azatutyun.am
International Conference in Yerevan Discusses Unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
An international conference in Yerevan, organized by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), focused on the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, highlighting the ongoing displacement of Armenians and the need for a future resolution.
- How did the participants assess the current political climate and its impact on resolving the conflict?
- Participants acknowledged that raising the issue internationally is currently impossible under Nikol Pashinyan's leadership, suggesting a future resolution may only be possible with a new government. They also noted that the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, facilitated by Armenia, was a precondition for Azerbaijan to sign the agreement.
- What are the main arguments presented at the Yerevan conference regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
- Participants argued that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unresolved, as the Armenian population lacks the right to live freely and safely in their homeland. They emphasized the need to prevent further emigration of Armenians from Artsakh to Armenia, noting that approximately 17,000 have already left.
- What are the long-term implications of the ongoing situation and potential future steps towards resolution?
- The long-term implication is the potential for continued displacement and the erosion of Armenian presence in Artsakh. Future steps, as suggested by participants, include the creation of an international platform to discuss the issue involving Artsakh representatives, Azerbaijan, and international actors; however, the current political climate and the displacement of Artsakh Armenians present major obstacles.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents a largely sympathetic portrayal of the Armenian side, focusing on their grievances and concerns regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The framing emphasizes the displacement of Armenians and the perceived failure of the Armenian government to adequately address their needs. The headline, while not explicitly provided, would likely reinforce this focus. The repeated references to the Armenian government's actions in closing the Minsk Group and the lack of international support also frames the situation negatively for the government.
Language Bias
The language used leans heavily toward describing the situation from the Armenian perspective, using terms like "ethnic cleansing" and portraying the Armenian government's actions as betrayals. While quotes are included, the selection and emphasis given to them reinforces a negative portrayal of the government's role. Neutral alternatives would involve more balanced presentation of facts and diverse perspectives.
Bias by Omission
The article omits perspectives from the Azerbaijani side. While it mentions Azerbaijan's role in the Minsk Group's dissolution, it doesn't present any Azerbaijani perspectives on the situation. The needs and concerns of the Azerbaijani population, which is also impacted by this conflict, are entirely absent. This limits the reader's ability to develop a comprehensive understanding.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between the current Armenian government and a future one, suggesting that only a change in leadership will allow for progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. It neglects other avenues for resolution, and the complexity of the situation is oversimplified.
Gender Bias
The article does not exhibit significant gender bias. Although the quotes are from primarily male figures, this reflects the composition of the participants in the meeting, not necessarily the article's construction.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the ongoing conflict in Artsakh and the displacement of Armenians, directly impacting peace, justice, and strong institutions. The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, and the lack of international mechanisms to address the conflict, further underscore the negative impact on SDG 16. The displacement of Armenians and the challenges they face in accessing housing and social programs also relate to the lack of strong institutions to protect their rights and well-being.