A comment made earlier today on a previous post regarding the need to diversify the dissemination of news and information online in the area of peace building in order to reach the largest number of people, especially when Internet penetration remains quite low, reminded me of another need which I had also briefly alluded to in a different post. Arif Khalil pointed out the potential for physical activities and events to break down stereotypes and engage a much larger and wider society in the ‘real world,’ and in particular mentioned using theater to spread a message of peace and coexistence.
And, I have to say, I agree.
However, I also have to add that such initiatives are more difficult to stage in countries such as Armenia and Azerbaijan and just one reason why I’ve pushed for more engagement online. As an example, a recently planned festival of non-political Azerbaijani films in Yerevan, the Armenian capital, had to be cancelled after a nationalist backlash resulted in threats made against Georgi Vanyan, the main organizer, and pressure applied against the owners of venues where such an event was scheduled to take place. Probably, because the festival would have directly targeted a potentially wider audience than online activities can, nationalists and a partisan media reacted.
Nevertheless, it did result in some discussion and dialogue in society if only because, contrary to accepted stereotypes, it became clear that nationalists in Armenia are as opposed to allowing freedom of speech and attempts to promote peaceful dialogue as their counterparts in Azerbaijan. It also raises questions in my own mind regarding the fact that while Georgi Vanyan received threats and was subject to insults and abuse, others engaged online do not, or at least not to such an extent. I’ve only received a few threats in the past six months, for example. More interestingly, perhaps, most happened when content was translated from English into Armenian and Russian.
Indeed, all of Vanyan’s activities are conducted in Armenian and Russian, languages everyone understands here, and as they mainly occur offline, arguably also reach a much larger target group in local society, when they are allowed to happen at least. This perhaps indicates that online engagement through Facebook at present is reaching a very small target group that does not threaten those opposed to peaceful dialogue and coexistence because reach is currently limited and somehow constrained. As it pertains to connections on Facebook, Global Voices co-founder and Berkman researcher Ethan Zuckerman explains it thus:
I know Onnik, and we both know lots of people the other doesn’t know… but we’ve also got lots of friends in common, via Global Voices. So if Onnik is one of my hundred friends, and twenty of his friends are already my friends, I’m reaching a much smaller set of people through him than I would through a friend who had no overlap with my other friends. Or, as Watts puts it in his book Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, “the more your friends know each other, the less use they are to you in getting a message to someone you don’t know.”
Incidentally, I really do believe that language is an issue here as I’ve pointed out before. Promoting cross-border discussion and debate in English doesn’t reach the masses and also keeps dialogue within a very small subset and arguably somewhat closed section of society. It could even be argued that this is a ’soft approach’ and one agreeable, or at least tolerable, for those with a vested interest in keeping the conflict alive. Not able to challenge the status quo which is an obstacle to resolution, the international community, as well as donors, are at least content with the fact that something is allowed to happen by the two governments.
And, unfortunately, that’s even if such Track II diplomacy won’t yield any major breakthroughs in the near future. In fact, that’s also probably why such activities are tolerated. Now, don’t get me wrong. What has been achieved since first making contact with Azerbaijani bloggers in Tbilisi, Georgia, in June 2008 has been considerable in the context of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, but as I’ve said before when it comes to the use of online social networks in this area, a certain ceiling has now seemingly been reached in the number of people it can target. And, as that number is very low indeed, there is now the need to view the use of online tools differently than before.
Firstly, they are not a solution in themselves. They are simply tools which can be used in conjunction with traditional means if and when appropriate. It should also be pointed out that in the case of my own project, I didn’t just go online, but also did a lot of other things, usually behind the scenes, including engaging in some intense outreach which involved communication and discussion in person. Indeed, as The Economist recently pointed out, it didn’t even start online. It actually started off by choosing to break out of an isolation created by two closed borders and an unresolved conflict by traveling to Georgia in order to start the ball rolling.
It also meant building personal relationships and, in some cases, mentoring some of the possible participants and contributors which is something that continues to this day. New and social media were just tools used in order to do so as well as to maintain contact in absentia. In lieu of traditional means such as the mass media to disseminate alternative views and information, they were also the only way to encourage discussion even if just among a relatively small number of people.
A generation of digital activists had hoped that the web would connect groups separated in the real world. The internet was supposed to transcend colour, social identity and national borders. But research suggests that the internet is not so radical. People are online what they are offline: divided, and slow to build bridges.
[…]
Onnik Krikorian, Global Voices’ editor in Central Asia, is a British citizen with an Armenian name. He couldn’t go to Azerbaijan and had difficulty establishing any online contact with the country until he went to a conference in Tbilisi in 2008 and met four Azeri bloggers. They gave him their cards, and he found them on Facebook. To his surprise, they agreed to be his friends. Mr Krikorian has since found Facebook to be an ideal platform to build ties. Those first four contacts made it easier for other Azeris to link up with him.
But the internet is not magic; it is a tool. 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.
To date, new and especially social media has really resulted in a dramatic change in the dynamics of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, connecting an albeit small number of progressive youth in both countries when none openly existed before. However, in order to take peace building activities further a number of issues need to be addressed. Firstly, there is the need to expand existing online social networks, then there is the issue of security as nationalists eventually turn their attention towards any activity as it becomes more visible and potentially more effective, and finally to assess and analyze what has been achieved and what hasn’t, finding solutions to any obstacles that might have emerged.
Currently, for me at least, that means taking peace building activities into a wider society that likely doesn’t speak English and might not even be online. With just 106,540 Facebook users in Armenia, for example, and 279,040 in Azerbaijan, even if it were to increase as Internet penetration does, it’s also unlikely the majority are going to connect to anyone I know currently engaged in Armenia-Azerbaijan communication and cooperation on either side of the ceasefire line. Indeed, I’d argue, other detached groups in society are going to need to be targeted, and most likely in different ways than at present.
Of course, as this is likely to engage more of society than online methods do at present, it’s also highly possible that such activities will be more risky — as the ill-fated festival of Azerbaijani films in Armenia recently demonstrated so succinctly. However, it is sorely needed in an environment where peace remains as elusive as ever. For example, a recent poll by the Caucasus Resource Research Centers (CRRC) provides data that is sobering, to say the least. With 70 percent of Armenians against forming friendships with Azerbaijanis, and 97 percent of Azerbaijanis opposed to friendship with Armenians, there is an urgent need to engage wider society.
And as that can’t be done at present online, it’s likely this will have to be by taking a holistic approach, using traditional and online means when appropriate and dependent on the situation or the specific target group. In fact, this seems now to be the most important approach to take, combining efforts and strategies in order to reach the largest number of people possible if any tangible change is to occur. Indeed, even this is not new in itself and represents the need for both approaches to be combined, as Micael Bogar, then a project manager at the American University Center for Social Media, pointed out in a 2009 interview for Global Voices.
[…] I think you can’t do it just with social media tools, but as we’ve seen over the past 15 years you definitely can’t do it by meeting in Tbilisi for a weekend every summer. It becomes just like Facebook – an entertainment – and I’ve had experience with these conferences in Tbilisi where it’s just one big coffee break and a waste of money so I think that both of those combined could propel us along.
One of my first steps in 2011, therefore, will be to discuss the possibility of cooperation with individuals such as Georgi Vanyan to combine efforts, perhaps contributing new and social media strategies to traditional outreach work at the same time as benefiting from the wider reach of the latter when compared to what is currently occurring online. And on that, and in light of the threats and campaign against Vanyan and his peace building activities, anyone wanting to send a message of support can do so here.
