This is an automated archive made by the Lemmit Bot.
The original was posted on /r/armenia by /u/SadCampCounselor on 2024-09-13 21:02:12+00:00.
This study by author Arsène Saparov investigates “expert neutrality” in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and concludes that:
"In most cases, the experts rely on comparisons of two sides that present what appears to be a balanced picture. Two types of silences were revealed:
- experts practically always ignore the wider context that could upset the equilibrium of their analysis;
- expert analysis avoids considering those facts that do not fit the paradigm of bothsidesism.
The article argues that this approach produces a normalization of the conflict for the international audience, which creates a dangerous precedent, whereby it successfully conceals a potential genocide in the making from international scrutiny."
The rest are my notes from the paper:
Methodology:
Period of Review: The research focuses on publications that appeared between October 2020 to December 2022.
Types of Sources:
- Opinion pieces from think tanks, as they are believed to provide clearer insights into the biases and viewpoints of authors. These sources were chosen over academic publications because opinion pieces are not subject to the peer-review process, allowing for more direct expressions of bias. Additionally, opinion pieces have a broader audience, influencing both public opinion and political decision-maker
Selection Criteria:
- Neutrality: Articles had to present an appearance of neutrality, meaning they did not overtly support one side of the conflict over the other.
- Expertise: Authors needed to have a long-term academic specialization in the regional conflicts of the South Caucasus, ensuring they possessed the necessary knowledge to analyze the situation with proper context. Articles that displayed clear bias or lacked specialized regional knowledge were excluded
Sample Size:
- Out of more than 100 articles surveyed, 22 publications that met the selection criteria were chosen for detailed analysis.
Techniques used by authors to falsely support the notion of equivalence between the Armenian and Azeri side.
Bothsidesism: Authors often attempt to balance the actions of both sides by presenting them as morally and practically equivalent. This is done by juxtaposing actions of the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides, even when the situations are not comparable. For example, authors might compare Armenian prisoners of war being tortured in Azerbaijan to Azerbaijani casualties from landmines, even though the two are not morally or causally equivalent. Armenian POWs are under the direct control of the Azerbaijani government (which could release them), while Armenia no longer controls the areas where landmines were laid, thus having no direct responsibility.
Balanced Comparison of Asymmetric Actions: The “experts” frequently attempt to compare asymmetric situations in a way that makes them appear balanced: e.g., comparing territorial occupations by Armenia in the 1990s to Azerbaijan’s territorial gains in 2020, without acknowledging the vastly different implications. Azerbaijan is openly threatening to exterminate both Armenia as a state and as a people. Azerbaijan has never faced a similar threat from Armenia.
- “In the medium-long term (5–10 years), intolerable living conditions in Armenia akin to Gaza could lead to the ultimate exodus of the Armenian population.”
Selective Omission of Context: Another technique is the omission of important contextual information. By stripping away the larger geopolitical and historical context, these “experts” create the illusion that both sides are equally responsible or at fault: e.g., the broader ambitions of Azerbaijani irredentism (which aims to eliminate Armenia as a state) are often downplayed or ignored, allowing for a false equivalency with Armenian irredentism, which focuses on securing autonomy for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
- Azerbaijanis attribute a ‘unique destiny’ to the Armenians: a destiny to be deported from all countries they once lived in (Tokluoğlu 2011, 1125).
Avoidance of Key Terminology: Authors often avoid using terms like “ethnic cleansing” or “genocide,” even when the actions they describe fit these definitions. This reluctance to draw explicit conclusions about the true nature of the violence or the intentions of one side helps maintain the appearance of neutrality.
- On other occasions authors came close to describing ethnic cleansing but avoided using the term resorting to elusive wording such as: ‘ … Karabakh Armenian fears that Azerbaijan has no other plan but their demographic attrition through intimidation’ (Broers Citation2021b).
Silencing Factual Information: Authors also silence important factual information that might upset the constructed balance. This includes ignoring systemic violence, atrocities committed by Azerbaijani forces, or the deeply authoritarian nature of the Azerbaijani regime, which might highlight the power imbalances and intentions to eliminate Armenia.
Conclusion:
These techniques of creating a superficial false neutrality or equivalence obscure the gravity of the conflict and the threat of genocide against the Armenian population, making it difficult for international audiences to grasp the true nature of the situation.