Bias in reporting: How the OCCRP uses the Red Cross in Karabakh to target Azerbaijan
The latest report from the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) activities in Karabakh raises serious questions about the objectivity and true intentions behind this investigation. Originally established to expose organized crime and corruption, the OCCRP seems to be overstepping its mandate. This leads us to ask: why has the OCCRP chosen to investigate a subject that has no direct connection to corruption or organized crime when there are countless real cases of corruption around the globe that deserve attention?
To begin with, the OCCRP's coverage is blatantly biased. The report portrays Azerbaijan as an impediment to international humanitarian aid while ignoring the fact that the Armenian population's departure from Karabakh was organized peacefully, without coercion. Azerbaijani authorities ensured safe and unhindered passage for Armenians leaving the region, yet this fact is conspicuously absent from the report. Additionally, the OCCRP fails to mention the historical context of the violent expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes in the 1990s, which involved mass killings and violence. Why does the OCCRP choose to stay silent on these events? This selective omission points to a clear political bias against Azerbaijan.
Why is the OCCRP revisiting the Karabakh topic now? Significant time has passed since the peaceful withdrawal of Armenians from the region. Why bring this issue to the fore now, especially when there are so many pressing issues of corruption and crime worldwide? The 2023 Transparency International report notes that corruption levels in Europe have reached a decade high, and efforts to combat it have stalled. So why does the OCCRP turn a blind eye to these issues and instead focus on undermining Azerbaijan? This selective coverage erodes trust in the OCCRP as an independent journalistic organization and raises doubts about its real motivations.
The question of who writes these "investigations" is equally crucial. Take Rasmus Canbäck and Melanie O'Brien, for example—both are known for their biased views and connections with Armenian lobbying groups. Their work has consistently exhibited a prejudiced stance against Azerbaijan, casting doubt on their ability to provide independent and objective coverage of events in the region. This brings up serious concerns about whether the OCCRP can be considered a truly independent journalistic entity if its reports primarily serve the interests of specific political groups.
Moreover, the OCCRP receives funding from Western organizations like the Open Society Foundations, USAID, and Luminate. In 2018 , Luminate, founded by eBay's Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, granted the OCCRP $800,000, with an additional $400,000 provided over the next two years.
The OCCRP also avoids discussing real humanitarian issues stemming from the Karabakh conflict. For instance, it does not cover the fate of 4,000 Azerbaijani citizen s who went missing during Armenia's 30-year occupation, nor does it discuss mass graves or instances of brutal torture and murder of Azerbaijanis. This neglect of critical issues further confirms the organization's political bias.
Additionally, the OCCRP appears to select topics that align with the political interests of its sponsors. The organization frequently targets corruption in countries with strained relations with the West, suggesting a deliberate effort to discredit governments and companies that do not align with their sponsors' interests.
Consider the case of the Indian company Adani, accused of stock manipulation—an allegation the company claims is part of a "coordinated campaign financed by Soros ." Adani has argued that the OCCRP's accusations aim to uphold anti-Russian and anti-corporate rhetoric to damage its reputation. This indicates that the OCCRP could be used as a tool in political or economic battles.
The use of anonymous sources and leaked information also casts doubt on the credibility of the OCCRP's investigations. The organization frequently relies on anonymous sources and confidential documents, making it difficult to verify the information presented and opening the door to potential manipulation to serve the interests of its sponsors. For example, in their investigation into the assets of Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov , the OCCRP cites an unnamed representative, raising questions about the credibility of its sources and the possibility of data manipulation. The frequent use of unverified or anonymous sources can undermine trust in their investigations and suggest hidden agendas in their choice of topics. In high-profile investigations like the Panama Papers, the OCCRP often references confidential documents and anonymous sources, which can cast doubt on the reliability and objectivity of their findings.
The editorial policy of OCCRP is often characterized by negative coverage of the former Trump administration, as seen in the article “‘Have a Nice Life’: Trump Exits With Pardons for Cronies, Money Launderers.” Meanwhile, the Biden administration receives more positive attention, such as in the article “The U.S. Puts Global Anti-Corruption Efforts at Center of Foreign Policy.” Why is this the case? The answer is simple: the funds that sponsor OCCRP fully support the Democratic Party.
