Skype in Conflict Zones: An example from the Caucasus

In a situation where Armenia and Azerbaijan are meant to be negotiating to end the conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh, civil society should be very active. However, it doesn't appear as though it is, and not least because few people actually believe that a breakthrough is possible, especially when cross-border activities are far simpler to conduct in the area of Armenia-Turkey relations. Indeed, and to be quite frank, it is difficult to consider that much is going on at all. Meanwhile, the situation isn't helped by the fact that few Azerbaijani civil society activists visit Armenia, and even fewer Armenians visit Azerbaijan. In short, an environment conducive to peace or conflict resolution doesn't seem to exist.

 

Last year, for example, at a Conciliation Resources round-table on Nagorno Karabakh held in Yerevan, the Armenian capital, two Azerbaijanis were meant to attend in order to deliver papers written on the conflict. However, because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had reportedly cancelled an informal and unwritten agreement not to mark their passports with an exit stamp upon departure from Armenia, they didn't. Having such an exit stamp in a passport can create unnecessary problems entering into Azerbaijan, and especially if you're a local activist. Rather than welcome exchanges between civil society activists, it would appear that the authorities in Yerevan, and particularly in Baku, seem more interested in preventing them instead. 

 

It should also be pointed out that while it is possible to telephone Azerbaijan from Armenia, even if it is likely to be monitored, it is impossible to ring Armenia from Azerbaijan. 

 

However, as I mentioned to the British Ambassador at the time, rather than have no Azerbaijani view point represented as a result, online tools could have offered a solution. In particular, and as the event was held in a luxury downtown hotel in Yerevan with a fast Internet connection, I suggested Skype, a free application for audio and video communication which I've been using for over two years to communicate with friends and associates in Azerbaijan. It would have been perfect for such a situation and very easy to incorporate at very short notice. Indeed, as Armenians rarely if ever hear the opinion of Azerbaijanis, and the same is true vice-versa, it's also something I've tried to set as a precedent using Skype for online interviews uploaded as audio podcasts in my own work.

 

So, when the British Ambassador in Armenia told me earlier this month that one of the projects the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Conflict Pool was funding was a series of video conferences between Armenian and Azerbaijani youth at the Civil Society Institute in Yerevan, it was naturally of interest. Even more so, perhaps, because unlike many other similar initiatives, the project would not only involve Armenians in Armenia and Azerbaijanis in Azerbaijan, but also ethnic Armenian youth in the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Even if there are a few projects involving Armenians and Azerbaijanis, even those in third countries such as Georgia rarely involve anyone from Karabakh.

 

Obviously, as the root cause of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is actually the disputed territory itself, this seems an obvious oversight, although it has to be said that for many NGOs the sensitivities and emotions involved are too great. Incidentally, the same could be said for the lack of involvement of Azerbaijanis from Nagorno Karabakh as well, although it is the opinion of the territory's mainly Armenian population that is the main issue at the heart of the conflict. Regardless, the rare participation of all three groups in this case was very positive indeed. Of more interest to me, however, was what tools would they be using for the online cross-border meetup? 

 

Not surprisingly, it was Skype. It's not the only tool that could have been used, of course, but it is the most obvious and widely accessible. 

 

 

Anyway, after two days of training with representatives of PeaceJam, an international foundation which aims to "create future young leaders committed to positive change through the inspiration of Nobel Peace Laureates," the video conference was held, albeit with some minor technical problems such as one group having an older, non-compatible version of Skype which couldn't handle a three-way video chat. However, the issue was quickly resolved when the group in Baku upgraded to Skype 5.0, but the main point remained. Even free tools can revolutionize cross-border communication in conflict situations. Even now, considerable amounts of money are instead being spent for occasional meetings in person in neighboring Georgia.

 

That's important too, of course, but what happens when such meeting can't occur, or when participants return to their home countries and are unable to communicate until the next such meeting one, two, or even many more years later? Even for individuals, tools such as Skype and Facebook offer a solution.

 

Incidentally, talking of the use of new and social media in this area, one of the trainers was Larenda Twigg, PhD candidate at the University of Bradford's Department of Peace Studies focusing on indigenous movements and ICTs, and PeaceJam's U.K. Student Coordinator. Interestingly, I didn't have to introduce myself when I approached her at the end. She had already identified me as the Caucasus Editor of Global Voices and said that she had been following my own work in the area of cross-border communication, cooperation ... between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Always nice when that happens and an interesting chat re. the use of online tools, and some of the risks and obstacles which need to be overcome, followed.

 

One specific issue we spoke about was the need to take a holistic approach in using these new tools while also analyzing their effectiveness and ways in which projects can be improved. This project could greatly benefit from a social networking component, for example, especially for outreach. Indeed, perhaps this was the biggest disappointment about the exercise. Although I don't know if other events I admittedly wasn't present at had more participants, this one wasn't well attended. Indeed, were it not for the British Ambassador telling me about it, I wouldn't have known. There was nothing on Facebook, for example, and all outreach seemed to be only via an announcement made on their own site which I assume few access.

 

Obviously, in order for such a project to succeed and have a greater impact, more people need to be targeted and involved, especially those out of the immediate and sometimes narrow orbit of NGOs in both Armenia and Azerbaijan who arguably make up the majority of the population. However, as the project is ongoing, if anyone in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh is reading this, you can still contact the relevant coordinators in either Yerevan (Monica Hovhannisyan at monika@csi.am), Baku (Avaz Hasanov at avazyh@yahoo.com), or Stepanakert (Irina Grigoryan at rc_step@yahoo.com) to get involved. There's also more information about the project online here.

 

 

For more coverage of the use of new and social media in conflict resolution and transformation in the South Caucasus, see our special coverage on Global Voices. Photos © Onnik Krikorian 2010

Views: 320

Tags: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Communication, Nagorno Karabakh, Skype, Social Media

Comment

You need to be a member of Peace and Collaborative Development Network to add comments!

