Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and many thanks for the invitation to appear before the committee.
I have been studying the South Caucasus for 25 years, and that includes multiple trips to the region in my capacity as a law professor. The fact that Canada is now engaged with the South Caucasus in a way that it wasn't for much of those two and a half decades is partly thanks to this committee, in particular for its hearings held two years ago on the weapons transfers to Turkey and the subsequent ramifications of that for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, so thank you.
I have three points.
The first is that the blockade of the Lachin corridor represents a current and pressing humanitarian crisis. Secondly, I would argue that Azerbaijan bears state responsibility for that. Third, I would submit that Canada has good reasons to take a stance.
First of all, on the Lachin corridor as a lifeline, on November 9, 2020, as you know, the Russian-backed ceasefire agreement included, in part, a provision that, “The Republic of Azerbaijan shall guarantee the safety of citizens, vehicles and goods travelling along the Lachin corridor in both directions.”
Since 2020, the corridor has been a lifeline for the roughly 120,000 residents of Nagorno-Karabakh. Its blockade by Azerbaijan has already had dire consequences, and they are poised to worsen.
These actions have involved the cutting off of electricity and gas; food shortages, including rationing of staples such as wheat and buckwheat, along with vegetables and other supplies; shortages of medical supplies and an inability to transfer critically ill Armenian patients, including children, to hospitals in Armenia proper; and cutting off some children stranded in Armenia from returning to their families in Nagorno-Karabakh.
These actions represent not only breaches of the ceasefire agreement as well as international humanitarian and international human rights law. They are part of a broader effort to ethnically cleanse Nagorno-Karabakh. They come in a context of widespread Armenia-phobic statements propagated by the regime and the destruction of cultural property. It should worry us that the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention has issued red flag alerts for genocide in the region.
We can recognize that both sides have legitimate concerns about how the ceasefire has been implemented. I absolutely recognize that both sides have legitimate concerns in this regard, and we should press both sides to make genuine efforts to compromise to reach a lasting peace in the region, but there's no scope for false balance or “bothsidesism” over this particular issue of the Lachin corridor. The blockade is having immediate and dire humanitarian consequences for civilians. They are essentially being held hostage.
Let's be frank. Azerbaijan is an authoritarian state and claims that this blockade is a result of spontaneous Azerbaijani citizen activism are simply not credible, but don't take my word for it. Human Rights Watch, in its report on Azerbaijan, says, “The space for independent activism, critical journalism, and opposition political activity has been virtually extinguished”.
Power in Azerbaijan is in the hands of President Ilham Aliyev, a dynastic successor to his father, who has served as president since 2003. Even assuming that these eco-activists are private Azerbaijani individuals spontaneously blocking the road, Azerbaijan bears state responsibility. A state may be responsible for the effects of the conduct of private parties if it does not take the necessary measures to prevent those effects.
Let me give an analogy. A state is not responsible for individual citizens taking over an embassy, such has happened in Tehran, but it is responsible if it fails to take measures to prevent that or to act appropriately afterwards to protect the embassy or regain control over it. Russia also bears state responsibility here, and perhaps that will come up in questions.
My third point is that Canada has good reason to be involved. As you know, 2020 marked the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and Armenia. The celebrations were muted because of the ongoing violence, not because relations between Canada and Armenia are poor. On the contrary, relations between the two countries have never been stronger.
People-to-people links mediated through a sizable and engaged Armenian diaspora in Canada are strong. Politically, Armenia is on a reformist—albeit fraught—track following its 2018 Velvet Revolution. Geopolitically, Armenia is inching away from the Russian orbit and, diplomatically, Canada's recent announcement that it would open an embassy in Armenia, its first in the South Caucasus, was a very welcome step, as were the other recommendations from Monsieur Dion to, “Make Armenia a priority as a fragile democracy”.
Monsieur Dion's report was commissioned before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia. In his mandate letter, he was specifically told not to look at the geopolitics of Canadian support for Armenia. Since that time, however, Canada's support has taken on greater geopolitical significance. Simply put, Canada's support for fragile democracies in the former Soviet areas matters more.
In conclusion, in my view, Canada, while continuing to press both sides to come to a durable peace, should condemn Azerbaijani actions over the specific issue of the Lachin corridor in words similar to its allies, the European Union and the Council of Europe, and use all diplomatic and economic tools to ensure that the humanitarian corridor is opened and remains open.
Thank you.
