Keywords: Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh; Lachin Corridor blockade; Armenians; conflict; humanitarian crisis; genocide; United Nations; UN; Forced displacement; Siege; Azerbaijan; Armenia

Many ethnic Armenians from Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh have expressed outrage towards the statement published by this mission.

The United Nations is bound by its charter and raison d’être to protect the human rights and dignity of those most in need and to do so with a deep commitment to survivor centricity. Aid for those most in need and protection for the least powerful must be agile, comprehensive, and fully inclusive. Putting survivors first mandates pushing back against the politicization and abuse of power by oppressors, perpetrators, and complicity actors. Today, the indigenous Armenians of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh, both those who were violently displaced and those who are staying in their homeland, are the least powerful and those most in need. They are the 120,000 reasons this mission came into existence, and why I hope my letter reaches you in good faith.

I ask for your attention and goodwill to address and respond to the points below:

1. The credibility of the mission is undermined by its governance and non-independence
As noted in the statement published on the website of the UN Azerbaijan, the UN one-day mission was led by the UN Resident Coordinator in Azerbaijan and included the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS). I have understood that the mission was approved by the Government of Azerbaijan to grant access to Nagorno-Karabakh. The purpose of this mission was to conduct an on-the-ground assessment of the situation and the urgent humanitarian needs of the local population, both those displaced and those who have remained to date.

However, the membership of the mission did not include representatives of the UN Armenia country team, nor did it include representatives from the local Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh. Consequently, the membership of this mission had a partiality towards Azerbaijan and as such, was neither independent nor neutral. Aside from the concerns I have already raised earlier in my letter, the independence of any UN mission is especially warranted for three reasons:
 
Sources on the ground have confirmed that more than 99% of local Armenians have fled Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh and are now within the borders of Armenia, and as such, the significant weight of the needs and any emergency response lies on the side of Armenia and not that of Azerbaijan at this stage in the conflict and state of humanitarian emergency.
 
Azerbaijan is the state actor that ordered the violent and comprehensive military campaign against the local Armenian population of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh. As such, giving them credence to even participate in the first UN mission on the ground plays heavily into power dynamics that significantly disfavor the powers and dignity of the local Armenian survivors and victims.
 
The above shortcomings in good governance also greatly limit the degree of meaningful and authentic survivor centricity in both design and action, hurting the integrity of this very important mission, making trusted and verified independence and impartiality indispensable.

I implore you to open an investigation on the above to study these concerns in more detail.

Consequently, the membership of this mission had a partiality towards Azerbaijan and as such, was neither independent nor neutral.

2. The choice and spirit of the language used in the statement is harmful to the survivors who have lost their homeland
At a time when international lawyers, humanitarians, and diplomats are examining the possibilities of crimes of genocide and war, the epistemological choice on the use of language is an ethical responsibility that cannot be diminished.

Five sentences in the statement are written very similarly to statements published by the Office of the President of Azerbaijan and other government institutions and spokespersons. This is concerning and raises questions about the trustworthiness of the UN mission, or at the very least, the author of the statement, who used to be the Director of Press at the Azerbaijani Embassy to Israel.

Five sentences in the statement are written very similarly to statements published by the Office of the President of Azerbaijan and other government institutions and spokespersons.

I also noted that the statement only references the two cities it names, Stepanakert / Khankendi and Akna / Aghdam, by their Azeri-Turkish names. While I recognize that it is hard to make careful epistemological and linguistic choices in statements that are at risk of being politicized or discredited, I will remark that no local Armenian resident of either city would have lived experiences and memories of these two places in the new names stated in the statement of a UN mission activated for the present and future needs of the local population. No reference is made to the former autonomous status of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh and its former local governance.

In other words, the statement falls very short of any authentic and survivor-centered language and therefore offers no trusted linguistic grounds for understanding and communicating the horrific lived experiences of survivors who fled and who stayed. I ask for your kind assistance to study these concerns with a careful investigation into these matters.

