This article was downloaded by: [RMIT University]On: 05 October 2013, At: 20:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Muslim Minority AffairsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjmm20

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0: How New Mediaand Track Two Diplomacy Initiatives areFostering ChangeArzu GeybullayevaPublished online: 31 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Arzu Geybullayeva (2012) Nagorno Karabakh 2.0: How New Media and TrackTwo Diplomacy Initiatives are Fostering Change, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 32:2, 176-185,DOI: 10.1080/13602004.2012.694663

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2012.694663

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0: How New Media and Track TwoDiplomacy Initiatives are Fostering Change

ARZU GEYBULLAYEVA

Abstract

It is too early to argue that the new media, social networks and other track twodiplomacy initiatives have changed the discourse over Nagorno Karabakh orhad, if any, substantial impact on the negotiation process. However, it is not tooearly to point out to certain progress made, both in the world wide web realm andin real time, through various initiatives, workshops and projects, which have inone way or another been playing individual roles and thus generating someimpact on the overall reconciliation process by bringing the two communities togethertorn apart by war 17 years ago. In their vision, for any progress to be made, somethings must change and these initiatives are part of this change. Perhaps, small inscale, their mere existence already is a promising start, especially in an environmentwhere there is no or very little contact whatsoever between the parties to the conflict.This paper analyzes the existence of such online initiatives against the backdrop ofalready widespread hatred and lack of openness towards one another in Azerbaijaniand Armenian societies. This is an attempt to offer a glimpse into the world of nego-tiations, diplomacy and politics through the prism of track two diplomacy initiatives,new media ideas and social network generated interconnectedness.

Introduction

The war between the two countries over the territorial enclave of Nagorno Karabakhbroke out in 1988 when Karabakh’s the then Armenian majority “decided to leaveSoviet Azerbaijan and become part of the Soviet Armenia”.1 The full-scale war thatbroke out in the early 1990s, reached its peak in 1992 resulting in thousands of deaths,injuries and forcing many refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs) to leavetheir homes, history, memories and much more behind. The war also resulted in occu-pation and control of seven adjacent provinces to Karabakh. This conflict has been ina stalemate since 1994 when Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a ceasefire.2

Ever since the ceasefire was signed,3 negative rhetoric and nationalist propaganda fromdomestic media outlets4 and in government statements5 from both countries have fuelledthe conflict, making it harder for the two sides to reconcile. Furthermore, with recent dip-lomatic meetings between Armenia and Azerbaijan bearing no fruitful results, achievingchange in perceptions of each other becomes harder day-by-day.

Today, if you ask any Azerbaijani or Armenian where does Karabakh belong all you willget in response would be “it’s ours and belongs to us” irrespective of the sides. Karabakhmeans a number of many things for Azerbaijanis and Armenians—history, culture, tra-dition, values, ties, roots, etc., while interpreted differently by each side. It symbolizesirresolvable complexity preventing the two countries from reaching a common groundand resolving the conflict.

Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 2, June 2012

ISSN 1360-2004 print/ISSN 1469-9591 online/12/020176-10 © 2012 Institute of Muslim Minority Affairshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2012.694663

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

The issue of Karabagh described by experts, such as Hugh Pope from the InternationalCrisis Group, as a ticking time bomb,6 the future status of Karabakh and the imminentoutbreak of war remains unknown. Myths and propaganda—periodically carried outby local media, officials and other proponents of war—fuelled by hatred, anger andaggression have deeply affected not only the generation who witnessed the war and allits consequences but also the new generations of young Azerbaijanis and Armeniansfeeling nothing but anger, hatred and revenge towards the other. It is these generationsin particular that can seriously impede the reconciliation process as they do not haveany personal memory of war, apart from the mainstream propaganda taught in schoolsand covered by media. As Amanda Paul from the European Policy Center describes it“the longer this conflict runs, the harder it will be to change the status quo and thegreater the risk of a new war”.7

