Azerbaijan is seeking to bring the issue of Armenian cultural artifacts transferred from Dadivank to Armenia into the international law-enforcement arena by appealing to Interpol. Baku claims that the artifacts were “stolen” from the monastery complex and taken to Armenia and is seeking international wanted notices for those involved in their transfer. Has Interpol actually acted on Azerbaijan’s request?
The best defense is an offense
Political commentator Artyom Yerkanian views Azerbaijan’s move as another manifestation of a political tactic already familiar to Baku. According to him, Azerbaijan continues, on the one hand, its policy toward Armenian historical and cultural heritage while, on the other, accusing the Armenian side itself of appropriating that heritage.
“The best defense is an offense,” Yerkanian says, arguing that Azerbaijan is also attempting to use international policing mechanisms for its political and geopolitical objectives.
In this context, he links Azerbaijan’s attempts to portray Dadivank, Gandzasar and other Armenian monuments in Artsakh as “Caucasian Albanian” heritage with its appeal to Interpol.
Chances of Interpol accepting the request
According to Yerkanian, there are no grounds for Interpol to accept Azerbaijan’s request.
He notes that Interpol’s constitution restricts the organization’s involvement in cases of a political, racial or religious character. In the case of Dadivank, he argues, this factor is evident.
Yerkanian also recalls that Interpol has previously rejected similar requests from Azerbaijan on multiple occasions. In particular, he cites Azerbaijan’s request to place public figure Zori Balayan on an international wanted list, which he says was also rejected in light of the relevant provisions of Interpol’s constitution.
“I am almost certain that, citing the same provision, this request will also be rejected, or perhaps it has already been rejected,” he says.
Transfer of Dadivank artifacts was evacuation, not theft
Yerkanian does not deny that certain historical and cultural artifacts from Dadivank, including bells, crosses and khachkars, were transferred to Armenia. According to him, however, the purpose of their relocation was to save the monuments and artifacts from possible destruction and vandalism.
He supports this argument by referring to the previous fate of Armenian cultural heritage that came under Azerbaijani control.
Yerkanian recalls the destruction of the Julfa khachkars, actions concerning Gandzasar and other Armenian monuments in Artsakh, as well as the treatment of the Ghazanchetsots Cathedral.
In this context, he argues that the transfer of Dadivank’s cultural artifacts should be regarded as an evacuation of historical heritage rather than theft in the criminal-law sense.
According to him, the purpose of the move was to protect the artifacts from possible desecration and vandalism, and therefore there are no grounds for classifying it as a criminal offense.