. For instance, all the
countries in the world today have the problem of drug production, drug
trafficking and sales. However, the problem in Mexico for example (where
each year hundreds of police officers die fighting against drug cartels) is
different from that in Taliban-led Afghanistan, where it was all
`regulated' directly by the political authorities of that country. That is,
the act of the President who heroifies and honors the criminal sentenced to
life imprisonment in a European country, cannot be compared for instance
with the actions of a man swearing in the street.
Orujlu himself understands this perfectly well, but most probably having a
special order had to somehow save the situation; that's why he referred to
Thomas de Waal, herewith resorting to a number of manipulations at once.
Let us begin with the formulation `...What the Armenian President told
American expert Thomas de Waal about his participation in the killings of
Khojaly is not particularly encouraging either.' This statement is a plain
lie, for the sole reason that Serzh Sargsyan didn't say such a thing in his
interview (Chapter 11) given to Thomas de Waal. The quote >From the speech
of the President presented in the interview does not contain a single
sentence in the first person. Why Mr. Orujlu is changing the wording just
like that is known only to those who ordered this to him.
Let us now turn to the notorious interview. In 2011 I had a chance to
interview Thomas de Waal personally concerning the quotes in his book. At
that time the American expert announced that for confirming the validity of
the quotes he must listen to the original tapes he had with him (which he
hasn't done), however he confirmed that he was the author and in many cases
he presented his impressions in the book. Concerning the actual events in
Khojaly he likewise mentioned at that time, that according to him it wasn't
at all a deliberately planned action. A part from this interview has been
uploaded on the internet for three years by now and Mr. Orujlu could have
been familiar with it. But his approach speaks about the fact that his goal
is not to know the facts, but rather, by misrepresenting the facts, to
spread the judgments he was ordered to spread.
P.S. FYI the interviews with Thomas de Waal and with many others have been
used in the documentary Between hunger and fire: Power at the expense of
lives. It would be useful for the Azerbaijani political scientists to be
familiar also with the facts presented in this film.