Changing Initiatives

It is in the light of this context, that the new media, social networks and track two diplo-macy initiatives began to emerge in an attempt to open ground for unofficial discussionsbetween the communities, civil society actors and non-governmental organizations.Seeing the consequences of the unresolved conflict, surpassed with hatred, passion forrevenge and lack of democracy and transparency a number of developments wereinitiated over the course of last 17 years.Ten years ago, the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University’s Belfer Center

organized an event, “Civil Society and Peace-Building in the North and South Cauca-sus”. On that occasion, Arzu Abdullayeva, Chair of the Azerbaijani National Committeeof the Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly, argued that non-governmental organizations wereimportant in peacemaking processes. She stressed that political resolutions are impossiblewithout changes in public opinion and NGOs had all of the necessary tools to changepublic opinion.A decade later, growing interest in the region by the international organizations

resulted in increased meetings between the two sides on public level. In addition, anew way of contact emerged. New media and social networking tools such as blogsand micro-blogs, Facebook, Twitter, Skype and other online gadgets became awindow to a forbidden world. Suddenly, old friends could reconnect or new friendscould be found via Facebook. Contact was no longer limited to traditional reconciliationmeetings taking place among civil society actors; now, a new set of players joined thegame—youth from both of the countries. As a result, being separated by closedborders was no longer an obstacle.

The New Media Generation

The constant evolution of the Internet has become no doubt an integral part of our lives.Its progress has been unprecedented. People are more connected now than they werebefore and it is not just the rapidly evolving nature of the Internet. It would have beeneven impossible to think that one day, an Azerbaijani will be able to connect with afriend from Sri Lanka, keep each other updated, share news and stories in real timeand yet be miles apart. It is no longer a world of Web 1.0 when much of the onlinecontent was once created by a single person and required much information technology(IT) skills and programming knowledge. Today, the web is limitless and so are the indi-viduals who use it. The world wide web of today, also known as the Web 2.0 unlike its

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0 177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

predecessor in fact encourages participatory information sharing and is basically user-generated online platform for virtual communities. And this is what makes it uniquebut also dangerous.

Unfortunately, this world of new online communication and information generationcomes with its own set of perks. While it might work successfully in some cases, newmedia and social networks do not necessarily generate positive outcomes all the time.As result, it becomes crucial while analyzing certain cases of new media and social net-works that both success stories and failures must be evaluated in order to understandthis phenomenon better. While some would argue that new media and social networksallow their users to “humanize” one another, it could also be argued that they can justas successfully “de-humanize” and instill further pain, hatred and much more, givenits vast outreach capacity. Thus when looking at the case of Nagorno Karabakh it isobvious that by focusing on this occurrence only through positive and successful caseswill not work.

Similarly, dismissing new media altogether and its impact over current day politics andrhetoric evolving around the Nagorno Karabakh conflict would be just as wrong, whichbrings us to the aim of this particular chapter. When looking at mainstream media inAzerbaijan for instance, it is clear how it is used to perpetuate hatred. Not surprisingly,cases of inciting hatred also appear in the new media and social networks just as often.Fuelled by anger, there are many Facebook groups calling for war and brutality in caseof Armenia and Azerbaijan. In this particular comparison, what makes new mediadifferent from the state media however is the wide range of Facebook groups and blogs,which also include peace oriented pages, calling for reconciliation and understanding.

In pursuing this point, I am going to look at several distinct levels through which,new media and social networks do make a difference. These include inter-grouprelations, and collective action.8

Intergroup Relations

New media may reshape discussions and debates within and across groups in asociety, changing intergroup relationships and attitudes.9

I have already mentioned earlier on, the unprecedented impact new media has had onthe overall debate on Nagorno Karabakh in the virtual world and the important role ithas been playing in reshaping the relations between the Azerbaijani and Armeniancommunity. However, as it was also mentioned earlier, its impact has been bothnegative and positive.

It is true, that as a result of this new phenomenon, without waiting for the local govern-ment’s authorization, people could chat online via Skype despite closed borders and mostimportantly, they could show support, understanding and openness to the “other” side.Facebook became platform for friendships allowing its users to comment on each other’swalls, “like” posts and most importantly become friends.

However, just as it fosters openness and change in perceptions and attitudes, newmedia and social networks, have been used as tools to spread more propaganda andinstill even more hatred. By searching the word “Karabakh“ on Facebook for instance,one can find hundreds of pages and groups created only to perpetuate violence andhatred. Their members are in thousands10 and its mini information war with memberstaking sides, swearing at each other and humiliating each other are perfect examplesof this.

