Hypocrisy and Mystification: Azerbaijan in the Non-Aligned Movement

On October 20, 2023, representatives from former French colonies and overseas departments attended a conference in Baku titled “Neocolonialism: Violation of Human Rights and Injustice”. The gathering addressed the legacy of the French colonial empire in areas such as public health and economics. Notably, high-ranking Azerbaijani officials, including Hikmet Hajiyev, Foreign Policy Advisor to President Aliyev, and Ombudsperson Sabina Aliyeva, were present.

The conference, facilitated by the Baku Initiative Group, is the culmination of the Aliyev regime’s multi-year effort  to ingratiate itself with post-colonial nations and their leftist supporters in the West. Its aim is to gain support and deflect criticism for their violent campaign of ethnic cleansing against Armenians and repression of anti-war activists. 

Deploying the language of the decolonization movement of the 1960s and 1970s, Azerbaijani officials positioned themselves as leaders in the struggle against European and North American neo-imperialism. But how can a government that has erased Armenian cultural history in Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhichevan, tortured combatants and civilians, and whose leading officials use their positions to enrich themselves, can convincingly evoke the language and aesthetics of resistance against imperialism? Furthermore, how can an internationalist organization which explicitly supports all peoples’ right to self-determination, ignore Azerbaijan’s decades long quest to crush Armenian self-governance in Karabakh, and illegal occupation of sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia? 

In July 2023, President Aliyev, responding to President Emmanuel Macron’s supposedly “pro-Armenian” bias, cited France’s colonial treatment of overseas territories like New Caledonia and its brutal war against Algerians  to curry favor with Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) member countries. The NAM was officially established in 1961 to promote cooperation and solidarity between the emerging nation-states, particularly those in Africa and Asia. Immediately following the end of the Second World War, the vast colonial empires of Western European nations such as France, Portugal and England began to disintegrate. These new nation-states emerged after years of both violent and non-violent struggle against their former colonial masters. These new states refused to align with either of the great hegemons, the United States or the Soviet Union. Today, however, the NAM’s role is largely symbolic. 

Two Truths and Plenty of Lies

In late 2019, Azerbaijan became chair of the Non-Aligned Movement. This presented an important diplomatic opportunity for President Aliyev to make overtures to the rest of the world. He utilized quasi-anti-colonial rhetoric to decry the “occupation” of Karabakh by the Armenians. Initially, the government of Azerbaijan skillfully leveraged the four UN resolutions passed in their favor during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. They painted a portrait of themselves as victims of an invading force unjustly occupying their land. Noting the Minsk Group’s failure to broker an acceptable peace deal, Azerbaijan turned elsewhere. 

The NAM is a diplomatic platform where Azerbaijan, as a major oil-producing nation, can exert influence by supporting ex-colonies that are purportedly fighting colonialism: “Azerbaijan is very much concerned by the rising tendency towards neo-colonialism. The NAM, which was created as a result of the decolonization process, should vigorously combat this shameful legacy of the past and contribute to its full elimination.” 

Citing the French government’s nuclear testing in Polynesia, along with the brutal wars of occupation in Indochina (now Vietnam) and Algeria, Aliyev is able to levy a convincing critique of French colonialism to deflect from his own regime’s abuse. 

Recently, Azerbaijan hosted similar conferences where President Aliyev and other Azerbaijani officials condemned French neo-colonialism, Orientalism, and Islamophobia: 

“Overall, most of the bloody crimes of the [colonial] history of mankind were committed by none other than France. France had occupied [dozens] of countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, the Pacific and Latin America, plundered their resources, and for many years oppressed their peoples while perpetrating numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Aliyev even cites the Parisian Museum of Mankind’s collection of thousands of human remains, a claim that is challenged here, as an example of the brutality of colonialism. Unsurprisingly, Aliyev neglects to mention reports of Azerbaijani troops collecting the ears of slain Armenian soldiers, violating the bodies of women soldiers, and video recording the executions of civilians. Many families of fallen soldiers in Armenia have yet to receive the remains of their loved ones; at times only receiving a single bone. Following the 2020 war, Aliyev famously posed for photos at the newly unveiled Military Trophy Park, which displays helmets of killed Armenian soldiers and captured military equipment. 

Addressing Azerbaijan’s support of decolonization is a complex challenge because, simply put, Aliyev is right. The French military did massacre thousands of Algerians during the war of independence. The French colonial empire did exploit and underdevelop the territories it controlled through brutal, racist violence. Untold numbers of indigenous Africans were kidnapped and enslaved under the French nobility and government, resulting in an accumulation of capital so great it helped shape the modern global economy. That being said, detailing the historical and contemporary effects of French colonialism is outside the scope of this article. Instead, the focus is on how the Aliyev regime’s attempts to evoke the spirit of decolonization fall short due to a bevy of contradictory statements and actions. 