I would like to draw attention to countries like Serbia and Hungary, which have also been portrayed negatively in reports by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The report stated that the ruling Serbian party spends significant amounts on election campaign materials, with suspicions of potential overpayments. However, the ruling party in Serbia has provided detailed reports on its expenses, which have been audited by independent firms and comply with legal standards. The OCCRP's claims are based on assumptions rather than facts.
The report also claims a smear campaign against journalist Stevan Dojčinović by Serbian state medi a. In Serbia, there are numerous independent media outlets that adhere to ethical standards, and accusations of slander must be supported by evidence. The OCCRP has not provided any proof to back its statements.
Additionally, the report accuses the private security sector in Serbia of lacking regulations and licensing. In reality, this sector is strictly regulated, and the government takes measures to combat illegal activities. These claims overlook the actual efforts to improve regulation and ensure citizen safety.
Regarding Hungary , the OCCRP claims that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is the "second most corrupt politician," based on subjective opinions. The Hungarian government is implementing anti-corruption reforms and cooperating with the EU on transparency issues, which refutes the allegations of corruption.
The OCCRP report is a collection of unsubstantiated statements and politically motivated accusations. Serbia and Hungary continue to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, which deserves international recognition.
The OCCRP is using the activities of the International Red Cross in Karabakh as a strategic tool to exert pressure on Azerbaijan in the international arena. Under the guise of an independent journalistic investigation, the organization selectively chooses facts, ignoring critical aspects of the situation and creating a distorted portrayal of reality. Instead of objectively reporting on the real situation, the OCCRP engages in targeted attacks, utilizing the Red Cross in its political manipulations against Azerbaijan. Ultimately, it is clear that the OCCRP is straying far from its declared mission of fighting corruption and organized crime, instead becoming a tool of political manipulation and misinformation. Their reports are riddled with bias, omission of key facts, and reliance on unverified sources. This undermines trust in genuine journalism and fosters interethnic strife rather than promoting transparency and honesty. Given these facts, it is evident that the OCCRP's true aim is not the fight against corruption but the manipulation of public opinion in the interests of political and financial elites.
To begin with, the OCCRP's coverage is blatantly biased. The report portrays Azerbaijan as an impediment to international humanitarian aid while ignoring the fact that the Armenian population's departure from Karabakh was organized peacefully, without coercion. Azerbaijani authorities ensured safe and unhindered passage for Armenians leaving the region, yet this fact is conspicuously absent from the report. Additionally, the OCCRP fails to mention the historical context of the violent expulsion of Azerbaijanis from their homes in the 1990s, which involved mass killings and violence. Why does the OCCRP choose to stay silent on these events? This selective omission points to a clear political bias against Azerbaijan.
Why is the OCCRP revisiting the Karabakh topic now? Significant time has passed since the peaceful withdrawal of Armenians from the region. Why bring this issue to the fore now, especially when there are so many pressing issues of corruption and crime worldwide? The 2023 Transparency International report notes that corruption levels in Europe have reached a decade high, and efforts to combat it have stalled. So why does the OCCRP turn a blind eye to these issues and instead focus on undermining Azerbaijan? This selective coverage erodes trust in the OCCRP as an independent journalistic organization and raises doubts about its real motivations.
The question of who writes these "investigations" is equally crucial. Take Rasmus Canbäck and Melanie O'Brien, for example—both are known for their biased views and connections with Armenian lobbying groups. Their work has consistently exhibited a prejudiced stance against Azerbaijan, casting doubt on their ability to provide independent and objective coverage of events in the region. This brings up serious concerns about whether the OCCRP can be considered a truly independent journalistic entity if its reports primarily serve the interests of specific political groups.
Moreover, the OCCRP receives funding from Western organizations like the Open Society Foundations, USAID, and Luminate. In 2018 , Luminate, founded by eBay's Pierre Omidyar and his wife Pam, granted the OCCRP $800,000, with an additional $400,000 provided over the next two years.
