On the threshold of 20th anniversary of the tragic events in Khojaly has been held the first round table devoted to the topic "Tragic events of postsoviet history". Ismail Agakishiev, Head of Caucasian studies center in RSUH, Alexei Vlasov, Editor in chief of Vestnik Kavkaza, Leonid Gusev, MGIMO-University expert, and Evgeny Krishtalev, News editor of Vestnik Kavkaza participated in the round table.
As Ismail Agakishiev said,“According to what I’ve seen in the 80s and even in 1990 in Baku and Tbilisi (I was workingon my doctoral thesis back then), there were no real acute ‘inter-ethnic contradictions’ there. Not only Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians lived in the South Caucasus, there were a lot of Jews and Russians. Baku was the fourth biggest industrial center in the USSR, it had a large population and it was multi-national. There was no other city where inter-ethnic relations were at such a high level… well, maybe in Odessa. The best members of their nations lived in Baku and the synthesis of different ethnic cultures they created was truly unique. The ‘Perestroika’ policy was very beneficial for the Caucasus. There was a lot of money to be made. But the ‘inter-ethnic contradictions’ destroyed all bright prospects. I agree with what had been said earlier, but I have to mention one currently unpopular subject. The ideological aspect of life was very important: the cold war, the arms race, different lobbies, foreign ‘experts’ propaganda… We are used to thinking that Soviet ideology was totally homogenous, but it is not so, official ideology could be influenced by different groups of people. Some of these people used this influence todestroy our country. I don’t say that there were no actual grounds for the USSR's disintegration, but still… As for who is actually responsible… On my way here I read thebook ‘The Black Garden’, and I found out that the current Armenian President speaks Azerbaijani, he had Azerbaijani friends, but when he commented on the Khojaly events, he said that he finally understood that the idea of the great Armenian people is much more important than any personal relationships. The author also states that initially the punitive measures were carried out by people with criminal pasts. Of course you are right that no one is born to be a monster, and all those who’ve committed murder still try to justify themselves, to find suitable reasons. All people are different, some couldn’t even hurt a fly, others have a certain disposition towards violence. I’m saying that all those who committed crimes back then did that consciously, but some are predisposed to such actions. And this predisposition was used on a full scale. Unfortunately, as much as human goodness doesn’t have a limit, human vice is also unlimited. And there was the propaganda of one nation’s superiority over another, of the impossibility for them to coexist on one territory. The author of the book claims that the Azerbaijani people of Khojaly were told to leave their homes more than once, that they were warned of the deadly consequences of disobedience. The people refused to leave, and now the aggressors say it’s their own fault they got killed. They wanted to scare people away from their homes, from their motherland, wanted to convince everyone that the two nations can’t live together – even though they have actually lived together in peace for a very long time. I believe that those people who spread and create such propaganda are the true culprits of those tragic events, and those who did the killing are mere executors. They were zombified by this fascist-like ideology. Today we have to pick our words carefully, and that is good. We shouldn’t say things like ‘all Tajiks are…’ or ‘all Azerbaijanis are…’ or ‘all Armenians are…’
Such generalizations are inadequate. All members of one nation are different. Some didn’t want to commit those atrocities but were scared into it, some were deceived, some had no part in it. But those who deliberately or unconsciously participated in those acts of violence should be called by their proper name – Nazis. We discuss those crimes a lot, but no one has ever been prosecuted. They say it’s too late for that… But there are still precedents for punishing Nazi criminals, even though WWII ended half a century ago. Criminals should be punished no matter their age if they propagated fascism and committed nationalistic crimes. That is why we have to keep telling the truth, to tell those guilty from those who are innocent – if the generalization continues, our nations will never be able to live in peace again”.
Alexei Vlasov, VK’s chief editor, asked the experts two questions: “First of all, is it really the case that those who create ideologies are the true culprits of the crimes committed in their names? I’m talking not only about politicians, but about those who advocated the idea of ‘justified violence’ against ‘aliens’. Secondly, it is obvious that ex-Soviet republics had to found their state ideology on denying their ex leading center: in any other case they wouldn’t be able to legitimize their independence. So was it even possible in those circumstances not to cross this border between national and nationalistic?”
According to Leonid Gusev, it is true that almost everything depends on those who form the ideology. “They form opinions, they shape the image of a country, of a people”. He also said that “since the mid 1950s and the early 1960s in many Western countries, such as in the US, Great Britain, Germany, there were and still are institutes, which, for example, through migrants from the Soviet Union and analysts prepared great scientific works on each disputable issue: famine in Ukraine in the 1930s, in Russia and Kazakhstan; repressions 1937-1938. Volumes were published. For instance, books were published, which said that forced famine was carried out in Ukraine against Ukrainians only. This point of view was spread by various radio-stations, the books were brought to the Soviet Union. The same situation was in the sphere of inter-ethnic relations. Armenians were provided with one sort of information, Azerbaijanis with another. All these things accumulated, and in 1985, as Yeugeny said, it wasn’t started in 1990-1991, it was started in 1985, when ideological barriers were canceled. There was no Internet, but the books flowed into the Soviet Union. I saw these books in the center of Moscow since 1985. Nobody forbade their trading. The same literature flowed into the Caucasian republic, the Baltic Sea countries, Ukraine. Moreover, local raised ideologists, who appeared in the 1980s, especially humanitarian professors, scientists, they were connected with the West and spread the information and exaggerate passions”.
Alexei Vlasov, however, said that even though the sources of conflicts are understandable they need a deeper systematic study. “As for the medium-term prospect, is overcoming of the “own-stranger” tendency possible? Can we use some instruments for making a new generation more tolerant and friendly?” – he asked his colleagues.
In the opinion of Yevgeniy Krishtalev, “considering the fact that the former Soviet republics maintain a minimal base of common household, the current generation knows how it was in the Soviet times, in times of internationalism, examples were Baku, Odessa, today it is Moscow… In the future it is possible. But what will be the base for it? If the base will be ideological and political, I think this process might fail. However, if it will be based on pragmatic and economic relations, economy is a base, which can be a ground for relations between people and states”.
