Professor Rachman Badalov from Azerbaijan shared his opinion in http://kultura.az/articles regarding the so-called Safarov Affair sounding in a quite different logic from the dominant Azerbaijani thinking. Full text of the article is presented below:
The history of the officer of the Azerbaijani army Ramil Safarov blew up our society. Some people (the majority) called him a hero, others – a criminal; polar positions provoke endless charges, which prevent calm and sober assessment of what happened.
An analogy arises with the case of the French army Captain Dreyfus (our history is uglier), which, in due time split the French society. In those years, in France, a military caste, the clerics, the Nationalists, plus those who held anti-Semitic views, not just supported the prosecution, but also aggravated the nationalist hysteria, which, as usual, muffles the voice of mind and conscience. In these circumstances, many representatives of the French intelligentsia felt it their duty to speak out in defense of Captain Dreyfus, whose guilt has not been proven in court. I should add that the position of the French intelligentsia, including Emile Zola’s famous article ” I Accuse”, not just helped further rehabilitation of Captain Dreyfus, but also played a major role in the subsequent maturing of French society.
In these circumstances, I consider it my civic duty to express my viewpoint on Ramil Safarov’s issue, avoiding any tactical tricks. I have to say, not being a lawyer, I cannot give a legal assessment to the process of extradition and clemency of Azerbaijani army officer, but I cannot help paying attention to the opinion of many of our leading lawyers, who admitted that the decree of the President was hasty and legally not perfect.
I will pass to the statement of my own position.
The First
Extradition and subsequent pardon could be considered acceptable, if not the following behavior of the authorities (grand welcome at the airport, increase in military rank, payment of salary for all his years in Hungarian prison, the apartment, etc.).In essence pardon turned into rehab, which is extremely unacceptable, because it was a crime that was proven during the trial.
The Second
Ramil Safarov committed not just a crime. In my opinion, he crossed the border of honor and dignity of the officer. At all times, in all armies, even in deep antiquity, there were certain rules of military ethics, to break which was considered shameful. We must call things by their names: hack to death a sleeping man is not worthy for anyone, especially for the officer, and such an action requires strong conviction, regardless of the circumstances in which this act was committed.
I emphasize that the violation of these principles must be condemned tougher than the violation of any provisions of the Criminal Code, since only taboo on such things enables the public not to fall into savagery and general bitterness.
The Third
Ramil Safarova’s glorification sharply opposes it to original heroes of the Karabakh war, many of which were lost directly in war. We know how invalids of war live today, how their rights are violated, in which intolerable conditions the families of many soldiers and officers killed in the Karabakh war live. In these circumstances, an exaltation of the offender, who has violated basic principles of military ethics, is a direct insult to the memory of killed people in the Karabakh war.
The Fourth
I have had to write many times that one should not turn the Karabakh war into ethnic war with Armenians. This is not acceptable, since such atavistic feeling largely outlived civilized humanity. On the other hand, it puts us in an awkward position, because we publicly agree with granting high degree of autonomy to citizens of Nagorno-Karabakh. That tone and vocabulary of ethnic conflict, which can be found not only in the articles of some of our journalists, but also in the statements of our many politicians, the real question about the safety of the Armenian population, which lives and will continue to live in our country.
The Fifth
Arguments in defense of Ramil Safarov cannot be built on a similar collection of facts from the actions of others. We all know such “arguments” from school years, “why he can, but I cannot”, “if he does it, I would do the same,” which should be recognized infantile for a mature society. Heinous act should be called foul, and in no way can justify by the infamy acts of another.
The Sixth
There are rumors that the story of Ramil Safarov will resurrect the extinct interest of the society in the Karabakh conflict, it can be a stimulus to the rise of patriotism in our people. In my opinion, the idea is as offensive as blasphemous. An act behind the limits of honor and dignity has nothing to do with true patriotism, and can only provoke the basest feelings.
And the last
I am convinced that the story of Ramil Safarov, and, frankly speaking, impulsive, in many ways thoughtless actions of our government (it is the softest thing you can say about it) caused great damage to the image of our country. Firstly, we delayed the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, and it will take huge efforts to keep both sides of the infinite power of rhetoric. I’m not speaking about the beginning of hostilities (I do not foresee anything like that), but about actions, in its meaning, terrorist actions. Secondly, we require much effort of all our sensible people, mainly intellectuals, so that we do not look as the moral outcasts of the world.
Translated from Russian by Mary Gasparyan