Liberation or Occupation?  

The anti-imperialist movement in the 20th century was composed of democratic activists, various shades of socialists, and nationalists. They all vyed to wrest control of their countries from foreign corporations and states intent on preserving the colonial status quo. On the opposing side were traditionalist and conservative segments of society, often  backed by American or European intelligence services. These services offered funding and counter-insurgency training, and also carried out targeted economic sabotage. In some cases, such as Algeria, these tensions escalated into full-scale war. In other countries such as Chile, Indonesia, or Iran, the military would simply depose the government and eliminate thousands of “subversives” for supporting democratically elected governments opposing foreign control of the economy and resources.

President Aliyev’s incendiary speeches may remind neutral observers of a time when leaders like Fidel Castro and Abdel Nasser openly chastised the West for imposing imperialist machinations on the rest of the world. However, a closer examination reveals a shallow attempt to use the spirit of decolonization as a cover for ethnic cleansing and the perpetuation of a repressive political environment. The narrative produced by President Aliyev and other Azerbaijani officials portrays Azerbaijan as a scrappy and daring group of idealists defending their ancestral homeland.

In a recent conference titled “Decolonization: Women’s Empowerment and Development”, Aliyev stated, “Azerbaijani women have contributed to resolving [significant] issues in all periods of our history, to the freedom struggle of our people, and to the liberation of our lands from occupation by the Republic of Armenia.” This is one of many instances where Aliyev has misleadingly framed the “freedom struggle” against the occupying force of “Armenian fascism”. 

Utilizing terms such as “liberation” and “freedom struggle” are not accidental,  but a calculated appeal to people globally who are struggling for self-determination. This sort of pandering falls especially flat considering Aliyev’s penchant for purchasing nearly half a billion dollars worth of property in London while Azerbaijani veterans of the war struggle to eke out a living. 

A brief look at Azerbaijan’s international relations reveals another contradiction to the anti-imperialist credentials that Aliyev publicly touts. Azerbaijan is supported militarily by a NATO power, Turkey, which has its own geopolitical (or neo-imperialist) ambitions in the region, as evidenced by its occupation of Northern Syria and Cyprus. Another powerful ally of Azerbaijan is Israel, a nuclear-power boasting the most technologically advanced military in the Middle East, with decades of experience in forceful occupation, mass displacement of the indigenous population, and deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure. This situation is unlike the numerous groups who fought against colonialism in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, equipped with little more than Kalashnikovs and the popular support of the masses in their respective regions. The national liberation movements of the twentieth century were in a far more precarious position than Azerbaijan currently is.

The Armenian Response?

Up until 2018, Armenia was essentially a Russian satellite state, with its foreign policy mirroring that of Moscow. In practice this meant Armenian involvement with other post-Soviet states and organizations, mostly notably the CSTO and the EEU, at the expense of deep engagement with states in the Global South or the West. This state of affairs only exacerbated Armenia’s dependence on Russia for both economic and military aid. A hasty pivot away from a trade agreement with the EU in 2013, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of successive governments to resolve the Karabakh crisis, resulted in a diplomatic isolation that Armenia has yet to fully overcome. 

Simply put, Armenia lacks the economic strength, social capital, and extensive ties with regional powers that would allow the sort of diplomatic flexibility available to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s engagement with the NAM has resulted in several resolutions that favor their position. Both the 16th and 17th NAM Summits produced documents expressing “regret that in spite of the United Nations Security Council resolutions (S/RES/822, S/RES/853, S/RES/874, S/RES/884) the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains unresolved and continues to endanger international and regional peace and security… [We] encouraged the parties to continue to seek a negotiated settlement of the conflict within the territorial integrity, sovereignty and the internationally recognized borders of the Republic of Azerbaijan.”

At the 18th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, the organization adopted a final document which was more explicitly supportive of Azerbaijan. This was likely due in part to Azerbaijan’s chairmanship of the NAM. The document reaffirmed “that no State shall recognize as lawful the situation resulting from the occupation of the territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation, including through economic activities in these territories.” Aside from this statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time, Armenia has not challenged Azerbaijan’s chairmanship of the NAM. 

The 19th Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement is scheduled this month and will mark the end of Azerbaijan’s chairmanship. A new resolution may overlook Azerbaijan’s assault on Artsakh or urge a resolution to the peace talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It remains to be seen whether Armenian engagement with the Global South can be useful in countering Azerbaijani narratives on the Karabakh conflict. Despite its current limitations, the Non-Aligned Movement remains a forum to challenge Azerbaijan’s attempt to monopolize narratives of the Karabakh conflict. Moreover, Armenia could benefit from developing ties with nations comprising the majority of the world’s population. Armenians might find they share more common ground with the nations of the Global South than with a West that has yet to follow words with action. 

Also see

Podcast