azatutyun.am
Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Treaty Remains Elusive Amidst Unresolved Disputes
Despite 15 of 17 points being agreed upon, Armenia and Azerbaijan remain far from signing a peace treaty due to unresolved disputes over an EU observer mission, Armenian lawsuits, constitutional amendments, and the OSCE Minsk Group's dissolution, with Azerbaijan citing preconditions outside the treaty itself.
- What are the main obstacles preventing the signing of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty?
- Armenia and Azerbaijan have reached an agreement on 15 out of 17 points for a peace treaty, but disagreements remain on the EU observer mission and Armenia's withdrawal of lawsuits. Azerbaijan also demands changes to Armenia's constitution and laws, and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, all of which are preconditions for signing the treaty.
- Why is Azerbaijan hesitant to sign the peace treaty despite significant progress on several points?
- Azerbaijan's reluctance stems from the lack of perceived benefits and potential risks to Aliyev's regime. The loss of Artsakh and the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers removed key justifications for Aliyev's rule, making the treaty less advantageous. Aliyev's legitimacy relies on economic prosperity and the promise to reclaim Artsakh, neither of which is directly addressed by the current treaty.
- What are the deeper political and strategic implications of the unresolved issues hindering the peace treaty?
- The unresolved issues, particularly Azerbaijan's constitutional demands and the EU observer mission, indicate a deeper power struggle beyond the treaty's specifics. The lack of motivation for Azerbaijan to sign, considering the changed geopolitical context, suggests prolonged negotiations or an eventual failure to reach a peace agreement. The demand for the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group indicates Azerbaijan's desire to dictate terms unilaterally.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the interview centers on the skepticism of the expert, Benjamin Poghosyan, regarding the likelihood of a peace agreement. The headline (if any) and introduction likely emphasized this skepticism, setting a negative tone and potentially influencing readers' perceptions of the situation as unlikely to lead to peace. The sequencing of information likely prioritized the negative aspects and doubts, reinforcing the pessimistic view.
Language Bias
While the language used is largely neutral, the repeated emphasis on doubts, obstacles, and negative consequences might subtly shape the reader's perception. Phrases like "very big doubts," "obstacles," and "no motivation" contribute to a pessimistic tone. More balanced language could include phrases like "challenges remain" or "unresolved issues" to present a more neutral perspective.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the Armenian perspective and potential obstacles to a peace agreement from Azerbaijan's viewpoint, neglecting alternative perspectives or potential benefits of the agreement for Azerbaijan. The motivations of the Armenian side are explored more deeply than Azerbaijan's, potentially leading to a biased understanding of the situation. Omission of supporting data or evidence for some of the claims made (e.g., regarding Azerbaijan's motivations) weakens the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The analysis doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but the strong emphasis on obstacles and skepticism towards a peace agreement could implicitly create a sense of inevitability of failure, neglecting the possibility of compromise or a successful outcome.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the stalled negotiations for a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The disagreement over key points, including the EU observer mission and Armenia's withdrawal of lawsuits, highlights the fragility of peace and justice efforts in the region. The continued political tensions and lack of a signed agreement directly hinder progress towards building strong institutions and lasting peace. Azerbaijan's additional demands beyond the treaty, such as constitutional changes in Armenia, further complicate the peace process and undermine efforts towards stable institutions.