azatutyun.am
Reduced US Role in South Caucasus Under Trump: Increased Risks for Armenia
Tigran Grigoryan, head of the "Democracy and Security Regional" center, predicts decreased US involvement in the South Caucasus under President Trump, potentially increasing Azerbaijani aggression and benefiting Baku. He also warns of risks from a tougher US policy towards Iran. However, the appointments of pro-Armenian officials like Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard offer some potential leverage for Armenia.
- How might the Trump administration's policies toward Iran affect the regional dynamics in the South Caucasus?
- Grigoryan's concerns stem from the observation that US active involvement after the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war acted as a restraint. Decreased US engagement, he argues, could embolden Azerbaijan. He also highlights the risk of a tougher US policy toward Iran, potentially benefiting Baku.
- What are the potential implications of a reduced US presence in the South Caucasus under the Trump administration?
- Tigran Grigoryan, chairman of the "Democracy and Security Regional" center, predicts that the incoming US administration under President Donald Trump may show less interest in the South Caucasus. He notes that reduced US involvement could increase threats from Azerbaijan, potentially leading to new aggression. Trump's rhetoric on using force also worries Grigoryan, signaling a possible shift in international norms.
- To what extent can the influence of pro-Armenian individuals within the new US administration offset potential risks to Armenia's security?
- The appointment of individuals sympathetic to the Armenian cause, such as Marco Rubio and Tulsi Gabbard, to key positions in the US administration might offer limited influence. However, Grigoryan emphasizes that Armenia should utilize these potential connections to actively present its position on regional issues to the new administration. The newly signed Strategic Partnership Commission charter between Armenia and the US aims to ensure cooperation in multiple areas, including the protection of sovereignty and territorial integrity; however, its effectiveness under the new administration is uncertain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article leans towards a pessimistic outlook on the potential implications of a shift in US policy, emphasizing risks and potential negative consequences for Armenia. While it mentions the possibility of the new administration maintaining its predecessor's commitment, this positive aspect is less emphasized compared to the negative scenarios. The headline (if there was one) would likely play a large role in this framing bias. This focus on potential threats might disproportionately affect reader understanding, potentially leading to unnecessary alarm.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language, avoiding overtly charged terms. However, words like "risks," "threats," and "negative impact" are repeatedly used to describe potential shifts in US policy, creating a somewhat negative tone. While factual, using less emotionally loaded words to describe the potential outcomes would improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the potential impact of the new US administration's policies on the South Caucasus, particularly concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan. However, it omits analysis of potential impacts on other regional players, such as Georgia or Turkey, which could be considered a bias by omission. The article also doesn't consider the potential economic impacts of a shift in US policy.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy between increased and decreased US involvement in the region, without exploring nuances or alternative scenarios where US involvement might shift in specific areas or remain consistent in certain aspects. For example, while the article discusses potential reduced engagement, it fails to consider the possibility of increased focus on specific issues or bilateral cooperation despite an overall decrease in general regional engagement.
Gender Bias
The article features several male political figures and experts. While Elizabeth Chuljian is mentioned, her role is presented within the context of the Armenian cause, not as an expert or political figure in her own right. The article doesn't explicitly focus on gendered aspects of the conflict, but an evaluation of the proportion of men and women quoted would strengthen the analysis.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the potential for increased instability in the South Caucasus region due to a potential decrease in US involvement following the start of the Russo-Ukrainian war. This reduction in US engagement could embolden Azerbaijan and increase the risk of conflict, thus negatively impacting peace and security in the region. The potential for changes in international norms due to a shift in US foreign policy is also a concern.