“How Azerbaijan Promoted the Internet to Keep Citizens Online: On Internet in Azerbaijan and Related Speculations”

Identifying the Reality Gap

Why would a government fearful of the Internet and aspiring to keep its citizens offline announce information communication technologies (ICT) as a policy priority, push for price cuts, modernize its infrastructure, and going even farther initiate and actively participate in regional projects like the Trans-Eurasian Information Superhighway and the Europe Persia Express Gateway that are actually supposed to improve Internet trafficking and penetration?

Why would a government achieve progress in ICT development in general, and Internet penetration in particular, which is recognized and appreciated by various serious studies and reports, if it wanted to demonize the Internet and minimize its penetration into the lives of its country’s citizens?

No doubt, the Eurovision 2012 song contest program held in Baku opened up many excellent—if sometimes painful—opportunities for Azerbaijani self-examination. Anyone addressing “Azerbaijan and the Internet” needs, in my opinion, to apply a broader perspective and more extensive statistical back-up than those offered by authors Sarah Kendzior and Katy Pearce in , “How Azerbaijan Demonizes the Internet to Keep Citizens Offline,” May 11, 2012.

The issues Kendzior and Pearce touch upon are crucial for the country’s development. However, as is the case in several other recent publications, the authors seem to get carried away by their critical aspirations toward the Azerbaijani government, at least as far as the state of the Internet and public policies on it are concerned.

I do not wish to play devil’s advocate point by point, but as a person who knows a little bit about the Internet in Azerbaijan, I consider some of the article’s conclusions to be flawed and the data used likely to be outdated.

A Data-Based Reality Check

Let me begin with the data. Ms. Kendzior and Ms. Pearce appear to refer to the Caucasus Research Resource Center (CRRC) annual households survey data. With all due respect to CRRC, I would propose consideration of another survey, one that was conducted in 2010 and 2011 by the Azerbaijan Marketing Society ICT Marketing Center. The activities of this Center are aimed at the development of the ICT sector, researching new world, regional, and national trends in this field.

The survey was conducted in eight regions of Azerbaijan among 5,865 households selected based on systematic random selection. In order to define the participation criteria, respondents were divided into two groups, as follows: living in the capital (Baku) and living outside the capital. This division was calculated based on data of the State Statistical Committee of Azerbaijan Republic and experts’ opinions on the population’s relocation dynamics.

Distribution of respondents by gender was 45% (male) and 55% (female). 40% of the respondents were employed on a regular basis. Distribution of respondents by age groups appeared to be as follows:

* 18-24 (28.4%); * 25-34 (25.4%); * 35-44 (18.2%);

 

* 45-54 (16.1%); * 55-64 (8.8 %); * 65-74 (3.1%).

Education level of respondents was incomplete or complete secondary 40.21 %; specialized secondary 14.96%; incomplete or complete higher 44.68 %; primary or no education 0.15%.

Comparing the 2010 and 2011 surveys reveals a 16% jump in Internet usage, from 29% of households in which at least one member used the Internet at home to 45%.of such households. Internet usage via mobile phone increased from 17% to 39% in the same time period. As for Internet usage in general, the percentage went up from 40% to 68%.

In 2011, the share of households in which at least one member used Internet anywhere was 69% (73% in Baku; 59% in the regions). 42% of respondents indicated broadband fixed line as the type of Internet connection used at home. 94% of computer users responding claimed to access the Internet at least once a week, and 51% indicated that they used it every day. Users indicated that they used the Internet mostly for downloading music and movies (63%) as well as for sending and receiving e-mails (52%).

So just a cursory examination of differences between the 2010 and 2011 surveys indicates that there has been progress in Internet usage in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani government has played a role in this development by taking steps aimed at decreasing prices and improving ICT infrastructure, developing e-services, and so forth.

It is not just the Azerbaijan Marketing Society that tells this story. The latest Networked Readiness Index NRI of the Global Information Technology Report (GITR), released in April 2012, includes 142 countries of the world. Azerbaijan ranked 61st; Georgia, 88th; and Armenia, 94th. It is worth mentioning that in the last 5 GITR rankings, Azerbaijan regularly has been in the top 3 among the CIS countries.

The NRI is made up of 4 sub-indices, as follows: Environment, Readiness, Usage, and Impact. These categories reflect key policy action areas enabling measurement of the overall preparedness of a country to use ICT. Azerbaijan is ahead of its Caucasian neighbors in all but one, Environment, on which Georgia is just three ranks ahead.

