Tweet
GERARD LIBARIDIAN ON AKRAM AYLISLI CONTROVERSY
ARMINFO
Tuesday, March 5, 20:50
ArmInfo-Turan. Gerard Libaridian, the former foreign policy advisor
for the Armenian president Levon Ter- Petrossian, commented on recent
developments around Akram Aylisli, one of Azerbaijan's most eminent
authors, whose newly released novel 'Stone Dreams' has been publicly
burnt and criticized.
TURAN's Washington DC correspondent asked Cambridge-based Professor
Libaridian, who has recently retired from the Department of History
at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, of the potential Armenian
perspective of the book as well as the place of intellectuals in the
peace negotiation effort.
Libaridian said that since he has not read writer Akram Aylisli's
fictional story myself and is familiar with it only through press
reports, he will have to rely on summaries of what has appeared in
the press.
"Press reports of the reaction in Azerbaijan to the work are, to say
the least, appalling and very discouraging. It is quite paradoxical
that those who condemn the writer for ascribing cruel acts to
Azerbaijanis toward Armenians are prescribing a punishment that
entails physical dismemberment, in this case the cutting of the ear.
It is also paradoxical that this is the same group or government that
made a hero of an Azerbaijani officer who axed an Armenian to death in
his sleep. These two acts, one in a fictional story and the other real,
constitute crimes by any definition. Yet in he name of rejecting that
Azerbaijanis are capable of committing such acts, there are people in
Azerbaijan, and that includes unfortunately, the president, who reward
those who commit such acts and punish those who reveal them. No single
book, story or action brings about peace by itself.
But what matters is that the two societies re-humanize the other,
if there is going to be peace, and that states that claim to want
peace encourage that re-humanization of the enemy. Mr. Aylisli's work
seems to have been a step in that direction. One more point worth
considering. Azerbaijan has insisted on the principle of territorial
integrity in the solution of the Karabakh problem, which means
that Armenians in Karabakh must accept Azerbaijani rule and become
Azerbaijani citizens. I cannot help but ask the leaders of Azerbaijan.
Official Azerbaijan made a hero out of a common murderer because he
killed an Armenian, while it is demonizing a citizen who is humanizing
them: What incentive are they offering to Karabakh Armenians to
accept Azerbaijani suzerainty? They are, indeed, providing evidence
that Armenians cannot be safe and secure in such an Azerbaijan,"
Libaridian said.
When asked how would Armenian society react if similar book have been
written in Armenia, he said that there are very rigid attitudes in
Armenia as well, many who have promoted the idea of reconciliation
have been criticized and sometimes penalized.
"I do not think that by and large we are facing a similar situation
in Armenia. Because Azerbaijan ended up on the losing side of the
military confrontation, anger is deeper and acceptance of the other
more difficult. The worst thing that has happened to Azerbaijan is not
that it lost that confrontation. The worst thing is that it refuses
to come to terms with (a) the real reasons why it lost and (b) the
contradictions in its own current position, when formulating policy
regarding the Karabakh issue and toward Armenians. It is clear that we
are no longer dealing with the political formulation of the problem;
with demands that DNA and gene testing be done, we are coming closer
to a racist position. But many societies have experimented with racism
and nationalist hatred, some, unfortunately, successfully. Others
have gone to the brink and returned. Let us hope the latter will be
the case in the Caucasus," Libaridian said.
To the questions: What should intellectuals in both countries do
when faced with such a situation? In general, do they have a place
in the peace negotiations efforts? If so, why don't we see more
similar efforts from them? Libaridian said: "The term 'intellectual'
has encompassed different groups in different countries and periods of
history. There is one function that real intellectuals have, which, in
my view, is common to such groups that have played a significant role.
Asking questions that others in government, or in positions of power
with vested interests in the status quo, do not ask. To question
positions that are taken for granted. To dig into the deeply rooted
causes for problems. And to imagine a world others cannot imagine,
usually a better one, and in doing so promoting unpopular ideas and
programs. During the Soviet period, and even since in some formerly
Soviet countries, intellectuals have been busier to use their ability
to criticize in order to secure positions or perks for themselves.
Many of these are self-proclaimed intellectuals who think the
self-labeling will assure them salaries, positions, or even power. I
can add that I have met shoemakers, seamstresses, barbers and tailors
who have shown more integrity and ability to question than many of
those self-proclaimed, yet scared, well known personalities.
Intellectuals have no more right to sit at the negotiating table than
others. I have known many diplomats who were great intellectuals and
many intellectuals who could not sit and listen to the other side,
which is important in negotiations. The task of the intellectual,
whatever his or her position in life, is to promote discourse in
society, discourse based on respect for others' opinions; to make
sure taboos are broken, one's own biases and prejudices examined,
and all alternatives for the future, explored."
Concerning the possibility of a peaceful solution, Libaridian said
that considering the atmosphere in the region, revealed in Azerbaijan
by Aylisli's work and, to a lesser extent, in Armenia, the best
possible solution, a negotiated one, does not seem to be the most
probable. And the best way to negotiate, as I have maintained often,
is to negotiate directly. But the reaction to Aylisli's work makes
direct negotiations even less likely than mediated negotiations,
which have stalled for over a decade.
