THE SPIRIT OF EURONEWS
news.az
Dec 2 2009
Azerbaijan
Elnur Aslanov An article by Elnur Aslanov, head of the political
analysis and information department at Azerbaijan’s presidential
administration.
The year 2009 is coming to an end. When we analyse the past year,
marked by global financial uncertainty, it becomes clear that
everything around us is changing at a disastrously high speed.
Before we have had chance to get fully accustomed to e-mail and
blog culture, we are forming new spaces and chat with each other via
social networks. 4G is replacing 3G, innovations are transforming our
perception of realities every day, television becomes 3D, we are not
satisfied with cell phones as receivers. The Internet has become an
integral part of our lives and we cannot imagine ourselves beyond the
virtual area. This influences our consciousness, the appearance of new
behavioural norms and stereotypes, our everyday life and relations
with the surrounding world. We find it easier to communicate in the
virtual space but are losing a sense of closeness in the real world.
Yet not only attitudes are changing. As was to be expected, the
attitude to the system of international relations is changing too.
Relations between the subjects of international law, states and
other structures are becoming different. It is quite obvious that
international relations have never been known for their high moral
definitions and have always been in line with Lord Palmerston’s
quotation about friends and interests. But today they are becoming
even more cynical.
Naturally, this affects the behaviour of anyone who gets information
from the media. Today, by pre-empting the policy of the superpowers,
the media define their agenda. Strange as it may seem, at a time
when mankind is experiencing one of the most peaceful periods of
coexistence, with the lowest number of wars and conflicts on Earth
in the past 50-100 years, it is the media that are escalating new
confrontations and conflicts.
One might ask: who is not interested in peace in the South Caucasus?
Who does not want to see justice and peace between Azerbaijan and
Armenia? Who wants to see the tears of mothers who have lost their
sons on both sides of the front?
Elnur AslanovIf we say that the media are a system for the transmission
and analysis of information, the question may arise – whose interests
does this information serve? Independent, unbiased and objective
information today has become as rare as vegetation in the Sahara. It is
hard to find an international information agency that mostly publishes
unbiased information about a region or country. At the same time,
the position of one party, mostly subjective, is presented as the
right one. This meets the interests of lobby groups and different
political power centres.
No more than a year ago I had to work hard to get an article about the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict published on Radio Liberty’s website in
response to a number of articles by Armenian representatives. Almost
a week after the article was published, the website posted an article
by the so-called "representative of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic
in the United States" without the cuts to which my article had been
subjected. Radio Liberty was not interested in publishing a response
from the Azerbaijani side.
Of course, we must not forget Machiavelli’s principle that the end
justifies the means and the most powerful means in the 21st century
are the mass media.
The media have become a mouthpiece to intensify conflicts, muddy
global issues and escalate violence. Ideas that cause controversy and
sow enmity are expressed in the media. Every day we face one-sided
information on TV channels that forget to present the positions
of the opposite sides. Fabricated stunts on different issues are
organized under the banner of democracy. The rights and protection
of the freedom of the media have become big business for a number of
international non-governmental and even governmental organizations
that receive large funds for different projects and initiatives.
Anyone can find a problem at any time or make one up.
The stronger and more independent the state, the harsher the dispute
with it. If in its foreign policy a state prefers national interests
to the mercantile interests of international officials bound to the
political interests of centres of power, it is easy to find a pretext
to accuse it or smear it. All that is required is the desire and the
mass media at one’s disposal.
The 21st century has become a centre of dependent press, reminiscent
of the "cold war" when we were divided by an iron curtain. What is
dividing us now? Nothing. But has anything changed? No, nothing.
The dependence of the press on external interests and the total absence
of objectivity is becoming a decisive factor in the information
age. One example is a film on the Karabakh conflict shown by
Euronews TV channel several days ago. It is not that it was Armenia
that occupied Azerbaijani land, though the film featured different
things. It is not even that the film did not present Azerbaijan’s
position and that such an influential channel as Euronews should
preserve parity in its reporting. What is most embarrassing is
that this has happened at a time of negotiations between presidents,
statements of the OSCE Minsk Group mediators, the active participation
of the leaders of the superpowers, in short at a time of opportunity
for change and for a breakthrough in the region for the sake of
security and stability. One might ask: who is not interested in
peace in the South Caucasus? Who does not want to see justice and
peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia? Who wants to see the tears of
mothers who have lost their sons on both sides of the front?
Just a week before the material was broadcast on Euronews, the Armenian
diaspora in the USA raised more than 15 million dollars in donations
for the restoration of Shusha. I do not think it is necessary to ask
how the money collected by the diaspora is spent, or how Euronews
earns its money. But information presented by such an influential
TV channel should be impartial and contain at least a minimum of
facts. I do not rule out the possibility that the journalist might
have acted on personal interests in preparing the material, but why
did the channel leadership allow this material on air?
Today it is obvious that the domestic political and economic situation
in Armenia is tough and Armenia is seeking to preserve the status quo
in the region. It does not want peace in the region. A war, even in
conditions of reconciliation, always implies big money that can be
spent not only on armaments but also on underpinning the political
future of the regime. The Armenian leadership understands this and
acts against the interests of the Armenian public, which is looking
forward to the restoration of peace and stability in the region.
Unfortunately, the heads of media such as Euronews also find it
difficult to understand this truth and they prefer mercantile interests
to possible positive transformations in the South Caucasus.
Clearly the spirits of ideas of the Arthashastra is still alive for
some Western media, and especially Euronews: "If you have a peaceful
neighbour, attack him, even without good reason, but if your neighbour
is tough and aggresive, then sweettalk him."