David Lammy and the anti-Azerbaijani hysteria in biased media Objectivity is not their concern

As reported by Caliber.Az, British Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently published an article exploring certain nuances of contemporary global geopolitics. Notably, he chose to share his insights in the inaugural issue of the foreign policy newsletter Progressive Realism. In this publication, Lammy stated that he would "in-depth look at my approach to the UK’s foreign affairs," including “how it is shaped by the principle of progressive realism”.

In his first analytical piece, Lammy was expected to showcase the format and style he intends to use when addressing global events. He succeeded admirably in this respect. His light and accessible writing style effectively engages readers on pressing issues. Moreover, it is evident that Lammy is revealing the broader approach of the UK Foreign Office toward events unfolding in various regions of the world.

When approaching his initial article from this perspective, the official stance of London regarding the situation on both the Russian-Ukrainian front and in Central Asia and the South Caucasus becomes clear. Here, the most interesting point emerges. None of David Lammy's analytical statements elicited negative reactions from journalists, experts, or individual politicians—except for one notable instance. Specifically, the minister’s acknowledgment of the historical fact that “Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s” stirred controversy.

And thus began the backlash. Lammy was literally bombarded from all sides. He was labeled as “heartless and ignorant” and accused of making a “blunder” that nearly led to a “diplomatic scandal.” It is astonishing to realize that all these attacks arise solely from the fact that he “welcomed Azerbaijan for liberating its own lands.” The term “liberation” is placed in quotes because the critics of Lammy resort to tired phrases about so-called “ethnic cleansing operations” and “Baku’s war crimes.”

However, things are gradually coming into focus. Almost all the anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric employed by the authors of biased narratives can be traced back, primarily, to one Mark Movsesian. The unusual ending of his surname might be confusing at first, but it likely refers to Professor Mark L. Movsesian, a professor of contract law at the Frederick A. Whitney School and director of the Mattone Center for Law and Religion. He has once again attempted to frame Azerbaijan's restoration of sovereignty and constitutional order on its territory, in accordance with international law, as a matter of "religious strife," using the phrase "Christian Armenia."

In this context, the Armenian ambassador to the UK quickly emerged, demanding "immediate clarification regarding Lammy's comments." Naturally, Alicia Kearns, the "shadow foreign secretary," also became involved. According to Azerbaijan’s ambassador to the UK, Elin Suleymanov, she is “under pressure from Armenian lobbying groups.”

So, as usual, Armenian efforts to rally the international community against Azerbaijan are evident. Undoubtedly, “money has no smell,” and some biased journalists don’t even bother to face the truth while preparing commissioned articles. But that’s their business. We have seen, time and again, how Armenian lobbyists gradually faded from the international stage after being accused of corruption.

In light of the current situation, it’s worth noting another point. The past week has been quite "intense" in terms of anti-Azerbaijani sentiments. Armenian media enthusiastically reported on a proposal from the well-known US Congressman Adam Schiff, who initiated a "bipartisan bill to confiscate Azerbaijan’s assets and transfer them to a fund for the rehabilitation of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh." Meanwhile, the Netherlands joined in, labeling Azerbaijan’s liberation of territories from illegal Armenian armed formations as “land grabbing.” This was followed by an “ideological assault” on David Lammy for expressing an objective and fair stance on events in the South Caucasus.

Of course, we’re used to this. As the saying goes, "the dog barks, but the caravan moves on." Furthermore, wouldn’t it be prudent for Lammy’s critics, as well as politicians who adopt anti-Azerbaijani positions, to reflect on his words from the article we cited, in which he stated, “Diplomacy is all about connecting with people”? One might ask: have the authors of these attacks and false accusations against Azerbaijan ever visited Karabakh? Have they spoken with representatives of the Azerbaijani people? Probably not. And they likely have no intention of doing so, because they have no interest in the truth. Objectivity is not their concern. However, as they continue to align with pro-Armenian lobbyists, they will inevitably be exposed.