Author: Talar Tumanian

Experts note that the conflict and still-volatile security may be behind the rise of a skewed ratio between boys and girls.

YEREVAN BASED JOURNALIST

Ani hopes that the child she is expecting means a new start. The 48-year-old’s world was shattered on the autumn day in 2020 when her 19-year-old son was killed fighting in the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorny Karabakh region. Desperate to fill the void he left she sought to replace him with another child – and she wanted it to be a boy. 

“One year later I got pregnant, naturally, but I lost the baby due to complications. The fetus was developed enough, it was a girl,” Ani (not her real name) told IWPR. She cannot say whether she would have carried on with the pregnancy if she had known the baby was a girl. “I had double feelings: I wished it was a boy, it turned out to be a girl…”

Ani fell into depression but was determined to have another child. In 2022 she applied to the state programme that provides free in-vitro fertilisation for parents who lost children during the 2020 war. 

Ani’s desire for a boy is not isolated. Nearly 4,000 Armenian servicemen died in the 44 day-war and many grieving parents have sought to have boys to replace their dead children. Experts maintain that the post-war trauma may have played a role in the rise of Armenia’s sex imbalance at birth after years of stability.

In 2022, the Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia recorded 112 boys for 100 girls, up from 109 boys to 100 girls registered in 2021. The standard biological ratio isof 105 boys to 100 girls, according to data from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). 

“Before the war we had a pretty good index, we had a decrease every year,” Health Minister Anahit Avanesyan told IWPR. “Unfortunately, after the war, there was a certain change again in the society’s mood and perception.”

Armenia has been battling against high rate of prenatal sex selection for decades. The conservative, patriarchal society values boys over girls and with technology allowing the sex of the baby to be known at an early stage, some families opt for an abortion in the case of a female fetus. 

The sex ratio at birth started rising in the early 1990s as the country became independent: it peaked in 2000 with 120 boys for 100 girls and in 2013 was still 114 male births per 100 female. Selective abortions are thought to have left the country short of an estimated 80,000 girls.

“It is a problem of national mentality; the society, both here and in the wider region, favours sons over daughters as the continuation of the family,” psychologist Sona Hovakimyan told IWPR.

Awareness campaigns and measures like announcing the sex of the baby at a later stage managed to slowly contain the imbalance, which dropped in the late 2010s. Then, in 2020, the war broke out, leaving a country traumatised.

According to psychologist Hovakimyan, mothers who have lost a son may seek to have a male child to fill the gap left by their dead child. 

“When having an abortion, a woman goes through all the stages of loss again but it is the woman’s decision whether she is ready to take that step or not. In that decision, it is very important for a woman to know her possibilities, to understand her fears,” she noted.

UNFPA research in 2022 showed that the preference for boys over girls is on the rise in Armenia. 

About 91 per cent said that “sons continue the lineage” and 83 per cent stated that “boys are the defenders of the motherland”. In a similar poll conducted by UNFPA in 2017, respondents were 64 per cent and 17 per cent respectively. 

The defeat in the 2020 war and the increasingly volatile security situation along the border with Azerbaijan are thought to be behind the sharp increase of respondents who see sons as “defenders of the motherland”.

CONTINUING THE FAMILY NAME

“The issue of gender selection deepens even more when the family is expecting a third child,” says Zaruhi Tonoyan, coordinator of the UNFPA’s programme to combat gender discrimination. “In fact, from the second child on, families prefer to have a child whose gender will differ from the gender of the first, also considering that the birth rate is decreasing.”

This is what happened in Alla’s family. 

“My firstborn, my daughter, is five years old. My husband adores her, he says he wouldn’t exchange her for 1,000 boys. But his family dreamed of a grandson and he kept saying that our second child had to be a boy,” Alla (not her real name), told IWPR. The 28-year-old lives in a village in the eastern region of Gegharkunik, which borders Azerbaijan -the UNFPA research showed that the region has the highest prevalence of families favouring boys over girls. 

Alla’s in-laws repeatedly told her that a woman’s duty was to give birth to a boy child to continue the family name.

“The topic was discussed so much that I was inclined to think that our second child ought to be a boy. When I got pregnant two years ago, I found out it was a girl… We were not expecting a girl. A boy was needed,” she recalled, adding, “I don’t want to talk too much about it. I had an abortion. I had to.”

After the abortion, Alla developed health problems; doctors said it will take her body a long time to recover.  

“I committed a sin, I did it without realising it. I’ve gone to 1,000 doctors, but I can’t get pregnant. God punished me,” she said as she showed a small shrine she had set up in a corner of her room. She said that her day starts and ends with a prayer, in the hope “to be forgiven and have another child”.

