Tweet
A web of Peace
Social media and conflict resolution in the South Caucasus. The
opportunities offered to Armenian and Azeri peace activists, the debate
in the region
27.11.2009 From Yerevan, Onnik Krikorian
In the 15 years since a ceasefire agreement put the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh
on hold, various peace proposals have faltered. But if Armenia's first
president was even forced to resign over talk of a concessionary deal by
nationalist hardliners in his government opposed to a compromise
settlement, the main obstacle in recent years has been public opinion.
Bellicose rhetoric directed against Armenians in Azerbaijan has become
common and recently even spilled out into something as trivial as
Eurovision, while political forces in Armenia on both sides of the
divide have recklessly exploited the conflict to either maintain or come
to power. Meanwhile, the local media continues to perpetuate negative
stereotypes of the "enemy" while propaganda and misinformation has
drowned out what little genuine discussion did exist.
New generations of Armenians and Azerbaijanis are also unable to
remember a time when both lived side by side together in peace,
sometimes even intermarrying, with nationalistic rhetoric becoming
increasingly effective in post-Soviet societies where tolerance and
critical independent thinking is discouraged to justify usually
undemocratic systems of governance. Some even consider alternative or
moderate views on the conflict as tantamount to treason.
True, Armenians and Azeris have been meeting at conferences, workshops
and other events aimed at promoting regional stability and peace
building initiatives, but none have had any noticeable effect on
improving relations between the two countries. Critics even argue that
the very process of conflict resolution is flawed in itself. What there
needs to be first, they argue, is conflict transformation.
Until then, even Internet forums initially established to facilitate
communication and dialogue between the two sides have nearly always
ended up as a continuation of the conflict on a new albeit virtual
battle ground.
Yet, despite the risks, the increasing popularity of sites such as
Facebook as well as other new mediums for self-expression such as blogs
offers new potential for social media and other online tools to move in
to fill the information gap. Although not a means to an end in
themselves, these tools could have a significant potential as part of
other traditional conflict resolution, management and transformation
initiatives.
`These new tools can be used to foment violence or to foster peace,'
wrote Global Voices Online Executive Director Ivan Sigal in a paper,
Digital media in conflict-prone societies, for the Center for
International Media Assistance (CIMA) earlier this year. `[However] it
is possible to build communication systems that encourage dialogue and
nonviolent political solutions,' the former researcher on citizen media
at the US Institute of Peace added.
Micael Bogar, Projects Manager at the American University's Center for
Social Media agrees, but says that many working in the area of conflict
resolution remain uninterested in using low cost or free tools even if
they could prove more effective than what exists at present. And as
international donors are generally not interested in lower cost
initiatives, NGOs can also receive larger grants for activities even if
they turn out to be ineffective or unsustainable.
Nevertheless, those who realize that establishing trust and forming
friendships has to occur on a regular basis could use such tools as
Facebook and Skype to cross ceasefire lines, closed borders and
monitored telephone lines before and especially after actually meeting.
`I think you can't do it just with social media tools,' says Bogar, `but
as we've seen over the past 15 years, you definitely can't do it by
meeting in Tbilisi for a weekend every summer. It becomes an
`entertainment' and I've had experience with those conferences in
Georgia where it's just one big coffee break and a waste of money.
However, I think that both approaches combined could propel things along.'
Bogar is nevertheless cautious, believing that much of civil society
currently working on peace building initiatives is not serious about its
work. Genuine peace builders have their own radical character compared
to others, she argues. `I think that when you have those fundamental
elements in an activist or a conflict-resolution advocate then it's
going to be a natural move to go into social media,' says Bogar.
`For those who aren't using it, they're both just older and unaware of
it or simply uninterested in using cheap tools when they can receive big
grants to keep themselves in business.'
Of course, new approaches are also risky, especially in Azerbaijan where
many citizens don't want to be known to be in contact with Armenians,
but the potential is there. After months of limited online contact, for
example, a recent meeting between Armenian, American and Azeri teenagers
in the U.S. revealed such problems, but Dotcom Program Manager Elizabeth
Metraux says that there is also reason for hope.
The project run by PH International uses citizen media to bring
participants together in an online blogging project. Participants only
periodically meet.
`I had those moments when I would have said that this is not going to
work and sometimes you just think that there is no way that these
students are going to find consensus,' admits Metraux. Inevitably, when
you're doing a program like this, and my background is with the Israelis
and Palestinians, you're really optimistic that the students will find
commonality, but then something is said and it gets explosive.
`There were a lot of tears, but they would eventually pull themselves
out of it,' she continues. `We started off with students not even making
eye contact, but by the time we were done they were giving each other a
hug or trading email addresses. That was really an inspiring moment, but
my optimism is definitely tempered by a realization that these are young
people who are soon going to be on the frontlines.
The leaders are talking to each other, but God forbid that people
actually do,' Metraux concludes wryly.
In recent months, however, an unlikely catalyst for rapprochement came
with the detention and eventual imprisonment of video blogging activists
Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli in Azerbaijan. Their cause was supported
by a small number of Armenians in the republic as well as a few in the
traditionally more nationalist Diaspora. Facebook and Twitter were the
primary methods used to spread information.
