Tweet
TOLERANCE IN EXCHANGE TO BLACK CAVIAR
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1299: tolerance-in-exchange-to-black-caviar&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Friday, 29 November 2013 22:18
Recently, information was placed at the Internet, by
which it was impossible to pass indifferently. It reported that,
according to the rating prepared by Venividiwebsite for the
International Day of Tolerance, Azerbaijan, together with Canada,
Sweden, Argentina and Australia, was included in the list of five
tolerant countries of the world.
To be frank, our attempts to find out anything specific about the
creators and authors of the site were unsuccessful. We only managed to
determine that the site is Russian, and the primary focus of its
materials is travel advertising the places of interest of different
countries.
This is as for the competence of the website, which, specializing
mainly on tourism, took the liberty and responsibility to determine
the rating of tolerant countries.
How ridiculous is the availability of totalitarian Azerbaijan, with
its fascism practicing leadership, in one list with Canada, Sweden,
Argentina, and Australia is testified by the mere fact that in the
comments on this information, placed at the same site, only the right
of Azerbaijan to be included in this list is challenged.
Indeed, the inclusion of Azerbaijan in the noted rating cannot but
cause confusion among the people who are more or less familiar with
the nature of the ruling regime in Baku. And this raises a number of
not idle questions to the compilers of the rankings, the main of which
is: what are the criteria of assessing the tolerance of the country?
The answer, perhaps, can be found in the announcement of the site for
the rating publication: "On November 16, the International Day of
Tolerance, we offer you a list of states, which are distinguished by
their special respect for the views and way of life of its citizens
and foreign visitors." In this connection, there is another non-idle
question - did the rating composers study the history of modern
Azerbaijan? If so, they should have known about the bloody
anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait, Baku, and other Azerbaijani cities,
as well as the war unleashed by the Baku authorities against
Nagorno-Karabakh. But, as information technologies are currently dealt
with by mainly young people, so the authors of the site might not know
about the events that took place 20-25 years ago. But, the problem is
that the history of Azerbaijan, even in the recent years, is full of
facts, which do not fit in the system of values of the civilized world
and which, even with a great desire, cannot fit in the definition used
by the site - "special respect for the views and way of life" of the
people, regardless of their citizenship.
If the drafters of the noting rating had seriously and impartially
held the so-called monitoring of tolerance in Azerbaijan, they would
have hardly included this country in the list of top-five states.Can
one talk about tolerance of the state where the president and the
society glorify the bastard who killed a sleeping Armenian officer
with an ax? Or, start total persecution of Azerbaijani writer Aylisli
only for the fact that he dared to speak kindly about Armenians? Can
we speak about special respect for foreign visitors, if the entry to
Azerbaijan is refused not only to foreign citizens of Armenian origin,
but even to individuals who "dared" to visit Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh? And do the creators of the rating know about the
existence of the so-called "black list" in Azerbaijan, which include
the foreigners who visited the NKR without the permission (!!!) of the
Baku authorities? In other words, do they know that for already a
quarter of a century, Azerbaijan has nourished and cultivated hatred
towards the Armenian people? We think the rating composers know all
about this, which inevitably suggests that Azerbaijan's place in the
list of top five tolerant countries was paid out by its authorities
who, given the acclaimed "caviar diplomacy", are used to it.
Surely, the incident can be called absurd. But, no less absurd is the
fact that the Azerbaijani ranking result was commented on, and even
with epithets in the excellent form, by people looking serious at the
first glance. Thus, Rector, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Russian State Humanitarian University, corresponding member of the
Russian Academy of Sciences Yefim Pivovar, in an interview to Russian
portal Bulletin of the Caucasus, praised lavishly the Azerbaijani
leadership, which, according to him, conducts quite an effective
policy of tolerance and respect for the customs and culture of the
peoples that "historically lived in Azerbaijan". Notable, however, is
the rector's acknowledgement that things are going well, as he noted,
in all the main directions of the activity of the leadership of Ilham
Aliyev on increasing the level of tolerance, except Nagorno-Karabakh.
Why then is such selectivity of the Azerbaijani model of tolerance
taken into account neither by the rating authors nor by the rector?
Isn't Mr. Pivovar too fast to forget about the Russian "main
direction", when recently, those in Azerbaijan, in response to the
arrest of Orhan Zeynalov who had killed a Russian guy in Moscow's
Biryulevo, have threatened to kill Russians still living in this
country? Or, should we again find the answer to this question in the
context of the "caviar diplomacy", which encouraged the rector for
making curtsies before Azerbaijan?
