Tweet
PECULIARITIES OF THE INFORMATION WAR
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
21 March 05
About 11 years have passed since the ceasefire agreement which put an
end to the military actions in Nagorni Karabakh. It should be mentioned
that the agreement achieved by Azerbaijan, Nagorni Karabakh and Armenia
in May 1994 was more or less maintained. However, this does not mean
that the conflict sides have at least a little approached the final
settlement of the problem. It is quite the opposite; the armistice
may create political, legal, military, economic and informational
conditions for the resumption of military actions. What is more, the
military actions may be wider in scale than they were at the beginning
of the 1990s. In other words, at present the war is going on at the
level of politics, international law, economy, military building and
information. One of the peculiarities of the information war is that
its consequences are graver than those of armed conflict. Destroyed
buildings and communication can be restored soon, whereas uprooting
of hatred for a neighbouring nation may take decades. Therefore, it is
absolutely unacceptable to provoke nationalistic hysteria through the
mass media and instill hatred for a neighbouring nation. Unfortunately,
we have to admit that another peculiarity of the information war
is the atmosphere in which a nation does not tolerate the opposite
side of the conflict. First of all, this refers to the Azerbaijani
machine of propaganda which has from the very beginning chosen the
entire Armenian nation as its target. The evidence to this is the
letter of a group of Azerbaijani scientists to the president of
the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia
Victor Hambardzumian in 1988. Signed by about 240 representatives of
the Azerbaijani intelligentsia the letter ran, "We appeal to your
conscience; for the third time in less than a hundred years the
Armenians are instigating violence between the brotherly nations.
Appeal to your intelligentsia, stop the violence of your citizens!
How can you claim the land which does not belong to you? Azerbaijan
is not a pie to bite off a titbit of it. Who if not you can stop
the ferocious mop? Cruelty is favourable for the foreign Armenian
extremists only. Our internationalist duty is to warn you about
this." If we clean the dust of the empty words "internationalist duty"
and "brotherly nations" which were then an obligatory homage paid by
the authors of the letter to the Soviet system, we will see that the
content of the letter of the Azerbaijani scientists is impregnated
with hatred for the Armenian nation which is called "instigators of
conflicts" and "extremists" in the letter. Thereby the nature of the
problem of Nagorni Karabakh is falsified as territorial claims of
the Armenian nation to Azerbaijan. What is more (yet this is another
peculiarity of the information war waged by Azerbaijan) the Soviet
authorities connived in the provocation of anti-Armenian hysteria
through the Azerbaijani mass media. And not accidentally because the
Baku authorities could not allow the conflict to be recognized as the
fair protest of the Armenians of Nagorni Karabakh against the policy
of discrimination implemented by the Azerbaijani government, whereas
discrimination was the cause for the protest of the people of Nagorni
Karabakh. Unfortunately, the strategy of the Azerbaijani propaganda
to discredit the Armenian nation is carried on by post-Soviet
Azerbaijan as well, which is the main obstacle on the way of creating
an atmosphere of confidence between the conflict parties. As always,
the role of the flagman in blackening the Armenians is played by the
Azerbaijani mass media. In September 1997 the foreign ministry of
NKR informed the OSCE Minsk Group about the anti-Armenian activity
of the newspaper "Bakinski Rabochi" founded by the administration of
the president of Azerbaijan. The memorandum of the NKR MFA which was
extended to the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group contained citations
from different articles published in the periodical, which are vivid
examples of the determined intolerance to the Armenian nation kindled
by the government of Azerbaijan. The following is quoted from the
news of the state news agency "Azer Taj" about the visit of Heidar
Aliev to the USA published in one of the July 1997 issues of the
newspaper "Bakinski Rabochi". "The real face of the Armenians was
exposed; this abject nation lost the very little respect it had gained
through money, official posts of criminal gangs." What is more, one
of the positive results of Heidar Aliev's visit is, according to the
news, that Azerbaijan and the peaceful policy of its president fully
revealed the foul nature of the Armenians. As to the Armenian sides of
the conflict, their mass media have always attempted to prove to the
world the right of the people of NK for self-determination. Therefore,
from the very beginning the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh
criticized the authorities and not the people of Azerbaijan. This
is one more peculiarity of the propaganda war going on between
the sides of the Nagorni Karabakh conflict. In his article "Truth
Precious of All" published in the Yerevan-based newspaper "Communist"
in 1988 the chairman of the Scientific Council on Ethnic Processes
under the presidium of the Armenia SSR Academy of Sciences, Doctor
Khikar Barseghian, responding to the director of the Institute of
the History of the Communist Party Daniel Guliev arguing that there
is no problem of Karabakh because Nagorni Karabakh had belonged to
Azerbaijan from the beginning, literally wrote, "The people (i.e.