From: Baghdasarian
ARMINFO
Tuesday, March 5, 20:50
ArmInfo-Turan. Gerard Libaridian, the former foreign policy advisor
for the Armenian president Levon Ter- Petrossian, commented on recent
developments around Akram Aylisli, one of Azerbaijan's most eminent
authors, whose newly released novel 'Stone Dreams' has been publicly
burnt and criticized.
TURAN's Washington DC correspondent asked Cambridge-based Professor
Libaridian, who has recently retired from the Department of History
at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, of the potential Armenian
perspective of the book as well as the place of intellectuals in the
peace negotiation effort.
Libaridian said that since he has not read writer Akram Aylisli's
fictional story myself and is familiar with it only through press
reports, he will have to rely on summaries of what has appeared in
the press.
"Press reports of the reaction in Azerbaijan to the work are, to say
the least, appalling and very discouraging. It is quite paradoxical
that those who condemn the writer for ascribing cruel acts to
Azerbaijanis toward Armenians are prescribing a punishment that
entails physical dismemberment, in this case the cutting of the ear.
It is also paradoxical that this is the same group or government that
made a hero of an Azerbaijani officer who axed an Armenian to death in
his sleep. These two acts, one in a fictional story and the other real,
constitute crimes by any definition. Yet in he name of rejecting that
Azerbaijanis are capable of committing such acts, there are people in
Azerbaijan, and that includes unfortunately, the president, who reward
those who commit such acts and punish those who reveal them. No single
book, story or action brings about peace by itself.
But what matters is that the two societies re-humanize the other,
if there is going to be peace, and that states that claim to want
peace encourage that re-humanization of the enemy. Mr. Aylisli's work
seems to have been a step in that direction. One more point worth
considering. Azerbaijan has insisted on the principle of territorial
integrity in the solution of the Karabakh problem, which means
that Armenians in Karabakh must accept Azerbaijani rule and become
Azerbaijani citizens. I cannot help but ask the leaders of Azerbaijan.
Official Azerbaijan made a hero out of a common murderer because he
killed an Armenian, while it is demonizing a citizen who is humanizing
them: What incentive are they offering to Karabakh Armenians to
accept Azerbaijani suzerainty? They are, indeed, providing evidence
that Armenians cannot be safe and secure in such an Azerbaijan,"
Libaridian said.
When asked how would Armenian society react if similar book have been
written in Armenia, he said that there are very rigid attitudes in
Armenia as well, many who have promoted the idea of reconciliation
have been criticized and sometimes penalized.
"I do not think that by and large we are facing a similar situation
in Armenia. Because Azerbaijan ended up on the losing side of the
military confrontation, anger is deeper and acceptance of the other
more difficult. The worst thing that has happened to Azerbaijan is not
that it lost that confrontation. The worst thing is that it refuses
to come to terms with (a) the real reasons why it lost and (b) the
contradictions in its own current position, when formulating policy
regarding the Karabakh issue and toward Armenians. It is clear that we
are no longer dealing with the political formulation of the problem;
with demands that DNA and gene testing be done, we are coming closer
to a racist position. But many societies have experimented with racism
and nationalist hatred, some, unfortunately, successfully. Others
have gone to the brink and returned. Let us hope the latter will be
the case in the Caucasus," Libaridian said.
To the questions: What should intellectuals in both countries do
when faced with such a situation? In general, do they have a place
in the peace negotiations efforts? If so, why don't we see more
similar efforts from them? Libaridian said: "The term 'intellectual'
has encompassed different groups in different countries and periods of
history. There is one function that real intellectuals have, which, in
my view, is common to such groups that have played a significant role.
Asking questions that others in government, or in positions of power
with vested interests in the status quo, do not ask. To question
positions that are taken for granted. To dig into the deeply rooted
causes for problems. And to imagine a world others cannot imagine,
usually a better one, and in doing so promoting unpopular ideas and
programs. During the Soviet period, and even since in some formerly
Soviet countries, intellectuals have been busier to use their ability
to criticize in order to secure positions or perks for themselves.
Many of these are self-proclaimed intellectuals who think the
self-labeling will assure them salaries, positions, or even power. I
can add that I have met shoemakers, seamstresses, barbers and tailors
who have shown more integrity and ability to question than many of
those self-proclaimed, yet scared, well known personalities.
Intellectuals have no more right to sit at the negotiating table than
others. I have known many diplomats who were great intellectuals and
many intellectuals who could not sit and listen to the other side,
which is important in negotiations. The task of the intellectual,
whatever his or her position in life, is to promote discourse in
society, discourse based on respect for others' opinions; to make
sure taboos are broken, one's own biases and prejudices examined,
and all alternatives for the future, explored."
Concerning the possibility of a peaceful solution, Libaridian said
that considering the atmosphere in the region, revealed in Azerbaijan
by Aylisli's work and, to a lesser extent, in Armenia, the best
possible solution, a negotiated one, does not seem to be the most
probable. And the best way to negotiate, as I have maintained often,
is to negotiate directly. But the reaction to Aylisli's work makes
direct negotiations even less likely than mediated negotiations,
which have stalled for over a decade.
From: Baghdasarian