Young Armenians and Azerbaijanis were finally able to see into the lives
of each other and, in many cases, realized they weren't so different
after all.
With his own experience of training young Armenian, Azeri and Georgian
activists in using new media tools, International Federation of Liberal
Youth (IFLRY) Secretary General Bart Woord realizes the potential, but
also adds a word of caution. Such tools can also be used inefficiently
and incorrectly, he says, and also to heighten existing tensions by
those opposed to peace and reconciliation.
`New media tools will certainly help in getting people better acquainted
with each other, but at the same time can also be used to reaffirm
existing biases. Just search on the Internet for Armenian and
Azerbaijani web sites and you can find a lot of trash and very harmful
discourse from nationalist websites,' he says. `I'm mildly optimistic,
but at the same time think we should be very cautious about what we find
on the Internet as well.'
Time will tell whether those involved with peace building and conflict
resolution initiatives will migrate at least some of their activities
online, but for now, while some peace activists such as Georgi Vanyan in
Armenia are very open in their offline and online activities, others are
not. Indeed, many deny access to journalists and shy away from any
independent media coverage, preferring to keep everything closed with
all information remaining under strict control.
There are other problems too.
`Personally I believe that it is possible,' says regional analyst and
Osservatorio Azerbaijan correspondent, Arzu Geybullayeva. `It's a long
shot, but because you only target a certain group of people, you also
need to communicate with those who don't have access to the Internet.
What about the masses - those who don't have internet access or the
opportunity to meet, talk, learn, and explore? Yes, it can play a role,
but it needs to be more widely available.'
Nevertheless, as Internet penetration and especially mobile access
increases across the region, online social networking and new media
tools offers an opportunity to change the situation. Therefore,
Geybullayeva is hopeful.
`I would very much like to see more debate among bloggers in Armenia and
Azerbaijan,' she adds. `We really need some kind of initiative for this
because I would really like to see borders opened and conflict resolved.
My mother says that when she went to school she had Armenians among her
friends. I would very much like myself or my children when they grow up
to be able to say the same kind of thing to their children as well as
their friends.'
---
Onnik Krikorian will be presenting on the role of new and social media
in conflict resolution at the E-Society I Media conference in Skopje,
Macedonia, on 2-3 December, and co-presenting with Arzu Geybullayeva on
the same topic at the Social Media for Social Change conference in
Tbilisi, Georgia, in April next year
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/a rticleview/12189/1/407
Social media and conflict resolution in the South Caucasus. The
opportunities offered to Armenian and Azeri peace activists, the debate
in the region
27.11.2009 From Yerevan, Onnik Krikorian
In the 15 years since a ceasefire agreement put the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh
on hold, various peace proposals have faltered. But if Armenia's first
president was even forced to resign over talk of a concessionary deal by
nationalist hardliners in his government opposed to a compromise
settlement, the main obstacle in recent years has been public opinion.
Bellicose rhetoric directed against Armenians in Azerbaijan has become
common and recently even spilled out into something as trivial as
Eurovision, while political forces in Armenia on both sides of the
divide have recklessly exploited the conflict to either maintain or come
to power. Meanwhile, the local media continues to perpetuate negative
stereotypes of the "enemy" while propaganda and misinformation has
drowned out what little genuine discussion did exist.
New generations of Armenians and Azerbaijanis are also unable to
remember a time when both lived side by side together in peace,
sometimes even intermarrying, with nationalistic rhetoric becoming
increasingly effective in post-Soviet societies where tolerance and
critical independent thinking is discouraged to justify usually
undemocratic systems of governance. Some even consider alternative or
moderate views on the conflict as tantamount to treason.
True, Armenians and Azeris have been meeting at conferences, workshops
and other events aimed at promoting regional stability and peace
building initiatives, but none have had any noticeable effect on
improving relations between the two countries. Critics even argue that
the very process of conflict resolution is flawed in itself. What there
needs to be first, they argue, is conflict transformation.
Until then, even Internet forums initially established to facilitate
communication and dialogue between the two sides have nearly always
ended up as a continuation of the conflict on a new albeit virtual
battle ground.
Yet, despite the risks, the increasing popularity of sites such as
Facebook as well as other new mediums for self-expression such as blogs
offers new potential for social media and other online tools to move in
to fill the information gap. Although not a means to an end in
themselves, these tools could have a significant potential as part of
other traditional conflict resolution, management and transformation
initiatives.
`These new tools can be used to foment violence or to foster peace,'
wrote Global Voices Online Executive Director Ivan Sigal in a paper,
Digital media in conflict-prone societies, for the Center for
International Media Assistance (CIMA) earlier this year. `[However] it
is possible to build communication systems that encourage dialogue and
nonviolent political solutions,' the former researcher on citizen media
at the US Institute of Peace added.
