Is the UK turning a blind eye to genocide against Armenian Christians for commercial gain
A strong case can be made that the Baku regime’s ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabkh is an international crime
Former Chief Prosecutor of International Criminal Court
Last Sunday many Christian churches around the world conducted Ecumenical Prayer Services to call for the release of 23 ethnic Armenians unjustly detained in Baku. Today diplomats from all over the world are flying into the city for the UN Climate Conference (COP29).
The lack of progress in tackling climate change, together with the 2023 “ethnic cleansing” of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, exposes a fundamental and recurring concern in world affairs: that “national interests” will always emerge to block global solutions to existential problems like genocide and climate change.
British Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently illustrated this, sparking controversy by describing Azerbaijan’s actions in Nagorno-Karabakh as a “liberation” rather than addressing them as international crimes. Lammy’s remarks have remained uncorrected. Some argue this highlights the UK’s willingness to overlook severe human rights abuses to facilitate investments by British Petroleum (BP) in the region – investments that, despite their “green” label, will likely worsen climate change.
For thousands of years, Armenians inhabited the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which became an autonomous “oblast” within Azerbaijan during the Soviet Union era. After Armenia’s victory in a 1993 war, the enclave declared itself the Republic of Artsakh, and Armenians occupied the surrounding territory. Azerbaijan reclaimed the area following another war in 2020, turning Nagorno-Karabakh into an enclave under Russian peacekeeper protection, with access only via the Lachin Corridor.
In February 2023, the International Court of Justice ordered Azerbaijan to keep the Lachin Corridor open to safeguard the Armenian population. Instead, Azerbaijan closed it, halting essential supplies and restricting movement. By September 2023, Azerbaijan had escalated its campaign, shelling Nagorno-Karabakh and forcing approximately 120,000 ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia, abandoning their homeland and enduring the “serious mental harm” outlined in the Genocide Convention. 23 of them are in Baku jails as a message to Armenians, if you come back this will be your destiny.
If President Aliyev intended to destroy this ethnic group, the actions would constitute genocide. Absent that intent, they still qualify as crimes against humanity, including persecution and forced deportation.
The US and European countries issued condemnations but stopped short, as they always do, of labelling Azerbaijan’s actions as genocide, opting seemingly to preserve geopolitical alliances rather than take actions required under the convention to prevent genocide.
The US sees Azerbaijan as a strategic counter to Iran and Russia. Europeans, unable to get oil and gas from President Putin, have strengthened ties with President Aliyev. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen calls him a “trusted partner”. But what is the difference between Putin and Aliyev are accused of committing serious international crimes?
Signatories to the Genocide Convention, including these nations, are legally bound to prevent genocide. However, they avoid this obligation by declining to legally define the acts as such. Instead, they use the term “ethnic cleansing” – a powerful phrase but not a prosecutable crime – to sidestep accusations of Armenian genocide in 2023.
A similar dynamic emerges with climate change. The 2015 Paris Accords oblige nations to reduce fossil fuel use. Yet the agreement lacks an independent enforcement body, allowing countries, again, to prioritise their national interests. A few countries meet their targets while others neglect them entirely.
In response, “green funds” were established to finance clean energy initiatives, with climate finance a key objective for COP29. Azerbaijan, as host nation, is positioned to steer the negotiations, but its interests differ from non-oil-producing nations that rely on green funds for clean energy transitions.
Fossil fuels account for over 90 per cent of Azerbaijan’s exports. Azerbaijan plans to use green funds to develop domestic solar power, freeing up fossil fuels for export. Such a policy contradicts the International Energy Agency’s warning that new fossil fuel projects are incompatible with climate goals. The impact on climate remains unchanged while Azerbaijani fuel is simply burned in Europe.
Azerbaijan’s government is actively promoting its green vision for Nagorno-Karabakh, designating the de-populated region as a “green energy zone”. BP was the first to seize this investment opportunity. Its regional director has praised Azerbaijan’s efforts to make Karabakh “the heart of sustainable development”.
This begs the question: Is David Lammy’s endorsement of Azerbaijan’s “liberation” narrative part of a business deal? Allegations of international crimes are overlooked – and green investments in Azerbaijan are going to intensify climate change, not reduce it.
Nothing has improved in a century. The first step towards the 1915 genocide was the incarceration and killing of the Armenian elite as Germany and the US deliberately looked the other way. Next week in Baku, while Mr Lammy and other leaders talk about climate change, they will ignore the hypocrisy of using green funds to promote fossil fuel exports.
More gravely, they will deny the fact that 23 ethnic Armenians, including democratically elected leaders, are victims of international crimes and incarcerated just a few kilometres from COP29 venues.
Luis Moreno Ocampo served as the founder prosecutor of the International Criminal Court from 2003 to 2012
