By Ulvi Narimanli | AzerNEWS

Michael Sukkar, a Member of Parliament in Australia, has drawn significant attention with his recent letter to Azerbaijan’s Chargé d’Affaires, Vagif Jafarov, requesting the release of Bako Sahakyan, the former so-called President of Artsakh (Garabagh) and an individual accused of crimes against Azerbaijan.

In his letter, Sukkar claimed sponsorship of a warmonger Bako Sahakyan, urging monthly updates on Sahakyan’s physical and mental well-being. Sukkar referenced alleged reports of inhumane treatment, including those by Jared Genser, a lawyer associated with Armenian detainees. He also echoed narratives of Azerbaijan’s “ethnic cleansing” following the events of September 2023, during which Azerbaijan restored full sovereignty over its Garabagh region.

Sukkar’s actions reflect a narrow understanding of the conflict, heavily influenced by lobbying efforts. The “Friends of Artsakh” initiative—a platform Sukkar aligns with—has consistently ignored Azerbaijan’s perspective while amplifying Armenian grievances.

Azerbaijan’s stance is unequivocal: Sahakyan’s prosecution is a matter of national sovereignty. Sahakyan’s tenure in Artsakh was marked by years of illegal occupation, armed resistance against Azerbaijani sovereignty, and systemic violations of international law. Of course, like all other Sahakyan has his human rights as everyone else. However, labelling him a “political prisoner” ignores the broader historical context of his leadership in a separatist regime, which operated in defiance of United Nations resolutions affirming Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Azerbaijan considers his detention a matter of upholding justice, with Sahakyan facing accusations of orchestrating violent acts and ethnic displacement against Azerbaijani civilians during the 1990s and beyond.

Azerbaijan’s stance on the matter is grounded in its sovereign right to prosecute individuals involved in actions threatening its territorial integrity. International law supports a nation’s jurisdiction over crimes committed within its borders, particularly in cases of separatist activities that result in violence and displacement. The events of September 2023, far from being an instance of “ethnic cleansing,” represented Azerbaijan’s lawful restoration of constitutional order. Reintegration efforts following this milestone have aimed to foster peaceful coexistence among all ethnic groups in the region.

Sukkar’s sponsorship of Sahakyan reflects a troubling pattern of selective human rights advocacy. His involvement appears heavily influenced by lobbying from Armenian groups, such as the Armenian National Committee of Australia, which often presents a one-sided narrative of the conflict. The “Friends of Artsakh” initiative, which Sukkar is a part of, ignores the suffering endured by Azerbaijani victims of the decades-long occupation, including the internally displaced persons (IDPs) who were forced to flee their homes.

Does Sukkar’s effort truly stem from a commitment to justice, or is it a politically motivated gesture aimed at appeasing a specific constituency?

Prioritizing Foreign Issues Over Domestic Challenges

Sukkar’s focus on Bako Sahakyan contrasts sharply with pressing domestic issues in Australia. Indigenous Australians, for example, face systemic challenges, including inadequate housing, limited access to education, and political underrepresentation. Indigenous communities in Australia face systemic barriers to education, healthcare, and political representation. The lack of urgency in addressing these challenges undermines Sukkar’s credibility as an advocate for human rights, particularly when his focus seems more attuned to foreign political causes than the well-being of marginalized groups in his own country. It seems, however, that the fate of Australia’s Indigenous people is less concerning to some Australian MPs such as Sukkar.

Claims of inhumane treatment of Armenian detainees are not substantiated by credible evidence. Azerbaijan has repeatedly emphasized its adherence to international standards in the treatment of detainees and its commitment to transparent legal proceedings. In contrast, Sukkar’s narrative disregards the plight of Azerbaijani civilians affected by Armenian aggression during the occupation of Garabagh. His selective outrage reflects a troubling double standard in human rights advocacy, one that prioritizes political expediency over balanced analysis.

Sukkar’s sponsorship of Bako Sahakyan reflects a contentious blend of humanitarian concern and political posturing. By challenging Azerbaijan’s sovereign right to prosecute individuals accused of war crimes, Sukkar risks undermining international norms. His selective advocacy, influenced by lobbying efforts, overlooks the broader context of Azerbaijan’s reintegration efforts and the plight of Azerbaijani victims. Constructive engagement with Azerbaijan—grounded in respect for its sovereignty—is essential for fostering lasting peace and stability in the South Caucasus. It is surprising how some politicians accept money from lobbies to defend individuals labeled as war criminals, instead of researching something as essential as this.