Micael Bogar, Projects Manager at the American University's Center for
Social Media agrees, but says that many working in the area of conflict
resolution remain uninterested in using low cost or free tools even if
they could prove more effective than what exists at present. And as
international donors are generally not interested in lower cost
initiatives, NGOs can also receive larger grants for activities even if
they turn out to be ineffective or unsustainable.
Nevertheless, those who realize that establishing trust and forming
friendships has to occur on a regular basis could use such tools as
Facebook and Skype to cross ceasefire lines, closed borders and
monitored telephone lines before and especially after actually meeting.
`I think you can't do it just with social media tools,' says Bogar, `but
as we've seen over the past 15 years, you definitely can't do it by
meeting in Tbilisi for a weekend every summer. It becomes an
`entertainment' and I've had experience with those conferences in
Georgia where it's just one big coffee break and a waste of money.
However, I think that both approaches combined could propel things along.'
Bogar is nevertheless cautious, believing that much of civil society
currently working on peace building initiatives is not serious about its
work. Genuine peace builders have their own radical character compared
to others, she argues. `I think that when you have those fundamental
elements in an activist or a conflict-resolution advocate then it's
going to be a natural move to go into social media,' says Bogar.
`For those who aren't using it, they're both just older and unaware of
it or simply uninterested in using cheap tools when they can receive big
grants to keep themselves in business.'
Of course, new approaches are also risky, especially in Azerbaijan where
many citizens don't want to be known to be in contact with Armenians,
but the potential is there. After months of limited online contact, for
example, a recent meeting between Armenian, American and Azeri teenagers
in the U.S. revealed such problems, but Dotcom Program Manager Elizabeth
Metraux says that there is also reason for hope.
The project run by PH International uses citizen media to bring
participants together in an online blogging project. Participants only
periodically meet.
`I had those moments when I would have said that this is not going to
work and sometimes you just think that there is no way that these
students are going to find consensus,' admits Metraux. Inevitably, when
you're doing a program like this, and my background is with the Israelis
and Palestinians, you're really optimistic that the students will find
commonality, but then something is said and it gets explosive.
`There were a lot of tears, but they would eventually pull themselves
out of it,' she continues. `We started off with students not even making
eye contact, but by the time we were done they were giving each other a
hug or trading email addresses. That was really an inspiring moment, but
my optimism is definitely tempered by a realization that these are young
people who are soon going to be on the frontlines.
The leaders are talking to each other, but God forbid that people
actually do,' Metraux concludes wryly.
In recent months, however, an unlikely catalyst for rapprochement came
with the detention and eventual imprisonment of video blogging activists
Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli in Azerbaijan. Their cause was supported
by a small number of Armenians in the republic as well as a few in the
traditionally more nationalist Diaspora. Facebook and Twitter were the
primary methods used to spread information.
Young Armenians and Azerbaijanis were finally able to see into the lives
of each other and, in many cases, realized they weren't so different
after all.
With his own experience of training young Armenian, Azeri and Georgian
activists in using new media tools, International Federation of Liberal
Youth (IFLRY) Secretary General Bart Woord realizes the potential, but
also adds a word of caution. Such tools can also be used inefficiently
and incorrectly, he says, and also to heighten existing tensions by
those opposed to peace and reconciliation.
`New media tools will certainly help in getting people better acquainted
with each other, but at the same time can also be used to reaffirm
existing biases. Just search on the Internet for Armenian and
Azerbaijani web sites and you can find a lot of trash and very harmful
discourse from nationalist websites,' he says. `I'm mildly optimistic,
but at the same time think we should be very cautious about what we find
on the Internet as well.'
Time will tell whether those involved with peace building and conflict
resolution initiatives will migrate at least some of their activities
online, but for now, while some peace activists such as Georgi Vanyan in
Armenia are very open in their offline and online activities, others are
not. Indeed, many deny access to journalists and shy away from any
independent media coverage, preferring to keep everything closed with
all information remaining under strict control.
There are other problems too.
`Personally I believe that it is possible,' says regional analyst and
Osservatorio Azerbaijan correspondent, Arzu Geybullayeva. `It's a long
shot, but because you only target a certain group of people, you also
need to communicate with those who don't have access to the Internet.
What about the masses - those who don't have internet access or the
opportunity to meet, talk, learn, and explore? Yes, it can play a role,
but it needs to be more widely available.'
Nevertheless, as Internet penetration and especially mobile access
increases across the region, online social networking and new media
tools offers an opportunity to change the situation. Therefore,
Geybullayeva is hopeful.
`I would very much like to see more debate among bloggers in Armenia and
Azerbaijan,' she adds. `We really need some kind of initiative for this
because I would really like to see borders opened and conflict resolved.
My mother says that when she went to school she had Armenians among her
friends. I would very much like myself or my children when they grow up
to be able to say the same kind of thing to their children as well as
their friends.'
---
Onnik Krikorian will be presenting on the role of new and social media
in conflict resolution at the E-Society I Media conference in Skopje,
Macedonia, on 2-3 December, and co-presenting with Arzu Geybullayeva on
the same topic at the Social Media for Social Change conference in
Tbilisi, Georgia, in April next year
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/a rticleview/12189/1/407