azatutyun.am
Armenia and Azerbaijan to Meet Again Before Resuming Border Demarcation
Armenian and Azerbaijani deputy prime ministers will meet again before resuming the demarcation of their shared border, which will start from the tripoint of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia and move southward, according to Armenian co-chair Mher Grigoryan; however, the opposition criticizes this approach.
- What are the immediate implications of the upcoming meeting between Armenian and Azerbaijani deputy prime ministers on the demarcation process?
- Before resuming demarcation, Armenian and Azerbaijani deputy prime ministers will meet again, according to Armenian co-chair Mher Grigoryan. This year, two discussions have already occurred. The exact date and location remain undisclosed, but the need for further discussions is confirmed.
- How does the chosen starting point for the demarcation—the tripoint of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—impact Armenia's territorial integrity and the ongoing concerns voiced by the opposition?
- The demarcation process, agreed to start from the tripoint of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, moving south, is facing criticism. The opposition views Azerbaijan's preference for this starting point as a way to gain new territories in Tavush, echoing last year's pilot demarcation where four villages were ceded to Azerbaijan.
- What are the long-term consequences for Armenia's territorial integrity and international standing given the absence of explicit de-occupation demands within the demarcation framework and the ongoing Azerbaijani activities in occupied territories?
- Armenia's failure to address occupied territories during the demarcation process raises concerns. The opposition highlights the lack of maps detailing the process in the regulation and the absence of demands for de-occupation in negotiations or international forums. Ongoing construction in occupied territories suggests Azerbaijan's lack of intention to withdraw.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the border demarcation process through the lens of oppositional viewpoints, highlighting the concerns and criticisms of the opposition party. While presenting both sides, the framing emphasizes the opposition's perspective more prominently than the government's justifications. The headline could be seen as subtly biased towards the opposition's stance, depending on the exact wording (not provided).
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language. However, terms like "ceded", "occupied", and "gave back" when referring to territories, can be interpreted as implicitly loaded, depending on the reader's perspective. More neutral alternatives could be 'transferred', 'under Azerbaijani control', and 'returned to Azerbaijani control'.
Bias by Omission
The article omits discussion of potential international pressure or involvement in the border demarcation process. It also doesn't detail the specific concerns of local residents in the affected areas, focusing primarily on governmental perspectives. The lack of maps or visual aids to illustrate the border demarcation process and the affected areas could also be considered an omission.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as a choice between prioritizing border demarcation in Tavush versus addressing the occupied territories. The reality is likely more nuanced, with the possibility of parallel efforts.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses ongoing negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan to delimit their shared border. This process aims to establish clear boundaries and reduce the potential for conflict, thereby contributing to peace and stability in the region. The meetings between the two countries' deputy prime ministers demonstrate a commitment to diplomatic resolution and strengthening institutions responsible for border management.