Azerbaijani public diplomacy activists opt for transparency as best defence. Official Baku says that public diplomacy is wrong, but civil society activists in Azerbaijan and worldwide are not impressed.

Azerbaijani civil society activists that are, or have been involved in public diplomacy projects together with counterparts from Armenia, are increasingly opting for tansparency as the best means of defending themselves against accusations of treason levelled at them by official sources.

In recent years the Government of Azerbaijan was tolerant, even if discouraging, to initiatives where Armenians and Azerbaijanis met in an effort to open a dialogue between societies and establish a much needed mood of confidence that is considered necessary for a solution to the decades long Karabakh conflict. Meetings of this nature have been organised in dozens of countries, and much more rarely in Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. They have involved civil society leaders, journalists and professionals, and on ocassions also politicians and members of parliament.

The Baku authorities have however recently taken a much more negative view of these sort of meetings and contacts. In recent weeks the negative rhetoric increased considerably, especially after the arrest of journalist Rauf Mirkadirov who has been accused of working for Armenian intelligence after his participation in a public diplomacy event in Yerevan.

Commenting on his arrest the Chairman of the Azerbaijani Parliament's Committee on Legal Policy and State Building, Ali Huseynli, told the Azerbaijani News Agency APA that "The fact that some lawyers and human rights activists are trying to explain the activity of journalist Rauf Mirkadirov, who was arrested over treason, as "people's diplomacy" is wrong. The public should know that the negotiations on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh are conducted by officials." Huseynli noted that in accordance with law the negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement are conducted at the level of presidents and foreign ministers: "Only in exceptional cases, Azerbaijani parliamentarians can pay mutual visits within the framework of international organizations." Husseynli added that "projects implemented by the West and the United States under the guise of 'people's policy' are not only pointless, but also dangerous. Our public should know it. "People's diplomacy is possible only after the occupied territories of Azerbaijan are liberated, a peace treaty is signed and Armenia officially apologizes for the crimes it committed in Azerbaijan, including the Khojaly genocide. Only once, after the statements issued by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, a group of Azerbaijani intellectuals visited Armenia with the support of Moscow. But it did not continue, because Azerbaijan-Armenia talks stopped again after a certain period."

Husseynli insisted that the contacts of journalists, representatives of NGOs and other civil societies under the pretence of "people's diplomacy" cannot be effective: "On the contrary, the incident on Rauf Mirkadirov showed that it is dangerous, Armenian special service took advantage of this opportunity. The visits and meetings of representatives of NGOs and other civil societies, individuals, journalists under the guise of "people's diplomacy" served the interests of Armenian special services. Perhaps, it happened without their knowledge. Huseynli said that "people's diplomacy" can only be done by persons who received a mandate from the people.

Civil society activists both in Azerbaijan and outside are not impressed, and there has been heavy criticism of the Azerbaijan government over the arrest of Mirkadirov, and a few days later the detention of Leyla and Arif Yunus as they were about to board a plane at Baku airport. Political observers have noted that given the great harm that is being done to Azerbaijan's image every time such incidents happen, it makes one wonder what the real motives are behind this new policy.

In the meantime Azerbaijani activists have concluded that the best defence against such accusations is transparency.  One such person is Zardush Alizadeh, who in the last days informed the media of his public diplomacy activity in  the past, the present and the future. Alizadeh told APA that neither the Constitution of Azerbaijan nor any other laws,  forbid "public diplomacy". He also noted that he had played an active role in public diplomacy since 1989 and that he had regularly been attending events in Russia, Georgia, and Armenia. Alizadeh said that he and others who participate in public diplomacy meetings do not have state secrets. He said that the aim of Azerbaijani participants in such meetings is to encourage Karabakhi Armenians to live together in peace. 

source: commonspace.eu with APA and other news agencies.

Photo: Rauf Mirkadirov (picture courtesy of RFE/RL.org)

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)