Gerard Libaridian on Akram Aylisli controversy

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.

A New York-based Human Rights Watch organization and several other watchdogs accused the Azerbaijani government last month of intimidating Mr. Ayrisli at the center of a public row over his depiction of violence between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.

He was expelled from the Union of Writers and had his presidential pension rescinded; his wife and son have also lost their jobs, while protesters have organized book-burnings of his works, held pickets outside his house, and burned effigies of him…

The author however hopes his book is a step toward peace, as long as the Armenians do the same.

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.

Question: Some books apparently can make their authors pretty unpopular… “Stone Dreams” certainly has shocked many Azeris even though as its author mentioned, it is fiction. But could it also be accepted as the first tentative step towards peace with Armenia?

Answer: Since I have not read writer Akram Aylisli’s fictional story myself and am familiar with it only through press reports, I am very reluctant to answer your questions and will be very cautious and tentative in answering a couple of them.

I 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.

Question: Interestingly, how would Armenian society react if similar book have been written in Armenia?

Answer: It is difficult to answer such a hypothetical question, although it is an interesting one. 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.

Question:  It would also be interesting to hear your opinion about Mr. Ayrisli, his inspiration as well as his viewpoints as a citizen…

Answer: I do not feel I know enough to answer that very important question fully. It is possible to imagine that the writer is imagining a different future than what is coming if attitudes do not change, and he is trying to begin a discussion.

If that is the case, he must be a very astute observer of human nature and political processes, since his story is suggesting that the first step toward a better future is to recognize the failings of one’s own side and the questioning of the assumptions underlying one’s own positions. And that is wisdom relevant to all sides.

Question:  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?

Answer: 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.

Question: Where do you think the conflict is going to end up with such negative tendencies?

Answer: That is probably the most important question with the least pleasant possible response today. At best, we will see a continuation of the modus vivendi that will erode our societies and governmental systems. At worst we will have another round of military hostilities with equally serious consequences for all, regardless as to who wins if, in fact, there will be a winner.

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.