Azerbaijan-Armenia: Information distrust

***

-Do you have any information about the visit of Armenian journalists to Azerbaijan?

- The fact that the visit will take place or not wasmuch spoken about. There are no specific facts whether this visit took place or not. There is only a link to the information spread by the Azerbaijani side on behalf of Arif Aliyev. This question has deepened even further, thanks to the comments of some experts. They say that such a visit was organized. Even the specific date of the visit were indicated. However, this does not mean that the visit actually took place. For clarification, I even turned to the opposite side, to persons potentially participating in such trips, but none of them actually confirmed anything. It turned out that the people with whom we have been working for a long time, who know the conflict and write about it, have not confirmed the presence or absence of such visits. Or it is quite possible that they were not included in this list. Today, I have serious suspicions in this regard. As for the specific lack of a statement by the Foreign Ministry in this regard, in my opinion, when Leyla Abdullaeva was interviewed, she did not confirm and did not refute this fact. This gives reason to believe that by the dissemination of information wanted to test the reaction of society to such visits.

-What was the goal in organizing such a visit? Can they make a total contribution to the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

-The visit is based on statements by the foreign ministers given the Paris meeting. Russia is in fact the main party that has come forward with this initiative. Moscow was interested in organizing such a trip in a short time, thereby demonstrating the weight of Russian words in the OSCE Minsk Group. The most convenient category here can be journalists, since the Russian side and the authorities could show the organization of the trip of journalists that the latter go only to collect information. There was a suggestion that the parents of the missing went on a trip. However, organizing their trip was more difficult than the trip of journalists. And it was difficult to explain to them. Therefore, the organization of the trip of journalists was more logical, and we stopped in this category. In fact, the Azerbaijani press and the public are greatly affected by the scarcity of information about Nagorno-Karabakh, prepared precisely by the Azerbaijani side. And such trips would be very useful. It would be very correct if the journalists went there, met and prepared interviews with the politicians of this self-proclaimed regime, and an analysis of these interviews would be presented to the Azerbaijani audience. Thus, information deficit could be eliminated. However, it became known that many of the Azerbaijani journalists are not ready for such trips. They could not go beyond the general rhetoric. Journalists are also an integral part of society. Society takes an aggressive and defensive position. Therefore, no one wants to go to Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia. Everyone fears that they may be under pressure from patriotic forces, and therefore they avoid traveling.

-The organization of such trips, as noted, annoys the public. That is, such trips can have a reverse effect on the process?

-As I already said, journalists are not a party to the conflict. They simply transmit information. An Azerbaijani journalist should be interested in any information related to Nagorno-Karabakh passing through his sieve, through his pen and then being presented to the court of society. Recently, I have been closely monitoring events. Our journalists are behind in the preparation and dissemination of information. Sometimes they take information from Armenian sites, replicating it, but without going into the essence of this information. Therefore, an Azerbaijani journalist should be interested in receiving information himself. The journalist himself must bring to trial those who impede the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Unfortunately, they do not do this with us. Armenians in this sense work very thoughtfully. They read Azerbaijani sources, turn to differnt sources, take interviews. In rare cases, our journalists directly take information from the opposite side. In addition to Russian-language sites, it can be said that no one does.

- Such visits under the guise of public diplomacy used to be carried out by intellectuals, writers. However, these visits were not effective, so this time they offered the journalists to make a trip. Maybe there are any other reasons?

-In the past, there were actually representatives of the intelligentsia, experts involved in public diplomacy. They made trips, held meetings and it had an effect. Talk about the inefficiency of their work is impossible. Now there is a need for more dynamic and open to the public trips and meetings. Previously, these same intellectuals and experts held meetings and exchanges of opinions behind closed doors, now this has already lost its significance. Now you can make reports from the place, hold conferences on skype. That is, as the technological opportunities for disseminating information increase, there is no need for closed meetings and a limited audience. Therefore, journalists are also involved in this process, so that they quickly convey information to the public. That is why they chose journalists. This is the first reason. The second reason is that the Russian side proposed the normalization of relations in 3-4 areas. More precisely, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. One suggestion is to intensify relations between civil societies. These relationships have been going on for a long time. The second suggestion is travel for journalists. The third suggestion is a trip for missing parents. It turned out that the fastest and most solvable question is the trip of journalists that is why they were chosen; I do not see another reason here.

-You are probably informed about the dialogue between the public activist Bakhtiyar Hajiyev in Paris with the Prime Minister of Armenia Pashinyan, as well as the pro-government blogger Ata Abdullayev in Milan. Specifically, according to the second, there is an opinion that this was done purposefully. What do you think of it?

- With such episodic scandals, with a quick reaction, a one-time action, quickly igniting and fading out just as quickly, it is very difficult to change something, change their mind or influence something. The opposite side, unlike us, behaves in such meetings very respectably. They do not attach much importance to such lightweight, rapidly flammable and dying stocks. They take part in the work of large, global conferences, in fundamental discussions, speak, and express their opinion. They are able to speak calmly, using a derogatory tone, terms in such a way that no one will suspect. It is possible that one-time emotional reactions or our heroism are also needed, probably they are needed to understand some people's needs. However, all this is one-time. However, Armenians win in fundamental audiences because they work with fundamental institutions. They participate in conferences, setting themselves broader tasks. As for Ata Abdullayev, I will say that to disgrace a nation through such kind of people is not for us.

- Recently, the process to resolve the Karabakh conflict has not been going on. Everything happens only at the level of statements “Karabakh belongs to Armenia” or “Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan!” In your opinion, why negotiations are not held? What needs to be done so that negotiations are activated and there is some kind of result?

- The active negotiation process has stopped in April 2016. The opposing side avoided negotiations, and Azerbaijani part wanted to lead them to substantive negotiations, to put them at the negotiating table. There were attempts to continue negotiations, but this did not happen. Whether we want it or not, this is the truth. The fact is that these episodic meetings of foreign ministers are not negotiations. Something like a familiarization phase that is not yet complete. Therefore, it would be naive to wait today or tomorrow for any serious decisions from these meetings or serious steps. The negotiation process is when the parties put a package of proposals on the negotiating table and conduct a substantive discussion of these proposals.  Now, you can say, everything started with the ABC. It discusses what the format should be, who should participate and who should not. That is, in the process started with the ABC, there can be no talk of negotiations. In 1998, negotiations were. The parties were offered batch and phased settlement options. The parties discussed it. Negotiations took place under Heydar Aliyev, and then a specific subject was discussed. A phased or batch settlement was conceived as a hybrid. Currently there cannot be a talk on negotiations.