As we know, history attributes the words Veni, vidi, vici, ie, "I
came, saw, and won," to Julius Caesar. As can be easily seen, the
third component is lacking in the name of the noted site. In other
words, there is no victory. Moreover, we can speak of defeat. Shameful
defeat testifying to the erosion of the moral principles, when
nonexistent tolerance is bought with black caviar.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: A. Papazian
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1299: tolerance-in-exchange-to-black-caviar&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Friday, 29 November 2013 22:18
Recently, information was placed at the Internet, by
which it was impossible to pass indifferently. It reported that,
according to the rating prepared by Venividiwebsite for the
International Day of Tolerance, Azerbaijan, together with Canada,
Sweden, Argentina and Australia, was included in the list of five
tolerant countries of the world.
To be frank, our attempts to find out anything specific about the
creators and authors of the site were unsuccessful. We only managed to
determine that the site is Russian, and the primary focus of its
materials is travel advertising the places of interest of different
countries.
This is as for the competence of the website, which, specializing
mainly on tourism, took the liberty and responsibility to determine
the rating of tolerant countries.
How ridiculous is the availability of totalitarian Azerbaijan, with
its fascism practicing leadership, in one list with Canada, Sweden,
Argentina, and Australia is testified by the mere fact that in the
comments on this information, placed at the same site, only the right
of Azerbaijan to be included in this list is challenged.
Indeed, the inclusion of Azerbaijan in the noted rating cannot but
cause confusion among the people who are more or less familiar with
the nature of the ruling regime in Baku. And this raises a number of
not idle questions to the compilers of the rankings, the main of which
is: what are the criteria of assessing the tolerance of the country?
The answer, perhaps, can be found in the announcement of the site for
the rating publication: "On November 16, the International Day of
Tolerance, we offer you a list of states, which are distinguished by
their special respect for the views and way of life of its citizens
and foreign visitors." In this connection, there is another non-idle
question - did the rating composers study the history of modern
Azerbaijan? If so, they should have known about the bloody
anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait, Baku, and other Azerbaijani cities,
as well as the war unleashed by the Baku authorities against
Nagorno-Karabakh. But, as information technologies are currently dealt
with by mainly young people, so the authors of the site might not know
about the events that took place 20-25 years ago. But, the problem is
that the history of Azerbaijan, even in the recent years, is full of
facts, which do not fit in the system of values of the civilized world
and which, even with a great desire, cannot fit in the definition used
by the site - "special respect for the views and way of life" of the
people, regardless of their citizenship.
If the drafters of the noting rating had seriously and impartially
held the so-called monitoring of tolerance in Azerbaijan, they would
have hardly included this country in the list of top-five states.Can
one talk about tolerance of the state where the president and the
society glorify the bastard who killed a sleeping Armenian officer
with an ax? Or, start total persecution of Azerbaijani writer Aylisli
only for the fact that he dared to speak kindly about Armenians? Can
we speak about special respect for foreign visitors, if the entry to
Azerbaijan is refused not only to foreign citizens of Armenian origin,
but even to individuals who "dared" to visit Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh? And do the creators of the rating know about the
existence of the so-called "black list" in Azerbaijan, which include
the foreigners who visited the NKR without the permission (!!!) of the
Baku authorities? In other words, do they know that for already a
quarter of a century, Azerbaijan has nourished and cultivated hatred
towards the Armenian people? We think the rating composers know all
about this, which inevitably suggests that Azerbaijan's place in the
list of top five tolerant countries was paid out by its authorities
who, given the acclaimed "caviar diplomacy", are used to it.
Surely, the incident can be called absurd. But, no less absurd is the
fact that the Azerbaijani ranking result was commented on, and even
with epithets in the excellent form, by people looking serious at the
first glance. Thus, Rector, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the
Russian State Humanitarian University, corresponding member of the
Russian Academy of Sciences Yefim Pivovar, in an interview to Russian
portal Bulletin of the Caucasus, praised lavishly the Azerbaijani
leadership, which, according to him, conducts quite an effective
policy of tolerance and respect for the customs and culture of the
peoples that "historically lived in Azerbaijan". Notable, however, is
the rector's acknowledgement that things are going well, as he noted,
in all the main directions of the activity of the leadership of Ilham
Aliyev on increasing the level of tolerance, except Nagorno-Karabakh.
Why then is such selectivity of the Azerbaijani model of tolerance
taken into account neither by the rating authors nor by the rector?
Isn't Mr. Pivovar too fast to forget about the Russian "main
direction", when recently, those in Azerbaijan, in response to the
arrest of Orhan Zeynalov who had killed a Russian guy in Moscow's
Biryulevo, have threatened to kill Russians still living in this
country? Or, should we again find the answer to this question in the
context of the "caviar diplomacy", which encouraged the rector for
making curtsies before Azerbaijan?
As we know, history attributes the words Veni, vidi, vici, ie, "I
came, saw, and won," to Julius Caesar. As can be easily seen, the
third component is lacking in the name of the noted site. In other
words, there is no victory. Moreover, we can speak of defeat. Shameful
defeat testifying to the erosion of the moral principles, when
nonexistent tolerance is bought with black caviar.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: A. Papazian