The BBC's Azerbaijani Service has published a gallery of my photographs taken in the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh in 1994. Over 25,000 people were killed in the war waged in the early 1990s and a million forced to flee their homes. Since a ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994 attempts to mediate a peace deal through the OSCE Minsk Group have faltered and The Economist recently put the number of deaths on the front line since then at 3,000. Below is the English text from which the captions were taken and translated into Azerbaijani:
Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian 1994
When news of a humanitarian flight leaving the UK for Nagorno Karabakh reached me while working on the Picture Desk of The Independent in London in 1994, I jumped at the chance to request that the newspaper's Picture Editor send me with it. He agreed, and in August I made my first ever trip to Armenia and the South Caucasus. The ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan had been signed just months earlier and some analysts and international observers were warning that a new offensive might start within days or weeks, breaking the fragile armistice.
It didn't, but the journey from Armenia to Karabakh was still perilous at times with the military helicopter carrying journalists and aid workers seemingly destined to smash into the side of a mountain at one point when it had no choice but to hug the terrain after a radio message warned of Azerbaijani jets in the vicinity. Yet, it wasn't so much the military situation that interested me, but the people. More significantly, perhaps, it was the people on both sides whose hopes for a lasting peace have been continually dashed by nearly 18 years of political manipulation and intrigue.
Back then, the military buffer zone was called just that. There was no reference to the territories as 'liberated' by the Armenian side, even in interviews we held with the then Armenian Defense Minister, the late Vazgen Sargsyan who was assassinated in 1999. Then, just as they remain on the official level today, they were seen simply as a bargaining chip in ongoing negotiations to determine the final status of the disputed territory. Back then, there was actually hope that a negotiated settlement could be reached, ushering in a new period of peace and stability for Armenians and Azerbaijanis in the South Caucasus.
Yet, accompanied as we were for some of the trip by the Armenian writer Zori Balayan, one of the main nationalist agitators in Armenia and Karabakh, another line was also spun: that of Armenians and Azerbaijanis being destined to remain enemies without any common ground. However, when two journalists from Time magazine and I heard that Azerbaijani Prisoners of War (PoWs) were being held on the floor of a hospital in the Karabakh capital we successfully managed to escape the organized press tour and stumbled upon something remarkable.
Azerbaijani Prisoner of War (PoW), Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian 1994
In addition to the PoWs, who like many of their Armenian counterparts had been conscripted against their will, Azerbaijani civilians were also being held for exchange with Armenians taken hostage by the other side. Among them were children. Many, in fact, or at least until we discovered that not all of them were Azerbaijanis. They also included Armenians who had been allowed to play with the captives in an otherwise free environment. Until this day I remember being unable to tell them apart, and usually when I find myself observing the interaction between Armenians and Azerbaijanis at events held in Georgia and elsewhere.
And it's true. Ethnic Armenians and Azeris are able to coexist together in countries outside the conflict zone, and they share much in common. While in Nagorno Karabakh in 1994 I photographed an Armenian wedding, for example, but the most recent marriage I shot was in 2009 in the ethnic Azeri village of Karajala in Georgia. Both, as well as every Armenian wedding in between, has been pretty much identical - from the food down to the music. I've also been working on documenting those villages in Georgia with a mixed ethnic Armenian and Azeri population and where both speak the other's language.
That's not to ignore the pain and suffering experienced by both sides in the conflict, but simply to say that in the years since the 1994 ceasefire it's become more and more difficult for me to view the conflict as an ethnic one. Instead, and while nationalists and politicians on both sides appear to manipulate the conflict by insisting that it is, my main problem still remains being unable to tell most Armenians and Azerbaijanis apart. This is especially true for the children, which leads me on to my personal favorite photograph taken in Karabakh in 1994.
It was of a little girl, Gayaneh, close to Aghdam in the village of Khrmort. Aged well beyond her years with an expression scarred by the horrors of war, she broke into a smile only when I stuck my tongue out her from behind the camera. As she did so it was then that I found myself hoping that a lasting peace would come to the region. Unfortunately for Gayaneh and myself, as well as new generations in Armenia and Azerbaijan who are unable to remember the time when both sides did live peacefully together, we're both still waiting...
---
Onnik Krikorian is a journalist and photographer from the UK based in Yerevan, Armenia. He is also the Caucasus editor for Global Voices Online and his own personal project amplifying alternative narratives on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is at http://peace.oneworld.am. Follow the project on Twitter at @caucasusproject or join the Facebook Page at http://www.facebook.com/ConflictVoices.
The BBC Azeri gallery is at Fotojurnal: Qarabağ fotoqrafın gözü ilə.
Refugee from Nagorno Karabakh, Armenia © Onnik Krikorian 1994
16.7 kilometers south of Lachin, Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan
© Onnik Krikorian for IWPR
Expectations of ending the long-running conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh are high ahead of a meeting between the two presidents hosted by Russian President Dimitry Medvedev in Kazan on 25 June. The war fought in the early 1990s ended in a ceasefire agreement signed in May 1994. Over 25,000 died and a million forced to flee from their homes. Since then, according to The Economist, around 3,000 have died in cross-border skirmishes leading many analysts to argue that the conflict is anything but frozen. The International Crisis Group, for example, warned of the danger of an 'accidental war' earlier this year.
According to news reports and official statements, the hope is that Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev, and his Armenian counterpart, Serge Sargsyan, will finalize and sign the basic principles that will form the basis for a final peace deal when they meet in Russia. Such hopes follow what many consider to be an unprecedented joint statement from the U.S., Russian and French presidents, representing the three countries tasked with mediating a peace deal under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group, at the G8 Summit in Deauville, France, last month.
We, the Presidents of the OSCE Minsk Group's Co-Chair countries -- France, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America -- are convinced the time has arrived for all the sides to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to take a decisive step towards a peaceful settlement.
We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace, stability, and reconciliation, opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation. The use of force created the current situation of confrontation and instability. Its use again would only bring more suffering and devastation, and would be condemned by the international community. We strongly urge the leaders of the sides to prepare their populations for peace, not war.
[...]
We therefore call upon the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to demonstrate their political will by finalizing the Basic Principles during their upcoming summit in June. Further delay would only call into question the commitment of the sides to reach an agreement. Once an agreement has been reached, we stand ready to witness the formal acceptance of these Principles, to assist in the drafting of the peace agreement, and then to support its implementation with our international partners.
There are reportedly still some issues to resolve, but press reports indicate that the basic principles are not too dissimilar from the 1994 Bishkek Protocol signed just a few days before the ceasefire agreement came into effect. In particular, a peace deal would see the return of seven Armenian-controlled regions outside of Nagorno Karabakh proper as also demanded by UN Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884, an interim status for the disputed territory as well as the return of refugees and IDPs to their homes. What seems to have prevented an agreement to date, however, has been the timescale for such a peace plan and the mechanisms for determining Karabakh's status.
