Foreign

Home page

Foreign

Analyst Ivan Katchanovski: Only one short segment was devoted to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict out of 17 stories dealing with Azerbaijan covered by three main American TV networks over the period from 1998 to 2009

24 December 2010 14:39 (UTC +04:00)

APA Washington DC correspondentâ€™s interview with Ivan Katchanovski, US analyst on South Caucasus, a professor at the School of Political Studies and the Conflict Studies and Human Rights Program at the University of Ottawa

- How do you estimate Nagorno-Karabakh conflict negotiations in 2010? What are the prospects of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue today?

- I am sceptical about prospects of a viable settlement which would satisfy Azerbaijani and Armenian sides of the conflict and such major powers as the US and Russia, in the near future. There are fundamental differences, which are rooted in histories and worldviews of Azeris and Armenians, that would be difficult to reconcile. In addition, the Kosovo independence precedent and the South Ossetian and Abkhazian precedents make it more difficult to settle the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh within the old internationally recognized borders. A use of a military option by Azerbaijan is also not likely to resolve the conflict.

- How do you see the role of the media in describing the negotiations processes?

- There is a saying that truth is the first casualty of the war. Media in many countries involved in a conflict often sides with their governments and fails to provide a balanced picture. Because media influences public opinion, such biased information can deepen conflicts and complicate their resolution. But media in other countries, such as the United States, can also play an important role. For instance, during the Russian-Georgian war, the US media gave a very one-sided and biased coverage of this conflict. Most of the US media ignored or minimized the fact, which was confirmed by a EU special commission report and by Wikileaks disclosures, that Georgia started the war by launching an attack on South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers there, and by painting Russia as an aggressor bending on occupation of Georgia. In contrast to the war over South Ossetia and many other violent conflicts, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Chechnya, Kosovo, and Sudan, there is relatively little coverage of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Azerbaijan, in general, in Western media. My study of the coverage of post-communist countries by evening news programs of three main American TV networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) shows that only one short segment was devoted to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict out of 17 stories dealing with Azerbaijan over the period from 1998 to 2009. Oil was much more important topic of the US TV reporting concerning Azerbaijan. Only two very brief news reports concerning the Azerbaijan were broadcast in the last six years by the US networks. CTV, the leading private TV network in Canada, had no news reports at all concerning Azerbaijan during 1998-2009 in its evening news programs. The lack of media attention helps to keep the Nagorno-Karabakh issue from the foreign policy agenda of Western powers, and it helps make countries, such as Azerbaijan, a terra incognita for the people in the West. For instance, several prime-time US TV news reports about visit of US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld to the region soon after September 11, 2001 referred to Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia as â€œCentral Asiaâ€.