UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy recently found himself in the middle of a diplomatic row after his blog post referred to Azerbaijan’s actions in the Nagorno-Karabakh region as a “liberation.” Lammy's comments have sparked a heated response, drawing both praise and criticism.

Turkish voices have lauded his recognition of Azerbaijan's and Türkiye's military success, while critics argue that his remarks disregard the humanitarian consequences of the conflict. This controversy highlights the delicate balance in international diplomacy, especially when dealing with regions marked by historical tensions.

Lammy’s Remarks: A Turkish Perspective

David Lammy’s description of Azerbaijan’s reclamation of Nagorno-Karabakh as a “liberation” reflects a narrative that resonates deeply with both Türkiye and Azerbaijan. The 2020 conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan saw Azerbaijan, with Türkiye’s robust support, reclaim territories it had lost in the early 1990s. For Türkiye, this military victory not only solidified its strategic influence in the Caucasus but also underscored its support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.

Türkiye provided extensive military and strategic assistance to Azerbaijan, with drones and military expertise playing a decisive role in the swift and overwhelming victory. Lammy’s acknowledgment of this as a "liberation" signals a shift in rhetoric that recognizes Türkiye's key role. Turkish commentators have praised Lammy for highlighting the justice of Azerbaijan's campaign to reclaim its territories, framing the conflict as a necessary response to decades of Armenian occupation.

Criticism from Armenia and Western Observers

However, Lammy’s comments have sparked significant backlash, particularly from Armenian officials and critics within the UK. Armenia’s ambassador to the UK expressed alarm over the Foreign Secretary’s choice of words, arguing that his remarks trivialize the suffering of the Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh. Over 100,000 ethnic Armenians were displaced from their homes as a result of the conflict, and many have accused Azerbaijan of conducting ethnic cleansing during its military campaign.

Lammy’s blog post, viewed by some as a departure from the UK’s traditionally neutral stance on the conflict, has been described as “callous and ignorant” by some critics. Armenian and Western observers have pointed to the humanitarian crisis that unfolded in Nagorno-Karabakh, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that recognizes both sides of the conflict. Mark Movsesian, a prominent legal scholar, criticized Lammy’s remarks as an endorsement of Azerbaijan’s actions, which he believes contributed to the forced displacement of Christian Armenians.

Balancing the Diplomatic Scales

While Lammy’s remarks have been seen as leaning heavily towards the pro-Turkish and pro-Azeri perspective, the UK government has reiterated its commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. In a statement, the Foreign Office reaffirmed its support for the territorial integrity of both Armenia and Azerbaijan, emphasizing the need for ongoing dialogue between the two nations.

Critics like Conservative MP Alicia Kearns, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, called on Lammy to clarify the UK’s official position on Nagorno-Karabakh. Kearns stressed that using a personal blog to make statements on such a sensitive geopolitical issue could undermine the UK’s diplomatic credibility. She highlighted the importance of maintaining a consistent approach, especially in a region where long-standing ethnic and territorial conflicts have caused significant suffering.

Türkiye’s Role: A Strategic Ally to Azerbaijan

The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh has been a significant geopolitical victory for Türkiye. Its backing of Azerbaijan during the war demonstrated Türkiye's growing influence in the South Caucasus and its ability to shape regional outcomes. For Ankara, the conflict was an opportunity to reinforce its position as a key player in the region, and it allowed Türkiye to cement its relationship with Azerbaijan as part of a broader strategic alliance.

For pro-Turkish commentators, Lammy’s acknowledgment of Azerbaijan’s actions as a “liberation” aligns with Türkiye’s vision of justice and territorial integrity. They argue that the conflict corrected historical wrongs and restored rightful control of territories that had been internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.

TCE Conclusion: A Delicate Balance

David Lammy’s blog post has ignited a complex debate, reflecting both the geopolitical realities of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the humanitarian concerns that accompany it. While Lammy’s remarks have been praised by pro-Turkish and pro-Azeri voices, they have also drawn criticism for downplaying the humanitarian consequences faced by the Armenian population. 

The controversy surrounding Lammy’s comments underscores the difficulty in balancing diplomatic language in conflicts where both historical grievances and modern geopolitical strategies are deeply intertwined. As the situation continues to evolve, the UK must navigate a careful path, balancing its relations with Türkiye and Azerbaijan while addressing the legitimate concerns of Armenia and the displaced Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.

If you enjoyed this article, please share it with your friends via social media and invite them to join us on Facebook and TikTok.

References:

Public Radio of Armenia, September 2024. "UK Foreign Secretary sparks row after blog post on Armenia crisis."  
MassisPost, September 2024. "UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy Sparks Diplomatic Row with 'Callous and Ignorant' Blog."  
The Critic, September 2024. "David Lammy’s Caucasus catastrophe."