In 2013, UNFPA recorded that the imbalance was particularly dramatic for third births: the level of 173 sons born for every 100 daughters was the world’s highest.

Experts maintain that the root of the problem needed to be addressed.

“We should learn to value girls, women should be valued in society. We need to have conversations about it, so that we can prevent the issue of gender-based selection,” Tonoyan said. “We are taking a step back. We had a positive index, which we need to achieve again by continuing awareness activities regarding this issue, as well as capacity building among healthcare workers, who should provide proper counseling to women for the latter to make informed decisions.”

Ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan agreed. 

“There is a need to change the mentality, to value the role of women. Gender equality wil make the issue [sex selection at birth] disappear,” he told IWPR.

In Yerevan, Ani says that she is now ready for a girl. 

“The new child is the beginning of a new life and will not be a replacement for my lost boy… You know, it is very difficult to be honest with yourself,” she continued. “But you have to be. When you are very honest, you realise that you are selfish, that you want nature to adapt to you and give you what you want. However, this is a matter that should not be interfered with. A girl or a boy, the child must be born.”

https://iwpr.net/global-voices/post-war-trauma-prompts-armenias-sex-imbalance

On June 1, during the course of his visit to Chisinau, Moldova, to attend the second summit of the European Political Community (EPC), Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that the next meeting of the foreign ministers from his country and Azerbaijan will take place in Washington on June 12 (Armenpress.am, June 1). Although it has been postponed since, the Azerbaijani side declared that the new date will be announced soon (Modern.az, June 8). If it indeed takes place, this will be the second meeting of the two ministers hosted by the United States, after their four-day peace talks in the US capital in early May 2023 (see EDM, May 8). Following this meeting, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that the two South Caucasus republics were “within reach of an agreement” (State.gov, May 4). Indeed, multiple meetings have taken place since then between representatives of the two countries at various levels, resulting in some noteworthy advancements.

The European Union–mediated summit of Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders in Brussels on May 14 and the Russian-mediated foreign ministers’ meeting in Moscow on May 19 (see EDM, May 23) had provided a good basis for subsequent talks between the two sides. Most importantly, the recognition of the Karabakh region as part of Azerbaijan by Pashinyan, which has historically been a point of contention between both countries, was a remarkable impetus for the peace process (Consilium.europa.eu, May 14).

In the aftermath of these two meetings, the long-awaited trilateral summit of Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian leaders took place in Moscow on May 25. This trilateral gathering was organized on the sidelines of the summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), where Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev took part as a guest for the first time (President.az, May 25).

A few hours before the resumption of high-level peace talks in Moscow, which had not taken place since the summit in Sochi on October 31, 2022, Russian media announced that “at least two documents” would be signed. According to the Russian daily Kommersant, one of these documents was expected to be signed by the deputy prime ministers involved in a separate negotiation track, with a particular emphasis on reopening regional transportation connections as outlined in the trilateral statement issued on January 12, 2021, signed by Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia (Kommersant, May 25). The other document was anticipated to be another joint statement issued by the leaders of the three countries.

However, the trilateral meeting did not deliver any signed documents or yield any major breakthrough. Some Azerbaijani media reported that the Armenian side was not interested in the adoption of any document (Qafqazinfo, May 25). The verbal battle between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan at the EAEU summit received more attention from observers. Here, Aliyev and Pashinyan, in the presence of Russian President Vladimir Putin and other EAEU leaders, argued about the perception of “corridor,” which is a debatable topic as Armenia rejects this term in relation to the transportation passage widely referred to as the “Zangezur Corridor.” Aliyev reiterated to the Armenian leader that the use of this term does not contain any territorial claims against Armenia and that he uses this term in the same way when referring to the “North-South Corridor and East-West Corridor” (President.az, May 25).

That said, perhaps the most important outcome of the Moscow summit was the re-activation of the working group of both countries’ deputy prime ministers to discuss transportation projects. Following the trilateral summit, Putin noted that the sides were close to a final deal on re-opening transportation links and that the remaining issues were “purely technical” (President.az, May 25). On June 3, the working group met for the 12th time and reported to have reached a “common understanding” concerning “the implementation of concrete steps for the restoration and organization of the railway connection on the Arazdeyan–Julfa–Mehri–Horadiz route” (Apa.az, June 3).

The group statement avoided using the term “Zangezur Corridor,” which is widely used to refer to the aforementioned route. Both sides, nevertheless, reported “important progress” in talks about the “modality” of these transportation links without giving further details. Progress in this direction has also been observed in the increasing use of the Azerbaijani checkpoint on the Lachin road by Armenians traveling in and out of the Karabakh region (Azernews, June 3).