of Azerbaijan " A.G.) anticipates from him (i.e. from D. Guliev "
A.G.) only the truth, believes in him. And what is he doing? Can't
he see that by falsifying the history of the region he is helping the
opponents of socialism torpedoing the policy of perestroika. And who
is this favourable for? The sooner this pseudo-historian gets rid of
the lamentable heritage of Heidar Aliev, the better it will be for
the common cause, restoration of peace between nations." As you see,
the criticism of the Armenian scientist which reflected the viewpoint
of the authorities of Armenia then does not attack the Azerbaijanis,
although we should confess that it is rich in non-correct word
stock. The criticism is addressed to a concrete addressee, the
Azerbaijani scientist and ruler and not the entire Azerbaijani
nation. This tendency in the mass media of Armenia and Karabakh is
continuing nowadays too (occasional publications of irresponsible
authors in non-governmental mass media do not count). As a result,
there is no anti-Azerbaijani hysteria in the Armenian society, which
allows the governments of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh to be flexible
in the peace process, which is not the case with Azerbaijan. However,
we think the latter circumstance is not preferable either. It is
not preferable because it is unilateral. Imagine during the military
actions one of the sides stops fighting hoping that the opposite side
will act similarly. Is this kind of scenario realistic? Of course,
no. Then why do we think that unilateral pacifism is possible in the
information war? If the ceasefire is not supported by an armistice in
the information war, it means that the conflict sides (or one of them)
do not want to transform the ceasefire into real peace. Thus, if the
Azerbaijani side does not put an end to the propaganda war (which
is waged not only against the people of Nagorni Karabakh but also
against the whole of the Armenian nation), it means that it make use
of the armistice to create conditions which will enable them to take a
military revenge. One of the components of these conditions is the use
of the mass media to provoke common intolerance to the Armenians which
had allegedly challenged the international law thereby obstructing
peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus. This is for the so-called
external use. And as the Azerbaijani soldier will never fight for
the international law, they instill in them hatred for the Armenians
who allegedly encroach on the land belonging to his country. And
this is for internal use. And where is the way out? We think it is
necessary to sign an agreement on cessation of the information war
by both sides. And if the international mediators really seek for a
peaceful settlement, they also should direct their efforts at this
purpose. The side that refuses to sign the agreement must undergo
international obstruction. If after achieving the armistice in the
information war it is maintained by at least the state mass media, it
will already be positive. And the Western organizations may work with
the influential independent mass media and organs of political parties
denying the disobedient "information soldiers" grants and other forms
of help. In the absence of a similar agreement the unilateral pacifism
of the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh is inadmissible as it
may affect the moral and psychological state of the Armenian society
for a due counterattack against the enemy in case military actions
are resumed. Consequently, unilateral pacifism in the information
policy is more dangerous in the sense of resumption of military
actions than at peace. This is, perhaps, the chief peculiarity of
the present information war in the Nagorni Karabakh conflict.
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN. 21-03-2005
Azat Artsakh - Nagorno Karabakh Republic (NKR)
21 March 05
About 11 years have passed since the ceasefire agreement which put an
end to the military actions in Nagorni Karabakh. It should be mentioned
that the agreement achieved by Azerbaijan, Nagorni Karabakh and Armenia
in May 1994 was more or less maintained. However, this does not mean
that the conflict sides have at least a little approached the final
settlement of the problem. It is quite the opposite; the armistice
may create political, legal, military, economic and informational
conditions for the resumption of military actions. What is more, the
military actions may be wider in scale than they were at the beginning
of the 1990s. In other words, at present the war is going on at the
level of politics, international law, economy, military building and
information. One of the peculiarities of the information war is that
its consequences are graver than those of armed conflict. Destroyed
buildings and communication can be restored soon, whereas uprooting
of hatred for a neighbouring nation may take decades. Therefore, it is
absolutely unacceptable to provoke nationalistic hysteria through the
mass media and instill hatred for a neighbouring nation. Unfortunately,
we have to admit that another peculiarity of the information war
is the atmosphere in which a nation does not tolerate the opposite
side of the conflict. First of all, this refers to the Azerbaijani
machine of propaganda which has from the very beginning chosen the
entire Armenian nation as its target. The evidence to this is the
letter of a group of Azerbaijani scientists to the president of
the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Armenia
Victor Hambardzumian in 1988. Signed by about 240 representatives of
the Azerbaijani intelligentsia the letter ran, "We appeal to your
conscience; for the third time in less than a hundred years the
Armenians are instigating violence between the brotherly nations.
Appeal to your intelligentsia, stop the violence of your citizens!
