The statement on the utterances of a number of Armenian politicians and
several publications in the press on the murder of Armenian officer Gurgen
Margarian in Budapest (see YPC Weekly Newsletter,
March 5-11, 2004), signed by three
my colleagues and myself, had much feedback in Armenian press. I also wish to
correct the technical mistake in the YPC Newsletter: the statement was authored
by the leaders of four non-governmental organizations,
including Yerevan Press Club, personally but not by the organizations as such.
The statement presents our civil position and today, after a number of response
articles and interviews, there is apparently a need to re-address the issue and
take a broader view of it - this time not collectively, but individually,
considering one by one the grudges that were presented to us by our opponents.

Thus, we were reproached for not having earlier expressed our condolence to
the family of Gurgen Margarian. Is one to assume that the reproach holds for
everyone that did not either personally or in public address the tragically
bereft family of the young man, that is, the vast majority of our compatriots?
Do the authors of the reproach presume that there is an Armenian or simply a
normal human being who did not shudder at learning about the Budapest incident
and did not share the grief of the parents in his heart? How moral is it to
voice such grudges for no particular reason other than the wish to give a
painful kick to the newly chosen victims of killer journalism?

There are even attempts to appeal to our conscience: instead of moralizing to
your politicians and media, you’d better lay bare the blatant anti-Armenian
propaganda of Azerbaijanis. These people are apparently calling to follow their
own example, as they roll a ball after a ball on their own field into the empty
gates of the missing rival and exultant because by absentee goals they
reciprocate the equally absentee goals of the dashing peer shooters from Baku.
With due apologies - we do not need such football. We prefer to express our
thoughts and evaluations looking into the opponent’s face, and we create
conditions for dialogues to ourselves and anyone interested. We address
Azerbaijanis on live air from a studio of Baku TV company and
going out into the crowded streets of their city. Or in
Baku conference rooms with the cautious and a priori confronting
audience. This is the “Tolstoyism” we profess - slapping ourselves and putting
our cheeks forth to the others! And at home, in Yerevan, we first of all react
to what is alarming in our inner affairs and we think it in no way useful to
console ourselves with the worst situations of the other countries.

We are not forgiven for putting an equality sign between the anti-Armenian
hysteria in Azerbaijan and several “harmless” expressions of our politicians and
media who only called spade a spade. Thus we, as it turn out, give a wrong
perception of Armenia to the international community and weaken its position in
Karabagh negotiations. Firstly, proceeding from the numerous comparative studies
of press and public opinion in the two countries, conducted during the past
years by Yerevan Press Club, I can assume the responsibility to state: yes,
until recently the Armenian media were positively distinguished from the
neighbors by the reticence, a more constructive approach to the problems. But
during the recent months the quality gap between us started to narrow rapidly,
and the response of the press and politicians to the Budapest tragedy only
highlighted the problem. Even if one omits the unacceptable characterizations of
the neighboring nation, related in this or other way to the murder of Gurgen
Margarian (let them be explained by a strong emotional background), the
frequency of publications on Azerbaijan and Turkey that cannot be qualified
otherwise than absurd and shameful has to be affirmed. It is they and not the
statement of the four NGO leaders that put the equality sign between “there” and
“here”.

The xenophobia virus that seemed to fall asleep together with Soviet
journalism reopened its eyes. The mind of some Suslov-like ideologist apparently
was haunted by an unfresh idea: by the demonization of the surrounding world one
can instill the “proper” patriotism and “proper” sense of citizenship.

As to the distortion of Armenia’s image in the eyes of international
community, it, certainly, may be present. But this, again, is not the fault of
the statement authors, but of those, who decided to distinguish themselves by a
strong wording to the address of the “foe”. We live among our compatriots, sense
their sentiments and we can reinstate: the ideas with racist tinge are alien to
them. And no one entitled the people who call themselves popular delegates to
discredit all of us. However, the feedback of the foreign public, contrary to
the conjectures made by a number of newspapers, worries me as a signatory to the
statement much less than the prospects of dissemination of the above-mentioned
virus among public at large. We often complain that it is increasingly harder
for the words of politicians and journalist to find a way to the minds of our
compatriots. But this is the case when the immunity to the publicly expressed
ideas is to the benefit.

