ICRC's attempt to clear its name steep in misconception Caliber.Az's reaction to the Red Cross response

The editorial staff of Caliber.Az has earlier published the response of the International Committee of the Red Cross to its article "Red flags of ICRC's shady behaviour", where ICRC activities in Azerbaijan were criticized. We would like to discuss the response of the committee a bit, as it is written in a certain style, which, alas, we cannot afford to leave unnoticed.

Although in principle no detailed response was expected on the issues raised by the editorial team, the text of the ICRC message managed to surprise with its blatant irrelevance to the issues raised. Perhaps the first thing that came to mind was that the letter was not addressed to us, as almost none of our claims were answered. To be very fair, two points were answered, albeit indirectly and veiled. They were about the search and identification of the remains of the victims of the First Karabakh war and the moving out of people along the Lachin road.

All other critical problems highlighted in our article were ignored. Firstly, our statements are declared to be false without any proof. Then ICRC offered answers to the questions that we did not ask.

For example, the section on violations of international humanitarian law (IHL), where the committee goes into the rant about why it cannot disclose IHL violations and punish the perpetrators, is bewildering - as if anyone asked them to do so. A manipulative technique is used here, where instead of asking a question, the addressee comes up with a new one and gives an answer to it. The aim is to cloud the relevance of the issues raised, to which the questioner is unable to give an answer.

The rhetoric of the response message as a whole is constructed in this way: bypassing, for lack of facts, specific uncomfortable questions, the Red Cross is trying to pass off our just bewilderment as a misunderstanding of the basic principles of its work.

The leitmotif of this insinuation is a long-worded introduction about neutrality. "We have always been faithful to the basic principles that guide our work: neutrality - not interfering in politics or favouring any side; impartiality - helping affected people regardless of where they are from, where they live, or what they believe". And then there are several more paragraphs in the same vein.

Thus, it is clearly implied that the editorial staff of Caliber.Az is demanding from the Red Cross to take the side of Azerbaijan. There is obvious confusion, or more simply misconception because the situation is quite the opposite, i.e. the editorial staff calls on the ICRC to put aside its partiality and to show neutrality, which it speaks about with such enthusiasm.

One of the following paragraphs on neutrality, intended to evidently cool down the temper, is extremely ambiguous: "Our principles of neutrality and impartiality are not well understood by everyone, but remain integral to our humanitarian work."

We have to answer to this part that there are no principles of neutrality that are incomprehensible. The principles of neutrality are so simple and transparent that they should be visible and understandable to everyone. If the principles of neutrality are "not all understandable", it is not neutrality by definition, but something else, such as double standards.

The ICRC calls our allegations false. Let's not dwell on all the points now, and focus on one of them. The central point of our claims is the ICRC's reluctance to change the management centre of its office in Khankendi from the Yerevan office to the Baku office. Is this a false claim? Or does the ICRC think that the aforementioned all-important part about neutrality answers all possible questions? If so, it is worth emphasizing that no consideration of neutrality, or any other consideration, can explain the ICRC's inaction in this matter, as these considerations, in this case, are not in conflict with the requirement to respect the sovereignty of the State on whose territory you are working. If the Committee does not do this in order not to cause unnecessary psychological discomfort to the Karabakh Armenian community, it only underlines that it has chosen a particular side. What neutrality are we talking about in this case?

The editorial team certainly welcomes the very fact that the ICRC has reacted to the article concerning its activities. However, the committee's use of blatantly manipulative rhetoric in its communications with the media is bewildering. This style of communication adds yet another brick to the wall of distrust of Azerbaijani society towards the ICRC. We hope that in the future the Red Cross will take this into account and respond to the substance of the issues, which will undoubtedly arise again and again.