As for the Readiness sub-index, Azerbaijan is far ahead of its neighbors, demonstrating more readiness to utilize ICT in terms of infrastructure, affordability, and skills. In general this sub-index reflects the level of relevant infrastructure development—easy access as well as knowledge to utilize key infrastructure.

GITR also includes a specific indicator for Use of Virtual Social Networks, which measures the use of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other such virtual social networks for professional and personal communication in a country. According to this indicator Azerbaijan is ranked 44th in the world; Georgia 60th; and Armenia 113th.

So, back to the Slate article: Who is demonizing Internet and preventing the population from social networking now?

Moreover, according to Facebook statistics for the last 3 months byhttp://www.socialbakers.com/, Azerbaijan is ranked 86th with 780,340 users, while Georgia is 87th with 779,980 users and Armenia is 115th with 283,460 users.

And according to Social Bakers, Azerbaijan actually has the highest growth rate—11.26%—among the Caucasus countries for the reported period of time and even much higher growth for 6 months—48.30%.

Strange dynamics for a country accused of keeping its population from social networking! The statistics contradict the propaganda that has appeared throughout the media.

Another important factor for understanding the role of ICT in the South Caucasus countries is ICT Price Basket Index. This index is calculated based on three main sub-indices, as follows: 1) Share of costs of fixed telephone services in average income per capita; 2) Share of mobile/cellular services in average income per capita; and 3) Share of fixed-broadband Internet prices in average income per capita.

Azerbaijan ranks 53rd overall and third among the CIS countries; Armenia is 102nd overall, and Georgia is 111th. It is worth noting as well that in the last ICT Price Basket Index, in 2010, Azerbaijan made a tremendous jump forward, moving 46 ranks from 99th in 2009 to 53rd in 2010.

According to this report, Azerbaijan, with its 81.7% relative change, leads the Top 10 countries with the highest relative change. A closer look at the sub-indices reveals that this significant change in Azerbaijan was achieved due to dramatic price reduction in broadband services (88%) and mobile communications (21%).

Summary

Even this brief examination of relevant surveys and reports provides striking comparisons of the performance and development of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia in terms of Internet penetration and overall ICT development.

So, as a matter of fact, Azerbaijan is an evident leader in the area of Internet development and usage. Healthy criticisms that are surfacing as a by-product of Eurovision-Baku can help Azerbaijan to continue to develop along positive lines. But I do not see any objective point in blaming the Azerbaijani government for something that something that actually represents a noteworthy accomplishment.

Dr. Fuad Aliyev
Fulbright Scholar
The Johns Hopkins University
School of Advanced International Studies
Central Asia–Caucasus Institute

Sources:

Global Information Technology Report (GITR), World Economic Forum
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-information-technology-report-2012.

Measuring the Information Society–2011, International Telecommunications Union
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf .

Social Bakers Facebook Statistics, http://www.socialbakers.com/facebook-statistics/.

More analysis on ICT in Azerbaijan and neighboring countries:

http://ada.edu.az/biweekly/issues/vol5no9/20120517113242952.html.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/136220/development-of-the-ict-sector-and-competitiveness-building-challenges-in-azerbaijan.html.

I always say that, the magnitude and importance of Khojaly Tragedy for Azerbaijan is equal to that of 9/11 for Americans. Just like 9/11 when people talk or think about Khojaly they’ll always remember, where they were on that day, how they heard the news, what was their first reaction.

For many of us, Khojaly massacre was a very serious turning point in Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict, when we realized all bets were off. Armenians will not stop at anything, will hold nothing sacred to advance. Because, if at the initial stage of the conflict there were some who blamed Moscow for escalating the tensions to keep its political grip on the region, after Khojaly it was clear that the game has changed severely. As President of Armenia Serj Sarkissian admitted himself, people in Khojaly were massacred to prove a point, to break a stereotype that Armenians will not raise their hands against civilian population.

To me, Khojaly is very personal. My family is from Karabakh. My roots, my ancestors’ graves, my family memories are laying in ruins in the Armenian occupied territories as I write this. Some of my family members who resided in Khojaly left the town in December of 1991. They were one of the few lucky ones who realized the hopelessness of the situation and took off early and moved into my grandmother’s house in Agdam. There was a point when they had about 42 family members sheltered in 4 bedrooms. But no one even thought about complaining, because they realized there’s no way back.

