What did US and EU ambassadors overlook? Foreign interference won’t work with Azerbaijan

Recently, US Ambassador to Baku, Mark Libby, announced his departure from diplomatic service due to health issues. While wishing him a speedy recovery, it’s important to recall that Libby expressed optimism about the future of US-Azerbaijan relations on social media as he bids farewell to Baku. There are reasons to believe that this optimism could be realized, particularly with the potential return of former US President Donald Trump.

However, despite the diplomatic pleasantries expressed by Ambassador Libby upon his departure, his actions complicated relations between Baku and Washington. On December 4, during an event in Baku, he made a series of statements that prompted strong criticism from Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry highlighted that the remarks by the US, European Union, United Kingdom, and Switzerland ambassadors were seen as an attempt to undermine the independence of Azerbaijan’s judiciary.

“Involvement in the course of the investigation is unacceptable, and interference in the judicial proceedings clashes with the principle of the rule of law, which is the fundamental principle of the legal state,” stated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This is the right position. Ambassadors of Azerbaijan in the aforementioned countries and in the EU have never commented on the internal political situation there. They have never issued judgments on the court decisions in those countries. Their responses have been limited to addressing attacks against Azerbaijan from American and European politicians and media outlets. It is important to note that there is much in these countries that contradicts the basis of their criticism toward Azerbaijan. For instance, the death penalty remains a legal form of punishment in 27 US states. Yes, 8 states have imposed various moratoriums on it, and federal legislation has had a moratorium on the death penalty since 2021. However, in 2023, 24 people were executed in the US.

In this context, it is worth recalling that Azerbaijan abolished the death penalty with the entry into force of Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in April 2002.

One could engage in a lengthy debate about where human rights, particularly the right to life, are better respected — in Azerbaijan or the United States. By the way, the actions of the mentioned diplomats might be somewhat understandable if the issue involved US, EU, UK, or Swiss citizens being investigated in Azerbaijan. However, that is not the case. So, why are foreign diplomats commenting on decisions made by Azerbaijani courts regarding Azerbaijani citizens? Could it be that their concern for those involved is part of a broader mission on behalf of the countries they represent?

As is well known, Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states that the person of a diplomatic agent is inviolable. They are not subject to arrest or detention in any form. The host state must treat them with due respect and take all appropriate measures to prevent any attacks on their person, freedom, or dignity. Azerbaijan has fulfilled its obligations regarding the ambassadors of the US, EU, UK, and Switzerland, providing them with very comfortable conditions for their work. But what do we see in return? A blatant abuse of hospitality.

There are both written and unwritten rules governing the conduct of diplomats in the host country. Specifically, they should not engage in the activities of political parties or religious organizations in connection with their official duties. They must also refrain from publicly discussing or criticizing the country in which they serve. Diplomats are expected to show respect for the people, culture, traditions, and religious beliefs of the host state.

All of these rules were violated by the aforementioned foreign diplomats. One gets the impression that they confused Azerbaijan with other countries where ambassadors are free to actively interfere in both foreign and domestic policies. Such a misunderstanding is striking. After all, Azerbaijan has long proven its ability to defend its national interests and achieve historic victories not because of, but despite, the positions of leading world powers.

Azerbaijan has restored its sovereignty and territorial integrity by militarily liberating its lands, which had been under Armenian occupation for more than a quarter of a century. None of the aforementioned countries imposed sanctions on Armenia for its disregard of international law, for ethnic cleansing, or for the killings, injuries, and captivity of thousands of innocent Azerbaijanis. The US, UK, Switzerland, and the EU did not recognize the genocide against the peaceful Azerbaijani population in Khojaly. They did not condemn Armenia for the ecocide it committed, turning Aghdam into a "Caucasian Hiroshima." They did not denounce Armenia for launching missile strikes on peaceful Azerbaijani cities during the 44-day war, which resulted in the deaths and injuries of hundreds of elderly, women, and children. Furthermore, they have not exerted pressure on Armenia to facilitate the return of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis who were displaced from these areas.

This list could go on for much longer. It is also worth adding that the US introduced the disgraceful Section 907 amendment, essentially imposing sanctions on Azerbaijan in the year Armenia occupied Shusha and Lachin, and during the year when Armenian militants carried out the Khojaly genocide. In addition, the US provided annual official assistance to separatists in Karabakh. In short, the US, EU, and others have no right to comment on anything happening inside our country. They did nothing to help restore the rights of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis. They did not assist in the liberation of our temporarily occupied lands by Armenia. They did not contribute to the return of our citizens to their ancestral homes. Azerbaijan achieved all of this on its own.

For this reason, Azerbaijan is fully justified in demanding respect from all countries around the world, including those whose ambassadors seem to think they can impose their own rules in a foreign country. These diplomatic methods may be tested in other states that passively accept the loss of real sovereignty and independence.