Tweet
EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE FOR INTENSIFYING THE PROPAGANDA
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1244: efforts-should-be-made-for-intensifying-the-propaganda&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Tuesday, 22 October 2013 14:31
During the 4-5 October international scientific conference The
National-Liberation Struggle of Artsakh: from Gyulistan to Nowadays
held in Stepanakert, hot discussions took place over the current
stage of the negotiations on the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
conflict.
The views of Director of Modus VivendiResearch Center,
political scientist Ara Papyan on the right of Nagorno Karabakh to
self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which
he expressed in his speech The International Legal Status of Nagorno
Karabakh (from 1917 to nowadays), are worth of attention.Following
is an interview with Ara Papyan on this issue.
- Mr. Papyan, you noted in your speech that the principle of
self-determination leads, to a certain extent, the people of Karabakh
to a trap. What did you mean?
- Yes, I noted this, because the movement emerged within the USSR,
articles 72-77 of the Constitution of which contained both the
principles of nations' self-determination and immutability of
the republics' borders, and this contradiction moved after 1991,
when Armenia and Azerbaijan gained independence. The principles of
self-determination and territorial integrity were accepted purely
formally, though in this case, the territorial integrity cannot refer
to Azerbaijan. Why? According to international law, violation of
integration is when there is involvement of foreign force of threat of
foreign force. While we know that the Artsakh Movement was a national
movement, and Armenia acted as just a supporter. If the events are set
up in this way, the principle of self-determination becomes a serious
problem to us. In practice, what are going to resolve? According to
the Madrid Principles, by saying self-determination, self-determination
within the territory of the former NKAO is meant.
Or, at best, Karabakh can gain independence within the territory of the
NKAO. If it gains independence, it is still another matter, whether
it will take place or not. Are the Karabakh people and authorities
really ready to return the security zone-liberated territories? It
isn't accidental that when the NKAO was "created" in 1923, such
division made the area extremely vulnerable. Moreover, the Madrid
Principles do not contain a solution to the issue. There is a delay of
the issue. So, you pay today with the liberated territories, that is,
your security; instead, you get a promise, which isn't clear to be
realized in 5, 10 or 15 years. Let's take another right - the right
to expression. What does it mean? It means that the people should
express with whom it desires to live, yes, after so many years.
It means that without getting a status and having one of the provisions
- the return of refugees, tens and hundreds of thousands will come
here. Today, 300-600 thousands of refugees are noted in Azerbaijan...
- More than the total size of the population those years...
- While about 40.000 Azerbaijanis lived here that time.
They say 20 years have passed, and our population has increased 5
times and so on. There is also another circumstance. The international
community will look through the documents with the place of birth
- a Karabakhian village. The Soviet passports were long changed,
and the people got Azerbaijani passports long ago, but the place
of birth there was fixed as a Karabalkhian village (they wrote
what they wished). But, assuming that about 80-100 thousand people
(there were 40.000, increasing twice) will arrive, imagine what kind
of inter-ethnic clashes may occur. Even at best, imagine that they
come, live peacefully and finally the people vote for independence
or uniting with Armenia. And Azerbaijan says no, I don't recognize,
as it happened previously. What should we do in this case? Will the
international community begin "to bomb" Baku, pressing it to recognize
us? Surely, not. Or, it hasn't a real lever for influence. The real
lever is war, but nobody will use it. Will the Karabakh people be
really able to stand up for its own rights in case of yielding the
surrounding territories, in a psychologically changed atmosphere,
having tens of thousands of Azeris within the country?
- It will be very difficult or impossible...
- Surely, it will be impossible. Now a propaganda struggle is
underway. And this is an important stage. Currently, a lot of issues
are resolved, basing on the public opinion. It is very important in
the West. The authorities take decisions under the influence of the
public opinion. If we had managed to demonstrate the truth to the
world, the public opinion would have forced to recognize Karabakh.
- What prevents us to implement this propaganda?
- First of all, the improper attitude to the public opinion. Maybe
it isn't characteristic to us to pay corresponding importance to
the public opinion. And we think that others act similarly. But,
others differ from us, living in another system of values. Secondly,
I'd like to note the lack of professionalism. Here the situation is
complicated, because there are no clear boundaries between the wrong
and right and there is no specification of the good and bad. And third,
the funds are spent improperly...
- Can you give an example?
- For example, many great events take place in Armenia and Karabakh,
in particular, on the occasion of the Yerevan-Erebuni and Independence
Days, which do not encourage the people for a special attitude
towards independence. On the contrary, it causes antipathy in the
poor country. Part of the funds allocated for these events can be
spent for social programs and for propaganda. The literature, which
was published in Russian in due time, can be re-printed, translated,
duplicated and sent to large and small libraries and universities
operating in different countries of the world. I must say, they don't
use textbooks for studying there. Students are instructed to write
works on any topic or to prepare a report. They use library- and
Internet materials to prepare their works. If the needed book lacks
in the library, he isn't a specialist to seek and find it, and one
should give him a corresponding book. I assure that the libraries
contain books by about 20 or 30 Azerbaijani and Turkish authors;
surely, they are not all about Karabakh or the Genocide. A considerable
part of the books is about the negative image of Armenians. In short,
the young people form their opinion, basing on these books.