178 Arzu Geybullayeva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Outside of Facebook, blogs have too taken sides. When in November 2010, a Yerevan-based NGO, Caucasus Center for Peace-Making Initiatives, decided to organize anAzerbaijani Film Festival in Yerevan concerns and some negative reaction was expected.After all, this was a unique case—never before had Armenia hosted films fromAzerbaijan.However, reactions were more than just negative. An overview of some of the local blogsshowed perhaps the pinnacle of hatred towards the “other” side. In his article “SocialMedia for Social Lynching? Facebook as a platform for xenophobia following theannouncement of an Azerbaijani film festival in Yerevan”, Phil Gamaghelyan looks atsome of the most critical posts written by Armenian bloggers, on this occasion, such asone by a blogger by the name of “crazy-patriot”. In her post the author calls for brutaltreatment of the event organizer with the following words:

…grab him [the organizer of the festival] few times in the streets and break hisneck; keep him in a basement for few days hungry, he might come to his sense…get him, put into a trunk of a truck, take him to Karabakh and put him into a jailthere, let us see how many days he will survive… do this instead of ‘promoting’his work on Facebook and other sources…11

Gamaghelyan, who is the Co-Director of not-for-profit Imagine Center for ConflictTransformation and senior editor at online policy journal Caucasus Edition, Journal forConflict Transformation, works with young professionals from Armenia and Azerbaijanto foster dialogue and understanding. In his article he mentions his surprise havingseen the “the extent of the negative reaction and how fierce it [reaction] has been[towards the organizers]”.12 Indeed, the speed of how quickly negative comments andstatements spread was incredible. And it was not just the organizers of the event whowere labeled as “traitors” and threatened. Others too who supported the screening andthe organization of such an event were called traitors and other derogatory terms.Some were even threatened “to be burned alive with the organizers” or to be “black-listed”, etc.13

Personal attacks on individuals befriending someone from the “other” side arecommon too. Consequences of voicing a different opinion indicating alternative per-spective can sometimes be extraordinary. Two years ago, an Azerbaijani, RovshanNasirli was summoned to the Ministry of National Security to explain for whichreasons he voted for Armenia during the 2009 Eurovision song contest.14 As isknown to many in Europe and Eastern Europe, the Eurovision has come to representless in terms of musical talent and more a political game over recent years, eventhough some music legends like ABBA and Celine Dion have won this contest.Nasirli was among other 43 Azerbaijanis who voted that year for an Armenian duetof Inga and Anush. The Ministry wanted to know why he voted for an Armenianduo.15 Nasirli was let free after the questioning, however this step by the Ministryof National Security raised some eye-brows as to the role of the Ministry especiallyas no one from the Ministry commented later on this particular incident. The onlyexplanation made was that voting in the Eurovision song contest is a matter of nationalsecurity.16

Collective Action

The Facebook examples listed earlier also show how the new media “…may also affectthe potential for individuals and groups to organize, protest, or take other forms of col-lection action”.17 With the ability to communicate only online and express their per-

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0 179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

sonal discontent through such platforms as Facebook and other social networks, thiskind of correspondence becomes means of communication (in negative connotationof the word) and hindrance towards each other. In most cases, derogatory words andswearing become common terminology appearing in the majority of new mediaoutlets. And given that such behavior is welcomed and even more so promotedwithin both of the communities, tolerance towards each other even online becomescompletely unacceptable.

The Facebook groups dedicated to Ramil Safarov, lieutenant in the Azerbaijani Armywho was sent to a NATO Partnership for Peace program in 2004 and who murderedArmenian officer Gurgen Markaryan during the program are clear examples of such anattitude. Safarov was sentenced to life imprisonment in Hungary where he remains tothis day. “Ramil Seferov” 18 and “Free Ramil Safarov“19 are just two Facebook groupsout of many others full of hatred speech and messages stating that Ramil is the pride ofAzerbaijani nation and is its hero.

In 2008, an Azerbaijani pro-war NGO calling itself “Organization for Karabakh’sLiberation” labeled as “traitors” prominent human rights activist and Chair of theAzerbaijani Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Arzu Abdullayeva and other activists planninga visit to Nagorno Karabakh region and accused them of high treason and attempts tobenefit from joint business deals. As it was expected, that was not the first and the lastof such comments.

