`Forum` TV program of the Russian RBK TV channel: ...at the limit

Drawing attention of the world's political circles to the fact of Ramil Safarov's extradition and pardon is understandable. There is also nothing extraordinary in debriefing on the analysis of mass media, along with the views from political scientists and commentators. But whatever happens, we hold the right to demand an objective and fair assessment of the event.

Forum TV program at the Russian RBK TV channel is known for interesting analysis and comments. One might expect that the Forum would remain committed to its traditions of objectivity and justice in the analytical program dedicated to Ramil Safarov. We have witnessed an entirely different case unfortunately. This seems to be quite thought-provoking in terms of Azerbaijan-Russia partnership which is dynamically developing and holds a positive value.

On September 5, one of the broadcasts of the Forum featured an analytical program named "South Caucasus: ... At Its Limits" presented by Igor Vittal. The invitees were the coordinator of the research team on Caucasus of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Mr. Alexander Skakov and the head of the Caucasian department at the Institute of CIS Countries, Mr. Felix Stanevski. We would like to dwell on a few cases contradicting the principles of objectivity and justice that manifests itself in the program.

An anchorman and the program’s guests presented Azerbaijan-Russia relations in the limited and distorted shape. They attempted to assess the relations between the two countries solely within the framework of economic interests. The facts however exhibit a completely different picture.

Azerbaijan is the only country that maintains and even develops dominance of the Russian language and culture in the South Caucasus. Unlike Georgia and Armenia with no Russian schools at all, there are dozens of state secondary schools providing education in Russian language in Azerbaijan.

Not to mention a number of Russian-language kindergartens where Azerbaijanis outnumber the others in all of them. Hundreds of students in graduate schools study in Russian language. There is a branch of the university named after M. Lomonosov in Baku. The state pays great attention to strengthening its educational and scientific activities.

There is a Russian Book House in the capital of Azerbaijan. More than 90% of the books in all the book stores are available in Russian. Russian Drama Theatre actively functions in the country. One may often encounter Russian speech in the streets. The central part of the capital maintains what is called the Soviet-era’s "Russian mentality". Azerbaijanis are proud of this richness.

There is enough information about the extent to which the listed features retain in Georgia and Armenia. The Russian media reported information about serious complaints against the idea to open Russian school in Yerevan.

The statistics on how many Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Armenia is easily accessible. The Russian media provided sufficient information on the status of the Russian language and culture in Georgia. These comparisons show that Azerbaijan does not necessarily consider economic factor as a basis for its relations with Russia. Cooperation in the humanitarian field between the two countries is exemplary in the South Caucasus.

One should note that these relations are developed on the principles indicated in the strategy set out by the humanitarian policy of the CIS by the former President of Russia, Mr. Dmitry Medvedev. A question rises then: when the real situation is such as described, why does "RBK" overemphasizes Russia's economic interests in Azerbaijan, and spreads the unfair and biased views about Ramil Safarov?

The invitees responded to this question indirectly with their shallow considerations. The program’s prejudice is outlined by the second point. A. Skakov and F. Stanevski never touched upon the legal aspect of Ramil Safarov’s extradition to Azerbaijan. In fact, this process took place in full and precise compliance with international law practices. Ramil Safarov's extradition, then his pardon was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of Azerbaijan and other legislative acts of the country, as well as international commitments.

It would be helpful for I. Vittal, A. Skakov and F. Stanevski to go through the Council of Europe's Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (The 1983 Convention), in particular the provisions of article 12, which provides that "Each Party may grant pardon, amnesty or commutation of the sentence in accordance with its Constitution or other laws". They would not then put such an unsubstantiated question as "who did influence R. Safarov’s extradition to Azerbaijan" in a serious analytical TV program as Forum.

The answer provided by guests to this question exposes the intention between the lines. Both invitees express a nonsense idea that the United States - Turkey alliance supposedly forced Hungary to hold the extradition. The main purpose here is not the truth, but expression of geopolitical objectives that correspond to the interests of some Russian circles. An ordinary case of extradition was an attempt to escalate the relations of large geopolitical powers such as the West and Russia.

It showed itself more clearly in the expression of controversial ideas about Turkey-Armenia relations. In this regard A. Skakov and F. Stanevski claimed that the establishment of relations between Turkey and Armenia will cause tension in the region.

While discussing Russia's interests, they underlined that opening of the Turkey-Armenia borders will create a larger market area. In other words, they are not interested in the problems of the region, but rather in the ways to ensure Russia’s interests according to their reasoning. With that logic in mind it is impossible to fairly solve any problem in the region and recognize the truth about Ramil Safarov.

Complete lack of focus on the legal basis of the pardon given to Ramil Safarov was yet another point. According to the laws of Azerbaijan, a penalty of anyone sentenced to life imprisonment may be changed by the President. In this case, the penalty period can be up to 25 years. That is to say, that for the second time one cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for more than 25 years. Ramil Safarov remained in jail for 8 years, hence the President had the right to pardon him. Since the condition to serve less than 25 years in accordance with the law was fully met (8 years are less than 25 years).

Igor Vittal’s biased attitude towards Azerbaijanis was felt indeed. He was trying to get answers which would exactly meet his intention. For instance, he was persistently asking Dmitry Abzalov (featured as an expert), who joined the TV program through video conference, on who was interested in creating tension in the South Caucasus.

Once Dmitry Abzalov mentioned Turkey and the United States, Igor Vittal left him alone as he was satisfied with the answer and proceeded to the analysis of an expert’s objective assessment together with A. Skakov and F. Stanevski who were in live broadcast at the TV program. This is rather biased, political and ideological position than journalist objectivity.

Igor Vittal showed his next prejudice in the use of offensive remarks about Azerbaijanis. He focused on one of the views only, which RBK TV channel inquired at the streets of Baku, by interviewing citizens regarding the pardon of Ramil Safarov. One of the young men simple-heartedly said: Ramil Safarov is hero, but in terms of humanity he is murderer.

Professionals like Igor Vittal know well that according to the mentioned criteria any head of state, military leader and soldier, who showed courage in the war for his country, may be called a murderer. For example, Suvorov and Kutuzov are murders. Or a Commander-in-Chief giving the order "to waste terrorists in the outhouse" in Chechnya is equally considered a murderer. Isn’t it ridiculous?

Of course, it is. But what is even more preposterous is that Igor Vital extrapolated the naivety of a young man to the whole Azerbaijani nation. He commented ironically by saying "let the Azerbaijanis solve the contradiction in their own minds – let them determine what is humanism and what is crime". Igor Vittal shall apologize to the Azerbaijani people for this outrageous position!

Finally, it would be appropriate to note yet another clear example of hostility of the TV show presented by Igor Vittal. Neither party expressed comments about the cause of insolvability of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh up to this day. If they were objective, at least they would point out the passiveness of the OSCE Minsk Group to resolve the conflict. The main source of tension in the region stems from here.

They should have recalled the crimes committed by Armenian terrorists in Khojaly, Malybeyli, Khojavand, Shusha, Kalbajar and Lachin. Moreover, they should have drawn attention to the fact that close to 1 million Azerbaijanis were expelled from their homeland. And note the fact that Ramil Safarov’s relatives were slaughtered before his eyes.

None of this did happen. Therefore, the TV show turned into gossip rather than analysis. Struggling in the range of unfortunate and unfounded views, Igor Vittal could not summarize the views articulated during the entire program. Vittal failed to provide a substantiated analysis of the statement on increasing the tensions in the regions which was articulated by him in the beginning of the program.

Newtimes.az