In particular, Armenia would prefer to return the Azerbaijani regions of Lachin and Kelbajar only after final status has been determined while Azerbaijan wants them beforehand. Meanwhile, with Armenia demanding nothing less than full independence for Karabakh, Azerbaijan is more inclined towards considering a 'high degree of autonomy' within its territory in much the same way as Tatarstan functions inside the Russian Federation. Regardless, whatever its status, there is also the issue of how wide a strategic land corridor connecting Armenia and Karabakh through Lachin would be in addition to the makeup of peacekeeping forces and the nature of international security guarantees.
Suarassy, Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan © Onnik Krikorian for IWPR
Nationalists in both countries will undoubtedly oppose such a peace plan, with some Armenians objecting to the return of any Azerbaijani territory outside Karabakh and many Azeris unwilling to risk the chance that the basic principles could pave the way for full independence and the loss of key cultural sites such as Shusha, a formerly majority Azerbaijani town.
Shusha, Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian for The National
Some analysts also remain skeptical, with Yerevan-based Richard Giragosian telling the New York Times that the expected initial outcome of the Kazan meeting was to merely sign a document renouncing the use of force to resolve the conflict. "The two sides are simply too far apart, and there's no political will," he was quoted as saying. Similarly, some news reports quoting Azerbaijani officials as saying that they do not believe there will be a breakthrough at the Kazan talks.
Azerbaijan does not want to wage war over the Armenian-backed breakaway territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, yet it sees no chance of a breakthrough in talks later this month, its deputy foreign minister said.
[...]
Azimov said he was not optimistic for a breakthrough at the meeting of Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan in Kazan. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will mediate.
"I do not have an optimistic view on what may happen in Kazan. I do not expect an agreement on basic principles in Kazan but I expect some more clarity on the most critical issues," Azimov said. He did not elaborate.
Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia
© Onnik Krikorian for The Wall Street Journal
Even so, Armenian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Tigran Balayan late last night tweeted that the sides were moving closer. Later, the same news was reported in the media.
Armenia and Azerbaijan reported significant progress towards the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict following a meeting of their foreign ministers held in Moscow on Saturday.
The meeting was hosted and mediated by Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in preparation for the upcoming Armenian-Azerbaijan summit which international mediators hope will result in a framework peace agreement on Karabakh.
The Armenian Foreign Ministry said Foreign Ministers Edward Nalbandian and Elmar Mammadyarov narrowed their governments' differences on "a number of key issues of the basic principles of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict." "That draft document will be discussed at the trilateral summit to be held at the end of June," the ministry said in a statement.
For those following the Karabakh negotiations for the past 17 years, however, there seems no plausible reason not to agree and sign the basic principles later this month. Thomas de Waal, Senior Associate for Russia and Eurasia at the Carnegie Endowment and author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War who recently made an impassioned plea for a third narrative of peace, puts it more bluntly.
[...] it comes down to political will. Are the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders merely using the endlessly elusive Karabakh peace process as a device to keep the international community sweet and to demand loyalty from their populations, while never seriously wishing to sign a peace? Or are they genuinely committed to a peace agreement which would begin the long-term transformation of their region, but trapped by their own national discourse and political rhetoric and afraid to move forward? Or a bit of both?
This is why I welcome the line in the Deauville document which says, "Further delay would only call into question the commitment of the sides to reach an agreement." Or to put it another way, "We now have a workable document. Prove to us you are serious and sign it."
[...]
[...] as the Kazan meeting approaches, the stakes are raised for both peace and war in the Caucasus.
Onnik Krikorian is a British journalist and photojournalist based in Yerevan, Armenia, and has been visiting and covering the Nagorno Karabakh conflict since 1994. He has also fixed for TV reports on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict for Al Jazeera English and the BBC. He can be contacted via his personal project on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations here.
Shusha, Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian for The National
Stepanakert, Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian for The National
]]>Caucasus Conflict Voices is a voluntary grassroots initiative to amplify alternative views on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Today marks the 17th anniversary of the 1994 ceasefire, but both sides are as far away as ever from signing a permanent peace deal. Marking the anniversary, the second edition of Caucasus Conflict Voices is now available for browsing online or downloading.
It also features an introduction by Thomas de Waal, senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment and author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, calling for a third narrative in the conflict -- a narrative of peace.
Caucasus Conflict Voices -- May 2011
Introduction by Thomas de Waal
Anyone who works with the conflicts of the Caucasus learns to live with contradiction. If you watch state media in Armenia or Azerbaijan or hear some politicians speak, you could believe that these two nations are implacable enemies on the verge of war. One Azerbaijani friend told me that nowadays whenever he hears the word "fascist" he expects to hear the word "Armenian" attached to it. In many ways the modern identities of independent Armenia and Azerbaijan and of the small statelet of Nagorny Karabakh are defined by rejection and hatred of the other.
Yet as soon as you probe deeper strange things start to happen and this picture begins to blur. A long conversation with an Azerbaijani about how terrible the Armenians are ends with the admission that his grandmother was actually...Armenian. A Karabakh Armenian talks about the crimes of the Azerbaijanis and then casually lets slip that he had Azeri friends at school and still remembers a lot of the language.
Move outside the conflict zone and these hidden signs of compatibility come out into the open. In the territory of Georgia, Armenian and Azeri villagers live side by side. There is trade and even inter-marriage. Armenians and Azerbaijanis often prefer to do business with each other than with Georgians.
We hear far too little of what I call this "third narrative" of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, a narrative of peace. It spins the idea that the two peoples are capable of getting along fine, have lived together in the past and, if politicians are able to overcome differences on the Karabakh conflict, can live together in the future. International mediators are too timid to speak this narrative or feel that it is not their business. The media in both countries suppresses it.
This is why I congratulate Onnik Krikorian for the work he has done over the past few years, both in print and in images, and which is published here. He has given a voice to these alternative points of view and given a vivid picture of the different and much more positive Armenian-Azerbaijani reality that still exists in ordinary people and in Georgia.
Look at these pictures and descriptions of villages such as Tekali and you see that the problem there is not ethnic incompatibility or historical injustice, but poverty -- poverty that will have a much better chance of being fixed if the Karabakh conflict can be overcome and money can be diverted from buying expensive weapons. It is a totally different and refreshing approach and he has done it pretty much by himself.
Send this collection to anyone who thinks they understand the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and be pleasantly surprised by their reaction.
Thomas de Waal is a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment. he is also the author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War. link
Articles, opinions and photos are available on the latest edition of Caucasus Conflict Voices here or for browsing below.
