Azeri government increases its control over the Internet

TURAN Washington DC correspondent interviewed Sarah Kendzior, an anthropologist who studies politics and the internet in Post soviet authoritarian regimes, including Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan. She has a regular contributor at Registan.net and The Atlantic magazine.

Question: How does the "internet activism" helps to explain the Arab Spring? What are the reasons that "enforced" activists in those MENA countries (Middle East and North Africa) to social media tools?

Answer: The Arab Spring was a result of many social and political factors – the internet was just one of them. I dislike the term “Arab Spring” because it puts a limited time frame on what was, and is, a long- term process. Arab activists had been using social media tools for years before their message started to resonate. Few paid attention to them until they succeeded, which gives the false impression that the internet brought about instantaneous revolution. The internet is only a tool – the people who use it are what is important. That said, the internet helped activists to build trusting relationships, publicize their causes, and expose state violence and corruption.

Q. According to Freedom House survey, violence against internet activists in Azerbaijan has not abated, and the bloggers who express dissenting opinions are being accused of libel and imprisoned by the Azerbaijani authorities. How should the Azeri activists deal with this problem?

A. This is a very difficult problem. Like most authoritarian states, Azerbaijan has a number of activists in the Diaspora who are extremely active online. They are in a less precarious position than activists in the country, and play a vital role in circulating information sent from within Azerbaijan. The activists in Azerbaijan have a much graver situation – in part because they often do not realize they are “activists” until the government decides to imprison them. Recently the government has attempted to demonize all social media even that not used for political purposes – for example, state representatives have claimed that Facebook users are criminal or insane. The state is trying to forge an implicit link between social media use and immorality and treason – one which would dissuade citizens from participating, but which would also be useful later when trying to debase the character of internet users whose ideas they don’t like.

 I have a lot of respect for Azerbaijanis who continue to post political content in these circumstances, but I also think it is understandable that others refrain from doing so. There are a few steps activists can take: they can use circumvention tools and anonymizers, they can take advantage of sympathizers outside the country to promote their works and ideas, they can mirror their content to prevent censorship and boost their potential audience. However, these are not great solutions, because the problem has more to do with the nature of the state than the nature of the internet. Activists using the internet in Azerbaijan face serious consequences.

Q. There are some concerns that the Azeri government increases its control over the Internet. Where do you think the Azeri government takes the country with this way?

A. The government of Azerbaijan values stability above all else. They want to enforce a specific view of what it means to be a good Azerbaijani citizen – one that is deeply entwined with respect for the Aliev regime – and they will do what they can to avoid potential challenges. By challenges, I do not necessarily mean overt activism, but even banal debate on national issues, like the kind you might see on a Facebook post. These kinds of debates can go in unpredictable directions, and the government deeply values predictability. Initially Azerbaijan was a bit of an outlier among authoritarian states in that it left the internet relatively open – which, in the case of the famous “donkey blogger” incident, allowed Azerbaijanis active online to witness the consequences of cyber-activism. (I have an article about this   case forthcoming in the Journal of Communication, co-written with Dr. Katy Pearce.) The government’s recent rhetoric on social media implies they are moving towards the kind of broad censorship more common in authoritarian states.

Q. What do you believe the West, US should do to help provide internet freedom in such countries, as Azerbaijan?

A. That is another difficult question. The attack on internet freedom is part of a greater, systematic attack on all media freedom and a general disregard for free expression. It is not an easy problem for an outsider to solve. I have heard that the 2012 meeting of the United Nation's Internet Governance Forum is tentatively set to be held in Baku this fall. That might be a great time for people to voice their concerns about the lack of internet freedom in Azerbaijan.

Q. A number of experts believe that US is more interested in other issues in the region and that is one of the reasons why the democracy is on the back plan. What is your opinion?

A. I agree with this. The Caucasus has never been a priority for the US government, and the issue of internet freedom or democracy in Azerbaijan is no exception. I also agree that energy or military concern tend to dominate the conversation.

However, I think there are many people in the US government sincerely interested in protecting internet freedom and human rights – sometimes their voices are drowned out, and sometimes they simply do not have an easy solution.

I am interested in hearing from Azerbaijanis about what they think the US government or international organizations should do to help protect internet freedom and human rights.