In February 2008, several other NGO representatives together with the Helsinki Citi-zens’ Assembly planned another visit to the occupied territories in the framework of“popular diplomacy”. However, the same “Organization for Karabakh Liberation”claimed that the visit was absolutely useless and served only to the interests of “Armenia’soccupational policy.” Clearly these examples and analysis illustrates the dysfunctionalrole new media serves when it comes to present-day evaluation of the Karabakh conflictand the nationalistic rhetoric surrounding it. However, other cases have shown the posi-tive side of the new media and social networks.

When New Media and Track Two Diplomacy Work

Over the last two to three years, online initiatives as Global Voices Online (GV)20 hasbeen one of the most active online publications covering the “use of new and socialmedia to overcome differences between Armenians and Azerbaijanis” mostly reportedby a photojournalist and a blogger of Armenian and English descent, Onnik Krikorian.His own project on the use of new and social media to encourage peace is called, “Over-coming negative stereotypes in the South Caucasus”.21 GV started a special “CaucasusConflict Voices”22 section that puts together reports from bloggers writing on peace inthe Caucasus. Working together with a community of more than 300 bloggers andfounded in 2005 by former CNN Beijing and Tokyo Bureau Chief Rebecca MacKinnonand technologist and African expert Ethan Zuckerhman,23 GV “is perhaps the most pro-minent example of peace-oriented new and social media”.24 Describing his own work,Krikorian believes that while

…borders might be closed blogs and social networking sites such as Facebook25

have crossed the cease-fire line. Now, not only can a new generation of youngArmenians and Azerbaijanis look into the lives of each other, but they canalso see that they aren’t too dissimilar after all.26

Adding that the

180 Arzu Geybullayeva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

…viral nature of the Internet as well as the social networking aspect of blogs andsites such as Facebook could set examples of Armenians and Azerbaijanishaving open, normal contact with each other.27

In fact, growingpopularity of such toolspushedmanyorganizersofmeetingsbetween the twosides to install new, social-media components into their trainings. These included ModelCaucasus Parliament (MCP),28 a project within the framework of the Caucasus Forum forSolidarity and Cooperation and funded by Eurasia Partnership Foundation. It aimed toset up a common platform for the emerging leaders in the region to come together anddevelop strategies/cooperation towards peace and positive change in the South Caucasus.There are other initiatives too. Founded by Philip Gamaghelyan, an Armenian, and

Jale Sultanli, an Azerbaijani, in 2007, the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation29

is an independent and non-political organization. The non-political nature of the organ-ization is a key considering the difficult complexity of Armenian–Azerbaijani relations.Since its foundation, the Center has been working on transforming negative perceptionsand attitudes by reaching out to the younger generation of Armenian and Azerbaijani pro-fessionals. By bringing together selected participants from the two countries, the ImagineCenter transforms negative attitudes, promotes cooperation, and last but not least,creates networks of individuals open to communication and committed to the overallpeace building process. Taking place once a year, the dialogue becomes an opportunityfor the participants to discuss the two communities’ histories, perceptions, and attitudes.Since 2007, the center organized a series of events, including its annual dialogue meet-

ings, trainings focusing on conflict resolution, as well as a conference on NagornoKarabakh at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Boston. Up until 2009, Inter-net and social media were not part of the program and in fact, all of the initiatives wereconducted behind the closed doors. During the follow-up, project-planning meeting inTbilisi, Georgia, with the program’s alumni, a series of existing obstacles to dialoguewere identified. Among these were “closed borders and absence of communication;information wars and active cultivation of negative images of the ‘other’ through edu-cation and media; wide-spread zero-sum vision of the conflict”,30 etc. As a result thegroup agreed, that social media can

…help to overcome the isolation of societies form each other caused by closedborders and the inevitable high costs of meetings in third countries. the socialnetworking sites and online communication platforms such as Skype couldallow regular on-going communication for the peacemakers; cross-border part-nerships could be formed and sustained with daily communication; online plat-forms could be created for critical voices and alternative ideas; and social mediatools can be used to create platforms for peacemakers to communicate, planjoint actions, and simply create an online community to impede isolation…31

The Imagine Center’s initiative uses a combination of reconciliation work, analytical dia-logue, and outdoor team-building activities. It would not be an exaggeration to add thatthis is perhaps one of the few initiatives that directly addresses the conflict and examinesthe two countries’ pasts. The challenge lies in getting the sides to understand each other’salmost diametrically opposed positions on the conflict. In one of the conflict resolutionexercises, participants are charged with reconstructing a chronological time-line of theconflict. This task offers participants a glimpse into the past and the state of thecurrent relations. It also creates space for the two sides to exchange facts and eventsthe other side might be unaware of.