Opposition Rally, Liberty Square, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian 2007
Recent events in Tunisia and Egypt have captured the attention of the world's media and also encouraged and inspired other movements elsewhere, albeit in much bloodier ways as this week has shown in Bahrain and Libya. Not to be outdone, opposition groups in the South Caucasus are also looking to replicate similar events at home, and particularly in Armenia and Azerbaijan. But, while the continuing debate between the cyber-utopians and cyber-sceptics continues as to the precise role of social media in uprisings in the Arab world, opposition groups here most definitely believe it holds the key to succesful regime change.
In Armenia, blogs played an important role in the post-election standoff between the opposition and government in February 2008 and particularly for 20 days during the State of Emergency declared after clashes with security forces on 1 March 2008 left 10 people dead. Nothing changed, of course, with the newly elected president, Serge Sargsyan, still in power today, but many referred to new media as having become the new Samizdat, the Soviet-era practice of disseminating alternative information in an environment of significant censorship. Now, nearly three years later, the opposition says it believes an Egypt-style uprising will occur in Armenia, and social media will play an important role.
PanARMENIAN.Net - Coordinator of the opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC) Levon Zurabyan said that monitoring of Facebook shows that ANC supporters make majority of this social network users in Armenia.
“It means that, first, ANC enjoys great support among Armenia’s population. Second, ANC is basically supported by educated people, who are familiar with internet and social networks technologies,” Zurabyan told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter.
He added that “social networks provide with a great opportunity for overcoming the information blockade imposed by the authorities, specifically, through controlling the entire television.”
Many, however, are not so convinced with one local blogger pointing out that Zurabian himself does not apparently have an account. And although the Armenian government claims Internet penetration stands at nearly 50 percent, the real figure is more likely to be around 10-12 percent according to some IT specialists. One indication of that can already be seen simply by examining how popular some of the most accessed sites are. Facebook, for example, is second only to Google in Armenia according to Alexa, but there are only 132,000 registered users of the social networking site at present. Moreover, some analysts argue, it is unlikely that such a high level of support exists online and even more unlikely that it would take to the streets.
Though promoting the development of civil society in Armenia, Facebook cannot be turned into a tool for implementing a revolution in the country, according to information security expert.
As Samvel Martirosyan told a news conference in Yerevan, social networks helped to organised civil actions in Armenia, however only 1-1,5% of the users supporting the action online are ready to defend their position in real life.
In fact, while there are some opposition activists on Facebook, there are also government supporters and they too would become just as active, even if they are not at present, as one of the most well-known nationalist bloggers in Armenia recently remarked at a press conference in the capital, Yerevan.
Organization of a 'Twitter revolution' will not be an easy task, according to Tigran Kocharyan. Although major fundings for popularization of social networks like Twitter and Facebook in Armenia suggest the possibility of organizing opposition revolts, both Armenian authorities' awareness of the methods of operating in social networks and anti-opposition Armenian blogger groups might prevent them, he believes.
But it's more than just that, others believe. Although tens of thousands turned out for opposition rallies following the bitterly disputed presidential election in 2008, no critical mass was reached. Although there was deep resentment towards the authorities, the opposition failed to gain their trust especially as its leader was the first president of the country and considered by some to be just as corrupt and undemocratic when he was in power in the early to late 1990s as what exists today. In an opinion piece, the editor of one online publication also notes that Armenians are simply unable to lead or think for themselves.
[...] there is the answer to why such a revolt will not (even if some think it should) occur in Armenia.
Here, there is no “people power”. There are 10s of thousands – as proved in 2008 – who are willing to follow a leader, but none who are willing to lead themselves. There are no grass-roots movements here, where the soil of democratic will remains infertile even two decades after the toxic waste of communism should have been cleaned.
When a man, sadly and quite literally, sparked a social movement in Tunisia, his countrymen recognized themselves in his tortured desperation.
In Armenia, those who have valid grievance are waiting for an authority figure to voice it for them. That a populist, Tigran Karapetyan, with a message no deeper than bumper sticker slogans, could rally 6,000 or more followers – as many, in fact, as the major opposition bloc – indicates how low the bar has dropped on social movement in Armenia.
[...]
And, into any discussion of whether things in Armenia are getting better or worse under this leadership – and there’s some of each – arises the phrase that is on protest placards in Cairo: “illegitimate government”. Sadly for Armenia’s hopes of becoming democratic, this “illegitimate government” may very well be better than the alternative that would have emerged had elections three years ago been held fairly.
Lacking a movement that grew organically, Armenians at both political polarities were willing to follow dubious leaders in that ill-fated election.
"There is no political group leading the people,” a human rights activist in Cairo told media. “There is no one leading the people. People are just doing it.”
Of course, with or without Egypt and Tunisia, the opposition would still have held mass rallies in the capital given that today marks the third anniversary of the disputed 2008 presidential vote and 1 March is traditionally the day to mark the bloody post-election clashes. But with, or most likely without, the use of social media combined with traditional means of public outreach, the opposition again failed to attract significant numbers onto the streets yesterday. Radio Free Europe might have estimated the number in attendance as being at least 10,000, but other media outlets such as Reuters and AFP did not, instead putting the number at half that.
YEREVAN - Around 5,000 opposition supporters rallied in the Armenian capital on Friday, calling for the government's resignation and an Egyptian-style uprising in the former Soviet republic.
"The movement to change governments which started in Kyrgyzstan, Tunisia and Egypt is continuing, and sooner or later it will reach us because the situation in Armenia is no better and hatred of the authorities is no less," said opposition leader and former president Levon Ter-Petrosian.
Supporters of Ter-Petrosian's Armenian National Congress bloc demonstrated against alleged political injustice, difficult social conditions and rising inflation in the landlocked country.
But turnout at the rally was not large by local standards and did not suggest that political unrest was imminent.
Yet, despite low Internet penetration in the country, social media could have been used. However, there was no sign of any real activity on Facebook or Twitter. A Facebook support page for the opposition has just 915 members at time of writing and a group set up to invite Armenians to attend managed to attract 430 people while more than double that said they would not participate. Even today, following yesterday's rally, Facebook remains quiet while Twitter doesn't bring up much at all, with what little there is mainly coming from news sites in Azerbaijan, Armenia's main foe in the region. And on YouTube, video coverage of the opposition rally in Yerevan from the main online opposition media outlet isn't attracting much interest at all.
At time of writing, one video was viewed 1,411 times and a second 2,208 times. Naturally, there was at least a spike in traffic on the A1 Plus main site, but not by much. With the population of Armenia put at around 3.2 million, A1 Plus received 21,467 visits across its entire site yesterday and 27 percent of that was from outside Armenia. Of course, Internet penetration remains low, but it's more than simply that. Instead of the opposition telling everyone that they have huge support among the population, online and offline, they need to develop an outreach strategy instead. Certainly, if there is an Egypt-style uprising in Armenia, which most analysts doubt, social media doesn't look as though it will play any significant role for now at least.
