Tweet
The Diagnosis of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Relations in One Interview
10:28 22/06/2013 » COMMENTS
By Armen Minasyan
Lately with the support of research centre Region an on-line interview
with Azerbaijani political scientist Arastun Orujlu has been
conducted. Given the limited nature of communications, such interviews
allow us to learn the standpoint of the opposite side on certain
issues. Also, in some cases through this dialogue it becomes possible
to get an idea about the positions of the conflicting parties while
regarding the speaker, who reflects certain attitudes, as a relevant
indicator. Arastun Orujlu's case is one of such cases. Moreover, in
his case only one question is enough for making conclusions.
As a reporter from Panorama I had asked Mr. Orujlu the following
question: `Azerbaijani lieutenant Ramil Safarov, who had murdered an
Armenian lieutenant with an axe, after being extradited to Azerbaijan
in 2012 not only was exempt from serving the rest of his sentence but
also was pardoned and rewarded by the President, was promoted to a
higher military rank, etc. How do you assess the fact of murdering an
unarmed person in peacetime and respectively the response of the
Azerbaijani authorities to this?' I have posed this question from time
to time to different Azerbaijani specialists, experts and politicians
in order to reveal by this their worldview as well as their sincerity
and common sense.
And here is Arastun Orujlu's answer: `I have already expressed my
attitude concerning this fact and it has been negative. Unfortunately
the heroification of any crime is now a commodity which has buyers in
both societies. It is of course lamentable that Aliyev did that;
however in this regard what the Armenian President told American
expert Thomas de Waal about his participation in the killings of
Khojaly is not particularly encouraging either.'
It might seem at first glance that the Azerbaijani expert has given a
sensible response, however two things can be deduced from this answer
- first, that he is using the manipulation techniques typical of the
Azerbaijani propaganda and second, that he proves, perhaps
unwillingly, that he acts not as an independent thinker but as a
servant of that same propaganda.
First, I must say that I have searched on the internet for Mr.
Orujlu's comments on this question but haven't found anything. The
only interview that he had given on this issue was the teleconference
bridge by Radio Liberty where the Azerbaijani expert indeed talked
about this; however he presented not his attitude but rather his
analysis of the situation portraying Aliyev's actions as those
pursuing political and PR agenda.
As for Orujlu's comment on that the heroification of crimes currently
has a high demand, with this we could not agree. However, in this case
the question is who produces this `commodity'. It is one thing if this
is done by separate marginal groups and it is quite another thing if
the state as a whole, headed by the President, is engaged in this. For
instance, all the countries in the world today have the problem of
drug production, drug trafficking and sales. However, the problem in
Mexico for example (where each year hundreds of police officers die
fighting against drug cartels) is different from that in Taliban-led
Afghanistan, where it was all `regulated' directly by the political
authorities of that country. That is, the act of the President who
heroifies and honors the criminal sentenced to life imprisonment in a
European country, cannot be compared for instance with the actions of
a man swearing in the street.
Orujlu himself understands this perfectly well, but most probably
having a special order had to somehow save the situation; that's why
he referred to Thomas de Waal, herewith resorting to a number of
manipulations at once.
Let us begin with the formulation `...What the Armenian President told
American expert Thomas de Waal about his participation in the killings
of Khojaly is not particularly encouraging either.' This statement is
a plain lie, for the sole reason that Serzh Sargsyan didn't say such a
thing in his interview (Chapter 11) given to Thomas de Waal. The quote
>From the speech of the President presented in the interview does not
contain a single sentence in the first person. Why Mr. Orujlu is
changing the wording just like that is known only to those who ordered
this to him.
Let us now turn to the notorious interview. In 2011 I had a chance to
interview Thomas de Waal personally concerning the quotes in his book.
At that time the American expert announced that for confirming the
validity of the quotes he must listen to the original tapes he had
with him (which he hasn't done), however he confirmed that he was the
author and in many cases he presented his impressions in the book.
Concerning the actual events in Khojaly he likewise mentioned at that
time, that according to him it wasn't at all a deliberately planned
action. A part from this interview has been uploaded on the internet
for three years by now and Mr. Orujlu could have been familiar with
it. But his approach speaks about the fact that his goal is not to
know the facts, but rather, by misrepresenting the facts, to spread
the judgments he was ordered to spread.
P.S. FYI the interviews with Thomas de Waal and with many others have
been used in the documentary Between hunger and fire: Power at the
expense of lives. It would be useful for the Azerbaijani political
scientists to be familiar also with the facts presented in this film.
