Delays in signing an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement open the prospects that the process may be derailed as a result of domestic politics. Next month, Yerevan will go to the polls to indirectly elect a new mayor. The parliamentary opposition is boycotting the vote, and a large number of voters remain apathetic or undecided, but the vote can still be seen as demonstrative enough ahead of the 2026 national parliamentary elections. In this op-ed for commonspace.eu, Onnik James Krikorian argues that Pashinyan foes are already attempting to turn the 17 September 2023 vote into a ‘referendum’ on Armenia-Azerbaijan talks and former de facto State Minister of Karabakh Ruben Vardanyan has called for the same. 

As the third anniversary of the start of the 2020 war over the former Nagorno Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) approaches, uncertainty continues to surround the possibility of signing an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace agreement by the end of the year. In a perfect world, there should be little to prevent one, but that too was arguably the case in the years following the earlier 1994 ceasefire agreement.

 

In short, we simply don’t know.

 

But what we do know is that time is arguably running out with a number of dates on the horizon making some kind of agreement all the more urgent. Aside from the risk of a major humanitarian crisis in Karabakh unless commercial goods can be delivered via Lachin, with additional humanitarian aid possibly via a supplementalroute through Aghdam, the most obvious date is already known – 2025.

 

[…] 

The full article can be read here. 

“Today, the media in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and also among those niche market publications based abroad that report on the region, amplify the negative and nearly always ignore any positive developments or glimmers of hope,” writes Onnik James Krikorian in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. “The masses in both countries have already turned off from such coverage. And trust in the media is now at an all-time low, especially given the extent of inaccurate reporting during the 2020 Karabakh war.”

“Without more accurate and unbiased information […] free of negative rhetoric and stereotypes, Armenians and Azerbaijanis will continue to see themselves as enemies without any common ground,” a 2008 report from the Caucasus Research Resource Centres (CRRC) read. 

 

“Some argue that those with a strong interest in politics and access to various sources of information are subject to ‘biased processing,’” the CRRC report continued, explaining that people tend to filter information based on already existing views even if they otherwise say they would prefer a more unbiased media.

 

Regrettably, even after fifteen years, the situation remains largely unchanged. Despite a more diverse information space that includes a plethora of niche outlets funded by international donors, many have now proven themselves more partisan and nationalist than the traditional media to which they were meant to provide an alternative. There are some exceptions, of course, but these are few and far between in the scheme of things and anyway reach a small audience.

 

[…] 

The full article can be read here.