Tweet
OP-ED: POLITICS OF A PARDON
ianyan Magazine
Oct 1 2012
By Lorky Libaridian and Edgar Martirosyan
The recent extradition and subsequent pardon of Azerbaijani lieutenant
Ramil Safarov sparked massive outcry across the Armenian diaspora
throughout the world and even earned Budapest a spot in the Economist.
The facts are simple: on February 19, 2004, Safarov, while partaking
in English language courses as part of NATO's Partnership for Peace
program, axed to death one sleeping Armenian lieutenant Gurgen
Margaryan with sixteen blows, nearly severing his head.
Safarov gladly accepted responsibility, and in April of 2006, was
sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole until
2036. Azerbaijan immediately set to work on securing Safarov's release
by establishing an Embassy in Budapest in the fall of 2004. After
eight years of relentless diplomatic efforts, Azerbaijan finally
convinced Budapest to extradite Safarov to Azerbaijan in exchange
for guarantees that Safarov would serve at least twenty-five years
of his life imprisonment sentence before being paroled. Upon arrival
to Azerbaijan, Safarov was pardoned by President Ilham Aliyev, given
a hero's welcome, promoted to the rank of major, and provided with
accommodations by the government.
Both the Armenian state and the worldwide Armenian Diaspora reacted
immediately with fierce indignation. President Serge Sargsian
suspended all relations with Hungary, raised the military's alert
level, and expressed Armenia's readiness to repel any aggression by
Azerbaijan. Across the world, Armenians protested Safarov's extradition
and pardon at Hungarian and Azerbaijani consulates and embassies. The
outcry even prompted Hungarian citizens to protest their own government
and to start an initiative wherein Hungarian citizens made public
apologies to Armenia (and Armenians) for Safarov's extradition. For
its turn, Budapest was forced to adopt a more apologetic tone,
summoning Azerbaijan's Ambassador to explain Safarov's pardon.
This article concerns itself with the political context of Safarov's
extradition and the Armenian nation's reaction to Aliyev's subsequent
pardon.
First, Safarov's extradition should serve as a stark reminder of
Yerevan's feeble diplomacy. Per news reports, the Armenian National
Autonomy of Hungary apparently kept the Armenian government informed
of Azerbaijan's actions in Hungary, with repeated requests to have an
Armenian Embassy established in Hungary. The Autonomy sent news to
the government of Armenia of Safarov's impending release on August
20, 2012. Sadly, not much (or at least nothing effective) seems to
have been done in the interim. Safarov's imminent extradition barely
made the news around August 25, 2012 (with only a few sources writing
about the imminent extradition). On August 31, 2012, it was too late.
Safarov had reached Baku and was being received by Azerbaijan (with
flowers to boot) as a hero. Armenians across the world woke up that
day to surprising headlines too surreal to believe at first glance:
the cold-blooded axe murderer who nearly severed a man's head while
he slept was free.
How did this come to be? Were warnings from Hungary ignored or not
taken seriously? Or did the Sargsian administration feel powerless -
- or was powerless - to do anything? Why did official Yerevan fail
to inform the public - and it's Diaspora - well in advance, a move
which may have brought about massive public outcry and international
pressure in time to prevent Safarov's extradition? Perhaps the Armenian
government was truly ignorant of the impending extradition?
Whatever the explanations may be, Safarov's extradition is an
embarrassing failure for official Yerevan. The likelihood that it did
not have sufficient notice of the imminence of Safarov's extradition
is slim. As such, its failure to take meaningful steps to stop
the extradition from taking place betrays a significant collapse
of Armenia's most basic intelligence systems and speaks leaps of
the shortcomings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Frankly put,
someone was asleep at the wheel, and it sure wasn't Ilham Aliyev or
Elmar Mammadyarov.
Nonetheless, Safarov's pardon presents a unique opportunity for the
Armenian nation to move away from its tendency to personalize regional
discord and instead to engage the politically relevant factors and
bodies. First, both Yerevan and the Armenian Diaspora should strain to
differentiate between Hungary and Azerbaijan. In at least 20 cities
around the world, including Oslo, Madrid, Buenos Aires, Kolkata,
Vilnius Prague, Nicosia, Moscow, and Los Angeles, demonstrations were
held outside of Hungarian Embassies and Consulates. But in only a small
handful of cities- Buenos Aires, Ottawa, Los Angeles, and at most
one or two more- were there demonstrations against the Azerbaijani
representative; in Los Angeles, the protest was simultaneous
with the protest against the Hungarian Consulate. While Hungary
deserves its fair share of criticism, Azerbaijan is unquestionably
responsible for freeing, literally, an axe-murderer. In fact, the
disproportionality of attention given to Hungary over Azerbaijan is
quite startling. Moreover, the protests have failed to clarify that
it is not the Hungarian people who should be condemned, but official
Budapest, a sentiment largely muffled - if not outright discarded -
when the Hungarian flag was burned in Yerevan.
Most importantly, the rhetoric against Azerbaijan should be carefully
crafted so as not to alienate Azerbaijani civil society and people.