To the same extent that it is proper to discuss the aggressiveness of
Azerbaijani media not with our own sympathizing audience but with Azerbaijani
colleagues themselves, the formation of international context that would favor
Armenia in Karabagh issue must be lobbied primarily in the forums, where various
viewpoint and positions are presented. However the fervent champions of national
interests, known to us by appearance on their own field, very often find
themselves “naked” on such forums. Being unable to build up the argumentation,
to give a competent reply to the attacks of the other party, they willingly and
with gratitude concede the first roles to the compatriots whom they are used to
condemning for the lack of patriotism at home.

Another interesting detail. The most notoriously xenophobic pieces of our
newspapers are, as a rule, present only in the print versions but not online.
Thus, they are sometimes uncomfortable themselves. And all this is written not
for debating with the “rival” or the attraction of attention among the
international community to its own vices, but primarily to brainwash the
citizens of our own country. The information support to the national interests
is therefore rather peculiar!

The critics of the “statement of four” did not miss the opportunity to use
their main weapon which is always at hand when one is eager to sting the NGOs:
“Grant-eaters! They are working off the western money! The statement was ordered
by ill-wishers of Armenia!" One could of course remind our accusers that our
Government as well as the Parliament and political parties dream of getting
foreign funding. That both the state officials and the deputies have been
carried away by establishing adjacent public organizations long ago, hoping to
get and quietly utilize the same grants. But the eyesore are for some reason the
very organizations that, regardless of what part of their activity is funded and
of whether it is funded at all, are truly active in public life, are always in
sight, feel responsible for the mission they shoulder, strongly respond - as in
the case of the “statement of four” - when they sense something wrong. One could
also remind that one of our accusers was “nurtured” on grants that none of the
statement signatories can even dream of, and she did so with pleasure and for
quite a long time. That the bigger part of the content of newspapers that
pounced upon us - are a direct political, financially ensured order. And this
order is much more morally vulnerable than even the most questionable grant,
because neither its source, nor its amounts or purpose are declared.

I am not quoting names and titles because - unlike the opponents - I do not
consider I have a right to accuse. Fighting back the ungrounded charges in
performing missions from abroad was always a senseless occupation: both during
the 30s of the previous century and in the first decade of the third millennium.
One only has to thank for not being arrested on a newspaper tip-off nowadays and
for not having the dropouts provoked to siege offices, as it happened in Baku
(again at a newspaper prompt). At least so far...

The saddest thing in this all is the sincere disbelief that somebody can do
something contrary to the petty consideration of the moment unselfishly and
because of principles. It is considered proper to throw dirt on Azerbaijanis
without being choosey with the words - and these for some reasons speak against
it! Why should they? They are following somebody’s ill will! It is the hand, or
rather, the pinnacles of the West! Grafted! Any reasons are suitable, even if
the accuser himself does not believe in them. But the disbelief is even stronger
in the simplest explanation - this people really think so, they are really
motivated by concern. During the years that passed after the Karabagh war a
deed has become almost completely devalued in our society, even
such a simple not conforming action as a public statement that goes out of the
general course arises suspicion. May be this is the reason why we are not very
successful - because for a real move ahead somebody must make a non-standard
effort?

Some newspapers rushed to defend the Chairman of the Parliament Committee of
Foreign Affairs Armen Rustamian and the head of the faction of Republican Party
Galust Sahakian, named in the statement. I am ready to assume that they are far
from being the main “hawks” among the representatives of our political elite,
and the authors of the statement did not aim at discrediting them. But it is the
words they uttered in the context of their positions that deserved the strictest
assessment. The figures of this rank must commensurate the political dividends
that they seemingly acquire from anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric with the consequences
of their statements for the society and the country.

With all the negativism that poured from the newspaper pages, I am inclined
to consider the opinion exchange (even if confined to labeling) on the problem
to be crucially important for the political and moral climate of the past
months. Also, in the assessments of our opponents valuable thoughts were voiced.
Even the fact that the discussion centered on the terms “racism” and
“chauvinism”, used in the statement, mean the issue is urgent. The concepts
learned by the textbooks of historical materialism and history of Communist
Party of USSR (if “racism”, then “Ku-Klux-Klan”, if “chauvinism”, then “Great
Russian”) in reality need a modern reconsideration, adequate to international
political terminology. Parallelly, a similar discussion evolved in Azerbaijani
press. The appeals in Baku to make an official condolence to the family of
Gurgen Margarian, counteract to the heroization of his murderer, Ramil Safarov,
show that even in this situation, most unfavorable for the relations of the two
countries, dialogue and attempts to find common ground are possible.