The deadlock in negotiations on the Karabakh conflict led to sharpening of diplomatic battles and an increase in propaganda tension. Probably my thesis will be a theme for discussion, but Armenia and Azerbaijan compete in lobbying in third countries recognition of military crimes, correspondingly, genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman period in 1915 and attack of Azerbaijani Khojali during the Karabakh war. Both sides try to discredit positions of each other. The situation demands defining an attitude to this problem by Russian political society.
It should be noted that the Azerbaijani work on promotion crimes in Khojali as a genocide is following Armenian efforts on criminalization of denying genocide of Armenians. In general Armenia turns the theme of 1915 against Turkey, and Diaspora, improving its lobbying mechanisms, gets moral satisfaction. Azerbaijan acts at the regional level. Baku gathered evidence on the crime in Khojali (shooting of 613 people and hurting 1000 people on February 26th, 1992).
Both sides accuse each other in falsifications, spending huge sums for counter-propaganda. Russian political science intends not to touch on the theme, as it is very easy to become an instrument of propaganda. At the same time, historians understand there are no facts “in the pure state.” Facts should be considered: reasons, backgrounds, consequences of activity of certain participants. However, there is no other mechanism of consideration of the events except for your private position, but it is subjective. It’s a vicious circle.
Is there a positive way out? Discussing the problem with my friends and colleagues from Yerevan, Baku, Moscow, Kiev, Astana, I know that a company from each capital tries to win over to cause. Objectiveness can be achieved if only we don’t touch on the theme at all. However, you cannot ignore your neighbors. The only chance to gain some positive settlement of the problem is establishing of an integral unity, which is not very easy.
I agree with Alexander Karavayev that the integral position on tragic episodes of history is possible only if a certain political memory ritual is formed. The rivals could be enemies officially, but an institute for those, who can communicate and admit rightness of another side in part, should be prepared. Russia will always be a key arbiter in the post-Soviet space. Moreover, Russia should do something with its own skeletons in the closet.
Let’s see what issues on the theme appeared within Russia and its social-political space. After 2004 Ukraine actively promoted the appraisal of the famine in 1932-1933 as genocide of Ukrainian people by Bolsheviks. According to Ukrainian historians, the famine 1932-1933 caused death of 5 million residents of Ukraine. As the result, 11 states of the world recognized Holodomor the act of genocide. Within Russia the negative attitude to Stalin’s regime formed a powerful group, which demands establishing of the political ritual of remembering victims of repressions.
Political Russia is not eager to remember “Stalin’s” and other group of problems of 1980s. The reaction is understandable. The happened tragedies have no connection with new Russia as a state, which is responsible for the policy since late 1991. Self-identification of nations in the CIS countries is based on the points of history, which are tragic facts of developments of the Soviet system. Neighbors gave their own appraisal, while Russia ignores it considering them anti-Russian.
It is thought that the scale of Khojali, as well as other similar episodes, especially in Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts, pales into insignificance in comparison with the mentioned apocalypse. Thus, Russia doesn’t pay attention to these episodes, as it hasn’t settled its own problems.
However, we should understand that it comes not to the scale of crimes and number of victims, but to attitude to the victims. Today the value of human life is very low, as well as responsibility of the authorities. There is an objective to implement the practice of moral disapprove into the post-Soviet policy.
Of course, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is one of such events. Today there are many publications on the current stage of settlement of the conflict, on efforts of Russian diplomacy, but an important question stays aside: “How could it be settled without humanitarian and social dialogue?”
What is the main aim of Russian historians and political scientists dealing with the theme? Thousands of murdered people, millions of refugees, enormous material losses – the price paid by peoples, who lived in one state, for ineffective and irresponsive policy of their authorities. Our civil duty is to remember tragic episodes of our past.
Though we cannot choose the political mechanism of settling the conflict, we could try to establish a technology of humanitarian peacemaking. But we see the opposite in reality: striving for replacing serious responsive dialogue on political memory ritual by a bright agitation, which uses words unacceptable for describing events, which are not only facts from the history of Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also facts from the history of the Soviet Union and Russia.
Alexei Vlasov exclusively to VK
