In a damning revelation before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the U.S. Congress, former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Luis Moreno Ocampo delivered a scathing indictment of the United States' role in the escalating humanitarian catastrophe in Nagorno-Karabakh. Ocampo unequivocally warned that the United States is on the precipice of complicity in genocide if it continues to turn a blind eye to Azerbaijan’s relentless blockade of the region. This hearing, convened on Wednesday, starkly highlighted the dire plight of approximately 120,000 Armenians teetering on the edge of famine due to nearly nine months of oppressive isolation.

A Dire Warning of Genocide

Ocampo, whose recent report shockingly declared that “there is a reasonable basis to believe that a genocide is being committed against Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh,” hammered home the gravity of the situation by asserting that “starvation is the invisible genocide weapon.” He condemned Azerbaijan’s blockade as a calculated attempt to annihilate the Armenian population through systemic deprivation.

“The negotiation is between a genocidaire and his victims,” Ocampo thunderously declared, drawing a harrowing parallel to the Holocaust by stating, “You cannot arrange a negotiation between Hitler and the people in Auschwitz. It’s not a negotiation. You have to stop Auschwitz and then discuss negotiation.”

This chilling analogy was intended to jolt Congress into recognizing the moral and legal imperatives at stake. Ocampo made it unequivocally clear that any nation, especially one as influential as the United States, that remains inert in the face of blatant genocide is not merely negligent but legally complicit under international law.

Congressional Concerns and Inaction

The Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, a bipartisan entity established in 2008, is designed to serve as a crucial platform for U.S. lawmakers to scrutinize global human rights violations. Despite its lack of direct legislative power, its hearings wield significant influence over congressional discourse and policy recommendations.

During this pivotal session, chaired by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), palpable frustration emanated from lawmakers over the Biden administration’s conspicuous inaction regarding Azerbaijan’s blockade. Rep. Smith castigated the administration for ignoring the humanitarian crisis, pointing out that neither the U.S. State Department nor USAID responded to invitations to testify, thereby exposing a disturbing lack of accountability and commitment to human rights.

Evidence of Atrocities Presented

Adding further weight to the condemnation, David Phillips, Director of Columbia University’s “Artsakh Atrocities” Project, provided harrowing evidence of the severe shortages of food, medicine, and essential supplies in Nagorno-Karabakh. Phillips vehemently characterized Azerbaijan’s actions as driven by “genocidal intent,” citing inflammatory rhetoric and deliberate policies aimed at isolating and systematically starving the Armenian population.

“When a government deliberately creates conditions that threaten a people’s very survival, it falls under the legal definitions outlined in the Genocide Convention,” Phillips asserted. “To ignore this is to tacitly endorse it.”

His testimony underscored the legal ramifications of U.S. inaction, suggesting that failure to intervene could result in the United States being held accountable for its indirect support of genocidal practices.

The Broader Context

The humanitarian crisis in Nagorno-Karabakh is not an isolated incident but the latest chapter in a decades-long conflict that erupted into full-scale war in 2020. Azerbaijan’s reclamation of territories held by Armenians since the early 1990s has been marred by continuous human rights abuses and potential atrocities. The recent closure of the Lachin Corridor—the sole land link between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia—has exacerbated the situation, plunging the region into near-total isolation and pushing its Armenian population to the brink of extinction.

Critics vehemently argue that Washington’s role as a mediator has been fundamentally flawed, prioritizing diplomatic and energy interests over the immediate humanitarian needs of the Armenian population. As Ocampo starkly emphasized, allowing peace negotiations to proceed without addressing the ongoing blockade is tantamount to legitimizing the genocide, effectively normalizing the suffering inflicted upon the Armenians.

U.S. Policy Dilemma

Human rights advocates and policymakers deeply concerned about Nagorno-Karabakh’s plight argue that U.S. leadership is not just beneficial but imperative to halt the blockade. They highlight the United States’ professed commitments to human rights and international law, contending that Washington’s inaction severely undermines its global standing and moral authority.

However, U.S. officials have consistently favored a strategy of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, advocating for “peace negotiations” between Armenia and Azerbaijan while neglecting direct intervention or punitive measures against Azerbaijan. Ocampo’s unrelenting critique raises the stakes dramatically: if the blockade constitutes genocide, the United States risks not only a catastrophic reputational fallout but also legal ramifications for its perceived complicity.

Possible Outcomes and Next Steps

  • Congressional Pressure: The Tom Lantos Commission may escalate its efforts by holding additional hearings or passing resolutions demanding the administration impose sanctions or take more decisive diplomatic actions against Azerbaijan.
  • International Mobilization: Ocampo’s unequivocal labeling of the situation as “genocide” could galvanize international legal bodies, prompting the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the International Court of Justice to intervene more forcefully.
  • Humanitarian Relief: Despite the blockade, humanitarian organizations are striving to deliver essential supplies. The United States could spearhead or support emergency airlifts, emulating historic humanitarian interventions in other conflict zones.
  • Policy Shift or Continued Stalemate: It remains uncertain whether U.S. policymakers will pivot towards a more aggressive stance. Should the blockade persist, allegations of complicity will likely intensify, further straining U.S. relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan—and potentially entangling Russia and Turkey, regional powerhouses with vested interests in the conflict.

Conclusion

Luis Moreno Ocampo’s incendiary testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission serves as a stark indictment of the United States’ current foreign policy approach toward Nagorno-Karabakh. His assertion that the U.S. could be complicit in genocide is a clarion call for immediate and decisive action, challenging Washington’s existing strategy of cautious diplomacy.

With tens of thousands of Armenians facing imminent starvation, the window for neutral mediation has irrevocably closed. The United States stands at a critical juncture: heed Ocampo’s urgent warning and act to prevent genocide, thereby upholding its moral and legal obligations, or continue its perilous path of inaction, risking both ethical disgrace and legal culpability on the global stage.