Aliyev's pardon is as much an offense to the growth and development
of Azerbaijani civil society, statehood, and to democratic ideals as
it is an affront to Armenia and Artsakh. If anything, to the extent
that Safarov's reception fuels anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia
and the Diaspora, Aliyev succeeds in shoring up popular support at
home and further complicating the prospects of a peaceful resolution
to the Nagorno-Kharabagh conflict. If there is going to be a peaceful
resolution to the Nagorno-Kharabagh conflict, then the narrative from
official Yerevan and the Armenian nation must be directed at official
Baku, and not the Azerbaijani people.
The message that should come from Yerevan and its Diaspora is simple:
Safarov's pardon is as much an affront to Azerbaijani civil society
and statehood as it is to Armenia and the Armenian nation. The pardon
not only undermines the development of democracy in Azerbaijan,
but further complicates the nation's image abroad. Moreover, with the
pardon and pedestalization of Safarov, Azerbaijan confirmed the concern
of many Armenians, Armenia, and Artsakh: that is, Armenian lives will
neither be valued nor protected by the Azeri state. As such, Aliyev's
actions have placed Azerbaijan at a strategic disadvantage, giving
Armenia the fodder it needs to reject the possibility of resolution
of the Nagorno-Kharabagh issue within the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Yerevan and its Diaspora should not miss this strategic
opportunity to highlight the differences between the West and Baku -
especially as those differences relate to ensuring the security of
the inhabitants of Nagorno-Kharabagh - instead of focusing its ire
against Budapest.
In short, the issue, as framed, must transcend simplistic notions
of us versus them. That is, the Safarov matter should not be seen
as an affirmation of hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, nor
should it serve to promote further dehumanization, misunderstanding,
and hatred between the two peoples. Our efforts must be focused on
communicating to the people of Azerbaijan that the mutual development
of democratic, progressive societies where the rule of law is the
highest measure of authority is in the interest of both states. Both
nations and peoples must move beyond the individual antagonisms and
dehumanization which are so easily manipulated by governments, and
instead pursue lines of mutual understanding and collective interests.
Edgar Martirosyan is a practicing Attorney in Los Angeles, California.
Edgar received his B.A. in Political Science from UCLA, and his
Juris Doctor degree from UCLA School of Law. He is a board member
with Policy Forum Armenia, and a member of the Board of Directors of
ARPA Institute.
Lorky Libaridian is a practicing Physician in San Francisco,
California. Lorky received her B.A. at Yale College, majoring in
Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, and her M.D. at Yale University
School of Medicine. She has worked with various healthcare institutions
in Armenia for almost two decades.
http://www.ianyanmag.com/2012/10/01/op-ed-politics-of-a-pardon/
ianyan Magazine
Oct 1 2012
By Lorky Libaridian and Edgar Martirosyan
The recent extradition and subsequent pardon of Azerbaijani lieutenant
Ramil Safarov sparked massive outcry across the Armenian diaspora
throughout the world and even earned Budapest a spot in the Economist.
The facts are simple: on February 19, 2004, Safarov, while partaking
in English language courses as part of NATO's Partnership for Peace
program, axed to death one sleeping Armenian lieutenant Gurgen
Margaryan with sixteen blows, nearly severing his head.
Safarov gladly accepted responsibility, and in April of 2006, was
sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole until
2036. Azerbaijan immediately set to work on securing Safarov's release
by establishing an Embassy in Budapest in the fall of 2004. After
eight years of relentless diplomatic efforts, Azerbaijan finally
convinced Budapest to extradite Safarov to Azerbaijan in exchange
for guarantees that Safarov would serve at least twenty-five years
of his life imprisonment sentence before being paroled. Upon arrival
to Azerbaijan, Safarov was pardoned by President Ilham Aliyev, given
a hero's welcome, promoted to the rank of major, and provided with
accommodations by the government.
Both the Armenian state and the worldwide Armenian Diaspora reacted
immediately with fierce indignation. President Serge Sargsian
suspended all relations with Hungary, raised the military's alert
level, and expressed Armenia's readiness to repel any aggression by
Azerbaijan. Across the world, Armenians protested Safarov's extradition
and pardon at Hungarian and Azerbaijani consulates and embassies. The
outcry even prompted Hungarian citizens to protest their own government
and to start an initiative wherein Hungarian citizens made public
apologies to Armenia (and Armenians) for Safarov's extradition. For
its turn, Budapest was forced to adopt a more apologetic tone,
summoning Azerbaijan's Ambassador to explain Safarov's pardon.
This article concerns itself with the political context of Safarov's
extradition and the Armenian nation's reaction to Aliyev's subsequent
pardon.
First, Safarov's extradition should serve as a stark reminder of
Yerevan's feeble diplomacy. Per news reports, the Armenian National
Autonomy of Hungary apparently kept the Armenian government informed
of Azerbaijan's actions in Hungary, with repeated requests to have an
Armenian Embassy established in Hungary. The Autonomy sent news to
the government of Armenia of Safarov's impending release on August
20, 2012. Sadly, not much (or at least nothing effective) seems to
have been done in the interim. Safarov's imminent extradition barely
made the news around August 25, 2012 (with only a few sources writing
about the imminent extradition). On August 31, 2012, it was too late.