- So, corresponding works should be conducted for improving the
specialists' knowledge and for creating the proper public opinion.
- Yes, and all this should be universal, comprehensive, and most
importantly, systematized. We (I mean the two Armenian administrative
entities) do not implement systematized propaganda. You cannot
imagine what works are conducted by our opponent. And we cannot
expand and systematize our works. For example, while making a speech,
I spoke about an important document - a resolution of the League
of Nations. But, a few people speak about the document, which is
so important for us. The successor of the UN took a decision on
the Karabakh issue, which wasn't realized, due to a crime. Or,
this region was occupied by the Red Army. Now it would be natural
if after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 we returned to the
situation that was provided by international law in the 20s of the 20th
century. But, what has happened in fact? The incompatibility of the
two principles regarding Karabakh, which was formed during the Soviet
period, was formally transferred to the next period. While even that
period, according to the document adopted by the League of Nations,
Karabakh was a recognized and independent state. The matter is that
Azerbaijan, actually, accepts that fact, because the declaration on its
independence clearly provides that the modern Azerbaijani Republic is
the successor of the first (and not the Soviet) Azerbaijani Republic.
It turns out that it refuses of Soviet Azerbaijan. But, in this case,
why don't we propose, respecting the decision of the Azerbaijani
authorities, which refused of the Soviet Azerbaijani Republic, to
return to the pre-Soviet period and see what we have and what legal
materials are available there? See how many fundamental documents
are available, but who is speaking about them? But, Azerbaijan has
stated so much about the 20% of the so-called "occupied" territories
that the world believes it.
- If the propaganda is expanded and systematized, will the world
really take a true stance on the Karabakh recognition? Or, are there
other circumstances, which dictate the current situation?
- Certainly, the work will be successful. Be sure it will be so. I'll
say how. Let's imagine a mass, a small part of which is well informed
of the issue and knows that Armenians are right.
Another small part, which is also aware of the issue, says that
Azeris are right. As a rule, it proceeds from certain interest. But,
the majority, or about 80 %, is the hesitating part, which isn't
informed of the issue and isn't interested in it. And we should work
with this part. I state once more that these people form the public
opinion, which forces the authorities to take other decisions. See,
the same took place on the issue of the Genocide. So many states
have recognized the Armenian Genocide for the last decades. Thanks
to what it has happened? Thanks to the public opinion. I must say,
here we have certain advantages and we must make a lot of efforts
and spare no means to develop these advantages.
Susanna BALAYAN
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1244: efforts-should-be-made-for-intensifying-the-propaganda&catid=5:politics&Itemid=17
Tuesday, 22 October 2013 14:31
During the 4-5 October international scientific conference The
National-Liberation Struggle of Artsakh: from Gyulistan to Nowadays
held in Stepanakert, hot discussions took place over the current
stage of the negotiations on the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh
conflict.
The views of Director of Modus VivendiResearch Center,
political scientist Ara Papyan on the right of Nagorno Karabakh to
self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity, which
he expressed in his speech The International Legal Status of Nagorno
Karabakh (from 1917 to nowadays), are worth of attention.Following
is an interview with Ara Papyan on this issue.
- Mr. Papyan, you noted in your speech that the principle of
self-determination leads, to a certain extent, the people of Karabakh
to a trap. What did you mean?
- Yes, I noted this, because the movement emerged within the USSR,
articles 72-77 of the Constitution of which contained both the
principles of nations' self-determination and immutability of
the republics' borders, and this contradiction moved after 1991,
when Armenia and Azerbaijan gained independence. The principles of
self-determination and territorial integrity were accepted purely
formally, though in this case, the territorial integrity cannot refer
to Azerbaijan. Why? According to international law, violation of
integration is when there is involvement of foreign force of threat of
foreign force. While we know that the Artsakh Movement was a national
movement, and Armenia acted as just a supporter. If the events are set
up in this way, the principle of self-determination becomes a serious
problem to us. In practice, what are going to resolve? According to
the Madrid Principles, by saying self-determination, self-determination
within the territory of the former NKAO is meant.
Or, at best, Karabakh can gain independence within the territory of the
NKAO. If it gains independence, it is still another matter, whether
it will take place or not. Are the Karabakh people and authorities
really ready to return the security zone-liberated territories? It
isn't accidental that when the NKAO was "created" in 1923, such
division made the area extremely vulnerable. Moreover, the Madrid
Principles do not contain a solution to the issue. There is a delay of
the issue. So, you pay today with the liberated territories, that is,
your security; instead, you get a promise, which isn't clear to be
realized in 5, 10 or 15 years. Let's take another right - the right
to expression. What does it mean? It means that the people should
express with whom it desires to live, yes, after so many years.
It means that without getting a status and having one of the provisions
- the return of refugees, tens and hundreds of thousands will come
here. Today, 300-600 thousands of refugees are noted in Azerbaijan...
- More than the total size of the population those years...
- While about 40.000 Azerbaijanis lived here that time.