In another positive move, which was commended by the US, Aliyev promised amnesty to the Armenian separatists in the Karabakh region if they disband their illegal entities and abide by Azerbaijani laws (Turan.az, May 28; Apa.az, May 31). The two sides also appear to be closer to an agreement on the exchange of one another’s exclaves that have remained in the territory of the other since the collapse of the Soviet Union (News.am, June 1).

In the meantime, on June 1, on the sidelines of the EPC summit, Aliyev and Pashinyan met again with the mediation of European Council President Charles Michel, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This format is not entirely supported by Azerbaijan due to the participation of Macron, since the political establishment of his country has almost always been supportive of Armenia (News.az, June 2). Nevertheless, in an apparent demonstration of goodwill in the peace process, Aliyev agreed to join the meeting, which was held informally in a cafeteria. The major outcome of the gathering was the announcement of the next summit of Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders via the mediation of Michel in Brussels on July 21 (Consilium.europa.eu, June 1).

Thus, in the run-up to the next ministerial meeting in Washington, the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks have been marked by significant dynamism and progress. In addition to the aforementioned advancements, the attendance of Pashinyan at the inauguration ceremony of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on June 3 for the first time in history marked a highly symbolic occasion (Armenpress.am, June 3). Thus, the potential is growing that Baku and Yerevan could sign a peace treaty in the near future if they can overcome the remaining challenges on this path (see EDM, May 23) and preserve the positive atmosphere that comes under threat by frequent, albeit small-scale, military clashes along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan (Mod.gov.az, June 1, 2, 3).

https://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/International/A-New-Chapter-In-The-Caucasus-Armenia-And-Azerbaijan-Make-Strides-Towards-Peace.html

Margarita Simonyan, who has regularly called for all-out war on Ukraine, argued on prime-time television in favour of a negotiated solution and a halt to hostilities while referenda are organised in Russian-occupied territory.

She presented her U-turn as a best-case scenario now that Ukraine has access to Nato-supplied weapons now being used on Russia soil and in the counter offensive.

“I’ve been talking about this for the whole year. It would be so good to stop the bloodshed right now, stay where we are, freeze it and hold referenda,” she said on Vladimir Solovyev’s prime-time talk show on Rossiya 1.

“Do we need territories where people don’t want to live with us? I’m not sure.”

Her suggestions, especially remarks about “disputed territories” in Ukraine, caused a backlash at home while some of Russia’s loudest mouthpieces of the war accused her of crossing Vladimir Putin who “officially” recognised the occupied areas as part of Russia last year.

“Did Simonyan get a new boss now? Who is paying her? A referendum on Russia’s territories that she calls ‘disputed’ would be a Godsend for Western strategists,” Roman Alekhin, a Russian military volunteer and writer, wrote in a column for Tsargrad TV on Wednesday.

Lesser known pro-war bloggers called for her resignation while Igor Girkin, a former Ukrainian separatist commander accused Ms Simonyan, an ethnic Armenian, of first betraying Armenia’s national interests by supporting a deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia over a breakaway region, and now trying to do the same for Russia: “We will figure things out for Russians and Russia without you.”

The surprising remarks by a long-time trusted member of the Russian political establishment do reflect views of some of the Russian establishment but it does not necessarily mean Moscow is going to call it quits here and now.

“Simonyan in her statement tries to say it makes no sense to wage war much longer, let things be as they are and revisit them later,” Tatiana Stanovaya, a long-time Kremlin watcher at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, said.

It can also be a Kremlin-inspired attempt to gauge public opinion while widespread censorship is keeping the Russian leadership itself in the dark about what Russians really think.

“Simonyan’s time-to-talk argument may yet prove to have legs – but it won’t grow those legs until it has proved its worth to the propaganda machinery itself, and ultimately to the Kremlin,” Sam Greene, a Russian politics professor at King’s College London, tweeted.

Regarded as one of Russia’s best-known hawks, Ms Simonyan was calling on the Kremlin to annex eastern Ukraine months before the war began, and just weeks before the invasion she was publicly grilling Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister: “When are we finally going to whack Washington?”

When Vladimir Putin sent troops to Ukraine last February, the media executive said she was “genuinely happy” and “overwhelmed with euphoria”.

As Russian troops got bogged down in fighting last spring, Ms Simonyan said she didn’t see Russia “just giving up and going” and that a Russian nuclear strike was on the cards.

Recently, she has been saying that neither she nor anyone in the Russian establishment are “enjoying” bombing Ukrainian cities but insisted it had to be done to topple the Kyiv government.

When a Russian cruise missile hit the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia last summer, killing a young mother and her daughter, she insisted the Russians were targeting “Nazis”.