But, while some users on both sides now have access to information and opinions they never had before, there is the need to spread the net wider. Illustrative of this is the fact that while existing Armenian-Azerbaijani connections number in their hundreds, at time of writing there are actually 345,300 Facebook users, or 11.64 per cent of the population, in Armenia and 899,560, or 10.83 per cent, in Azerbaijan, according to Facebook metrics site Socialbakers. Moreover, only a small percentage of users online speak English and most live in the capitals rather than the regions.
It now remains to be seen whether these developments continue and grow, or if those opposed to peace instead attempt to drown out the voices of anyone who suggests anything contrary to the official line.
Online communication
Unfortunately, most NGOs have largely failed to use these new tools to their fullest potential or even at all, leaving it up to individuals and grassroots initiatives to do so instead, but their worth is already clear. Not only do they offer a remarkable opportunity to reach out, but they are also the only way for participants of cross-border projects to remain in contact once they return to their respective countries. They also offer the possibility to reach out to potential participants for cross-border projects well beyond the “usual suspects” and “closed circles” that often define civil society initiatives.
Again, however, it is important to note that the use of such tools in the present environment is not without risk or problems, especially when the situation on the ground can change suddenly and unexpectedly, as was the case at the end of August 2012 with the extradition of Ramil Safarov from Hungary to Azerbaijan, which reportedly led to a rise in nationalist sentiment in Armenia.
Can conflict be resolved on Facebook?
As already mentioned, and despite the potential, online tools such as Facebook have failed to reach most citizens. Another survey conducted by CRRC for USAID, Internews, and the Eurasia Partnership Foundation, found that while 90 per cent of respondents in Armenia relied on television as the main source of news and information, only 7 per cent used the Internet in the same way. Moreover, 79 per cent said they never accessed social networking sites for news and 84 per cent said the same for online media sites. Nevertheless, of those that did use the Internet, 65 per cent used social networking sites.
Even so, 83 per cent of those respondents also said they never used social networking sites to share or discuss political opinions or news items.
Indeed, of those active online, few seek out alternative information or opinions on sensitive matters such as the Karabakh conflict and when they do the tendency is to follow the official line. As an example, one Facebook Question – a feature to create and distribute online polls to Facebook users now being phased out – asking “Who does Nagorno Karabakh belong to?” had only two possible answers to choose from – Armenia or Azerbaijan. Obviously, the question had only one intention – to see which side could attract the most votes even if it changed nothing on the ground. There were no other options, not even “Don’t Know.”
That said, one enterprising Azerbaijani activist currently living in the United States did try another approach by asking what was the most effective solution for resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. There were more varied options to choose from and even some interesting responses from Facebook users, ranging from the need to force the governing regimes to democratize to creating a regional federation. However, while 52,118 took part in the first more nationalist poll, only 1,153 took part in the second.
It therefore comes as no surprise that any hopes that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict can be resolved online are clearly misplaced; but on the other hand it does demonstrate that social networking and new tools can at least result in some kind of discussion among much smaller groups otherwise deprived of a voice or medium to do so. Certainly, such tools can contribute to the peace and reconciliation process, and for some in Armenia and Azerbaijan they are doing just that, but they need to be combined with other more traditional initiatives and approaches on all levels.
Caucasus Conflict Voices
For now, the use of social media is in its infancy, but this writer’s own experience with using the medium to establish cross-border connections between Armenians and Azerbaijanis has proven extremely positive in the context of the Karabakh conflict. Even so, it first started with physical contacts made in person in Tbilisi in July 2008 and evolved from there to include hundreds of individuals online. Moreover, not only have the main NGOs working on cross-border dialogue projects requested those contacts for their own initiatives, but the main projects involving new and social media have emerged from it.
Online collaborations, such as one involving Azerbaijani journalists to document examples of Armenian-Azerbaijani coexistence in neighbouring Georgia as well as training events for Armenian and Azerbaijani activists and journalists, have followed in third countries, while Georgian NGOs are interested in using Caucasus Conflict Voices, the working name for my initiative, as a model for similar cross-border communication with Abkhazians and South Ossetians. Combining blog posts with open communication and cross-border networking via social media, Caucasus Conflict Voices has focused in particular on providing a platform for alternative voices to be heard.
“We hear far too little of what I call this ‘third narrative’ of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, a narrative of peace,” wrote Black Garden author and the Carnegie Endowment for Peace’s Thomas de Waal about my project. “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. [Caucasus Conflict Voices] 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 […].”
Indeed, the experience shows that once trust is established through such online activity, it is possible for to the citizens of both countries to form relationships, and for journalists and activists to check facts, share information, and work together online.
Nevertheless, aside from emerging privacy and personal security concerns with the use of social media worldwide, as well as the pressing need to reach a much larger audience in the Caucasus, it is important to remember that these new tools are just that. “[…] the internet is not magic; it is a tool,” The Economist wrote about Caucasus Conflict Voices, referring to its start happening through a personal meeting in a third country between this writer and Azerbaijani bloggers. “Anyone who wants to use it to bring nations closer together has to show initiative, and be ready to travel physically as well as virtually. As with the telegraph before it—also hailed as a tool of peace—the internet does nothing on its own.”
–
Onnik James Krikorian is a journalist and photojournalist, and was formerly the Caucasus Regional Editor for Global Voices Online. He has covered the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since 1994 and in 2008 pioneered the use of new and social media in cross-border communication and co-operation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis.
This report was published by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Secretariat following a seminar on the challenges and opportunities of communication and media, including social and new media, in conflict situations held at Trinity College Dublin on 24 October 2012.
Recent Comments