3. The research design for the investigation conducted by this mission is vague and not survivor-centered
While media briefings mentioned the purpose for the visit, the statement does not make clear that the UN mission was mandated to conduct a needs-based assessment on the ground and with what authority and approvals it assumed this responsibility. Neither the statement nor the media briefings hosted before and after the mission shed sufficient light on the investigative questions and areas of concern that were important to study and understand.

No mention was made to the methodology employed to speak with community members and to do so safely and ethically. The ICRC explained in its October 3 briefing at the United Nations biweekly Geneva Press Briefing that finding local Armenian residents in Stepanakert / Khankendi and other parts of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh has become very difficult. They have resorted to using megaphones to try to reach those who have remained. The very few left are mainly the elderly, the ill, and those who are alone with no family, as well as some public servants and officials. The statement offers no understanding as to how the mission, with only a few hours in a deserted city like Stepanakert / Khankendi, could find local Armenians who were able and open to speak freely and safely with investigators and interlocutors led by the UN Azerbaijan country team. The statement does not reference the number of local residents who responded to their queries and did not confirm them to be ethnically Armenian. You can appreciate how critically important the safe and ethical inclusion and participation of research respondents is to any data collection process, especially in such a difficult and exhausted environment. To date, I have not been able to find and speak with any local Armenian who met with the mission to hear their side of the story on how they were approached, consulted, and included.

The statement offers no understanding as to how the mission, with only a few hours in a deserted city like Stepanakert / Khankendi, could find local Armenians who were able and open to speak freely and safely with investigators and interlocutors led by the UN Azerbaijan country team.

Interlocutors are mentioned five times in this short statement, with no understanding as to who they are, how they were chosen, and what power dynamics they might also be bringing to the data collection process.

There is no understanding of the specific areas that were visited and why those areas were chosen, noting that the choice of geographic coverage greatly affects the depth and diversity of observations by the mission. It was interesting to see that the mission chose to dedicate time in Akna / Aghdam in its very short one day trip. This region was not affected by the latest military campaign, as it was claimed during the 2020 war, which is noted in the statement. This is an unusual priority in the data collection of a very time-bound team conducting such an important and historic exercise.

The statement also notes that the Aghdam Road was used by the mission team to arrive to the capital of Nagorno-Karabakh. In other words, the mission took the very road that was being used to weaponize aid, prolonging a nine-month-old blockade of the Lachin Corridor, which helped starve and instill deep fear in citizens, significantly fastening the pace of forced displacement. It is unfortunate that this journey was crafted into the experience of the first UN mission visiting this land.

At a time when transparency is so critical, these shortcomings are concerning and have serious ramifications on the authenticity and credibility of the findings of this mission. Such a statement can introduce unjust bias and politicization to future fact-finding missions, given it is to date one of the very few references made available in writing by an international organization that has been on the ground. Given all the above, before sharing my comments on the findings of the mission, I am already very concerned that the ethical and moral responsibility of doing no harm has been clearly and systemically breached and requires a professional and independent investigation to study this further.

4. The key findings of the mission are limited and fail to highlight the urgent and dire needs of the local Armenian people on the ground
While the statement includes references to the local population of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh 13 times, only ten of these mentions are not protocol niceties. However, strikingly, there are zero mentions of the needs of the people.

The statement also includes eight observational remarks noted by the UN mission, of which two are about the efforts of the Government of Azerbaijan. One such observation was the government readying to the provisioning of medical services and utilities. The Azerbaijani media featured ramp-up efforts to build medical capacity on October 1, the day before the mission arrived on the ground. The likelihood of this being a staged effort cannot be ignored. Given the local Armenian population has fled, it remains to be seen for who these new capacities and services are being prepared.

The statement noted that the local population has significantly dropped to “between 50 and 1,000 ethnic Armenians” in all of Nagorno-Karabakh. It is the first time this data point is publicly released. Understanding the source and how this data was collected is critical, because the statement, in effect, announced the totality of the forced mass displacement and also confirmed the population-wide ethnic cleansing of this historic Armenian land.

