Tweet
`They Brought Ramil Safarov, So What...?'
March 29 2013
According to Rauf Mirgadirov, a political analyst of Zerkalo, `it
doesn't yield anything, besides a show and flag-wavers' chants.' * Mr.
Mirgadirov, the position of the Azeri government on the issue of the
Stepanakert airport is rather negative, whereas there are land
communications between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; besides, this
issue seems to be a new excuse for stalemating the Karabakh
negotiating process. Why does this issue receive such a response? * I
think that the issue has a few aspects. First of all, let us consider
it from the legal perspective, and in this sense, Azerbaijan's
position is very strong. Many people don't take into account that air
communications are regulated by international treaties, every
international flight must get an international confirmation. So the
issue could have been solved theoretically, if Azerbaijan's and
Armenia's respective institutions had been able to agree, but in that
case, Armenia doesn't want it, since it considers Nagorno-Karabakh as
an independent state and thinks that this issue is exceptionally
between Armenia and Karabakh. However, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are
parties to international treaties, and this issue is regulated in that
area. Azerbaijan uses that in the legal field, and I think that it
does the right thing. The other aspect of the issue is why such an
issue arises when the sides assert that they are interested in the
settlement of the conflict. Moreover, the sides take steps that
escalate the conflict - for example, Safarov's extradition, the issue
of the airport. If the Safarov case is more explicit, and from the
short-term perspective, both sides are offered an opportunity of
exploiting that event for advertising, then the airport issue may
escalate the situation from the long-term perspective - for example,
in order to prevent any flight, according to the domino principle,
military operations may resume with unpredictable consequences. The
governments of both sides of the conflict realize that the peoples are
tired of this conflict. Therefore, some ostentatious steps are needed
that `we can take this step,' `we can do this too....' They brought
Ramil Safarov, so what...? What does Azerbaijan gain...? It yields
nothing, besides a show and flag-wavers' support and chants. The same
thing applies to the issue of the airport; what will Armenia gain...? I
think given the sum of money spent on it, it won't yield much benefit,
unless the conflict is settled. Suppose there are two flights a week
from Armenia; no serious, self-respecting air company will make
flights to Karabakh, because big air companies make flights to Baku
and will not wish to lose the Azeri market due to making flights to
Karabakh, moreover, destinations in Azerbaijan are not confined to
Baku alone, there are other Azeri cities as well. So saying that it is
of humanitarian importance, when there are no internal flights in
Armenia, I think it is not so; it is also a merely ostentatious step,
in order to show to society that some step is taken to put into effect
the idea of Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. These are just
ostentatious steps taken both by Armenia and by Azerbaijan. * Akram
Aylisli, an Azeri writer, was pressured by both governmental and
non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan after his novel `Stone
Dreams' had been published in Druzhba Narodov, a Russian monthly. Mr.
Mirgadirov, what is the reason for such an intolerant attitude of
Azeri society, in your opinion? * Let me answer with a question; how
will they treat you, if you state now that you recognize the `Khojalu
genocide'...? What response will there be...? This issue also has
different aspects. That novel is a political work; it was the author's
message sent to the Armenian and Azeri societies. However, neither
Armenian nor Azeri society, I should say intellectuals, took note of
that message. We approach the most important issue here; are the
societies ready to listen to this or that message or call...? This is
the important issue. Akram Aylisli had the right to that message, and
I defended him, I wrote that it was absurd what was going on in Azeri
society - burning books etc. However, it is obvious that there was no
serious debate on the purpose of that novel, and the messages were not
successful; there was no response from the Armenian side, and Azeri
society responded to that accordingly? * What is the situation in
Azerbaijan? We know that there were protests; there is discontent. Is
that only social discontent or also political? Is there danger of
losing power in Azerbaijan? * There is a political system in Armenia -
no matter good or bad - with its rules of the game, whereas in
Azerbaijan, the political system is destroyed. Formally, there are
opposition parties that criticize, but they are at the level of
enthusiasts' club; they gather, talk, and leave. Basically, they have
no influence on the political system; the government has destroyed
that, and this is the worst case, because it is not possible to
predict anything in such a situation. There are manifestations of
discontent, there are protests. But when will potential energy turn
into actions...? It is energy of the mob's self-organization; those are
discontent groups, which are out of the political system? As in the
Arab world, it was the mob's revolution, not that of the political
system; it was just that the discontent was ripe, and suddenly, there
were explosions for different reasons. No one can predict where it
will happen and from what it will start in Azerbaijan. There may be an
explosion in five years, in two months, or in two days. The society in
Azerbaijan has awoken; the society is tired of such stability. It is
stability for them; it is stability created by them, for them [he
means the government]. How long can this last...? Generally, when
serious problems arise both in our country and in your country, the
governments start to talk about stability and the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. Well, the most stable condition is in the crematorium and in
the grave; let's turn the country into a grave, and everything will be
very stable.... However, it cannot be so; people get tired. How long can
the same people be in power? Everyone wants to live well. Yes, the
discontent in Azerbaijan is of social nature, but in Baku, for
example, there is discontent with the fact that soldiers die under
peaceful conditions. The youth take to the streets; so this is a
political problem related to the commander-in-chief, the president.