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0 181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

Having discussed their differences, the two groups then proceed to analyze the present-day needs, concerns, and hopes of their respective societies. This triggers furtherdiscussion on the level of overall security and trust issues, which exist in both of the com-munities. The participants are asked to listen andmost importantly understand the differ-ences in their positions. In many cases, this session serves to highlight for participantsareas of both mutual concern and commonality.

The final part of the program involves joint project planning sessions during which par-ticipants brainstorm on possible initiatives that could be realized in their home countriesupon their return. One of the successful projects that emerged from the Imagine Dialogueis an online journal, Caucasus Edition: Journal of Conflict Transformation. This onlineplatform is a unique forum for analysts, political figures, scholars and others to readanalytical articles on the Karabakh conflict. Initiated by an Imagine 2009 participant,the Caucasus Edition came to life in April 2010 and, since then, has been a popularresource for those interested in the conflict, its history, and its current-day status.Updated once a month each issue features two analytical posts—one from Armeniaand one from Azerbaijan. Now and then, an article written by an international expertwould also be published on the website. Commenting and sharing is open, and in factencouraged. A year later a Russian version32 of the website was launched offering trans-lations of articles published earlier on the English version of the publication.

In November 2010, Imagine Center launched its second online platform, ‘NeutralZone: Blog of Caucasus Edition‘ a proposal put forward by Imagine 2010 participants.Unlike Caucasus Edition, Neutral Zone focuses more on social issues in both Armeniaand Azerbaijan. From corruption to health issues and domestic violence, Neutral Zonecontributors from Armenia and Azerbaijan focus on the similarities and differencesthat exist between both countries.

One of the initial entries on the Neutral Zone—a video interview33 prepared byAzerbaijani and Armenian participants of the program—focused on youth perceptionof each other. The interviewees from Armenia and Azerbaijan were asked to respondto the following three questions:

1. In your opinion what do the Azerbaijani/Armenian youth think of you?2. What do you know about Armenian/Azerbaijani music?3. What do you know about Azerbaijan/Armenian literature?34

The survey revealed an increasingly negative perception of each other and while thisshowed how in reality the two sides think of one another, it also pointed out to simi-larities—how little did the two sides know about each other’s music and literature andoverall culture. Perhaps, something to be worked on and improved as part of thesenew online and track two initiatives while Neutral Zone serving as a platform for this.

In the same month, Caucasus Edition launched a new section on its website—newsdigest35—an aggregate of news from Armenia and Azerbaijan, summarized and trans-lated into English. The digest is updated on bi-weekly basis.

Another joint project that came to life as a result of Imagine Dialogue was a book offiction co-authored by Armenian and Azerbaijani writers. The story is about the lifejourney of two people, an Armenian and an Azerbaijani, whose paths cross as a resultof inimitable circumstances. The book is currently available only in Russian.

In March 2010, American Councils36 and the US Embassies of all three countries ofthe South Caucasus (Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia) organized a three-day confer-ence for graduates of FLEX, a one-year exchange program to the USA. The meeting

182 Arzu Geybullayeva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

in Tbilisi, Georgia sought to develop and discuss future joint projects among alumni inAzerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia that would use new online tools.A month later, another conference took place in Tbilisi. The Caucasus saw its first

Social Innovation Camp (SICamp)37 run parallel to Social Media for Social Changeconference38 organized by Open Society Georgia Foundation (OSGF), the GeorgianInstitute of Public Affairs (GIPA), and other notable donors. The idea behindSICamp, which comes from the UK, centers around helping people find practicalsolutions through digital tools. Participants from all three countries were broughttogether in teams of six and more to develop, within two days, web-based projects/ideas. The winner was an Armenian environmental activist Mariam Sukhudyan withan innovative project titled, “Save the Trees”.Later in 2010, Eurasia Partnership Foundation brought together journalists, bloggers,

citizen journalists, e-journalists from Armenia and Azerbaijan in Tbilisi, to discuss newways to reporting on bilateral relations between the two countries and Nagorno Karabakhespecially in online media and blogosphere. Several new projects were proposed andcurrently are running online.39