Instead, perhaps the opposition in Armenia should follow the example of activists in neighboring Azerbaijan who are very social media savvy in comparison. For now, though, any strategy seems to be simply setting up one or two Facebook pages and assuming that people will naturally be interested in sharing the information among their own peer-to-peer networks. Yesterday's rally, however, showed that to be very far from the truth. But, with new Wikileaks cables released this week showing that there's plenty of things wrong in the country, there's certainly enough information to use in such a campaign. If only they knew how.
]]>16.7 kilometers south of Lachin, Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan. Photo © Onnik Krikorian
While it didn't come as much of a surprise, the latest report from the International Crisis Group (ICG) makes depressing reading. Locked in a bitter stalemate since the war over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh during which around 25,000 were killed and a million forced to flee their homes, a final peace deal remains as elusive as ever. More alarmingly, perhaps, last year was one of the worst in recent history with skirmishes on the front line claiming dozens of lives. Moreover, if talk since the 1994 ceasefire agreement, which effectively put the conflict on hold, had been of conflict resolution, 2011 looks to be more defined by increasing talk of the need for conflict prevention.
An arms race, escalating front-line clashes, vitriolic war rhetoric and a virtual breakdown in peace talks are increasing the chance Armenia and Azerbaijan will go back to war over Nagorno-Karabakh. Preventing this is urgent. Increased military capabilities on both sides would make a new armed conflict in the South Caucasus far more deadly than the 1992-1994 one that ended with a shaky truce. Neither side would be likely to win easily or quickly. Regional alliances could pull in Russia, Turkey and Iran. Vital oil and gas pipelines near the front lines would be threatened, as would the cooperation between Russia and Turkey that is central to regional stability. Another refugee crisis would be likely. To start reversing this dangerous downward trend, the opposing sides should sign a document on basic principles for resolving the conflict peacefully and undertake confidence-building steps to reduce tensions and avert a resumption of fighting.
There has been significant deterioration over the past year. Neither government is planning an all-out offensive in the near term, but skirmishes that already kill 30 people a year could easily spiral out of control. It is unclear if the leaders in Yerevan and Baku thoroughly calculate the potential consequences of a new round of tit-for-tat attacks. Ambiguity and lack of transparency about operations along the line of contact, arms deals and other military expenditures and even the state of the peace talks all contribute to a precarious situation. Monitoring mechanisms should be strengthened and confidence-building steps implemented to decrease the chance of an accidental war.
At the same time, more has to be done to change a status quo that is deeply damaging to Azerbaijan; 586,000 Azeris are internally displaced (IDPs) from Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent areas, and some 16 per cent of the country’s territory is occupied. Otherwise, Azerbaijan public opinion and leadership will feel justified to use the military assets Baku has been accumulating at an increased rate: the already substantial defence budget is slated to rise by some 45 per cent between 2010 and 2011, to $3.1 billion out of a total $15.9 billion state budget.
The report, available for download in PDF format here, includes some sensible recommendations such as the need to endorse the basic principles which would form the basis for a later peace agreement, the implementation of confidence building measures such as the withdrawal of snipers from the front line, compliance with arms limitations treaties and agreements, but particularly a change in policy which only aggravates the situation. Unfortunately, though, the task will not be simple, especially in an environment where most Armenians and Azerbaijanis are unwilling or unable to communicate with each other.
A recent household survey by the Caucasus Resource Research Centers (CRRC), for example, revealed that 70 percent of Armenians were against friendship with Azerbaijanis, while 97 percent of Azerbaijanis were against friendship with Armenians. Meanwhile, town hall meetings in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh showed that over 50 percent of Armenians prefer the current situation of 'no war, no peace' rather than compromise and release territories surrounding Karabakh currently under Armenian control for a referendum to determine the territory's status. Only 0.3 percent of Azerbaijanis support such an option.
Suarassy, Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan. Photo © Onnik Krikorian
The media in both countries plays a less than constructive role by perpetuating negative stereotypes of the enemy too, and the outlook in general looks bleak. Indeed, some analysts and regional experts preempted the ICG report by wondering if a new war in the near future was now inevitable. Nevertheless, there are some alternative voices starting to emerge although they remain a tiny minority in both countries. It might even be appropriate to call them insignificant, but as they were never heard before, and their existence in an environment hardly conducive to any talk of peace somewhat unprecedented, that's probably unfair.
In fact, they're very significant indeed simply because they exist at all, although there is an urgent need to increase their numbers and make alternative views on the conflict more widely available. Although this should be through the mass media, that is next to impossible for now, although social media offers an albeit limited alternative. This is what my personal project, Conflict Voices, and special coverage on Global Voices is trying to achieve. Recently, for example, Marianna Karapetyan, an Armenian now living in Russia, wrote about her close friendship with an Azerbaijani. Such views and realities are rarely if ever heard in the local Armenian and Azerbaijani media.
[...] we made an agreement promising never to discuss the situation between our countries because we knew that, as we’d been told different things, the discussion would never be constructive and only just harm our friendship. This was perfectly convenient for me because, unlike Leyla, I knew next to nothing and I wouldn’t really be able to argue. But realizing this, I was always amazed that she came to meet me first, despite all that true or false information she had been told about Armenia back home. Over time, I started researching the conflict and asking around to fill in the gaps of my knowledge and to understand what had happened. But, as I was learning and discovering more, I never felt my feelings towards Leyla changing. Instead, we became even closer as friends.
Not only that, but I also learned that during the incidents in Baku, her family helped many Armenians in different ways. They traded their apartment in Moscow for one owned by Armenians in Baku, and even though the Moscow one was way more valuable, so that they could move. Her grandma’s passport was also used to transfer around 50 Armenian women across the border and her neighbor continues to help people sneak through customs in Georgia to see their abandoned homes. In fact, there are many more such stories which I would never have allowed myself to believe before.
And yesterday, in a powerful and spontaneous post for the project, Nigar Hacizade, an Azerbaijani now living in Turkey, made an impassioned plea for peace.
I don’t want to be from a country that is permanently occupied, that is permanently grieving, that has miserable refugees with forever ruined lives. Neither do I want to be from a country that is constantly considering aggression. I don’t want to be from a country where the news accumulates around the enemy, what the enemy does, what the enemy says. I don’t want to be from a country where the word describing the people living next door carries a negative meaning no matter what the topic is. I would like Azerbaijan to free itself from its post-war identification based on Armenia as the enemy.
[...]
I have no concrete answers, certainly not for this piece, but I will end with one thought. I know Armenians think about these questions just like we think about them. They think about peace, justice, their lands, and their legitimate grievances. Believe it or not, they think that they are in the right; isn’t that crazy? Well, it’s not. Neither are we crazy. It’s such a basic idea, yet such a hard nut to crack. But I believe it’s the key to get out of this windowless cell we have locked ourselves in.
I know there are Armenians who want the things that I want, and I know that we have no other choice but to find ourselves a middle ground. We don’t have to meet each other exactly in the middle; we just have to start walking towards each other. We have to do it for ourselves, for our legacy, for our collective dignity.
More of these alternative opinions can be read on the project site and also in the form of a free e-book in English and Russian for viewing online or download.
However, even so, with talk more and more of war, the situation does not look good. In Armenia, for example, some analysts expect nationalist rhetoric against a compromise peace deal to increase in the year leading up to the 2012 parliamentary elections while a new law under consideration in Azerbaijan would effectively make unauthorized cross-border cooperation with Armenian organizations and even media outlets a criminal offense. Indeed, in such an environment, perhaps the question is not if there will be a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh, but unfortunately more one of when.
]]>Although actually underway since June 2008, it's especially been a labour of love for the past year, but now some of the essays solicited for a personal online project are available as a free e-book for reading online or downloading. Accompanied by colour photographs, the book contains opinions on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the conflict between the two countries over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh.
Most of the works are by bloggers from both countries as well as their Diasporas and I've often blogged about the project in general on this site. It's been a huge success to date, and I've even presented this work at conferences worldwide. A Russian-language version is currently being prepared and should also be online soon. I'm also hoping to significantly expand on the project next year.
In the 16 years since a 1994 ceasefire agreement put the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed mainly-Armenian populated territory of Nagorno Karabakh on hold, peace remains as elusive as ever. The war fought in the early 1990s left over 25,000 dead and forced a million to flee their homes.
Since June 2008 Onnik Krikorian has been using new and social media to connect alternative voices in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the Diasporas of both countries. A cross-border project initiated in September 2009 has since given birth to Caucasus Conflict Voices, a collection of contributions to date from Armenian and Azerbaijani bloggers.
The first collection includes color photographs alongside contributions from Onnik Krikorian, Zamira Abbasova, Marine Ejuryan, Aygun Janmammadova, Sasun Khachatryan, Scary Azeri, Lena Osipova, Liana Aghajanian, Kevork Oskanian, and Arpine Porsughyan. It can be downloaded in PDF format (1.7mb) from the project site: link
Incidentally, I've been covering the Nagorno Karabakh conflict since 1994 when I visited as a photographer for The Independent, assisted Thomas de Waal with Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War, and have fixed for the BBC and The National on this subject as well. A lot of my work to date has especially focused on the danger of landmines and UXO.
Anyway, definitely looks like more of the same in 2011, and not least in terms of documenting positive examples of Armenia-Azerbaijan coexistence in neighboring Georgia, the increasing use of new and social media in cross-border communication, and departure into a few other areas so far generally not covered by the local and international mainstream media. Stay tuned...
]]>Now, don't get me wrong. I've been following these issues for years. Indeed, I first set foot in Nagorno Karabakh for The Independent in 1994. That said, though, it is nice to cover some other stories once in a while. This week such an opportunity came when today I started fixing for Atlantic Productions, a leading international documentary film producer, who will be shooting in Armenia until Monday. The subject of the film? Part of a documentary for National Geographic on the Spear of Destiny, the legendary lance said to have pierced the side of Jesus as he was crucified.
There are three relics worldwide claimed as the original spear. One is in the Vatican, one in Vienna, and another at the Holy See of the Armenian Apostolic Church in Etchmiadzin, a small town just 30 minutes outside of Yerevan, the Armenian capital. Permission for access to the spear was obviously granted, but shooting started off just a few hours after the crew arrived in the country with visits to the 1st Century pagan temple at Garni and the monastery of Geghard, a UNESCO World Heritage Site and once home to the Armenian spear.
True to form when I fix, and even though I'm also shooting stills on D-SLR to accompany materials for the National Geographic website, I was also tweeting reports and images from my trusty Nokia N82 phone. Some of those images, which again demonstrate how versatile mobile phones are becoming are below and were live tweeted from my Twitter account. The documentary, presented by the refreshingly alternative Peter Owen-Jones will be broadcast by National Geographic some time in December.
Mount Ararat from Khor Virap, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 on Nokia N82 mobile phone
Garni, Kotayk Region, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 on Nokia N82 mobile phone
Geghard, Kotayk Region, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 on Nokia N82 mobile phone
Peter Owen-Jones interviewed by the crew for an online behind the scenes segment, Etchmiadzin, Armavir Region, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 on Nokia N82 mobile phone
Surprising but welcome news spread on Facebook today. The Frontline Club is apparently opening up at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs (GIPA) in Tbilisi, Georgia. In what appears to be an evolution of their own club, the new initiative promises to follow the remit of the Frontline Club in London.
Media club that aims to serve as a politically-neutral venue for journalists, public officials, students, intellectuals come together in a dialogue over media, social, political and cultural issues.
The Frontline Club is no stranger to GIPA with fellow blogger Guy Degen paying a visit in April last year during the opposition protests. I've also presented albeit with my Global Voices Caucasus editor hat on.
Hopefully the new club will also provide myself and others a venue with which to present our own work in areas such as the use of new and social media tools in cross-border communication and media projects too.
Unfortunately, I'll be fixing for National Geographic as of tomorrow and so cannot attend the opening on Friday. Nor can the Frontline Club's man in Georgia, Matthew Collin, as he'll be in Istanbul. However, I'm looking forward to paying a visit when I next visit Tbilisi. It's very much a welcome development not only for Georgia, but also for the region itself.
]]>Since working on my own project using new and social media to counter local media bias in terms of reporting on Armenia-Azerbaijan relations and the still unresolved conflict between the two estranged neighbours over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh, it's been quite a roller coaster of a ride. If in late 2008 it seemed unthinkable to have open communication between Armenians and Azerbaijanis via blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook, it is now nothing unusual at all -- or at least for those willing to use these new tools to circumvent restrictions on traditional forms of communication.
Although there are still some potential problems which might arise in the future depending on the political situation within either country, and especially in the area of privacy and personal security concerns, the potential is very definitely there. Of course, as a recent meeting with journalists and new media specialists in Armenia highlighted, many who could personally and professional benefit from taking such moves are still hesitant and even resistant to the idea, but for a new breed of young, progressive and open individuals in both countries, the possibilities have been eagerly embraced. It was this point that I made at a recent conference at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington D.C.
The event, Blogs and Bullets: Evaluating the Impact of New Media on Conflict, had quite an illustrious assortment of participants, of which I was glad to be among.
[...] on 8 July, a half-day conference, Blogs and Bullets: Evaluating the Impact of New Media on Conflict was held at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington D.C. Co-sponsored by George Washington University's Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, the first and last of three panels included Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation to the U.S. Secretary of State, Ethan Zuckerman, Global Voices co-founder and Senior Researcher at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Marc Lynch, Director of the Institute of Middle East Studies at George Washington University, Colin Rule, Director of Online Dispute Resolution at eBay, and Adam Conner from Facebook.
Also present on the second panel were bloggers and journalists such as Global Voices' Mialy Andriamananjar and Hamid Tehrani, Global Voices Caucasus Region Editor Onnik Krikorian, Raed Jarrar, Nasseem Tarawnah, and Golnaz Esfandiari. The panels were followed up by a private experts working group also involving Berkman and Global Voices' Jillian York and representatives from the World Bank and the U.S. Department of State among others. link
During my stay in the U.S. there was also interest in the use of new and social media in the context of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as for specifically empowering alternative and otherwise marginalized voices, from quite a few major international organizations. So, upon my return to Armenia it seemed timely to finally push a pilot project for Global Voices Online, a major citizen media portal for which I'm Caucasus Regional Editor, recently discussed in open sessions at the organization's summit in Santiago, Chile. Last week, based on over two years work in this area, I'm glad to report that Caucasus Conflict Voices went online.
The special coverage also builds upon Global Voices' monitoring of citizen media during the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway region of South Ossetia.
Strategically situated between Russia, Turkey and Iran, the South Caucasus is a key area of importance for the international community. A bridge between East and West, as well as a new and significant conduit for oil and gas, the region is also one of the most volatile.
In the early 1990s separatist movements in Azerbaijan and Georgia saw bitter inter-ethnic fighting turn into full-scale war when the Soviet Union collapsed and Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia declared their independence.
Nearly two decades later, conflicts over the disputed territories of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh might be frozen, but lasting peace remains elusive. There are also fears that fighting might break out once again, especially as the region remains riven by ethnic rivalry and a bitterly disputed history.
Such concerns were highlighted in August 2008 when Russia and Georgia fought a short war over the breakaway territory of South Ossetia. Meanwhile, with skirmishes frequent on the contact line between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces, some analysts also fear a new war over Nagorno Karabakh as negotiations continue to falter.
Aside from the lack of political will, many analysts argue, societies in all three countries are not being engaged or prepared for peace.
Yet, with media in the region often resorting to propaganda and misinformation (Download Report), few opportunities exist for objective reporting or moderate voices on the conflict to be heard. Because of this, Global Voices has set up this special coverage page. It will also cover the increasing use of new and social media in cross-border peace-building initiatives. link
Hoping for great things from this special coverage, especially as the use of new and social media tools increases in the region, so please take the time to keep an eye on the page set up at:
http://globalvoicesonline.org/specialcoverage/caucasus-conflict-voices/
]]>Not only have some civil society organizations noticed the possibilities offered by new online tools as a result, but some have even incorporated them into their own work and recruited some of those who had been involved in the initial stages of that work. Since then, and quite unexpectedly, I have also presented on their use in Romania, Macedonia, Georgia, Chile, and Armenia. Next week is the turn of the United States.
The conference, Blogs & Bullets: Evaluating the Impact of New Media on Conflict at the U.S. Institute of Peace in Washington D.C., will also feature panels with Global Voices Online co-founder and Harvard University new media guru, Ethan Zuckerman, and others such as Alec Ross, Senior Advisor to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, on technological solutions to major issues such as sustainable development, human rights and ethnic conflict.
The event, which will also be webcast, is co-sponsored by George Washington University and will take place on 8 July at the US Institute of Peace. It will also be followed by an internal experts working group on a draft report assessing the impact of new media in contentious politics.
The Center of Innovation for Science, Technology, and Peacebuilding at the U.S. Institute of Peace and George Washington University's Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication are hosting a public event exploring the role of new media in contested politics around the world. From Iran to Kenya to Colombia, the impact of new and social media on movements for political and social change has been the subject of much discussion, and controversy.
[...]
This event will explore these themes in three panels. In the first morning panel, Alec Ross of the U.S. State Department, Berkman's Ethan Zuckerman, and GWU's Marc Lynch will engage in a discussion of these topics moderated by USIP's Sheldon Himelfarb. The second morning panel will feature bloggers and citizen journalists from around the world to offer a ground-view perspective. The final panel will bring together tech firms like Google, eBay, and Facebook to explore their perspectives on new media and conflict. link
Although there are many pitfalls and problems relating to the use of such tools, especially in terms of actual effect as well as possible future concerns about personal security, the topic seems a hot one at present. Last week, for example, I presented on the same subject at the Council of Europe-funded Young Media Makers Preach and Practice Peaceful Journalism in Kobuleti, Georgia.
The subject of the use of new and social media in conflict reporting and related initiatives was also something that formed the basis of two break out sessions I co-led with award winning veteran war correspondent, media consultant and playwright Anne Nelson as well as Global Voices co-founder and former CNN Tokyo and Beijing Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnon at the Citizen Media Summit in Santiago, Chile in May.
Meanwhile, my own project and the first of its type to cover such issues in the region, Overcoming Negative Stereotypes in the South Caucasus, continues to go from strength to strength especially after some groundbreaking guest entries from an ethnic Azeri refugee from Armenia, a young activist in Armenia, a Letter from Baku, and one from a former military conscript in the Armenian army.
Of course, Global Voices, for which I'm Caucasus Regional Editor, has also continued to monitor developments in this area and that coverage is expected to increase further in the coming months. Global Voices Executive Director Ivan Sigal has also penned a paper, Digital Media in Conflict-Prone Societies, which is a must-read for anyone interested in the topic.
There are also many posts on the use of new online tools in conflict reporting and resolution in the context of the Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute over Nagorno Karabakh on my Frontline Club blog. The project can be followed on Twitter @caucasusproject.
]]>
Last year arguably saw unprecedented attention on the use of mobile phones for content creation in some shape or form. Whether SMS updating crisis mapping platforms such as Ushahidi, using Twitter to update followers on breaking news, or simply to use as video cameras, in a sense there was plenty to demonstrate their worth as a news reporting device.
Frontline Club blogger and professional video cameraman Guy Degen even used one in Africa as well as to record and stream live short reports of last year's opposition protests in Tbilisi, Georgia. Indeed, it was enough for me to purchase the same model of phone as he used then, a Nokia N82, to put to use in another country making up the South Caucasus -- Armenia.
First off, as a professional photojournalist, checking out the Nokia's photo capabilities was a must and although never going to replace a traditional camera, it was pretty impressive for a phone. In fact, so good was it that I even forced myself to use it for non-commissioned shooting such as the student protests outside the Iranian Embassy in Yerevan as well as test reporting in the regions.
In fact, I started using the phone more and more to shoot photos and videos as well as tweet to my followers on Twitter notes which could also be later used as source material for articles and blog posts. True, it will never be used for professional work where getting an image counts, but I do try to double up shooting on a DSLR with also sending out images immediately from phone.
For example, during last year's municipal election in the Armenian capital, even low light shots weren't much of a problem and images could be sent direct from phone with accompanying tweets. I also stumbled upon one party election campaign without my usual camera gear and had no choice but to shoot with the phone. Another time a scuffle with police was live streamed.
The results were not bad. And although shooting with a DSLR, Twitter was at least also used extensively to allow people to follow field work for a recent personal project to report on ethnic Armenian-Azerbaijani coexistence in Georgia. I've also used the phone to update followers when out and about fixing for the likes of Al Jazeera English, BBC, and The Wall Street Journal.
And it's not just Guy or myself that are impressed by the potential for phones to be used as reporting tools, especially in economically depressed countries where the media is not developed enough such as Armenia and Georgia. Indeed, there's even a whole site -- http://www.mobileactive.org -- which evangelizes their use for a multitude of purposes.
It was therefore a nice surprise to tun into Prabhas Pokharel, one of the Mobile Active team, at the Global Voices Citizen Media Summit held earlier this month in Santiago, Chile. Prabhas has already made a few blog posts on some of the issues raised at the summit regarding mobile phones which seem appropiate to quote and link to here.
Mobile phones have already played a signifcant role in advancing citizen media around the world. They were instrumental in helping capture photos and videos on the streets of Tehran during 2009 protests that followed the elections there. A video captured during that time even won a prestigious journalism award. Mobile phones technology has been used in Namibia to enable more people from around the country to express their views in one of the country's largest newspapers. In the US, day laborers have been using MMS messages to blog about their daily lives. In South Africa, citizen journalists use SMS, MMS, and other phone-based technologies to submit content and commentary to a local newspaper. In India, mobiles are being used to enable both reporting and news dissemination in local languages. Many more examples exist.
These examples only scratch the surface of what is possble with mobile phones in independent and citizen media with room for exploration. [...]
[...]
Mobiles are also interesting for individual bloggers and reporters. In conversations I had with bloggers, I realized that most don't see their mobile phones as potentially helpful devices in normal reporting work. One blogger who had had used his mobile phone to stream live video and take pictures of protests was the exception rather than the rule. Our discussions managed to identify at least three distinctive advantages mobile phones have over traditional multimedia capturing devices: (1) they are always in our pockets and therefore always accessible (2) when there is a data connection, they allow instant uploading and live coverage and (3) they allow reporters to capture multimedia in more situations, by being lighter to transport, and appearing more innocuous in situations like protests. link
Indeed, I was at one of the breakout sessions that Prabhas led and made some brief notes, tweeting them from phone to put together as a short summary later rather than noting them down traditionally. Since then, Prahbas has put together a more comprehensive post on some of the discussion generated and examples given.
I agree that SMS is a decidely imperfect technology, but it can increase access to information. Those who have access to twitter and SMS are different populations. When the same popoulation has access to Twitter and SMS, Twitter may be preferable as a medium that is cheaper and can include more information such as links. However, there are many more who have access to SMS but not Twitter. SMS can be a powerful tool by itself for these people. [...]
Global Voices Caucusus editor and photojournalist Onnik Krikorian echoed this when he pointed out that technologies like SMS and Twitter increase the number and kinds of people that can comment in the public sphere.
[...]
Krikorian described how he uses live video streaming services like Qik. Such services have made it very easy for journalists and citizen journalists to provide live coverage of events--all you really need is a data connection. No longer do journalists or citizens wanting to provide live coverage need complicated and costly equipment. Krikorian also covered protests in Armenia using his mobile phone as his only camera. He pointed out that using the mobile phone as a camera allowed him to blend into the crowd and not be noticed as a journalist. His phone was good enough to act as his only camera--one photo he had taken on a Nokia N82 was published in the UN World Food Programme's magazine.
[...]
Of course, we need to be careful in our discussions and not lump together increased information access via SMS and voice-based technologies with live video reporting (modern handsets and speedy data connections) that are only accessible to the technological elite.
But, that said, mobile phones provide a set of technologies that offer advantages at different levels. The simplest of technologies, SMS and voice, are limited but powerful because they are widely accessible and can often reach populations that are hard to reach otherwise.
With modern handsets and data connections, mobile phones also provide reporters and citizen journalists with capabilities they have not had before. Citizen journalists and reporters can cover events and news live using video, photos, or Twitter, and pass innocuously as part of a crowd when taking footage at sensitive events. link
Anyway, I totally agree with Prabhas' comments and belief in phones as being some kind of mobile reporting kit with the potential to disseminate information, including images and video, in real-time. So, for anyone else out there interested in pushing the limits for such a cost-effective and versatile tool I'd really recommend browsing the Mobile Active web site.
Of course, as you might expect given the nature of their interest, they can also be followed on Twitter.
Photo: Vulnerable family, Gyumri, Shirak Region, Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2009 (shot on Nokia N82)
Top Photo: Global Voices Citizen Media Summit, Santiago, Chile © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 (shot on Nokia N82)
]]>
Tbilisi, Georgia, and a conference on using social media for social change. Nothing new in that for many people reading this blog, perhaps, but low Internet penetration thanks to high costs and slow connections makes the situation somewhat different in the South Caucasus. A 4 mb/s connection in Georgia, for example, costs around $19 per month. In Armenia, a 256 kb/s connection costs $35.
However, as connections improve and prices drop that will eventually change and especially in Georgia where connection speeds are the fastest and cheapest in the region. Azerbaijan is also experiencing a huge surge in Internet use while Armenia looks set to soon benefit from $4 million in U.S. Government funding for "alternative media resources."
In addition to the conference, where Arzu Geybullayeva and I once again presented on the use of new media in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict transformation (see slide show above), there was also a Social Innovation Camp where participants from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia worked together to realize ideas as online projects to achieve social change.
Anna Keshelashvili worked hard on the main arrangements for the camp and particularly on the Georgian side while I engaged in outreach on the Armenian side, and not least because both of us had participated in a camp in Bratislava last year. In particular, my encouragement of environmental activist Mariam Sukhudyan to submit an idea worked wonders.
Her project, Save The Trees, won the jury prize and is already online. Other ideas from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia constructed by teams mainly comprising members from all three countries are here. Anyway, great event and a great time was had by all. Read more about the camp here and my own social media project on conflict transformation is here.
Photo: Social Innovation Camp Caucasus, Tbilisi, Georgia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2010 on Nokia N82
]]>When Arzu Geybullayeva and I first started to use blogs and social networking sites to connect a growing number of liberal, tolerant and progressive Armenians and Azerbaijanis despite the still unresolved conflict between the two countries over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh, I don't think we ever could have imagined where it would lead.
Not only did it result in a collaborative report on an ethnic Azeri village in Georgia in September, as well as further reporting in December, but we'll also be co-presenting on this use of social media in conflict transformation in Tbilisi, Georgia, early next month.
The work so far has also caught the attention of some major media outlets, as well as international organizations and diplomatic missions, and this week came another in the form of BBC Azeri. For three days both of us wrote on the use of social media in the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and I was also interviewed by phone.
The Internet has brought big changes to the lives of people starting from personal relations to business contacts. New media has opened up a new way not only for journalists. It has also inspired an audience and civil society towards free thought and social activism.
The wide use of social media has changed cultural and political values throughout the world. People are willing to communicate, participate and share their thoughts.
[...]
What opportunity does social media offer to peace activists from Armenia and Azerbaijan? Can new media tools change the current situation? What are the negative effects of social media in the light of nationalists using new media for an attack on the “enemy”?
Answers to these questions will be given by diarists writing on “Social media and conflict resolution” - Arzu Qeybullayeva from Azerbaijan and Onnik Krikorian from Armenia.
The material was published in Azerbaijani, but English versions are now available on Global Voices Online on the following links:
Armenia-Azerbaijan: BBC Azeri Facebook Diary Part I » link
Armenia-Azerbaijan: BBC Azeri Facebook Diary Part II » link
Armenia-Azerbaijan: BBC Azeri Facebook Diary Part III » link
Incidentally, Arzu and I will also be doing some more collaborative reporting, including audio slideshows, on ethnic Armenian and Azerbaijani coexistence in Georgia while we're there, so if you're interested in any materials for publication please don't hesitate to get in touch. In the meantime, check out the project so far at http://oneworld.am/diversity/ , including a ground-breaking audio interview between Yerevan and Baku via Skype.
]]>With the conflict in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh still unresolved, journalists and civil society activists in Armenia have few opportunities to meet with their Azeri counterparts, and vice versa. But increasingly, blogs and social networks offer new possibilities for dialogue across a cease-fire line in place since 1994. Other online tools offer immediate audio and video communication between the two countries, free from monitoring or interception.
If adopted as general practice by journalists and activists, such tools could represent a revolution in cross-border cooperation.
For this final segment in our multimedia series for Transitions Online on overcoming stereotypes in the South Caucasus, I interviewed Arzu Geybullayeva, an Azerbaijani political and regional analyst, about her work on civil society, women's, and cross-border issues using new media tools. It was a rare direct conversation between Yerevan and Baku, conducted with the voice-over-Internet service Skype.
Educated in Azerbaijan, Turkey, the United States, and the United Kingdom, Geybullayeva worked as an Azerbaijan analyst for the Berlin-based European Stability Initiative until December 2009. Since then she has been a political officer with the National Democratic Institute in Baku. She also writes for a variety of online publications, including the recently launched Women's Forum.
I first contacted Geybullayeva in late 2008 via her blog, Flying Carpets and Broken Pipelines, and remained in contact through online services such as Twitter and Facebook. We met face-to-face last September in Telavi, Georgia, to make a presentation on new and social media for Armenian, Azerbaijani, and Georgian youth activists.
We also visited the nearby, ethnically Azeri village of Karajala and posted photographs, accounts, and multimedia presentations on our blogs, a trip that became the forerunner of this project.
You can listen to the podcast on the player below or download it here.
Meanwhile, Transitions Online has set up a project page here and there are also blog posts here. The main site for all phases of the project is here. I'll also be co-presenting with Arzu Geybullayeva at the Social Media for Social Change conference in Tbilisi in April.
Photo: Arzu Geybullayeva in Karajala, Georgia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2009
]]>Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, seems to be attracting me a lot these days and not least because it's the only place in the South Caucasus where Armenians and Azerbaijanis can meet. With a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan as elusive as ever, and with some still expecting a new war within the next five years, it's also the only country in the region where ethnic Armenians and Azeris live side by side without problems. In contrast, Armenia and Azerbaijan, and especially the former, are less diverse since the tit-for-tat expulsion of their Azeri and Armenian populations respectively.
So, when the Armenia Country Director of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), Seda Muradyan, asked if I'd be interested in training young journalists from Armenia and Azerbaijan in Tbilisi I jumped at the chance. The last time I was in Georgia was in December for the second phase of a personal project to report on positive examples of ethnic Armenians and Azeris co-existing together. Not surprisingly, many more examples of the same were encountered by participants of the seminar despite the totally contradictory situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan proper.
Monitoring results of media sources in Armenia and Azerbaijan document how inaccuracies in articles published by the leading newspapers in both countries “don’t add any new or necessary information, but rather [they] set a negative context in the public consciousness, which hinders dialogue and mutual understanding.” Without more accurate and unbiased information about the other free of negative rhetoric and stereotypes, Armenians and Azerbaijanis will continue to see themselves as enemies without any common ground. link
Incidentally, talking of the project, Transitions Online also published another article on the possible role of new media in conflict transformation. It's a drop in the ocean, but nearly 16 years after the 1994 ceasefire, and with bias and negative stereotyping in the local media still of considerable concern, it's about time other attempts were made to bring the two peoples together. Somewhat alarmingly, for example, one Western diplomat lamented a little over a week ago that many of those opposed to a concessionary peace deal were those funded to supposedly work towards it.
Twitter Diplomacy
Can new media help break the Armenia-Azerbaijan information blockade?by Onnik Krikorian
2 February 2010
This is the fourth in a series of reports on relations between ethnic Azeris and Armenians that belie the tension between the two countries. Previous multimedia reports focused on villages and urban districts in Georgia where Azeris and Armenians co-exist. In this analysis Onnik Krikorian explores how new media tools could foster ties between the two groups. You can learn more about this project and see more photos and video at TOL's Steady State blog. link
Ironically, a meeting was held just a few days before by the Eurasia Partnership Foundation to tackle the problem of bias in the Armenian and Azerbaijani media as it pertains to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. However, it is doubtful that the media will regulate itself until alternative voices -- or the 'middle media' that former BBC and Al Jazeera English journalist David Brewer talks about -- forces them too. And, with some believing that war clouds are gathering on the horizon, perhaps it's about time that this happens sooner rather than later.
Photo: Radio Free Europe Armenia Service's Elina Chilingaryan interviews the child of a mixed Azerbaijani-Georgian marriage in Armenian, Tbilisi, Georgia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia on Nokia N82
]]>