American Media Biased Against Azerbaijan

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I wish to register my protest at the extreme bias and double-standards applied by the American media to the Azerbaijani cause. While we deplore suppression of "freedom" and "civil rights" in Eastern Europe, China and other non-Muslim parts of the world, and while we actively encourage "freedom-fighters" against totalitarian regimes wherever they may be, we draw the line when it comes to Muslim people anywhere demanding these same rights of self-determination.

When Muslims demand these rights, we call them "Islamic fundamentalists," "militants," "extremists," "insurgents" and "rebels." A leading American newspaper calls the Popular Front's supporters part of a "defiant and sullen populace," and likens the Popular Front itself to a "religious cult" (New York Times, January 25, 1990). On the other hand, when there was violent protest in Romania, the American media applauded it. The execution of the "tyrant" Ceaucescu was cause for celebration. There is an amazing absence of outrage in the media against our own use of violence to "liberate" the Panamanians.

What exactly is the difference between the desire of the Lithuanian people for greater independence and that of the Azerbaijani people? The way it has been played in the American media, Lithuanians protested in a "peaceful and organized way," while the Azerbaijanis, "passionate" and "irrational" Muslims as they are, protested violently.

Perhaps the Azerbaijanis' attempts at peaceful negotiations with the central government had failed; this possibility has received little attention in recent coverage of events. It should be noted that Azerbaijan has patiently suffered Russian domination for 160 years now (since 1830), compared to only 50 years for the Baltic republics.

The American media has not presented clearly the immediate triggers of the recent violence. In the Soviet Union, Azerbaijanis and Armenians have lived in peace and harmony for a long time, just as they still do in neighboring Iran. Why the sudden violence? How exactly did the "ethnic conflict" turn into "separatist turmoil"?

Clearly, there is a gap in explanation here. The American media contemptuously dismiss the Azerbaijanis' legitimate demand for greater autonomy by focusing instead on a vastly exaggerated, "centuries-old" religious conflict.

And why the sudden silence in the United States regarding the brutal force used by Soviet troops as they entered Baku? What would have been the American reaction had the Soviet Union sent troops in to a non-Muslim republic? If the brutality in Tiananmen Square was a "massacre," what should we call the far greater number of reported casualties in Azerbaijan? Anis Y. Sivani '91