Just like hatred-fuelled groups on Facebook, there are peace-oriented groups too. Andwhile they might attract fewer supporters in numbers their mere existence is already apositive sign. “Peaceful solution in Nagorno Karabakh“ [ENG] is an example of toler-ance and discussion staying away from the propaganda.In 2006, UK-based Conciliation Resources launched its own cross-border project

together with three partners: Internews Armenia, Internews Azerbaijan and StepanakertPress Club. Together with these tree organizations, Conciliation Resources gave a startto “Dialogue through film” project “a unique bridge-building project helping youngAzerbaijanis and Karabakh Armenians to make short films together”.40 All of the pro-duced films are currently available online.41

Conclusion

It is too early to argue that the new media, social networks and other track two diplomacyinitiatives have changed the discourse over Nagorno Karabakh or had if any substantialimpact on the negotiation process. However, it is not too early to point out to certain pro-gress made both in the world-wide-web realm and in real time, through various initiat-ives, workshops and projects, which in one way or another been playing individualroles and thus generating some impact on the overall reconciliation process by bringingthe two communities together torn apart by war 17 years ago.These initiatives are indicative of one fact, and that is, undoubtedly dialogue exists

between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In addition, while traditional ways of meeting stillpersist among civil society activists, new ways of communication are growing andinspiring the non-governmental sector to consider new social media tools.Judith Asuni, Executive Director of Academic Associates PeaceWorks (AAPW), a

Nigerian NGO focused on building capacity for the management of conflict, once said:

…social media is a great social equalizer as the discussions that can happenthrough social media can never happen anywhere else…42

When placing this statement in the context of Armenia and Azerbaijan and much of whatwas discussed throughout this paper, it is possible to agree on this, especially as newmedia and social networks serve both as “humanizer” and the “de-humanizer” of theother. While I am not suggesting that these initiatives are the lost key to the world of

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0 183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

peace and reconciliation, their impact and overall influence should not be dismissed alltogether. What is certain so far is that there are already outcomes of these movementsin both Armenia and Azerbaijan that have generated a new group of thinkers, analysts,professionals, journalists, bloggers and scholars who look at the conflict through a differ-ent prism. And while they will continue being under pressure by their peers or the auth-orities, their long-term impact and input into track two diplomacy initiatives is no doubtalready visible.

NOTES

1. Thomas DeWaal, “TheNagorny-Karabakh Conflict: Origins, Dynamics andMisperceptions”, 2005,available online at: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/nagorny-karabakh/origins-dynamics-misperceptions.php

2. Nagorno Karabakh is an internationally recognized province of Azerbaijan.3. Despite signing of the ceasefire, violations occur on daily basis. Reports appear in local media each

time the ceasefire is violated. “Armenia’s military force fired over Azerbaijani positions” [RUS], 11August 2011, available online at: Trend.az, http://ru.trend.az/news/karabakh/1916852.html; “Azer-baijani army officer died as a result of ceasefire violation by the Armenian military force” [RUS],30 July 2011, available online at: Trend.az, http://www.ru.trend.az/news/karabakh/1912266.html

4. The following links are from the most recent articles, which show the extent of negative state mediarhetoric. “Azerbaijani community of Nagorno Karabakh accused Armenian authorities of introducingterror policies” [RUS], 30 July 2011, available online at: Day.az, http://www.news.day.az/politics/281150.html

5. “Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs called Sargysan’s statements immoral” [RUS], 28 July 2011,available online at: Day.az, http://news.day.az/politics/280836.html; “President Ilham Aliyev: ‘Azer-baijan will restore its sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh either by military or peaceful means’”[RUS], 28 July 2011, available online at: Day.az, http://www.news.day.az/politics/280633.html

6. “Karabakh conflict is time bomb”, 17 June 2011, International Crisis Group, available online at: http://www.historyoftruth.com/news/latest/9593-karabakh-conflict-is-time-bomb-international-crisis-group

7. A. Paul, “Nagorno-Karabakh—a ticking time bomb”, September 2010, available online at: http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_1148_nagorno-karabakh.pdf

8. S. Aday, H. Farrell, M. Lynch, J. Sides, J. Kelly, and E. Zuckerman, “Blogs and Bullets: New Mediain Contentious Politics”, US Institute of Peace, August 2010, p. 11.

