Comment by Khalid Rajabov
2005 Fellow (Azerbaijan)
I welcome Irina’s initiative for a dialogue, which can help bring closer the differing standpoints. As she states, voicing a problem, or concern is the first step towards a solution. In this regard, I would like to take the dialogue further to the next stage and raise some questions on themes outlined by Irina.
With my questions, I have no intention to highlight the correctness, or incorrectness of the ideas presented either by Irina, or by Fariz, but to have an in-depth look into the essence of the “problems” raised by Irina.
Please, also note, that below stated are my personal views.
1. Human rights.
There are violations of the human rights. But which aspects of human rights are at most violated both in Armenia and Azerbaijan? Is it the social and economic rights, is it the right to have an access to education, or to medical treatment, or is it the political rights through which the citizen can attempt to challenge the ruling party?
I assume, that by talking about human rights, mostly we focus on the fact, that political scene are in monopoly of one party and there is no intention to cede even the smallest portion of power to any other group. This is assumed to be the case both in Azerbaijan and in Armenia, regardless of the difference in dynamics of the domestic politics in two countries.
I wonder, taking into account the political history of these both countries, what makes Irina think that these two countries were supposed to have a political system, which had to resemble the ones existing in established Western democracies? Isn’t it logical that we live under the political conditions which we have for the time being? Democracy can not be selective, but we are selective and discretionary in our approach to one another. In other words, what we want for ourselves, we don’t want for others; this is the main reason why Armenia and Azerbaijan can not solve the Garabakh problem (which is the main obstacle on the way to political liberalization in both countries).
2. Why people protest more in Armenia and less in Azerbaijan?
One explanation has already been provided by Irina and namely, that the civil society is more mature in Armenia.
But there may be also other explanations. For example, huge oil revenues in Azerbaijan has led to spill-over effects, which benefits the whole society. This spill-over effect may happen either through the formal, or informal economy. In both cases, the money goes through the chain: A invests in building construction, B provides supplies as a contractor, C provides supplies as a sub-contractor, D provides catering service, E provides work clothes and etc. The whole process can be concentrated in the hands of one group, but the work chain definitely employs thousands of people. Within the increased liquidity resulting from the oil revenues, the number of investment projects have gone up, which led to increased employment. On the other hand, borders are open and the people, who feel restricted in local market move easily to Turkish, Iranian, European, or Russian markets and seek their opportunities there. In other words, open borders provide a channel through which the possible societal pressure is forwarded out of the country.
In this regard, can it be that the political protests in Armenia have increased, because the economic opportunities are not sufficient enough to benefit the people? I believe, the ruling regime in Armenia would have said “yes”. Because, after the protests, they basically did not undertake fundamental steps to support the liberalization of the political environment, but they intensified their efforts on opening the border with Turkey, which can open up new economic opportunities.
3. Corruption.
There is a corruption both in Armenia and in Azerbaijan. It would be interesting to have a research on how the corruption is being perceived by the societies in these two countries and whether our perceptions are the same with the ones existent in established western democracies.
I would assume, that many people in our societies consider corruption to be a very effective tool, in order to avoid the bureaucratic hurdles and achieve their objectives more efficiently both in terms of timing and accuracy.
Corruption will definitely be less attractive, if the system starts working effectively and efficiently. This raises another question and namely, whether there is a capacity in our societies to make the system effective and efficient? Until the capacity is there, it may be normal and even good to have a corruption, in order to ensure the smooth flow of the processes.
4. Russia in Armenia is solely by invitation.
Is Russia in Armenia solely by invitation? Did Armenia really want the Russian military bases from Georgia to be re-located in Armenia (in addition to the already existent military bases of Russia in Armenia)?
It would be very interesting for me to understand, what is meant by invitation? Because as I recall, Russia was in Armenia and remained also in Armenia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and will definitely stay there for a long time, as it perceives Armenia to be its staging post on the border to NATO.
I even would go further and argue, that the strong Russian presence in Armenia was and will be the main major factor regarding the isolation of Armenia from regional projects. The objective of the multi-billion regional projects is not to isolate Armenia, but to confine the Russian control over the transport and supply routes to European markets. In this regard, I don’t consider the Russian presence to be positive for Armenia.
5. Propaganda war.
Approximately, one million Azerbaijanis used to live in the area, which Azerbaijan considers to be under Armenian occupation (7 rayons plus the Upper Garabakh). One out of every seven Azerbaijani was displaced because of the conflict. It means, that one out of every seven Azerbaijani is the potential source of anti-Armenian attitude. Isn’t it logical to have anti-Armenian sentiments in a country with this number of displaced people? For these people, the opposite side of the medal of the so-called war for independence in Garabakh, means ethnic cleansing of Azerbaijanis from Garabakh.
I would argue, that there is an anti-Azerbaijani propaganda in Armenia, which seems stronger and deep-rooted. Anti-Armenian sentiments in Azerbaijan mainly focus on events of the recent history. Therefore I am sure, with the time, the anti-Armenian sentiments will fade away. However, I personally don’t have the same assurance about the anti-Azerbaijani attitude present in Armenia. Because it goes beyond the recent events and sees the Garabakh conflict as a continuation of a long lasting “historical and cultural battle” for survival of Armenians against Azerbaijanis, which peaks in claims to achieve the “historic justice” (claims to Nakichevan, even the territories up to river Kura). During his visit to the USA, the current Armenian president placed the Garabakh conflict into the context of “clash of civilizations” by highlighting the so-called “religious components” of the conflict ( Muslim Azerbaijani versus Christian Armenian). Therefore I am concerned more about propaganda in Armenia, rather than the one in Azerbaijan.
6. Need for dialogue
My comments are not supposed to lead to any conclusion, but rather focus on generating a dialogue. Dialogue is the only way to have a productive exchange of ideas, which can lead to tangible deeds. In this regard, I highly appreciate the efforts made by Fariz and Irina for a dialogue among our fellows.
Khalid Rajabov
JSF 2005/Azerbaijan
The views expressed in this article are those of the author. The John Smith Memorial Trust expresses no views on the content of articles but is pleased to be able to encourage debate on issues of this kind.
September 2008