Source: Panorama.am
10:28 22/06/2013 » COMMENTS
By Armen Minasyan
Lately with the support of research centre Region an on-line interview
with Azerbaijani political scientist Arastun Orujlu has been
conducted. Given the limited nature of communications, such interviews
allow us to learn the standpoint of the opposite side on certain
issues. Also, in some cases through this dialogue it becomes possible
to get an idea about the positions of the conflicting parties while
regarding the speaker, who reflects certain attitudes, as a relevant
indicator. Arastun Orujlu's case is one of such cases. Moreover, in
his case only one question is enough for making conclusions.
As a reporter from Panorama I had asked Mr. Orujlu the following
question: `Azerbaijani lieutenant Ramil Safarov, who had murdered an
Armenian lieutenant with an axe, after being extradited to Azerbaijan
in 2012 not only was exempt from serving the rest of his sentence but
also was pardoned and rewarded by the President, was promoted to a
higher military rank, etc. How do you assess the fact of murdering an
unarmed person in peacetime and respectively the response of the
Azerbaijani authorities to this?' I have posed this question from time
to time to different Azerbaijani specialists, experts and politicians
in order to reveal by this their worldview as well as their sincerity
and common sense.
And here is Arastun Orujlu's answer: `I have already expressed my
attitude concerning this fact and it has been negative. Unfortunately
the heroification of any crime is now a commodity which has buyers in
both societies. It is of course lamentable that Aliyev did that;
however in this regard what the Armenian President told American
expert Thomas de Waal about his participation in the killings of
Khojaly is not particularly encouraging either.'
It might seem at first glance that the Azerbaijani expert has given a
sensible response, however two things can be deduced from this answer
- first, that he is using the manipulation techniques typical of the
Azerbaijani propaganda and second, that he proves, perhaps
unwillingly, that he acts not as an independent thinker but as a
servant of that same propaganda.
First, I must say that I have searched on the internet for Mr.
Orujlu's comments on this question but haven't found anything. The
only interview that he had given on this issue was the teleconference
bridge by Radio Liberty where the Azerbaijani expert indeed talked
about this; however he presented not his attitude but rather his
analysis of the situation portraying Aliyev's actions as those
pursuing political and PR agenda.
As for Orujlu's comment on that the heroification of crimes currently
has a high demand, with this we could not agree. However, in this case
the question is who produces this `commodity'. It is one thing if this
is done by separate marginal groups and it is quite another thing if
the state as a whole, headed by the President, is engaged in this. For
instance, all the countries in the world today have the problem of
drug production, drug trafficking and sales. However, the problem in
Mexico for example (where each year hundreds of police officers die
fighting against drug cartels) is different from that in Taliban-led
Afghanistan, where it was all `regulated' directly by the political
authorities of that country. That is, the act of the President who
heroifies and honors the criminal sentenced to life imprisonment in a
European country, cannot be compared for instance with the actions of
a man swearing in the street.
Orujlu himself understands this perfectly well, but most probably
having a special order had to somehow save the situation; that's why
he referred to Thomas de Waal, herewith resorting to a number of
manipulations at once.
Let us begin with the formulation `...What the Armenian President told
American expert Thomas de Waal about his participation in the killings
of Khojaly is not particularly encouraging either.' This statement is
a plain lie, for the sole reason that Serzh Sargsyan didn't say such a
thing in his interview (Chapter 11) given to Thomas de Waal. The quote
>From the speech of the President presented in the interview does not
contain a single sentence in the first person. Why Mr. Orujlu is
changing the wording just like that is known only to those who ordered
this to him.
Let us now turn to the notorious interview. In 2011 I had a chance to
interview Thomas de Waal personally concerning the quotes in his book.
At that time the American expert announced that for confirming the
validity of the quotes he must listen to the original tapes he had
with him (which he hasn't done), however he confirmed that he was the
author and in many cases he presented his impressions in the book.
Concerning the actual events in Khojaly he likewise mentioned at that
time, that according to him it wasn't at all a deliberately planned
action. A part from this interview has been uploaded on the internet
for three years by now and Mr. Orujlu could have been familiar with
it. But his approach speaks about the fact that his goal is not to
know the facts, but rather, by misrepresenting the facts, to spread
the judgments he was ordered to spread.
P.S. FYI the interviews with Thomas de Waal and with many others have
been used in the documentary Between hunger and fire: Power at the
expense of lives. It would be useful for the Azerbaijani political
scientists to be familiar also with the facts presented in this film.
Source: Panorama.am