9. Ibid. p. 12.10. See, “Nagorni Karabakh is the territory of Azerbaijan” [AZ]; “Karabakh- the original Azerbaijani

region“ [AZ]; “Karabakh is ours” [ARM]; “Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan” [AZ].11. P. Gamaghelyan, “Social media for social lynching? Facebook as a platform for xenophobia following

the announcement of an Azerbaijani film festival in Yerevan”, 1 November 2010, available online at:http://caucasusedition.net/news-digest/blog/social-media-for-social-lynching-facebook-as-a-platform-for-xenophobia-following-the-announcement-of-an-azerbaijani-film-festival-in-yerevan/

12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. Kicked off originally in 1956, the Eurovision song contest is an annual music competition held among

members of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). After each country performs their song, votesare given to choose the winner.

15. “Azerbaijani authorities interrogate music fan over Eurovision vote for Armenia” [ENG], 14 August2009, Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, available online at: http://www.rferl.org/content/feature/1800013.html

16. “Eurovision turns spotlight on Azerbaijan”, 18 May 2011, BBC, available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13431093

17. Aday et al., “Blogs and Bullets”, op. cit., p. 12.18. Facebook page dedicated to Ramil Seferov, number of those who liked the page: 34,480 (as of 19th

December 2011), available online at: http://www.facebook.com/ramilsafarov.info19. Translated by the author. The original page is in Azerbaijani.20. Central Asia and the Caucasus, available online at: http://globalvoicesonline.org/-/world/central-asia-

caucasus/

184 Arzu Geybullayeva

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013

21. Available online at: http://www.oneworld.am/diversity/22. Caucasus Conflict Voices, available online at: http://globalvoicesonline.org/specialcoverage/caucasus-

conflict-voices/23. Available online at: http://globalvoicesonline.org/about/24. E. Crane, “Bridging the Void: Social Media’s Potential to Transform Intergroup Relations in

Fractured Societies”, The Fletcher School, 9 March 2011, pp. 21–22.25. To read the full series of three diary entries for BBC Azeri service here, available online at: http://blog.

oneworld.am/2010/03/30/armenia-azerbaijan-bbc-azeri-facebook-diary/26. O. Krikorian, “Communication is possible: Armenian and Azerbaijani dialogue with the aid of

social media”, 24 June 2010, available online at: http://araratmagazine.org/2010/06/armenian-azeri-dialogue-social-media/

27. Ibid.28. Available online at: http://www.caucasusforum.com/index.php/Table/Model-Caucasus-Parliament/29. Available online at: http://www.imaginedialogue.com/30. P. Gamaghelyan, “Social media: A new track of multi-track diplomacy, Caucasus Edition: Journal for

Conflict Transformation”, 1 July 2011, available online at: http://caucasusedition.net/analysis/social-media-a-new-track-of-multi-track-diplomacy/

31. Ibid.32. Available online at: http://caucasusedition.net/ru/33. Video survey: what do you think Azerbaijani/Armenian youth things of you? Available online at: http://

www.caucasuseditionblog.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/207/34. Ibid.35. Digest of Azerbaijani/Armenian media, available online at: http://caucasusedition.net/category/news-

digest/36. Available online at: http://www.americancouncils.org/news/a3/South_Caucasus_FLEXAbility_

Workshop_2010/37. Social Innovation Camp 2010, available online at: http://sic-caucasus.net/38. PH International, available online at: https://sites.google.com/a/ph-int.org/socialmedia2010/39. Available online at: http://www.imagineneturalzone.com40. “Dialogue Through Film Project description”, available online at: http://www.c-r.org/our-work/

caucasus/dialogue_through_film.php41. “Dialogue Through Film Videos”, available online at: http://www.vimeo.com/channels/dtf42. For details on the NGO please visit the home page: http://www.peacebuildingportal.org/index.asp?

pgid=9&org=2354

Nagorno Karabakh 2.0 185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

RM

IT U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

11 0

5 O

ctob

er 2

013