The one empathetic sentence in the statement reads that “the mission was struck by the sudden manner in which the local population left their homes and the suffering the experience must have caused.” However, the vague and naive language used to describe the loss of home and terror experienced by the entire population reinforces perpetrator impunity and oppression. Uniquely, the statement makes no reference to the violent military campaign that forced the people to flee out of fear, fatigue, and a deep will to survive genocide.

The statement also includes six other sentences about what the UN mission did not see or did not include in the scope of their visit. For example, one mention is: “In parts of the city that the team visited, they saw no damage to civilian public infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and housing, or to cultural and religious structures.” I found it quite curious that the UN mission noted destruction in Akna / Aghdam, and yet did not observe any damage in Stepanakert / Khankendi. It clearly appears that the UN Azerbaijan country team curated a very specific schedule and itinerary to control what the mission would see and visit, and what they would not. This greatly affects any data and analysis, and once again calls into question the ethics of the UN mission and their commitment to survivors of significant displacement and loss. The UN must turn to the many, many reports and testimonies on social media by civilians, citizen journalists, and international journalists who have published human stories since the violence of September 19 began. This is a literature review that is an integral part of any scientific or rapid assessment study.

It clearly appears that the UN Azerbaijan country team curated a very specific schedule and itinerary to control what the mission would see and visit, and what they would not. This greatly affects any data and analysis, and once again calls into question the ethics of the UN mission and their commitment to survivors of significant displacement and loss.

So much emphasis is put on what the team was unable to discover, that the statement almost reads like they were unable to verify these points. Interestingly, every one of these points are possible arguments for an international tribunal to study the possibilities of crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes of war. It begs a few questions: Why was there a need to already reference these points at this stage in the fact-finding journey of the UN in Nagorno-Karabakh? Was the itinerary of the UN mission politicized to drive a campaign of denial and disinformation on what has happened to the ethnic Armenian population and their land since September 19 and even since December 12, 2022? It is my hope that the UN mission was not organized to help deny crimes that Azerbaijan has yet to be held accountable for.

The statement also notes that “The mission did not come across any reports – neither from the local population interviewed nor from the interlocutors - of incidences of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire.” There is ample evidence of deaths, injuries, and missing persons that followed the ceasefire of September 20, because the ceasefire did not hold. It was broken by Azerbaijani Armed Forces. This also needs to be added to the literature review of the UN mission team. I would strongly recommend that any fact-finding team meets the refugees in Armenia and the relatives of those who were killed and injured as part of their data collection.

With no lived experiences by the Armenians of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh presented and published in this historic UN statement, the findings are not only limited, they are deeply questionable and have triggered a trust crisis. Any future human-centered needs assessment would need to include at the very least a deep and authentic understanding of the self-reported urgent humanitarian requirements of the local Armenians who have fled and who have remained, such as access to clean water, food, sanitation, healthcare, psychological and emotional support, shelter, education, religious and spiritual support, livelihoods, and the willingness to voluntarily return and with what pre-conditions.

Applying both a qualitative and quantitative lens helps demonstrate the extent to which the statement is written with a cagey and circumspect spirit and offers little to no information to its public stakeholders. Beyond insufficiently disclosing insights, it unfortunately presents points that raise questions about the intent and transparency of this UN mission. It forces a pertinent question that needs to be answered: Did the UN mission achieve its mandate to better understand the authentic and self-reported needs of the local Armenian people of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh?

At this stage in my analysis, I can only repeat that allowing the independent and comprehensive verification of the true situation on the ground by an international body in Nagorno-Karabakh is indispensable and time critical. Given the dearth of data and significant room for disinformation, there is a dire need for an ongoing human rights monitoring unit in the region to ensure the protection of the remaining vulnerable people and prevent the potential for human rights abuses. I repeat my ask for an urgent investigation to examine and report on the above concerns.

5. Despite its purpose to identify the needs of the people, the findings focus on the efforts of the Azerbaijan government
The statement includes six mentions of the efforts of Azerbaijan and in three of those mentions, commends the government for the work they are doing on the ground. This is very unusual for a UN mission that was mandated to conduct an on-site visit to shed important and indispensable light on the dire situation of a fully-fledged humanitarian emergency.

