They Took the Adversary’s Mentality without an Attack and Coercion: Armine Ghazarian
Interview with Armine Ghazarian, expert at the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), psychologist.
Mrs. Ghazarian recently publications were found in Russian media outlets, that on Karabakh conflict zone Russian peacekeeping mission should be deployed. Moreover, it’s being touched upon that RF Defense Minister negotiates with Azerbaijani and Armenian sides on that very issue. Is this possible? What influence will it have? To which extent is the Armenian community ready, in particular, against the background of discontent from the military base in Gyumri?
As a leading power, in its publications on the level of its various figures—responsible or not, Russia sends messages not only to Armenia, but to states around this conflict and even those out of the conflict. Although it’s another question what the message contains, what it means, what tendency is observed in the message. I don’t know how precise or possible deploying a peacekeeping mission is or to which extent those talks are directly tended to touch upon bilateral or multilateral layers, maybe political scientists will know.
“Pure” information is more unreachable, those who possess are single, and where there is the veil of confidentiality, people’s imagination is more active, and naturally, conclusions can’t be possibly objective. Any circulated idea linked to Artsakhi issue isn’t obligatorily what should be implemented for the moment. Thus, ideas invested for winning in the “peaceful war” i.e. psychological war have their big role: if repeated the intolerable idea is being broken among the people, the public, its impossibility is becoming usual. In case of becoming usual if people’s consciousness “realizes” the logic, realism is existent, however, on the level of emotions it’s stupefied, and even realizing, they get along with that idea, if at that moment they have other primary issue, which is a priority.
Our people have the issue of that primary, priority issue, it’s satisfying its vital conditions with difficulty. Thus, the authorities took care for keeping the people, the public far from “passionate” attitude towards many issues. I don’t asses its being good or bad. For external diplomatic relations, however, there are private talks, whether private or open, today the authorities have complete distrust of the society in their actions. The higher legal awareness of a citizen and people is, the more afraid the demons under the veil will be, and when they strive to the level that we reached, e.g. to hailstorm, that they stirred anger of any God, it’s the outlook of average and low-level governors, and seemingly, they attempt to behave the same way with the citizen. Thus, for the time being the issue of both peacekeepers and participation of Artsakh in negotiations are hardly touchable and don’t generate resonance by a wider community.
Politicians of Armenia and Artskh frequently use “concessions” or “mutual concessions.” Is it proper using those expressions in negotiations? Aren’t they psychologically directed to raising prepossessions among the society?
Politicians of Armenia and Artsakh in their speeches are rather careless. Even excluding that they’re deliberately speculating the word to raise prepossessions or tolerance, it’s the same, the phenomenon is existent, and it’s not good, as it’s language thinking. Concessions, mutual concessions, Armenians and Karabakhi people, Karabakh instead of Artsakh—these are nuances, which are worth paying attention to, and in fact, let me repeat: they are crucial elements of psychological war. It’s when without an attack and coercion, you have taken your adversary’s mentality.
Special attention should be attached even from school, as it’s not past history, but is still continuous, and we are creating it. And our attitude has importance for the result and not only an armed fighting. When it’s not ideologically installed in human brain, that it’s your land, then its mobilization, approach, defense are different. The word has history, the word has great information volume and by pressing it, whether deliberately or not, you receive some quality. If politicians are using this or that term in the context of state of affairs of political arrangements, unfortunately, it can’t be confusion, it has been developed under internal imagination or under any impact.
However, moral-psychological readiness and fighting spirit of the soldier, taking part in the April war, was the idea of not conceding “ours,” that’s why they didn’t concede any position by virtue of their lives. It’s very influential today among the society, for the people. Seemingly, such “mass” talks on conceding territories haven’t been previously touched upon. Currently they’re contrasted to politicians’ puns, even if they’re meant for the outer audience, by being repeated in time, they’ll have their influence in the front.
On account of anti-Armenian propaganda among the Azerbaijani society, implanted hatred against Armenians, when will it be possible to essentially initiate negotiation process?
Azerbaijan is a country defeated by Armenia, globally: their image of the enemy is the Armenian, over-centralization on the image of the enemy is a particle of their socialization. Thus, the Armenian seemingly has become a nightmare to them, a sticking point. They do it so radically, even in school manuals, which is not a sane approach. I don’t realize real negotiations between these two countries well, as Azerbaijan has a range of reasons to repeatedly violate the agreements and arrangements:
1.The very image of Armenian’s enemy,
2․In their imagination Armenia’s both positions and economic condition will never be sufficient, which will always attract them to stay “restless,”
3.It’s a country with large opportunities to withdraw from seduction of not having the territory, which it considers as its own, even if it doesn’t consider so, as well as putting an end to the Armenian,
4․If the Aliyev dynasty has continuous tendency Artsakhi issue and hostility with Armenia is an appropriate target for the potential of internal political discontent, like in Armenia they’re reasoned for not establishing sharp situations. In this regard they are “brother-authorities.”
In my opinion, judging on the whole situation and peculiarities around Azerbaijan and the conflict, we have almost ¼ century and normal negotiation process and trust around them isn’t observed. Azerbaijan will repeatedly complain and want, thus, demand, as it was means for war, it’ll speak with a hanging sword. No concession variant can satisfy it, even, supposedly, by taking the regions, it’ll pretend for progress, up to Armenia’s capital.
I believe all these are very clear, they should be observed. Azerbaijan isn’t a trusted negotiating party and not a single issue of mutual concession is proper to cover here, i.e. we realize that it doesn’t have the principal issue of exactly 5 or more territories, the Armenian, destroying the Armenian has become principal for it. Look to the hatred, when at the Olympics Azerbaijani athlete is defeated by the Armenian, they speak of lynching their champion. Here the model is important. And in their socialization they include that model and make it a discipline and a cliché.
By the way, upon the nation’s character, temperament, it may be anticipated whether this or that idea may or mayn’t be invested in people living in that period regarding success. According to sociologists and psychologists studying the psychology of nations, and ideology to record success should correspond to nation’s nature. I can’t imagine, for instance, any Armenian to cut head of a person in a third country for his/her national belonging, and the society accepted it as correct and heroic. Our society will reject that type of a hero. As much Azerbaijani population is back and manipulated, restricted in values and with the image of propagated enemy, the more unreliable negotiation partner it is for us, as a neighboring country, and the possibility for mutual relations will be postponed.
The issue of a new war is being repeatedly raised on different levels. How does this impact on negotiations and our society?
After any concrete shake, migration from Armenia increases—elections, then rebellion, political prosecution, wounded dignity, economic repressions against average householders in favor of monopolists, and more migration. However, we had a four-day war in April, when they were “immigrating” for war. It’s a paradox, isn’t it? They’re not afraid of losing lives, they are afraid of injustice and appearing in indignity. It turns out, internal enemy is more powerful, and this is another topic.
It’s not a secret that mobilization of the people, the society is the most powerful against the external enemy, and the April war showed that not only the spirit is in its proper place inside the country, but as it’s accepted to say, besides “bothering from a comfortable place,” those present physically could be found. If the April war was unexpected, then ongoing discussions on war at least keep people alert. As for its influence on negotiations, I consider, as much we’re ready and show our readiness both by armaments and psychologically, that much the possibility of war will fade.
By Gayane Khachatryan