Safarov had reached Baku and was being received by Azerbaijan (with
flowers to boot) as a hero. Armenians across the world woke up that
day to surprising headlines too surreal to believe at first glance:
the cold-blooded axe murderer who nearly severed a man's head while
he slept was free.
How did this come to be? Were warnings from Hungary ignored or not
taken seriously? Or did the Sargsian administration feel powerless -
- or was powerless - to do anything? Why did official Yerevan fail
to inform the public - and it's Diaspora - well in advance, a move
which may have brought about massive public outcry and international
pressure in time to prevent Safarov's extradition? Perhaps the Armenian
government was truly ignorant of the impending extradition?
Whatever the explanations may be, Safarov's extradition is an
embarrassing failure for official Yerevan. The likelihood that it did
not have sufficient notice of the imminence of Safarov's extradition
is slim. As such, its failure to take meaningful steps to stop
the extradition from taking place betrays a significant collapse
of Armenia's most basic intelligence systems and speaks leaps of
the shortcomings of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Frankly put,
someone was asleep at the wheel, and it sure wasn't Ilham Aliyev or
Elmar Mammadyarov.
Nonetheless, Safarov's pardon presents a unique opportunity for the
Armenian nation to move away from its tendency to personalize regional
discord and instead to engage the politically relevant factors and
bodies. First, both Yerevan and the Armenian Diaspora should strain to
differentiate between Hungary and Azerbaijan. In at least 20 cities
around the world, including Oslo, Madrid, Buenos Aires, Kolkata,
Vilnius Prague, Nicosia, Moscow, and Los Angeles, demonstrations were
held outside of Hungarian Embassies and Consulates. But in only a small
handful of cities- Buenos Aires, Ottawa, Los Angeles, and at most
one or two more- were there demonstrations against the Azerbaijani
representative; in Los Angeles, the protest was simultaneous
with the protest against the Hungarian Consulate. While Hungary
deserves its fair share of criticism, Azerbaijan is unquestionably
responsible for freeing, literally, an axe-murderer. In fact, the
disproportionality of attention given to Hungary over Azerbaijan is
quite startling. Moreover, the protests have failed to clarify that
it is not the Hungarian people who should be condemned, but official
Budapest, a sentiment largely muffled - if not outright discarded -
when the Hungarian flag was burned in Yerevan.
Most importantly, the rhetoric against Azerbaijan should be carefully
crafted so as not to alienate Azerbaijani civil society and people.
Aliyev's pardon is as much an offense to the growth and development
of Azerbaijani civil society, statehood, and to democratic ideals as
it is an affront to Armenia and Artsakh. If anything, to the extent
that Safarov's reception fuels anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia
and the Diaspora, Aliyev succeeds in shoring up popular support at
home and further complicating the prospects of a peaceful resolution
to the Nagorno-Kharabagh conflict. If there is going to be a peaceful
resolution to the Nagorno-Kharabagh conflict, then the narrative from
official Yerevan and the Armenian nation must be directed at official
Baku, and not the Azerbaijani people.
The message that should come from Yerevan and its Diaspora is simple:
Safarov's pardon is as much an affront to Azerbaijani civil society
and statehood as it is to Armenia and the Armenian nation. The pardon
not only undermines the development of democracy in Azerbaijan,
but further complicates the nation's image abroad. Moreover, with the
pardon and pedestalization of Safarov, Azerbaijan confirmed the concern
of many Armenians, Armenia, and Artsakh: that is, Armenian lives will
neither be valued nor protected by the Azeri state. As such, Aliyev's
actions have placed Azerbaijan at a strategic disadvantage, giving
Armenia the fodder it needs to reject the possibility of resolution
of the Nagorno-Kharabagh issue within the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Yerevan and its Diaspora should not miss this strategic
opportunity to highlight the differences between the West and Baku -
especially as those differences relate to ensuring the security of
the inhabitants of Nagorno-Kharabagh - instead of focusing its ire
against Budapest.
In short, the issue, as framed, must transcend simplistic notions
of us versus them. That is, the Safarov matter should not be seen
as an affirmation of hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, nor
should it serve to promote further dehumanization, misunderstanding,
and hatred between the two peoples. Our efforts must be focused on
communicating to the people of Azerbaijan that the mutual development
of democratic, progressive societies where the rule of law is the
highest measure of authority is in the interest of both states. Both
nations and peoples must move beyond the individual antagonisms and
dehumanization which are so easily manipulated by governments, and
instead pursue lines of mutual understanding and collective interests.
Edgar Martirosyan is a practicing Attorney in Los Angeles, California.
Edgar received his B.A. in Political Science from UCLA, and his
Juris Doctor degree from UCLA School of Law. He is a board member
with Policy Forum Armenia, and a member of the Board of Directors of
ARPA Institute.
Lorky Libaridian is a practicing Physician in San Francisco,
California. Lorky received her B.A. at Yale College, majoring in
Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, and her M.D. at Yale University
School of Medicine. She has worked with various healthcare institutions
in Armenia for almost two decades.
http://www.ianyanmag.com/2012/10/01/op-ed-politics-of-a-pardon/