“A person who feels the wind of change should not build a wall against it, but a windmill.”
Chinese proverb
Recently, discussions have emerged both in the international information space and within Azerbaijan regarding the country’s policy toward international organizations and media structures. Some Western sources interpret the closure of UN offices, restrictions on various media representatives, and the shutdown of organizations such as Transparency International as steps toward self-isolation and limitations on civil liberties. Furthermore, certain Western publications claim that such decisions could lead to the escalation of domestic political tensions and increased societal control.
However, upon deeper analysis, it becomes clear that these processes are not driven by isolationist policies but rather by a reassessment of cooperation approaches in line with national interests. Azerbaijani authorities have repeatedly emphasized that the activities of some international organizations have exceeded their declared humanitarian or human rights objectives. For many years, organizations such as Transparency International and Human Rights Watch have frequently used their platforms to promote politically motivated narratives, shaping a biased perception of the situation in Azerbaijan.
Historically, the influence of international NGOs and Western media on internal affairs in various countries has been a topic of debate. The ban on USAID operations imposed by Donald Trump’s administration demonstrated how Western institutions can leverage humanitarian and social projects to advance political and economic interests. The same mechanism has been employed in other countries, including Azerbaijan, where such organizations have not only disseminated information but also supported initiatives aimed at destabilization.
For three decades, Azerbaijan has been in a state of conflict, making national unity a matter of critical importance. However, the activities of certain Western organizations have often sought to divide society rather than unify it. Organizations like Transparency International, Human Rights Watch, and others have not only raised human rights concerns but have also contributed to internal divisions. They have created narratives favorable to external forces and, in some cases, even supported Armenia’s interests in legitimizing territorial claims.
From a practical perspective, the cessation of international organizations’ operations in Azerbaijan is not only related to information security but also to the necessity of neutralizing external interference. In this context, Baku views the reassessment of cooperation with the UN and other foreign institutions as part of its adaptation to new geopolitical realities. This step does not signify a rejection of international engagement but rather a shift toward selective and more balanced interaction.
Additionally, one must consider the decline of traditional journalism, which in many cases has lost its objectivity and become a tool of information warfare. Manipulation, biased publications, and the creation of negative images of countries have become the norm in the international media landscape. In an environment where Western media frequently employ double standards, Azerbaijan aims to develop an independent approach to regulating its information space.
The claims regarding Azerbaijan’s self-isolation also require critical examination. Despite temporary restrictions on border crossings, the country remains an active participant in international integration initiatives. President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly emphasized Azerbaijan’s commitment to an open-door policy, as evidenced by its involvement in energy, transportation, and economic projects. In this context, claims of self-isolation contradict factual realities.
The temporary border restrictions, which some sources link to isolationist policies, are in fact driven by national security concerns. For instance, a recent operation targeting radical Islamist groups demonstrated that border control is a key element in defending against external threats. The operation resulted in the neutralization of eight militants and the discovery of weapon and explosive caches, underscoring the necessity of heightened security measures.
Thus, Azerbaijan’s policy towards international organizations and foreign media structures is driven by national interests and security considerations. In the face of modern challenges, many countries are compelled to reassess their cooperation strategies to safeguard their sovereignty from external influence. In this regard, Baku’s decision aligns with global trends and represents a strategic choice aimed at strengthening sovereignty and stability.
