How Azerbaijan obstructed Red Cross relief during Nagorno-Karabakh siege – OCCRP

Tens of thousands of people were going hungry during the nine-month blockade of Nagorno Karabakh, but the International Red Cross faced growing obstacles as it tried to deliver help. Among them was hostile rhetoric from the Azerbaijan Red Crescent, a local member of the Red Cross movement.

In a new report, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) has pieced together the most complete picture yet of how Azerbaijan impeded the work of one of the only international organizations that was providing life-saving humanitarian support on the ground.

For months, securing a spot on one of the ICRC’s convoys of white Toyota Land Cruisers was the only hope for anyone in Nagorno-Karabakh to get out and receive advanced medical care. But while Azerbaijan was bound by the International Court of Justice in the Hague to ensure “unimpeded movement” along the enclave’s only road to Armenia, OCCRP’s reporting shows that, in practice, it severely limited the ICRC’s ability to operate.

The ICRC convoys carried about 1,500 people, including more than 800 medical patients, out of Nagorno-Karabakh during the blockade. According to the Nagorno-Karabakh authorities, the need was far greater. A former coordinator of Nagorno Karabakh’s Ministry of Health told reporters that more than double that number of patients needed to be evacuated, but no room could be found.

A former senior ICRC employee said the process grew increasingly fraught as Azerbaijani authorities threw up more and more obstacles.

“Each next convoy was harder, harder, harder,” said the employee, who was directly involved in the organization’s transports.

“They put pressure, starting from minor things on the spot, up to big things at the Azerbaijani [Foreign Ministry],” they explained, describing bureaucratic and logistical challenges, behind-the-scenes disputes about minor details, and outright bans on movement. “We couldn’t work properly.”

The ICRC employee is not identified because they had not been authorized to share politically sensitive information. However, reporters corroborated their account using the convoy data, statements from other ICRC and government officials, interviews with locals, and local news reports from that period.

OCCRP’s reporting also highlights a substantial breach in the International Red Cross movement over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: A local branch, the Azerbaijan Red Crescent, publicly opposed the ICRC’s work in the territory.

Though mandated to honor the official Red Cross principles, including neutrality, impartiality, and unity, Azerbaijan Red Crescent officials repeatedly embraced Azerbaijani government narratives, publicly questioned the suffering of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenians, and challenged the authority of the ICRC mission.

Melanie O’Brien, an expert in international humanitarian law and an associate professor at the University of Western Australia’s School of Law, reviewed reporters’ findings. She said that, as a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, Azerbaijan was obligated to allow the ICRC to do its work unhindered.

“All parties have agreed to the ICRC’s presence in Nagorno-Karabakh, and therefore it is concerning that a state was hindering their work,” she said.

Of the actions taken by the Azerbaijan Red Crescent, she added: “Based on the information I have seen, and if it is true, these are very serious alleged violations of the [Red Cross movement’s] fundamental principles.”

In response to requests for comment, both the ICRC and IFRC provided statements that stressed the importance of the Red Cross movement’s fundamental principles and the urgency of the work.

Neither criticized the Azerbaijani government, with the ICRC noting that the organization’s commitment to “reaching vulnerable people” in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict meant “working with relevant authorities to gain access to people who needed humanitarian assistance, including medical evacuations.”

“The diplomacy and coordination it takes to reach people affected by conflict is done through bilateral dialogue,” the ICRC statement continued. “Years of practice have shown us this is the most effective way to carry out our work.”

Neither the ICRC nor the IFRC directly addressed the question of whether the Azerbaijan Red Crescent had violated the Red Cross movement’s principles.

“The ICRC and the [IFRC] take alleged violations of the fundamental principles very seriously,” the ICRC wrote. “The IFRC works directly with its members, the national societies, to address issues or take further measures as necessary in close coordination with the ICRC.”

The IFRC wrote that it had “engaged in a dialogue with the Azerbaijan Red Crescent Society at a high leadership level, in a fast-changing political landscape.”

“Neutrality is critical in every context, even more so during a conflict,” the IFRC said. “Every National Red Cross Red Crescent Society needs to follow the Fundamental Principles and refrain from engaging in controversies of political nature.”