Given the manner in which the Azerbaijani government has used and broadcasted the UN mission and the statement, it is important to investigate the risk that the UN is being taken advantage of to build a paper trail to legitimize the position of Azerbaijan in this conflict. This risk is high given Azerbaijan has received significant criticism from world leaders in the last few weeks since September 19.

...it is important to investigate the risk that the UN is being taken advantage of to build a paper trail to legitimize the position of Azerbaijan in this conflict.

Similarly, one mention is made to the de-mining efforts of Azerbaijan and the need for further mine action. This topic continues to dominate many Azerbaijani government statements, and it is noteworthy that the statement by the first UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh does the same, while not even mentioning one humanitarian need or priority of the local Armenian population.

I am particularly worried that all these notes raise concerns about a possible convoluted agenda to use and appropriate the credibility and integrity of the UN for a conflict that is far from over. Now that the land this mission visited has been fully ethnically cleansed of its indigenous population, the risks of a possible violent military incursion into Armenia by Azerbaijan are even more conceivable. The UN mission and this unusual statement cannot be used as a clean-up act to close one chapter of violence and start a new one. I kindly ask for your urgent support to initiate an independent investigation into the above mentioned concerns.

Conclusion

I regret to report that the statement positions this historic UN mission as incurious towards the urgency and complexity of the emergency humanitarian situation and only passively remarks on the suffering that the local Armenian population have and continue to endure. The spirit of the statement does not read as one of a UN mission that visited a conflict zone where an entire population has been subjected to violence, injustice, and uprooting.
With no needs of the people presented in the statement, it is unclear how this mission will support future needs assessments and inform recommendations on emergency humanitarian aid priorities and interventions. This is most unfortunate given this first UN mission could have been an immense opportunity to build trust and demonstrate serious willingness to understand, acknowledge, and address the lived experiences and needs of the ethnic Armenians of Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh.

The unremarkable nature of this first UN mission statement on Nagorno-Karabakh is glaringly out of place when compared with the many statements and remarks made by UN and UN partner teams that are responding to the humanitarian emergency on the ground. During the October 3 biweekly Geneva media briefing, a journalist asked Marco Succi from the ICRC how the humanitarian crisis compares to other emergency environments he has witnessed in his career. Succi answered: “It is an extraordinary situation.” He then added, “it is a surreal scene.”

This mission was a missed opportunity to break the long track record of Azerbaijan that has relentlessly disempowered an oppressed people. In effect, the mission is a disservice to Azerbaijan as its government continues to try hard to build back credibility as a good faith and trustworthy partner on the international stage. I must note with interest that prior to the mission arriving to Nagorno-Karabakh, the Government of Azerbaijan announced a US$ 1 million donation to the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN Habitat) for the development of sustainable cities to strengthen peace and security around the world.

An independent international fact-finding mission is now even more urgently needed to forensically and scientifically study and examine the situation on the ground, with time being of the essence as evidence is at risk of being disposed or manipulated. Effectively, all local witnesses to such possible crimes have fled to Armenia. There is no one left in Artsakh Nagorno-Karabakh to alert the world of any such erasure and re-writing of history.

An independent international fact-finding mission is now even more urgently needed to forensically and scientifically study and examine the situation on the ground, with time being of the essence as evidence is at risk of being disposed or manipulated.

I opted out of a private letter to the attention of the Ombudsperson and hope that this letter will be taken seriously and help activate the necessary investigative measures at the UN. I am ready to support any such efforts and ensure that accountability is swiftly achieved.

It is my hope that all UN missions moving forward will apply the most stringent ethical and survivor-centered measures. We all have a shared responsibility to raise our standards and authentically acknowledge and respect the complexities, risks of disinformation, and inhumanity facing an entire people and their historic land.

Respectfully yours,

Lynn Zovighian

Co-founder and Managing Director

The Zovighian Partnership Public Office