Tweet
DAVIDIAN: THE INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP AND PARTISANSHIP
By: David Davidian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/02/28/davidian-the-international-crisis-group-and-partisanship/
Mon, Feb 28 2011
On Feb. 8, the International Crisis Group (ICG) published a
policy briefing titled "Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War"
(www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/caucasus/B60-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.aspx).
It is basically an update from earlier ICG briefs that have intimidated
untrained readers into concluding that war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is inevitable without an immediate final settlement.
The ICG stated, on page 1, that the best settlement is to agree on
the basic principles "first outlined by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2005." The ICG states that the
current status quo is not in the interest of Azerbaijan, yet on
page 2 recommends that "Armenia and the de-facto Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities should cease supporting activities that make the status
quo more intolerable for Azerbaijan..." The ICG puts the burden of
conflict settlement squarely on the shoulders of Armenians. This
makes the ICG as partisan today as it was in 2007.
In November 2007, the ICG recommended in "Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking
War" (www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ICG,,AZE,,473c101e2,0.html)
the "withdrawal of Armenian and Nagorno-Karabagh forces from all
occupied territories adjacent to Karabagh, with special modalities
for Kelbajar and Lachin," adding, "The de facto Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities should end support for settlement of occupied territories
with Armenians" and "Azerbaijan should allow Karabakh Azeris to elect
the head of their community and make a concerted effort to increase
transparency and reduce corruption so that oil revenues are used to
benefit all citizens, particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs)"
(see pages i-ii).
On page 4 of the 2011 brief, the ICG claimed, "The Armenian front-line
units that came under attack [June 18-19, 2010] reportedly 'panicked'
and initially fled, producing some concern among military officials
in Yerevan that their troops' training and combat experience may not
be as superior as often claimed." This claim appeared odd; moreover,
the reference provided looked bogus. The ICG needed to explain. Below
is the email I sent to the ICG on Feb. 9, 2011.
***
Subject: Request for References: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011
From: "David Davidian"
Date: Wed, February 9, 2011 9:15 am
To: [email protected]
Dear International Crisis Group,
I have two short informational questions regarding a report you
published yesterday.
In report: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011, Armenia and
Azerbaijan: Preventing War, you made a reference on page 4:
"The Armenian front-line units that came under attack reportedly
'panicked' and initially fled, producing some concern among military
officials in Yerevan that their troops' training and combat experience
may not be as superior as often claimed.14"
and footnote 14 states: "14 Crisis Group interview, military analyst,
Yerevan, November, 2010."
However, I cannot find this reference on the ICG site after extensive
searching. Can you provide a link to reference 14?
Also, you noted on page 1: "...the country's [Azerbaijan] oil revenues
are projected to decline after 2014." Can you provide a reference
for this claim as well.
Thank you for your time and effort,
David Davidian
***
There has been no response to this request. A reference for a 2014
oil declination claim on page 1 was used as a control case. Actually,
this 2014 oil claim is made again later in the brief, and there it
is referenced with footnote 98.
The ICG should provide clarity when using references in their policy
briefs, considering they provided 152 of them in a 16-body page
publication. A reference that cannot be located or clarified calls
into doubt the author's intent and questions the entire report. Even
high school term papers are required to have verifiable references. It
would be interesting to examine the entire ICG brief, but the effort
would only reinforce the partisanship exhibited by the ICG.
The ICG is engaging in tactics generally associated with psychological
warfare. The function of their latest brief is crafted to pressure
Armenian and "de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities" to accept the
deal proposed by mediators. The ICG's analysis and recommendations
are clearly not convincing at the expert level; however, the ICG's
target is really the unsuspecting general public.
Azerbaijani and Turkish English-language media apparently had no
issues with the ICG 2011 brief, as they merely quoted directly from
the ICG. See a sampling: www.news.az/articles/politics/31052,
www.todayszaman.com/news-234804-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.html,
www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=icg-warns-of-war-risk-between-armenia-azerbaijan-2011-02-08.
In particular, note the article-apparently worthy
of being published in the Turkish Sunday's Zaman-by
Sabine Freizer, the Europe program director at the ICG:
sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=234935.
