Speculations Surrounding COP29: Absurd Claims by European Deputies and Azerbaijani Authorities

Michael Bloss, a member of the European Parliament known for his environmental activism, told Euronews on November 1 that European deputies have been advised to exercise caution during COP29, scheduled to be held in Azerbaijan. According to Bloss, prior to traveling to Baku for the summit, they will be provided with disposable phones and laptops.

The European deputy believes their data could be stolen while in Baku:
"Security advisors warned us about the risk of our devices being hacked. This precaution is based on personal experiences with the region's repressive environment. Even as members of the European Parliament, we cannot freely communicate without fear of government surveillance."

Previously, Frank Schwabe, head of the German delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), stated that parliamentarians and NGO representatives are hesitant to visit Azerbaijan for the summit.

Given the seriousness of Michael Bloss’s accusations, they raise several questions.
Security expert Erestun Orujlu shared his insights on this matter with ASTNA.

* * *

Question: Mr. Orujlu, is there a real possibility that European deputies could be subjected to surveillance and cybercrime while in Baku?

Answer: The notion that European deputies would be provided with special phones and laptops for cybersecurity reasons before their visit to Azerbaijan sounds rather absurd. Not because the Azerbaijani authorities are innocent of cyberespionage—far from it, as such practices are employed by almost every government globally. The issue here is that cyber espionage does not require physical presence; such operations are conducted online, via the internet. Thus, Azerbaijani hackers or state agencies do not need the deputies to be in Baku to hack their accounts or emails. We see similar instances in the U.S., where Chinese hackers reportedly breached U.S. networks and eavesdropped on the phone calls of Donald Trump’s lawyer. So, location is irrelevant in this context. While European deputies may claim that cyber intrusions are more difficult in Europe due to robust cybersecurity measures, even the U.S., with its advanced systems, faces such breaches. In my view, this accusation seems more like an attempt to criticize Azerbaijan, reflecting the current strained Azerbaijan-Europe relations. It appears to be a case of political pressure.

Question: What do these statements against Azerbaijan signify?

Answer: As I mentioned, the statements align with the current strained relations between Azerbaijan and Europe, which are experiencing one of their most challenging periods. The European Union is even considering reducing its cooperation with Azerbaijan in the oil and gas sector. Though not explicitly stated, the conditions imposed clearly do not align with Azerbaijan’s interests. The stance taken by Baku also plays a role here, particularly its growing alignment with Russia and unfounded statements against European countries and the EU. Such populist declarations aimed at domestic audiences only worsen the already cold relations and deepen the divide. It seems clear that Baku has chosen Russia as its strategic partner, which places Azerbaijan in a specific position within the context of EU-Russia relations. Human rights violations in Azerbaijan are also a factor, but these issues are secondary. The primary strategic matter is Azerbaijan’s alliance with Russia.

Question: Isn't there some exaggeration here? After all, COP29 was scheduled in Azerbaijan with the agreement of the European countries represented by these deputies. If they were so concerned, why did they agree to hold the event in Azerbaijan?

Answer: There is certainly exaggeration, and I would say it’s more than just exaggeration—it reflects a biased attitude. The accusation itself is baseless and ridiculous, as if they were searching for any excuse to issue a negative statement. As you pointed out, COP29 was planned with their consent, yet they are now attempting to paint the event negatively, falling back on the cybersecurity issue when they found no other faults. This is a laughable and unfounded claim, and ultimately, it is counterproductive. Even those with limited knowledge of cybersecurity understand that the arguments presented are so weak that they likely stem from entirely different reasons.

Both European and other leading countries often choose to hold such events in nations trying to improve their international standing, showcase themselves as modern democracies, or clean up their image. Hosting such events involves significant expenses, and it seems they have pushed this burden onto Azerbaijan. On one hand, they call it an important climate summit addressing global environmental issues, yet they take such absurd steps.

Question: Officials in Azerbaijan link these claims to the country's victory in Karabakh.

Answer: The authorities, their propagandists, and even some self-proclaimed opposition figures aligned with the government frequently use the steps taken against Armenia as a pretext. This is a diversion tactic meant to steer public opinion. Azerbaijan’s victory in Karabakh happened four years ago. Did Europe suddenly remember this victory four years later? It’s as absurd as the European claims. There is widespread speculation from both sides—European and Azerbaijani—surrounding COP29. Did Azerbaijan only just liberate its territories? No, the real issue is that Azerbaijan has effectively become a satellite of Russia. Decisions made in Russia are replicated in Azerbaijan. Relations between Russia and Azerbaijan have become increasingly multifaceted and intense, with public statements openly acknowledging this. Europe sees Azerbaijan as being aligned with Russia, and countries perceived as siding with Russia are treated accordingly—whether it’s Belarus, Georgia, or Azerbaijan. Therefore, attributing Europe’s opposition to Azerbaijan’s territorial victories is an absurd claim.

Question: How appropriate is it to link a climate event like COP29 to issues of human rights, the Karabakh conflict, and the displacement of Armenians from Karabakh?

Answer: In fact, if there are shortcomings in the activities of the host country of an international event, it is entirely normal for such criticism to arise. Hosting an event like this puts a country in the global spotlight, creating a specific image. If there are political prisoners, journalists are imprisoned on false charges, human rights and freedoms are disregarded, corrupt officials are promoted, and military generals involved in crimes are rewarded with higher positions, then these matters should indeed be criticized. However, exploiting Azerbaijan's struggle against separatism and its efforts to restore territorial integrity in the context of such events amounts to political speculation. There is certainly an element of pressure here, suggesting that Azerbaijan is avoiding a peace agreement. Yet, everyone understands well that Azerbaijan is avoiding a peace deal because Russia is blocking it. Recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov openly stated that there is no need to rush the signing of a peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. If such a statement is made publicly, imagine what demands Russia makes behind closed doors. The bigger issue is why the Azerbaijani government is acting under Russia's dictates, and the answer is clear: 90% of the Azerbaijani leadership comprises Russia's fifth column. But to portray this as a disruptive action by the state or as a violation of another nation’s rights under the guise of fighting separatism is wrong. Which European country tolerates separatism? We have seen examples in Spain and the United Kingdom. Let them stop applying double standards. Regarding human rights and freedoms, I find these criticisms entirely valid.

Question: What are your suggestions for Azerbaijan to overcome this negative image?

Answer: To overcome this negative image, Azerbaijan must at least begin taking steps towards restoring the rule of law in the country. Unfortunately, we see the opposite happening. Putting aside the international image, the rule of law, the restoration of the judicial system, and the protection of human rights and freedoms are crucial for public trust in the state. This is primarily in our own interest. As long as there are lawlessness, false accusations, slander, and mass arrests without proper investigation, sometimes involving hundreds of people, it undermines the very foundations of the Azerbaijani state. In this context, the issue of image is secondary. I sincerely hope steps are taken in this direction. It is not something that Europe, America, or Russia needs—it is what Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijani people need. It is especially vital for the Azerbaijani government itself because law and order are the mechanisms for regulating all relationships, including between the state and its citizens. This is currently lacking, and the greatest harm comes from the erosion of trust in state-citizen relations. Certainly, the issue of international image is also present, and a negative image is being formed. But that is a secondary issue. We see that these matters are not given much importance; criticism, condemnation, even sanctions are all considered secondary. If we aim to achieve national security for the state, the first priority must be to resolve the trust issue between the state and its citizens. The only way to do this is to return the country to a legal framework, as, unfortunately, Azerbaijan has long since moved away from the rule of law.