Join Peace and Collaborative Development Network

Comment by Onnik Krikorian on February 8, 2011 at 7:49pm
Hi Bjoern, yes, thanks for your comments and all taken note of. Also, I do plan to write a more detailed analysis once the projects are complete. For example, there's another blogging project between Armenia and Azerbaijan funded here for $266,000 which strikes me as a staggering amount of money given the whole point of new and social media being to reduce costs in cross-border initiatives and so on. Anyway, likely to be coming in late Spring once the results of the projects can be analyzed.
Comment by Bjoern Kunter on February 7, 2011 at 1:36pm

hm, I am sorry to hear that you made such bad experiences within the project. It would be interesting to hear a more profound analysis. It seems to me you mention two points very often named by local active people. First the failure of local NGOs to have an outreach beyond the limited scope of their NGO-networks. This is at the very core of the criticism on NGOs / NGOism and unfortunately very wide spread especcially in areas where NGOs have no local funding and are not rooted in grassroot movements. I think modern tools might help a little here as they make it easier for the NGOs to link to more people, but the problem is more deeply rooted.

 

Concerning the astounding costs of the project I find it very hard to judge it from abroad. I imagine that such a project including 3 countries, running over several months and including a meeting with Peace price laureates at a conference in Bradford can easily cost a huge amount. Also while running actions in the Caucasus may be quite cheap, running an office in the UK and keeping good staff is not. Maybe you should ask the organizers to explain the total budget to you...

The good news is that you can do it better! Because you don't need the office in the UK, the international trainers etc. You won't even need any spoiled NGOs, who might find it more ineresting to realize an expensive project than create real change, as (by first expression of your website & twitter account) you are well enough connected to find the core participants for a similar-but-better project yourself. The bad news is that its often harder for a local initiative to find $2,000, than for other organisations to get $200,000...

This said I want to clarify that I have no insight in any organizations involved and base my assumptions purely on observations from other projects and NGOs (including some in the Caucasus area).  

Comment by Onnik Krikorian on February 5, 2011 at 5:45pm
Well, I have to now say that while the idea is great -- the use of free widely available tools for cross-border communication -- the implementation was not. In addition to not using social media properly to cast the net wider than small personal networks around the NGO in question, the cost of such a project is astounding and totally unwarranted -- over $200,000. To be honest, that's totally outrageous and defeats the point about such tools opening up such opportunities to everyone at little or no cost.
Comment by Onnik Krikorian on January 5, 2011 at 4:57am
BTW: The British Ambassador to Armenia, Charles Lonsdale, has written a blog entry on the general PeaceJam activity here:

http://blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/lonsdale/entry/peacejam_in_yerevan
Comment by Kate Cumbo, Ph.D. on January 3, 2011 at 5:20pm

And they can get to work on some of  the issues that they have in common - some joint service projects, collaboration, etc.

 

p.s., I loved my visit to Armenia and hope to go back next year.

Comment by Onnik Krikorian on January 3, 2011 at 2:22pm

Hi Kate, indeed, and nice to find you online here. 

 

BTW: Re. your mention of visiting, yes, I think this is a huge obstacle to peace building efforts. Of course, Skype and other mediums are great tools to finding alternatives, but I can't wait for for the day when Armenians can visit Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis can visit Armenia. 

Comment by Kate Cumbo, Ph.D. on January 3, 2011 at 2:15pm

Hello Onnik

Thank you for posting about the struggles to communicate across this border. PeaceJam is here to support any efforts to continue this work!  The youth and adults who participated in these cross-border dialogues and in the PeaceJam activities really saw the value of working together on issues such as environment/pollution as a way to build relationships and trust with hopes that this will lay the foundation for working on more difficult issues such as Karabach-- but even this cannot happen if they cannot talk, visit, collaborate!

Comment by Onnik Krikorian on January 3, 2011 at 11:37am
Yes, very good point about Skype, Bjoern. Skype is secure and probably has a role to play in domestic activism purposes too. Connection speeds aren't so good here, but having a better experience with video calls in the past few months.
Comment by Bjoern Kunter on January 3, 2011 at 11:28am

very interesting.Thank you for posting this.

 

Actually I couldn't imagine working on international projects without skype anymore, although mainly because of its good encryption of chat, talks and file transfers... Unfortunately all the times we tried video-conferencing we ran into serious problems with the internet connection...

 

 

Comment by Yogesh Pagar on December 31, 2010 at 1:34pm

Excellent read, Onnik.

I never really read or heard or updated myself with Azerbaijan/ Armenia's troubled zone nor tried to learn more on the bone of contention etc..

Your article did enrich me with valid information, ground reality and also progress on the ground. Your various articles pertaining to the region convey that efforts are on and world would see a miraculous transition in the respective societies in the near future.

 

Thank you with best of wishes for 2011.

Yogesh Pagar

Sponsored Link

Please Pay What You Can to Support PCDN

Please consider Paying What You Can to help PCDN grow. We encourage you to consider any amount from $1 and up. Read the SUPPORT page prior to making a payment to see PCDN's impact and how your payment will help.

Sponsored Link

Translate This Page



PCDN NETWORK TWITTER FEED

PCDN Guidelines and Share Pages

By using this site you're agreeing to the terms of use as outlined in the community guidelines (in particular PCDN is an open network indexed by Google and users should review the privacy options). Please note individual requests for funding or jobs are NOT permitted on the network.

Click BELOW to share site resources Bookmark and Share
or Share on LINKEDIN


FOLLOW PCDN on TWITTER, FACEBOOK or GOOGLE+

Google+

 

© 2014   Created by Craig Zelizer.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service