Armenophobia in Azerbaijan. Armine Adibekya

functions as a protective mechanism guarding the individual against alarming sentiments. Besides, a desire or emotion so projected is perceived by the individual as directed at his/her own self externally. This comes as a consequence of the psychological repression that amounts to a subconscious attribution of one’s own qualities, feelings and desires to another person.²² In this case, repressed desires are projected to someone else. Meanwhile the individual condemns others for what he/she fails to identify as his/her own desires.

      Repression is a protective process, through which ideas are removed from the consciousness. Due to the repression process, thoughts are suppressed and subdued inwards never ceasing to influence the individual and triggering an internal conflict.²³

      An individual who resorts to the protective mechanism of projection is convinced that others are capable of ill deeds while harbors latent tendencies to do the same. Sometimes, it is regretted that such ill deeds were not committed when opportunity presented itself. The most illustrative example of such projection can be found in the extensively trumpeted thesis on the “incompatibility of Armenians and Azerbaijanis” attributed to the ex-president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan.

      By contrasting their “tolerance” and the “racism” of Armenians,²⁴ the Azerbaijani authorities are at odds with their own unabashed display of xenophobic rhetoric:

      • Some human rights defenders in Azerbaijan must be contaminated by a mix of the Armenian blood in their veins.²⁵

      • They (Armenians) must be killed in Karabakh and not in other countries.²⁶ It can be confidently affirmed that if Hays²⁷ ever show any “talent” at all, it is in no way an achievement of their own nation, but the result of the Turkish blood that most of them have flowing in their veins.²⁸

      • Although, in this case I chose the wrong wording and unwittingly insulted a noble and freedom-loving animal (‘wolf’ – author’s note) – the only one that cannot be tamed – by comparing it with the Armenians. It goes without saying that the love of freedom (throughout their history, Armenians prostrated themselves under the heels of others, and for the last three hundred years they have comfortably established themselves as Russia’s boot-licking pet dogs) or nobility for that matter are foreign to this nation. Instead, a comparison with jackals would be more appropriate, with their howling reminiscent of the wails of our vile neighbors about “their history full of suffering”.²⁹

      Similar distorted perceptions and judgments engender negative phenomena such as bias, prejudice and discrimination.

      Bias is a preconceived judgment, belief or point of view on a person without sufficient reasons.³⁰

      Prejudice is a false condemnation of people solely on the basis of their affiliation with an ethnic group.³¹

      Discrimination is a negative line of conduct or appeals to adopt a negative line of conduct in respect of certain people solely on the account of their affiliation with a particular ethnic group.³²

      If bias is a negative attitude/mindset, and prejudice is a negative judgment about a person and his/her actions, then discrimination is a negative behavior. Rectifying negative attitudes/mindsets can contribute towards eradicating discriminatory behavior.³³

      In view of the foregoing, it can be argued that stereotypes are ideal tools for shaping the image of enemy instilled in the public mind.

      Image of the enemy is an ideological and psychological stereotype that allows establishing expectations, perceptions and behavior in respect of an “alien” who may be ascribed superhuman, arcane or negative traits.

      However, this is hard to achieve without firmly relying on ethnocentrism, which is a tendency to view one’s own ethnic group and its social standards as a basis for value judgments on the practices of others. It is understood that the human being lends supremacy to own standards most likely for self-assertion and self-praise, yet it must not necessarily lead to a bad attitude towards the practices of foreign groups.³⁴

      Similarly, people in medieval Japan viewed the Chinese as their teachers and a source of many cultural borrowings, yet they referred to them using the offensive term of “Southern Barbarians”. The Greeks who coined the term “barbarian” (the one who babbles) acted in a comparable fashion.

      For this very reason, the shaping of the enemy image based on the ethnocentrism also implies demonizing and dehumanizing the “aliens”³⁵.

      Dehumanization implies a total antagonism between ‘them’ and ‘us’ going as far as stripping them of their humanity. The members of the alien group are identified with ill-famed animal species, such as scorpions, snakes, jackals, rats, etc. Specifically, during the preparation stage of the Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, government-controlled radio stations compared the Tutsi with cockroaches.³⁶

      Demonization implies ascribing to “aliens” certain negative qualities such as loose morals, marginality and possession of some supernatural powers using which they may exert adverse effects.

      Using the enemy image typology proposed by the historian Yelena Sinyavskaya³⁷ who studied the subject in the army or in wartime,³⁸ in relation to the armenophobic policies in Azerbaijan in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the image of enemy may be described as follows:

      The synchronous image of the enemy represents a generalized picture that can be shaped during the hostilities through direct personal involvement (former combatants of the Karabakh war);

      The retrospective image of enemy brings together the individual memories of former combatants who were personally involved in certain events (and represent altered interpretations of such events many years after they happen);

      The image of the enemy shaped by the official propaganda precedes the personal experience of any contacts with the enemy (and occurs at the level of officials or the most reputable figures for the community);

      The image of the enemy shaped by analytical services prevails among commanding officers and diverse secret services, which require an adequate picture of an enemy based on an objective and a voluminous data for operational and strategic decision-making;

      The image of the enemy shaped through personal contact and daily life is the most common and present at all army levels with those directly involved in the fighting or conflict.

      Political dimension

      The political component of xenophobia is based on the tendency to manipulate the public mind for channeling the emotional energy and tension towards the political agenda that is in the interest of the manipulator.

      The very existence of the “external enemy” is asserted and instilled in the minds of the people for internal mobilization and, as a rule, is used by the political elite to suppress forces and currents aimed against it within the group.

      “The image of the enemy” instilled in the minds of the people can unite the society around the figure of a charismatic leader making it temporarily oblivious of or alleviating for a moment the domestic conflict between the authorities and the society. It can help make up for economic and social blunders committed by the ruling elite. In the face of any threat, real or imaginary, the population demonstrates obedience to a ruler, who is endowed with a status of the “Father”, “Defender” or “Leader” of the nation.³⁹

      The idea of correlation between the formation and development of the society and specific individual is clearly and consistently epitomized in authoritarian societies; Azerbaijan can rightfully be characterized as such with its personality cult of Heydar Aliyev as the “Founding Father” and the “Savior” of nation placing his and his descendants’ authority above any criticism or discussion.

      Dear Mr.