They say 20 years have passed, and our population has increased 5
times and so on. There is also another circumstance. The international
community will look through the documents with the place of birth
- a Karabakhian village. The Soviet passports were long changed,
and the people got Azerbaijani passports long ago, but the place
of birth there was fixed as a Karabalkhian village (they wrote
what they wished). But, assuming that about 80-100 thousand people
(there were 40.000, increasing twice) will arrive, imagine what kind
of inter-ethnic clashes may occur. Even at best, imagine that they
come, live peacefully and finally the people vote for independence
or uniting with Armenia. And Azerbaijan says no, I don't recognize,
as it happened previously. What should we do in this case? Will the
international community begin "to bomb" Baku, pressing it to recognize
us? Surely, not. Or, it hasn't a real lever for influence. The real
lever is war, but nobody will use it. Will the Karabakh people be
really able to stand up for its own rights in case of yielding the
surrounding territories, in a psychologically changed atmosphere,
having tens of thousands of Azeris within the country?
- It will be very difficult or impossible...
- Surely, it will be impossible. Now a propaganda struggle is
underway. And this is an important stage. Currently, a lot of issues
are resolved, basing on the public opinion. It is very important in
the West. The authorities take decisions under the influence of the
public opinion. If we had managed to demonstrate the truth to the
world, the public opinion would have forced to recognize Karabakh.
- What prevents us to implement this propaganda?
- First of all, the improper attitude to the public opinion. Maybe
it isn't characteristic to us to pay corresponding importance to
the public opinion. And we think that others act similarly. But,
others differ from us, living in another system of values. Secondly,
I'd like to note the lack of professionalism. Here the situation is
complicated, because there are no clear boundaries between the wrong
and right and there is no specification of the good and bad. And third,
the funds are spent improperly...
- Can you give an example?
- For example, many great events take place in Armenia and Karabakh,
in particular, on the occasion of the Yerevan-Erebuni and Independence
Days, which do not encourage the people for a special attitude
towards independence. On the contrary, it causes antipathy in the
poor country. Part of the funds allocated for these events can be
spent for social programs and for propaganda. The literature, which
was published in Russian in due time, can be re-printed, translated,
duplicated and sent to large and small libraries and universities
operating in different countries of the world. I must say, they don't
use textbooks for studying there. Students are instructed to write
works on any topic or to prepare a report. They use library- and
Internet materials to prepare their works. If the needed book lacks
in the library, he isn't a specialist to seek and find it, and one
should give him a corresponding book. I assure that the libraries
contain books by about 20 or 30 Azerbaijani and Turkish authors;
surely, they are not all about Karabakh or the Genocide. A considerable
part of the books is about the negative image of Armenians. In short,
the young people form their opinion, basing on these books.
- So, corresponding works should be conducted for improving the
specialists' knowledge and for creating the proper public opinion.
- Yes, and all this should be universal, comprehensive, and most
importantly, systematized. We (I mean the two Armenian administrative
entities) do not implement systematized propaganda. You cannot
imagine what works are conducted by our opponent. And we cannot
expand and systematize our works. For example, while making a speech,
I spoke about an important document - a resolution of the League
of Nations. But, a few people speak about the document, which is
so important for us. The successor of the UN took a decision on
the Karabakh issue, which wasn't realized, due to a crime. Or,
this region was occupied by the Red Army. Now it would be natural
if after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 we returned to the
situation that was provided by international law in the 20s of the 20th
century. But, what has happened in fact? The incompatibility of the
two principles regarding Karabakh, which was formed during the Soviet
period, was formally transferred to the next period. While even that
period, according to the document adopted by the League of Nations,
Karabakh was a recognized and independent state. The matter is that
Azerbaijan, actually, accepts that fact, because the declaration on its
independence clearly provides that the modern Azerbaijani Republic is
the successor of the first (and not the Soviet) Azerbaijani Republic.
It turns out that it refuses of Soviet Azerbaijan. But, in this case,
why don't we propose, respecting the decision of the Azerbaijani
authorities, which refused of the Soviet Azerbaijani Republic, to
return to the pre-Soviet period and see what we have and what legal
materials are available there? See how many fundamental documents
are available, but who is speaking about them? But, Azerbaijan has
stated so much about the 20% of the so-called "occupied" territories
that the world believes it.
- If the propaganda is expanded and systematized, will the world
really take a true stance on the Karabakh recognition? Or, are there
other circumstances, which dictate the current situation?
- Certainly, the work will be successful. Be sure it will be so. I'll
say how. Let's imagine a mass, a small part of which is well informed
of the issue and knows that Armenians are right.
Another small part, which is also aware of the issue, says that
Azeris are right. As a rule, it proceeds from certain interest. But,
the majority, or about 80 %, is the hesitating part, which isn't
informed of the issue and isn't interested in it. And we should work
with this part. I state once more that these people form the public
opinion, which forces the authorities to take other decisions. See,
the same took place on the issue of the Genocide. So many states
have recognized the Armenian Genocide for the last decades. Thanks
to what it has happened? Thanks to the public opinion. I must say,
here we have certain advantages and we must make a lot of efforts
and spare no means to develop these advantages.
Susanna BALAYAN