The President`s position on Seyudlu, the minister`s response, the Israeli embassy as a target, the Karabakh negotiations...

At an extended meeting of the government on the socio-economic results of the first half of 2023, President Ilham Aliyev commented on what is happening in the village of Seyudlu of Gedabey region. The President criticized the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources for the negligence of a foreign investor, which  caused pollution of the environment of Azerbaijan. In his speech, Ilham Aliyev justified the environmental requirements of the residents of the village of Seyudlu in Gedabey  region in connection with the pollution of the environment by a gold mining enterprise. But, at the same time, the head of state justified the dispersal of the protest action of local residents.

On the day following the meeting, Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources Mukhtar Babayev made contradictory statements at a briefing on the events in Seyudu. The Minister said that everything is within normal limits in the village of Seyudlu of Gedabey district.

What conclusions can be reached based on the results of all this?

Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said that Iran is behind the attempted terrorist attack at the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan. On July 10, the State Security Service of Azerbaijan reported that an Afghan citizen named Fawzan Musa Khan was detained in Baku, who planned to commit a terrorist act in one of the foreign embassies. The State Security Service also distributed a video showing Fawzan Musa Khan's telephone conversations related to the planning of the terrorist attack. Observers assume that the embassies of Israel and Japan are located in the hotel captured on video.

The meeting between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan took place on July 15 in Brussels. What was this meeting remembered for?

Political commentator and security expert Arastun Orujlu answered ASTNA's questions regarding these topics.

* * *

Question: At the Cabinet meeting on the results of the first half of the year President Ilham Aliyev expressed his attitude to the events taking place in Seoul. Ilham Aliyev acknowledged the rightness of the protesters, but did not blame the police either. At the same time, he sharply criticized the Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources. What conclusions can be drawn from what the President said?

Answer: Speaking about the events in Seyudlu, the head of state for the first time in recent years admitted that the demands of the people are fair, which caused natural surprise for many. However, at the same time, Ilham Aliyev not only defended the police, but also made an assertion that some interested groups were allegedly behind what was happening. At first glance, such an approach could also be considered as a balanced attitude to what is happening. But the reason for such a compromise is not only to create, albeit cautiously, a certain balance or to achieve mutual understanding in the relations between the state and the citizen, the government and the people. Such a goal is also possible, but there are many invisible reasons for the attitude that we have seen.

For example, it is possible that despite isolation from real information about the situation in the country (and such a problem exists), Ilham Aliyev sees the severity of the overall situation. And in Azerbaijan, a systemic crisis is rapidly brewing in all respects. There is a lag in all areas, from the socio-economic indicators of the country to the effectiveness of political governance. And if we add to this the growing lawlessness and injustice, the prospects do not look optimistic at all. Of course, in these conditions, talking to citizens as usual in the language of violence cannot promise a positive result. Especially if the incident in Seudlu is not the only one in recent times. Apparently, for the same reasons, Ilham Aliyev not only defended the police, but also stated that the demands of the residents of Seudlu were fair. Another reason is related to the timing of the withdrawal from the country of a foreign company operating a gold deposit in Seudlu. Ilham Aliyev's mention of “AzerGold” and criticism of the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources are not accidental. If something has happened, then there must be a culprit. This time the culprit, or rather one of them, was appointed Minister Mukhtar Babayev.

Question: The next day, the Minister of Ecology Mukhtar Babayev said at a briefing that we can say the opposite of what the president said. This contradiction has puzzled many. What does it mean?

Answer: There may be different reasons for this. It's no secret that no government official in Azerbaijan has the ability and authority to make independent decisions. Perhaps Mukhtar Babayev wanted to say: "I don't want to be a victim of your game of "giveaway" or something like that, but even here the natural question arises, does he have enough strength and courage to deliver such a message? Another explanation may be that what the minister said was a message from a group in the government, which includes himself. Subsequent developments may reveal the true cause of this contradiction. On the other hand, if the message really came from some group and there will be an adequate response to it, then there will be no continuation: the gold deposit will be given to “AzerGold”, the minister will keep his post, and this topic will disappear.

Question: After the famous meeting, many experts predict the departure of several officials. Is there such an expectation?

Answer: There will be some resignations, but they are unlikely to be directly related to the events in Seoul. Firstly, because if such resignations occur, then the protests may increase. And the authorities do not consider such scenarios acceptable, because, as already mentioned, they perfectly understand how difficult the situation in the country is, how officials treat the people and what complications all this can lead to. In other words, the principle is that it is impossible to show the people that their demand is fulfilled, and thereby instill in them confidence in their abilities. Secondly, there are many reasons that created a systemic crisis in the country, and it became necessary to eliminate at least some of them. But the reason why such a need arose is not to get out of the crisis, but to secure the authorities. And recent events in Azerbaijani-Russian relations further reinforce the need for steps in this direction. That is, the reason for possible resignations is largely due to external factors, not internal ones.

Question: Meanwhile, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said that Iran is behind the attempted terrorist attack at the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan. Why was Azerbaijan chosen to strike at Israel? What does this mean?

Answer: This has happened before, and even at one time, the terrorists who planned an attack on the Israeli embassy in Azerbaijan were detained and convicted. But in recent years, we have seen an increase in the number of attempts by Iran and Israel to use Azerbaijan to "clarify" their relations. It seems to me that it would be nice if Israel and Iran returned to the geography in which they clarified their relations earlier. There is Lebanon, Syria and Palestine for this, and the parties have enough experience in clarifying relations through these countries. In my opinion, the main task of the state bodies of Azerbaijan in such conditions is to ensure the interests of the national security of the country, so that in the end we do not end up in the list of countries listed above. Azerbaijani-Iranian relations are quite complicated and contradictory, and Azerbaijan's relations with Israel are at the level of strategic partnership. Of course, it is desirable that relations with Iran be healthier than they are now, but this is not happening yet, and there are few hopes that this will happen. Therefore, in the current conditions, the most favorable option for us should be not to interfere in the relations of the two countries, and also not to allow us to be drawn into this conflict.

Question: How would you assess the results of the meeting between Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, held on July 15? Is something serious expected in this direction in the near future?

Answer: It is too early to expect any final results from these meetings and negotiations, although it is possible that at least an oral agreement was reached on a number of individual issues. Not only the future of relations between the two countries, but also the fate of the region as a whole depends on the achievement of peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Given the geopolitical importance of the region, we can say that peace negotiations carry a serious burden for global politics and global security. It is for this reason that we are witnessing, on the one hand, the peacekeeping efforts of Brussels and Washington, and, on the other, the destructive attempts of Moscow and Tehran. The recent events in the mountainous part of Karabakh, where the Armenian community lives compactly, are a vivid confirmation of this. The statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry made during the Azerbaijani-Armenian negotiations is an act of open political and diplomatic aggression aimed at disrupting these negotiations. But, despite all this, peace negotiations must continue, and for their successful completion it is important, first of all, to preserve peace in the region.