Authors

Discussion

The article investigates the issue of expert neutrality on the example of Karabakh conflict. It interrogates the notion of neutrality, specifically looking at the value placed on neutrality by international public opinion; and considers how can neutrality be achieved in case of reporting on a violent conflict. The paper is based on the textual and context analysis of several neutral expert publications that appeared after 2020 Karabakh war in prominent think tank publications and current affairs journals.

The paper argues that in the vast majority of cases the neutrality is achieved by careful balancing of actions, intentions and desires of both sides; an approach that can be called bothsidesism.

The expert publications are studied using the following methodology: first the information included in the text is analysed; second the silences of those texts are considered. The study revealed the following mechanisms employed by the experts: in most cases the experts rely on comparisons between two sides that allows to present what appears to be a balanced picture. Two types of silences were revealed through the text analysis. First, experts practically always ignore the wider context that could upset the seeming equilibrium of their analysis. Second, it became clear that expert analysis avoids considering those facts that do not fit the paradigm of bothsidesism, particularly cases of extreme violence and war crimes when committed by one side are ignored.

The article argues that this approach to the conflict in conjunction with the high value placed on the perceived neutrality of the experts produces a normalisation of a conflict for the international audiences and decision makers who depend on the expert opinion. The normalisation of the conflict for international audience creates a dangerous precedent whereas it successfully conceals a potential genocide in making from the international scrutiny.