Azerbaijan, the UAE\u2019s petro-state analogue in the Caucasus region, hosted 2024\u2019s COP29 in its capital city of Baku. This year, one of the most common genres of narrative revolves around global conflict. Although there are any number of wars, skirmishes, and \u201cspecial military operations\u201d currently being waged across the world, there is one that was especially visible in the streets and venues of Baku \u2013 the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Azerbaijan. The space of COP29 became a symbolic flashpoint for this conflict, revealing strategies that state and non-state actors have employed to legitimize particular narratives. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Distinctions without a Difference\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Back in March, I did not respond to the news that I had been selected as a member for Colorado College\u2019s delegation to COP29 with an immediate and enthusiastic \u201cyes.\u201d Instead \u2013 paralyzed by hesitancy \u2013 I reacted by calling my mom, looking for her advice. Being unaware of the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh breakaway republic (NKR), she was confused by my reticence and discomfort with the idea of travelling to Azerbaijan. I tried my best to explain the historical struggles between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the predominantly-Armenian NKR<\/a>, the 2020 and 2023 iterations of the conflict<\/a>, the ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the region<\/a>, and my fears that I would be helping to legitimize these abuses by attending COP<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, I am writing this after having attended COP and living in Baku for over two weeks. I told (and tell) myself that the reason I was there was not for Baku or for Azerbaijan. Instead, it was because of COP. There was a distinction there, I told (and tell) myself. Yet each day that went by, I was greeted with challenges to that conceptual framework. Whether in the streets of Baku<\/a> or the rooms and halls of the conference, it was difficult to disentangle the conflict from COP. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Finding Nagorno-Karabakh in the Halls of COP29\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n In Baku Stadium, the designated rooms where conferences and events are held owe their names to certain places, people, or symbols that are important to the history and culture of Azerbaijan \u2013 Buta (symbol), Shirvan (place), Natavan (person), Nasimi (person\/place), Caspian (place), etc. However, Area D of the venue holds the most notable one \u2013 as that is where \u201cPress Conference Room | Karabakh\u201d can be found. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The significance of this particular toponymic decision should not be understated. The narrative-forming nature<\/a> of place-naming and its relevance to nation-building processes<\/a> is widely recognized in the academic world \u2013 even being the primary subject of analysis for the field of \u201ccritical toponymy.\u201d Within this context, the ideological nature of this particular place-name would appear standard for a state production or performance of power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n However, what makes the Karabakh conference room unique is its temporary existence in a place that is chiefly populated by non-Azerbaijanis, and which most Azerbaijanis will never enter. Therefore, it should not be seen as a material act of control over the actual place of Karabakh \u2013 that would manifest within place-naming processes in the region itself<\/a>. Like the English message on the venue\u2019s coffee shop receipts, this is not being done with Azerbaijani people in mind. Instead, it is a symbolic act that is meant to legitimize and normalize Azerbaijani control in the eyes of the venue\u2019s attendants. It, like the receipts, serves as a constant reminder to this global audience that \u201cKarabakh is Azerbaijani<\/em>.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n From Spaces to Speeches\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While the receipts and room names are certainly provocative, other attempts to legitimize and normalize Azerbaijani control over the region proved even more overt. Within the first 90 seconds of his opening speech<\/a> at the World Leaders\u2019 Summit, President Ilham Aliyev remarked on the \u201c30-year-long occupation by Armenia\u201d in Karabakh. Additionally, in trying to maintain relevance to the subject of climate change, he also used this time to champion the burgeoning green energy projects<\/a> in the districts \u201cliberated from Armenian occupation four years ago.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n What President Aliyev is referring to here is the region\u2019s post-conflict recovery efforts centering around the establishment of green infrastructure and renewable energy sources. There, the rubble of the conflict is treated like a blank slate to \u2018build back better.\u2019 In fact, one Azerbaijani political scientist<\/a> has go so far as to proclaim that, \u201cKarabakh will be the new Silicon Valley, but in a green way.\u201d However, other scholars, activists, and international officials have called these projects, and the rhetoric around them, acts of \u201cgreenwashing<\/a>\u201d that serve as a cover for ethnic cleansing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, even when Karabakh is not mentioned by name, its centrality to the Azerbaijani agenda at COP29 remains evident. Sitting at the \u2018Leaders\u2019 Summit of the Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) on Climate Change,\u2019 I awaited declarations from the leaders of these SIDS on the necessity to act quickly and forcefully on global emissions. To my surprise, however, the first person to take the stage for speeches was President Aliyev. The first half of his speech<\/a> spoke to Azerbaijan\u2019s financial and humanitarian support for SIDS and the need for powerful climate action on their behalf. Yet halfway through he switched subjects, shifting focus to the \u201cneo-colonialism\u201d of France and Netherland\u2019s overseas \u2018territories\u2019 (read: colonies). Among other actions, he decried the carelessness and harm caused by their nuclear testing in French Polynesia<\/a> and condemned the brutal repression of recent decolonial protests in New Caledonia<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In a vacuum, everything President Aliyev said about the continuation of French and Dutch colonialism is true and he would be right to bring it up. In fact, each condemnation was met with applause from Global South leaders and delegations. Even I found myself applauding at certain points. However, something felt off about his decision to speak on these issues, leading to many traded glances of perplexion with my classmate. In his final remarks in the speech, Aliyev alluded to his true intentions here:\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n But what else can we expect from the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe if Chief European diplomat Josep Borrell calls Europe a garden and the rest of the world jungles?! If we are jungles, then stay away from us and don’t interfere in our affairs<\/em>. (Emphasis added).\u00a0\u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n As it turns out, France is one of the most vocal opponents<\/a> of Azerbaijan\u2019s actions in Karabakh, issuing multiple condemnations<\/a> and calls for sanctions<\/a>. So \u2013 rather than statements born solely out of righteous indignation on behalf of those subject to colonial rule \u2013 Aliyev\u2019s proclamations feel more like political posturing with the goal of delegitimizing France\u2019s denouncement of Azerbaijan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What\u2019s Missing\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, what is just as \u2013 if not more \u2013 significant than what\u2019s in the space or what\u2019s been said in these halls, is what\u2019s missing. Specifically, the Armenian delegation has been absent from this year\u2019s COP. There had been a back and forth between the two nations in the months prior to the conference, with Armenia agreeing not to block Azerbaijan\u2019s hosting privileges in exchange for the release of 32 POWs<\/a>. Nevertheless, it was Azerbaijan\u2019s refusal to release additional captives following this deal that determined Armenia\u2019s decision<\/a> not to attend. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It can be argued that in doing so they surrendered their ability to control the narrative around the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict. However, such an argument would be a reductive reading of the situation. Rather, I believe that Armenia\u2019s absence constitutes a form of what Andrew Donofrio calls \u201ctactical silence<\/a>.\u201d Among those who chose to attend \u2013 me included \u2013 Armenia\u2019s boycott is an act meant to \u201centice reflection,\u201d as Donofrio puts it. We are meant to consider why we are here and they are not, and if that decision is something that can be justified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.coloradocollege.edu\/blockfeatures\/files\/2024\/12\/Nagorno-Karabakh-Map.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.coloradocollege.edu\/blockfeatures\/files\/2024\/12\/image-1.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.coloradocollege.edu\/blockfeatures\/files\/2024\/12\/Twitter-Post.png\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/sites.coloradocollege.edu\/blockfeatures\/files\/2024\/12\/Conference-Room-1024x370.png\")