Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social Media in Armenia-Azerbaijan Peacebuilding

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social Media in Armenia-Azerbaijan Peacebuilding

    SGI Quarterly, April 2011

    Social Media in Armenia-Azerbaijan Peacebuilding
    By Onnik Krikorian

    When Adnan Hajizade and Emin Milli, two youth activists in Azerbaijan, were
    detained on politically motivated charges in July 2009, supporters naturally
    used social networking sites such as Facebook to campaign for their release.
    Spreading networks wide in order to disseminate information and updates,
    there were obviously risks involved, especially as activists could be
    monitored if privacy was compromised.

    For them, however, that didn't matter. The important thing was that Facebook
    was crucial in the campaign to release the two men. And, as international
    awareness of their plight increased before their unexpected conditional
    release in November last year, they were probably right. Despite the
    inherent risks, there is no doubt that connecting people is something that
    Facebook excels at.

    Indeed, significant progress had already been registered in another area,
    that of online communication and dialogue between Armenians and
    Azerbaijanis, months before the activists' arrest. Moreover, it was again
    Facebook, rather than blogs or other traditional means, which was pivotal in
    this respect. As a result, the online environment which exists today was
    unimaginable two and a half years ago.

    Armenia and Azerbaijan fought a war over the disputed territory of
    Nagorno-Karabakh in the early 1990s. Over 25,000 were killed and a million
    forced to flee their homes until a 1994 cease-fire agreement put the
    conflict on hold. Even so, frontline skirmishes claim the lives of dozens of
    conscripts each year. Traditional forms of contact have also been cut off,
    and it is impossible for citizens from either country to visit the other.

    True, meetings between civil society activists take place in third
    countries, but both societies generally frown upon such events, and
    potential participants are sometimes reluctant to take part. A recent survey
    by the Caucasus Resource Research Centers (CRRC), for example, found that 70
    percent of Armenians opposed friendship with Azerbaijanis, while 97 percent
    of Azerbaijanis felt the same way about Armenians.

    Therefore, such meetings are often shrouded in secrecy, even if this limits
    their effectiveness in wider society. Meanwhile, even when contacts are made
    outside of the conflict zone, people lose touch when they return home. But,
    in a brave new world of Facebook and Twitter, such a situation can now be
    addressed, or at least to a certain extent.

    However, even if civil society organizations should have been the first to
    introduce the use of such tools into their own peacebuilding activities, it
    was instead left up to individuals. Through my own personal project and work
    as Caucasus regional editor for Global Voices, a citizen media site
    established at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, adding contacts in
    Azerbaijan allowed them to look into the lives of some Armenians and vice
    versa.

    And while propaganda on both sides sought to convince respective populations
    that the other thinks only of revenge, the reality was quite different. For
    example, it probably comes as no surprise that many Armenians found online
    are not too dissimilar from their counterparts in Azerbaijan, with most
    rarely posting about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, preferring to instead
    share links and commentary about music and films.

    True, this isn't always the case, with nationalists from both sides also
    online. However, as Facebook is primarily "social," spreading hateful
    propaganda can result in users having their accounts suspended.
    Nevertheless, if one of the key attributes of Facebook is that it is a
    social networking site, some critics argue that rather than extend
    connections, it simply replicates those to be found in the real world. Such
    concerns are valid, of course, but they overlook the fact that Facebook is a
    tool with strengths and weaknesses determined by how it is used. It should
    also be evaluated in the context of fairly ethnically homogenous countries
    such as Armenia and Azerbaijan with no other means to communicate. Even
    "liking" a personal photograph or openly wishing someone a happy birthday
    can be revolutionary in this context.

    Simply put, after a period of virtual trust building and overcoming
    stereotypes, a space for dialogue can finally be created. Even on a small
    scale, such interactions directly challenge the very basis on which
    isolation from each other is justified. Skype can also be considered
    invaluable here too, and sooner or later, networking not only spreads, but
    also becomes "acceptable."

    Even so, such connections can eventually begin to taper off, and herein lies
    the problem. Although Facebook has broken down barriers between some
    Armenians and Azerbaijanis, those involved tend to be incredibly similar.
    They are perhaps already libertarian and cosmopolitan, and simply needed the
    tools to circumvent restrictions in place. Of course, this is still a huge
    success, but such people remain a minority. So, while some users on both
    sides now have access to information and opinions they never had before, we
    need to constantly monitor, assess and evolve the use of new tools in order
    to spread the net wider. At the time of writing, for example, there are
    111,480 Facebook users in Armenia and 304,380 in Azerbaijan, while mutual
    connections number only a few hundred at best.

    This isn't to negate the importance of Facebook, of course, as it has proven
    itself an indispensable tool which has achieved more open communication
    between Armenians and Azerbaijanis than any other medium to date. However,
    there is also the need to strategize its use, especially as others will
    eventually attempt to obstruct progress in this area. Privacy issues will
    therefore become key.

    ---
    Onnik Krikorian is a freelance journalist and photographer of Armenian and
    English descent now based in Yerevan, Armenia. He has covered the conflict
    between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of
    Nagorno-Karabakh since 1994 and is also the Caucasus regional editor for
    Global Voices (globalvoicesonline.org), a major international site that
    monitors, amplifies and curates citizen media.

    http://www.sgiquarterly.org/feature2011Apr-4.html




    From: A. Papazian
Working...
X