“The question is different: What model will Azerbaijan change to?”

The arrest of human rights defender Rufat Safarov and Meydan TV employees, the developments concerning the state of human rights in the country following COP29, and the reactions of international organizations and the West were discussed by political commentator Erestun Orujlu in an interview with ASTNA.

* * *

Question: Mr. Orujlu, how do you assess the recent events?

Answer: I assume your question primarily pertains to recent developments in the country. However, I must say that these events cannot be evaluated solely from a domestic political perspective. This is because in countries like Azerbaijan, domestic events always have a foreign political component. In Azerbaijan, this has become somewhat of a tradition. For example, whenever relations with Iran deteriorate, hundreds of "Iranian spies" or "drug addicts" suddenly appear among religious communities in the country. Similarly, when disputes arise with Western countries, it turns out that numerous "hooligans," "smugglers," and sometimes even "drug addicts" are sought among journalists, opposition representatives, and civil society activists. There are no new dimensions in the current incidents either. However, new regional and global trends that influenced these developments exist, trends that Baku either failed to recognize in time or simply did not consider significant. Primarily, I am referring to developments in neighboring Georgia and the Middle East, specifically Syria. Now, by chasing these trends, so to speak, they are trying to "fix the eyebrows," but instead, they are "poking out the eyes."

Question: These arrests—the detention of a prominent human rights defender followed by the arrests of Meydan TV employees—what do they signify?

Answer: As I mentioned, they aim to rectify mistakes but do so in ways that will lead to adverse outcomes, as always. The mistakes occurred earlier—right after the 44-day war. The restoration of territorial integrity, a historic achievement for Azerbaijan, was a unique opportunity for the government to pursue an opening. Unfortunately, instead of seizing this opportunity, the authorities chose to take the opposite path: increasing societal pressure, reaching unprecedented levels of arbitrariness among government officials, and allowing rampant criminalization within state and government bodies. These processes have deepened to such an extent that even the families of martyrs and veterans, the direct contributors to this historic victory, were subjected to widespread humiliation. Adding the ever-deepening socio-economic crisis to this, the picture becomes much clearer. All of this inevitably sparked rightful protests in society. These were largely passive protests, but it became evident that government institutions lacked sufficient immunity even to handle them. On the other hand, while the 44-day war was a struggle for national pride and territorial integrity for us, on a larger scale, it marked the beginning of new geopolitical polarization, increasing external influences in the region. In such a situation, self-preservation instincts take precedence, becoming a political priority. Any criticism is perceived as a threat, paving the way for the "adequate" steps we now witness.

Question: Some anticipated a softening after COP29, but we see the opposite. Why is the government so agitated?

Answer: I anticipated the exact opposite and highlighted this in various interviews and statements. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened. The events during COP29 served more as an excuse than a reason for the current incidents. Since you brought up COP29, let me also point out the mistakes made in this context. The primary mistake was presenting the event as a political milestone or, in other words, politicizing it. This stems from a tendency to frame any international event, from Eurovision to Formula 1, as a result of successful politics. When this happens, those opposing the country or its government exploit this very tendency as a target. That’s what happened this time as well—political accusations against Azerbaijan took center stage. Moreover, the way Azerbaijani officials were humiliated before the media became a global spectacle. Naturally, the media must now be punished for this. The real reasons for these developments, however, lie deeper. For politics to be successful, two essential parameters—logic and rationality—have been entirely sidelined. For instance, what does illogical rhetoric about "Islamophobia" or "New Caledonia" accusations against already biased countries bring to us? Firstly, the most extreme Islamophobic politicians in Europe are those presented to us as friends, such as Viktor Orban, Aleksandar Vucic, and Robert Fico, and everyone knows this. Secondly, what does creating new enemies instead of converting adversaries into allies give us? Nothing, and this is evident. In short, as a result of these illogical political skirmishes, ordinary Azerbaijani citizens subjected to arrests and repression suffer, while distrust and resentment towards the government grow within certain segments of society.

Question: We often see that when relations with the West don’t go as desired or when something is sought from the West, the government pressures civil society or the media to bring them to the negotiation table. In your opinion, what does the government want this time?

Answer: I think what the government wants from the West now is a warm or, at least, tolerant attitude towards its close partnership with Russia. But as far as I know, this will not work. On the contrary, attitudes towards Azerbaijan and its government will harden, possibly reaching the level of sanctions. As I mentioned, the world is currently in the active phase of geopolitical polarization, with opposing sides targeting each other's supporters to weaken their positions. Events that began with Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine and were followed in Moldova, Georgia, and most recently Syria over the past 1-2 months are clear evidence of this. There’s also the notion that everything will change when Trump resumes his presidency. However, two questions remain: will it really change, and what will happen until then?

Question: Are the reactions of the West and international organizations to recent developments satisfactory?

Answer: Whether they are satisfactory is relative. What matters is understanding the philosophy and approach of Western policies. The West always acts according to its own strategies and plans. This means that the sequence of events follows its plan. Deviations from the plan mean acting according to the opposing side’s plan and rules, which can lead to defeat. Therefore, their approaches differ significantly from our evaluations. The West avoids impulsive, emotional, and irrational steps. Thus, what we observe so far are not reactions.

Question: What will be the outcome of these processes?

Answer: Everything depends on the Azerbaijani government’s choices. If the country manages to regulate relations with Russia at a minimally damaging level and balances Moscow’s influence with another partner, such as our strategic natural ally Turkey, which is becoming a serious regional power, upheavals can be avoided. However, for now, it seems Russia has succeeded in using its influence to not only pit Azerbaijan against the West but also seriously damage its relations with Turkey. To be fair, internal disagreements between the parties have also contributed to the latter issue. As for the arrests, repressions, and crackdowns, I see no grounds for optimism. For those who orchestrated the horrific crimes like the Tartar massacre, unprecedented in the world, even the mass arrests of journalists and activists are routine. The question, however, is this: What model will Azerbaijan change to? The only word to remove from this question is "will" because change is inevitable. The only way out of the systemic crisis is through fundamental transformations. Otherwise, the scenario of Arab countries will be unavoidable.