EMMA GABRIELYAN Aravot Daily
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/03/29/153281/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
March 29 2013
According to Rauf Mirgadirov, a political analyst of Zerkalo, `it
doesn't yield anything, besides a show and flag-wavers' chants.' * Mr.
Mirgadirov, the position of the Azeri government on the issue of the
Stepanakert airport is rather negative, whereas there are land
communications between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; besides, this
issue seems to be a new excuse for stalemating the Karabakh
negotiating process. Why does this issue receive such a response? * I
think that the issue has a few aspects. First of all, let us consider
it from the legal perspective, and in this sense, Azerbaijan's
position is very strong. Many people don't take into account that air
communications are regulated by international treaties, every
international flight must get an international confirmation. So the
issue could have been solved theoretically, if Azerbaijan's and
Armenia's respective institutions had been able to agree, but in that
case, Armenia doesn't want it, since it considers Nagorno-Karabakh as
an independent state and thinks that this issue is exceptionally
between Armenia and Karabakh. However, both Armenia and Azerbaijan are
parties to international treaties, and this issue is regulated in that
area. Azerbaijan uses that in the legal field, and I think that it
does the right thing. The other aspect of the issue is why such an
issue arises when the sides assert that they are interested in the
settlement of the conflict. Moreover, the sides take steps that
escalate the conflict - for example, Safarov's extradition, the issue
of the airport. If the Safarov case is more explicit, and from the
short-term perspective, both sides are offered an opportunity of
exploiting that event for advertising, then the airport issue may
escalate the situation from the long-term perspective - for example,
in order to prevent any flight, according to the domino principle,
military operations may resume with unpredictable consequences. The
governments of both sides of the conflict realize that the peoples are
tired of this conflict. Therefore, some ostentatious steps are needed
that `we can take this step,' `we can do this too....' They brought
Ramil Safarov, so what...? What does Azerbaijan gain...? It yields
nothing, besides a show and flag-wavers' support and chants. The same
thing applies to the issue of the airport; what will Armenia gain...? I
think given the sum of money spent on it, it won't yield much benefit,
unless the conflict is settled. Suppose there are two flights a week
from Armenia; no serious, self-respecting air company will make
flights to Karabakh, because big air companies make flights to Baku
and will not wish to lose the Azeri market due to making flights to
Karabakh, moreover, destinations in Azerbaijan are not confined to
Baku alone, there are other Azeri cities as well. So saying that it is
of humanitarian importance, when there are no internal flights in
Armenia, I think it is not so; it is also a merely ostentatious step,
in order to show to society that some step is taken to put into effect
the idea of Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. These are just
ostentatious steps taken both by Armenia and by Azerbaijan. * Akram
Aylisli, an Azeri writer, was pressured by both governmental and
non-governmental organizations in Azerbaijan after his novel `Stone
Dreams' had been published in Druzhba Narodov, a Russian monthly. Mr.
Mirgadirov, what is the reason for such an intolerant attitude of
Azeri society, in your opinion? * Let me answer with a question; how
will they treat you, if you state now that you recognize the `Khojalu
genocide'...? What response will there be...? This issue also has
different aspects. That novel is a political work; it was the author's
message sent to the Armenian and Azeri societies. However, neither
Armenian nor Azeri society, I should say intellectuals, took note of
that message. We approach the most important issue here; are the
societies ready to listen to this or that message or call...? This is
the important issue. Akram Aylisli had the right to that message, and
I defended him, I wrote that it was absurd what was going on in Azeri
society - burning books etc. However, it is obvious that there was no
serious debate on the purpose of that novel, and the messages were not
successful; there was no response from the Armenian side, and Azeri
society responded to that accordingly? * What is the situation in
Azerbaijan? We know that there were protests; there is discontent. Is
that only social discontent or also political? Is there danger of
losing power in Azerbaijan? * There is a political system in Armenia -
no matter good or bad - with its rules of the game, whereas in
Azerbaijan, the political system is destroyed. Formally, there are
opposition parties that criticize, but they are at the level of
enthusiasts' club; they gather, talk, and leave. Basically, they have
no influence on the political system; the government has destroyed
that, and this is the worst case, because it is not possible to
predict anything in such a situation. There are manifestations of
discontent, there are protests. But when will potential energy turn
into actions...? It is energy of the mob's self-organization; those are
discontent groups, which are out of the political system? As in the
Arab world, it was the mob's revolution, not that of the political
system; it was just that the discontent was ripe, and suddenly, there
were explosions for different reasons. No one can predict where it
will happen and from what it will start in Azerbaijan. There may be an
explosion in five years, in two months, or in two days. The society in
Azerbaijan has awoken; the society is tired of such stability. It is
stability for them; it is stability created by them, for them [he
means the government]. How long can this last...? Generally, when
serious problems arise both in our country and in your country, the
governments start to talk about stability and the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. Well, the most stable condition is in the crematorium and in
the grave; let's turn the country into a grave, and everything will be
very stable.... However, it cannot be so; people get tired. How long can
the same people be in power? Everyone wants to live well. Yes, the
discontent in Azerbaijan is of social nature, but in Baku, for
example, there is discontent with the fact that soldiers die under
peaceful conditions. The youth take to the streets; so this is a
political problem related to the commander-in-chief, the president.
EMMA GABRIELYAN Aravot Daily
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/03/29/153281/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia