The editor-in-chief of VK Alexei Vlasov and the director of the Caucasus Center of the RSUH Ismail Agakishiyev discuss historical events in the Caucasus.
Alexei Vlasov
In late March Moscow and Baku held events devoted to the events of 1918, which we discussed last time. History is again at the cutting edge of political issues. We hear the notion “genocide” with increasing frequency, including discussions of 20th century history. However, it is not about a notion. The problem is much deeper. History has turned into a weapon for settling international problems by politicians.
The brightest example is not even the problem of Karabakh, but the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In 2007-2008, ahead of the well-known events in Tskhinvali, Moscow platforms eagerly discussed the history of the Ossetian-Georgian and Abkhazian-Georgian conflicts. I participated at the platform of Rosbalt. I presented a report on the history of the South Ossetian conflict. It seemed to me that journalists are not interested in historians’ arguments. Let me explain. I re-read my report published in the mass media and realized that I wanted to express an absolutely different idea. The facts that could be understood from a different point of view are presented by journalists in a “black-and-white” light. Probably it is their right, the specificity of presenting materials. But achieving historical truth pales into insignificance.
Ismail Agakishiyev
Nevertheless, I think we can find some meeting points in the solution of this ambiguous problem. The task is not simple. We should stop painting everything black. Some of our historian colleagues like to post labels, trying to avoid multifacetedness, because they think it is inappropriate. That is why works appear which say that the position of one side is the ultimate truth. When they say history is a constituent of the formation of a national idea, I want to ask – what kind of history? History as science, or history as a subject of certain political speculations?
Alexei Vlasov
The well-known publicist Prokhanov believes that today history is not science, but a part of ideology. Many people share this view in our country, especially considering the fact that there are plenty of issues on which we haven’t reached any consensus during 20 years of independence.
I understand that Karabakh is a center of contradictions between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as the events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire are between Armenia and Turkey. But for Russian society the sharpest moments refer not to external conflicts, but to internal confrontation, including the Stalinism problem, the repressions, the character of the political system that existed in the USSR. We still haven’t decided how we should treat our past.
There is the Museum of Genocide Victims in Yerevan. But in Russia any effort to make a monument to victims of repressions turns into a big row, because the communists begin protesting and the authorities act according to the principle “it will come to no good.”
Ismail Agakishiyev
I have my own point of view that the settlement of problems of our common history is not quadrature of a circle. Someday we will reach consensus that won’t mean withdrawal from scientific principles and turn to ideology, because the ideological direction should be changed, and the aim of science is reaching the truth. I respect memory, erecting monuments that express harsh hatred for other peoples is not always reasonable; turning these monuments into an ideological instrument for raising future generations inspired by nationalism is wrong. Recently our friend from Tbilisi, the alumnus of the Economic Department, an Armenian who decided to raise his son in Yerevan, has had to take his family from there because of nationalist propaganda. He said he didn’t want his son, who is only discovering the world, to be poisoned by nationalism toward the whole nation. In reality, using monuments for propaganda of hatred leads to emotional tension for both peoples. In the end the neighboring nation responds to it by the same methods – evil gives birth to evil. That is why not emotional but scientific appraisal of past events is important. To exclude the notion “genocide” in the South Caucasus, the first step should be made by the representatives of the Armenian peoples. At the same time, the events of 1915 must be objectively studied by an international commission and scientists. Rivalry between the prime ministers of the two countries – who will first recognize genocide – is beyond common sense. Moreover, politicians of many countries, including the USA, hardly know where the South Caucasus is situated; the history and problems of the region are not interesting for them. The prosperity of the region’s countries is the main issue for the population of the South Caucasus. But this problem cannot be settled without respect for the history of each nation and the whole region. It can be settled only by objectively studying the history of the space that is our birthplace. If we do not respect ourselves and our neighbors, nobody will respect us. And forces will appear which will want to separate us from each other and control us.