The OCCRP also avoids discussing real humanitarian issues stemming from the Karabakh conflict. For instance, it does not cover the fate of 4,000 Azerbaijani citizen s who went missing during Armenia's 30-year occupation, nor does it discuss mass graves or instances of brutal torture and murder of Azerbaijanis. This neglect of critical issues further confirms the organization's political bias.
Additionally, the OCCRP appears to select topics that align with the political interests of its sponsors. The organization frequently targets corruption in countries with strained relations with the West, suggesting a deliberate effort to discredit governments and companies that do not align with their sponsors' interests.
Consider the case of the Indian company Adani, accused of stock manipulation—an allegation the company claims is part of a "coordinated campaign financed by Soros ." Adani has argued that the OCCRP's accusations aim to uphold anti-Russian and anti-corporate rhetoric to damage its reputation. This indicates that the OCCRP could be used as a tool in political or economic battles.
The use of anonymous sources and leaked information also casts doubt on the credibility of the OCCRP's investigations. The organization frequently relies on anonymous sources and confidential documents, making it difficult to verify the information presented and opening the door to potential manipulation to serve the interests of its sponsors. For example, in their investigation into the assets of Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov , the OCCRP cites an unnamed representative, raising questions about the credibility of its sources and the possibility of data manipulation. The frequent use of unverified or anonymous sources can undermine trust in their investigations and suggest hidden agendas in their choice of topics. In high-profile investigations like the Panama Papers, the OCCRP often references confidential documents and anonymous sources, which can cast doubt on the reliability and objectivity of their findings.
The editorial policy of OCCRP is often characterized by negative coverage of the former Trump administration, as seen in the article “‘Have a Nice Life’: Trump Exits With Pardons for Cronies, Money Launderers.” Meanwhile, the Biden administration receives more positive attention, such as in the article “The U.S. Puts Global Anti-Corruption Efforts at Center of Foreign Policy.” Why is this the case? The answer is simple: the funds that sponsor OCCRP fully support the Democratic Party.
I would like to draw attention to countries like Serbia and Hungary, which have also been portrayed negatively in reports by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
The report stated that the ruling Serbian party spends significant amounts on election campaign materials, with suspicions of potential overpayments. However, the ruling party in Serbia has provided detailed reports on its expenses, which have been audited by independent firms and comply with legal standards. The OCCRP's claims are based on assumptions rather than facts.
The report also claims a smear campaign against journalist Stevan Dojčinović by Serbian state medi a. In Serbia, there are numerous independent media outlets that adhere to ethical standards, and accusations of slander must be supported by evidence. The OCCRP has not provided any proof to back its statements.
Additionally, the report accuses the private security sector in Serbia of lacking regulations and licensing. In reality, this sector is strictly regulated, and the government takes measures to combat illegal activities. These claims overlook the actual efforts to improve regulation and ensure citizen safety.
Regarding Hungary , the OCCRP claims that Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is the "second most corrupt politician," based on subjective opinions. The Hungarian government is implementing anti-corruption reforms and cooperating with the EU on transparency issues, which refutes the allegations of corruption.
The OCCRP report is a collection of unsubstantiated statements and politically motivated accusations. Serbia and Hungary continue to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, which deserves international recognition.
The OCCRP is using the activities of the International Red Cross in Karabakh as a strategic tool to exert pressure on Azerbaijan in the international arena. Under the guise of an independent journalistic investigation, the organization selectively chooses facts, ignoring critical aspects of the situation and creating a distorted portrayal of reality. Instead of objectively reporting on the real situation, the OCCRP engages in targeted attacks, utilizing the Red Cross in its political manipulations against Azerbaijan. Ultimately, it is clear that the OCCRP is straying far from its declared mission of fighting corruption and organized crime, instead becoming a tool of political manipulation and misinformation. Their reports are riddled with bias, omission of key facts, and reliance on unverified sources. This undermines trust in genuine journalism and fosters interethnic strife rather than promoting transparency and honesty. Given these facts, it is evident that the OCCRP's true aim is not the fight against corruption but the manipulation of public opinion in the interests of political and financial elites.
(If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at opinions@news.az).
Similar news