A week after the massacre, I was making rounds in the hospital in Baku as a medical intern where they brought few survivors. They managed to make it through the snowy mountains out of Khojaly at night half-clothed. They were being treated for frozen limbs. Many of the cases were hard to save, we ended up amputating feet, toes or hands. I kept hearing stories from patients about civilinas who tried to escape the military encircled town through the “free corridor” to the nearby town of Agdam. Only that “corridor” was attacked hours later by Armenian forces and fleeing ones were shot like turkeys in an open field, killed with unusual cruelty. I am sure you all remember the terrifying news footage and pictures of mutilated and shot from close range people that was documented courageously by journalist Chingiz Mustafayev.

As a journalist I have covered a story of Khojaly massacre and its meaning for Azerbaijani people for CNN. We had extremely hard time coming up with the footage that would be suitable and non-graphic enough to show to the international audience. The producers in Atlanta were shocked. Because, once you see it, the mental snapshot stays with you forever. I don’t care what your ethnicity, beliefs or values are, it is not a site to forget once you lay your eyes on a dead body of a scalped elderly man or a raped child.

What kind of definition we can give to Khojaly tragedy? It has been a point of debates for almost two decades… Was it a genocide? Was it a massacre?

If you open any book on military and war history you will see that since the time of Romans it was called a “destructive war”. But today, contemporary military scholars and strategist have narrowed down this general definition. Deliberate military targeting of civilians as a method of affecting the political behavior of nations and leaders is called terrorism.

My personal take is I agree with that definition. What happened in Khojaly in February 1992 was a terror. It was an attempt of Armenian side to influence Azerbaijan and its stance on Nagorno-Karabakh by hurting children, elderly and women, by treating an innocent life as a disposable bargaining chip.

An unsuccessful attempt at that too! Anyone who is a bit familiar with war strategies should have known that civilian casualties in a given conflict or war is not only morally reprehensible, but also bad military science. While it can bring short-term advantage, in the long run it does not break an opponent’s will to resist; on the contrary, it usually steels it. Killing civilians rarely if ever enhances security, and ,especially, in an age when global public opinion is of dramatically increased importance, it only undermines a nation’s force in both the field and the international arena.

Targeting innocent noncombatant civilians for military gains didn’t start with Khojaly and will not end there. In the same manner, human cruelty against another human being is a dark child of a mankind. Whether it is a terrorist beheading a hostage “for the record” or US military personnel posing in front of the camera with raped and tortured prisoners- it is indeed a sad realization that despite stepping into progressive times we didn’t leave human savagery in Middle Ages. But what is important here and what makes us different as a civilization today is for the group of people who have been subjected to this cruelty, violence and humiliation and for the people who are associated with them, as in case with Khojaly and Azerbaijani people, to talk about it, educate the international community and make it a part of history of a mankind, so it will not be repeated again, so the worst of evil within ourselves responsible for this inhumane cruelty, as it happened in Khojaly is repressed next time. If you remember when the story of Abu-Qhraib broke out first, not many Iraqis were surprised. Because as it turned out, by word of mouth people knew about mistreatment of prisoners. Only when it was spoken out, the measures were taken and those responsible were brought to justice. The campaign of “Justice for Khojaly” needs to go on until it becomes a part of books, a part of curriculums, until it becomes a symbol and equivalent of human savagery.

It is, of course, very hard to talk about it. Even almost two decades later, for the generation who witnessed it. But we have to move on. The importance of confidence building measures between Azerbaijanis and Armenians as one of the conditions to advance the peaceful negotiations can’t be underestimated. But Khojaly will definitely stand out as a tragic episode that will be most hard to deal with when it comes to those confidence building measures.

I think, it will take first and foremost an official apology and recognition from Armenian side for what happened in Khojaly for us to even start sorting out this inhumane act against Azerbaijani people.

But, I wouldn’t hold my breath on it for now- as we see today, a person responsible for this is a head of state in Armenia. A terrorist being a head of UN member state! After presidential elections in Armenia Serj Sarkisian proved that he is ready to gamble with innocent lives for political gains not only in Azerbaijan but also by opening fire and killing its own people in the streets of Yerevan.

But for us, for Azerbaijanis, forgiveness has to be down the road. I have no doubt – we are tolerant society- to the point that, sometimes, we even tolerate the intolerance.

We will forgive, but we will never and we should never forget!

Post Written by Shafag Mehraliyeva, Baku Representative for the Karabakh Foundation.