From: A. Papazian
By: David Davidian
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/02/28/davidian-the-international-crisis-group-and-partisanship/
Mon, Feb 28 2011
On Feb. 8, the International Crisis Group (ICG) published a
policy briefing titled "Armenia and Azerbaijan: Preventing War"
(www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/caucasus/B60-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.aspx).
It is basically an update from earlier ICG briefs that have intimidated
untrained readers into concluding that war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is inevitable without an immediate final settlement.
The ICG stated, on page 1, that the best settlement is to agree on
the basic principles "first outlined by the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 2005." The ICG states that the
current status quo is not in the interest of Azerbaijan, yet on
page 2 recommends that "Armenia and the de-facto Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities should cease supporting activities that make the status
quo more intolerable for Azerbaijan..." The ICG puts the burden of
conflict settlement squarely on the shoulders of Armenians. This
makes the ICG as partisan today as it was in 2007.
In November 2007, the ICG recommended in "Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking
War" (www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,ICG,,AZE,,473c101e2,0.html)
the "withdrawal of Armenian and Nagorno-Karabagh forces from all
occupied territories adjacent to Karabagh, with special modalities
for Kelbajar and Lachin," adding, "The de facto Nagorno-Karabakh
authorities should end support for settlement of occupied territories
with Armenians" and "Azerbaijan should allow Karabakh Azeris to elect
the head of their community and make a concerted effort to increase
transparency and reduce corruption so that oil revenues are used to
benefit all citizens, particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs)"
(see pages i-ii).
On page 4 of the 2011 brief, the ICG claimed, "The Armenian front-line
units that came under attack [June 18-19, 2010] reportedly 'panicked'
and initially fled, producing some concern among military officials
in Yerevan that their troops' training and combat experience may not
be as superior as often claimed." This claim appeared odd; moreover,
the reference provided looked bogus. The ICG needed to explain. Below
is the email I sent to the ICG on Feb. 9, 2011.
***
Subject: Request for References: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011
From: "David Davidian"
Date: Wed, February 9, 2011 9:15 am
To: [email protected]
Dear International Crisis Group,
I have two short informational questions regarding a report you
published yesterday.
In report: Europe Briefing N°60, 8 February 2011, Armenia and
Azerbaijan: Preventing War, you made a reference on page 4:
"The Armenian front-line units that came under attack reportedly
'panicked' and initially fled, producing some concern among military
officials in Yerevan that their troops' training and combat experience
may not be as superior as often claimed.14"
and footnote 14 states: "14 Crisis Group interview, military analyst,
Yerevan, November, 2010."
However, I cannot find this reference on the ICG site after extensive
searching. Can you provide a link to reference 14?
Also, you noted on page 1: "...the country's [Azerbaijan] oil revenues
are projected to decline after 2014." Can you provide a reference
for this claim as well.
Thank you for your time and effort,
David Davidian
***
There has been no response to this request. A reference for a 2014
oil declination claim on page 1 was used as a control case. Actually,
this 2014 oil claim is made again later in the brief, and there it
is referenced with footnote 98.
The ICG should provide clarity when using references in their policy
briefs, considering they provided 152 of them in a 16-body page
publication. A reference that cannot be located or clarified calls
into doubt the author's intent and questions the entire report. Even
high school term papers are required to have verifiable references. It
would be interesting to examine the entire ICG brief, but the effort
would only reinforce the partisanship exhibited by the ICG.
The ICG is engaging in tactics generally associated with psychological
warfare. The function of their latest brief is crafted to pressure
Armenian and "de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities" to accept the
deal proposed by mediators. The ICG's analysis and recommendations
are clearly not convincing at the expert level; however, the ICG's
target is really the unsuspecting general public.
Azerbaijani and Turkish English-language media apparently had no
issues with the ICG 2011 brief, as they merely quoted directly from
the ICG. See a sampling: www.news.az/articles/politics/31052,
www.todayszaman.com/news-234804-armenia-and-azerbaijan-preventing-war.html,
www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=icg-warns-of-war-risk-between-armenia-azerbaijan-2011-02-08.
In particular, note the article-apparently worthy
of being published in the Turkish Sunday's Zaman-by
Sabine Freizer, the Europe program director at the ICG:
sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=234935.
From: A. Papazian