How can you claim the land which does not belong to you? Azerbaijan
is not a pie to bite off a titbit of it. Who if not you can stop
the ferocious mop? Cruelty is favourable for the foreign Armenian
extremists only. Our internationalist duty is to warn you about
this." If we clean the dust of the empty words "internationalist duty"
and "brotherly nations" which were then an obligatory homage paid by
the authors of the letter to the Soviet system, we will see that the
content of the letter of the Azerbaijani scientists is impregnated
with hatred for the Armenian nation which is called "instigators of
conflicts" and "extremists" in the letter. Thereby the nature of the
problem of Nagorni Karabakh is falsified as territorial claims of
the Armenian nation to Azerbaijan. What is more (yet this is another
peculiarity of the information war waged by Azerbaijan) the Soviet
authorities connived in the provocation of anti-Armenian hysteria
through the Azerbaijani mass media. And not accidentally because the
Baku authorities could not allow the conflict to be recognized as the
fair protest of the Armenians of Nagorni Karabakh against the policy
of discrimination implemented by the Azerbaijani government, whereas
discrimination was the cause for the protest of the people of Nagorni
Karabakh. Unfortunately, the strategy of the Azerbaijani propaganda
to discredit the Armenian nation is carried on by post-Soviet
Azerbaijan as well, which is the main obstacle on the way of creating
an atmosphere of confidence between the conflict parties. As always,
the role of the flagman in blackening the Armenians is played by the
Azerbaijani mass media. In September 1997 the foreign ministry of
NKR informed the OSCE Minsk Group about the anti-Armenian activity
of the newspaper "Bakinski Rabochi" founded by the administration of
the president of Azerbaijan. The memorandum of the NKR MFA which was
extended to the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group contained citations
from different articles published in the periodical, which are vivid
examples of the determined intolerance to the Armenian nation kindled
by the government of Azerbaijan. The following is quoted from the
news of the state news agency "Azer Taj" about the visit of Heidar
Aliev to the USA published in one of the July 1997 issues of the
newspaper "Bakinski Rabochi". "The real face of the Armenians was
exposed; this abject nation lost the very little respect it had gained
through money, official posts of criminal gangs." What is more, one
of the positive results of Heidar Aliev's visit is, according to the
news, that Azerbaijan and the peaceful policy of its president fully
revealed the foul nature of the Armenians. As to the Armenian sides of
the conflict, their mass media have always attempted to prove to the
world the right of the people of NK for self-determination. Therefore,
from the very beginning the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh
criticized the authorities and not the people of Azerbaijan. This
is one more peculiarity of the propaganda war going on between
the sides of the Nagorni Karabakh conflict. In his article "Truth
Precious of All" published in the Yerevan-based newspaper "Communist"
in 1988 the chairman of the Scientific Council on Ethnic Processes
under the presidium of the Armenia SSR Academy of Sciences, Doctor
Khikar Barseghian, responding to the director of the Institute of
the History of the Communist Party Daniel Guliev arguing that there
is no problem of Karabakh because Nagorni Karabakh had belonged to
Azerbaijan from the beginning, literally wrote, "The people (i.e.
of Azerbaijan " A.G.) anticipates from him (i.e. from D. Guliev "
A.G.) only the truth, believes in him. And what is he doing? Can't
he see that by falsifying the history of the region he is helping the
opponents of socialism torpedoing the policy of perestroika. And who
is this favourable for? The sooner this pseudo-historian gets rid of
the lamentable heritage of Heidar Aliev, the better it will be for
the common cause, restoration of peace between nations." As you see,
the criticism of the Armenian scientist which reflected the viewpoint
of the authorities of Armenia then does not attack the Azerbaijanis,
although we should confess that it is rich in non-correct word
stock. The criticism is addressed to a concrete addressee, the
Azerbaijani scientist and ruler and not the entire Azerbaijani
nation. This tendency in the mass media of Armenia and Karabakh is
continuing nowadays too (occasional publications of irresponsible
authors in non-governmental mass media do not count). As a result,
there is no anti-Azerbaijani hysteria in the Armenian society, which
allows the governments of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh to be flexible
in the peace process, which is not the case with Azerbaijan. However,
we think the latter circumstance is not preferable either. It is
not preferable because it is unilateral. Imagine during the military
actions one of the sides stops fighting hoping that the opposite side
will act similarly. Is this kind of scenario realistic? Of course,
no. Then why do we think that unilateral pacifism is possible in the
information war? If the ceasefire is not supported by an armistice in
the information war, it means that the conflict sides (or one of them)
do not want to transform the ceasefire into real peace. Thus, if the
Azerbaijani side does not put an end to the propaganda war (which
is waged not only against the people of Nagorni Karabakh but also
against the whole of the Armenian nation), it means that it make use
of the armistice to create conditions which will enable them to take a
military revenge. One of the components of these conditions is the use
of the mass media to provoke common intolerance to the Armenians which
had allegedly challenged the international law thereby obstructing
peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus. This is for the so-called
external use. And as the Azerbaijani soldier will never fight for
the international law, they instill in them hatred for the Armenians
who allegedly encroach on the land belonging to his country. And
this is for internal use. And where is the way out? We think it is
necessary to sign an agreement on cessation of the information war
by both sides. And if the international mediators really seek for a
peaceful settlement, they also should direct their efforts at this
purpose. The side that refuses to sign the agreement must undergo
international obstruction. If after achieving the armistice in the
information war it is maintained by at least the state mass media, it
will already be positive. And the Western organizations may work with
the influential independent mass media and organs of political parties
denying the disobedient "information soldiers" grants and other forms
of help. In the absence of a similar agreement the unilateral pacifism
of the mass media of Armenia and Nagorni Karabakh is inadmissible as it
may affect the moral and psychological state of the Armenian society
for a due counterattack against the enemy in case military actions
are resumed. Consequently, unilateral pacifism in the information
policy is more dangerous in the sense of resumption of military
actions than at peace. This is, perhaps, the chief peculiarity of
the present information war in the Nagorni Karabakh conflict.
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN. 21-03-2005