Twenty years: There remains single Azerbaijani project Figures and facts by Sergei Bogdan

Twenty years ago, Ilham Aliyev became president of the Azerbaijani state. A lot of negative things are said about him abroad - and this is not surprising. After all, during this time, the Azerbaijani economy has risen, the country has returned to its legal borders and taken a leading position in the region. Critics in the West and East are perhaps irritated by the fact that this was done independently, and not following the wishes of world powers. Actually, if Baku had followed their instructions and notations, nothing good would have awaited the country. The Azerbaijani leadership, following the few other states that have achieved success in development over recent decades, has demonstrated that the country can only be brought forward by rejecting models imposed from outside and stopping attempts to drive the country into one or another international bloc.

Happiness is not in oil

It makes sense to evaluate the course pursued by the Azerbaijani leadership based on basic indicators. Last year, Azerbaijan’s gross domestic product (GDP) reached a historic maximum of $78.7 billion. In 2003, when Ilham Aliyev took office, it was only 7.28 billion, i.e. GDP grew almost 11 times. More precisely, it did not “grow”, but was raised through the efforts of the government. Due to population growth, GDP per capita grew less, but also very noticeably - almost five times (from $884 to $4,644). None of the former Soviet republics - including those that joined the EU and deny that they were ever Soviet republics - even come close to this pace.

They say it's about oil and gas. True, in 2003, revenues from the extraction of energy resources provided the state budget with about a third of revenues, and this year, this figure is expected to be even 53%. But in countries, equally rich in oil and gas resources (and other minerals), GDP growth is much lower - in Russia over the same time, it grew five times, in Iran - three times.

The mere presence of oil, gas, and indeed any natural resources does not guarantee their effective use in the interests of the country to which they belong. An example is the same African countries like Niger with its gigantic uranium reserves, from which only France has so far benefited, leaving local residents only radioactive waste. It can be even worse - when natural resources become a source of financing for many years of civil wars. Remember the sad fate of energy-rich Angola, Iraq, or Colombia - natural resources and income from their extraction did not protect these countries from civil wars, drug trafficking, and hopeless poverty.

In other words, the presence of oil and gas in Azerbaijan did not in any way guarantee the current results. Moreover, in the last decades of the last century, the production of energy resources in Azerbaijan seriously decreased, and it was after Ilham Aliyev came to the presidency that a rapid rise in oil and gas production began. According to the State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan, 32.6 million tons of oil were produced last year, which is more than twice as much as in 2003. 46.7 billion cubic meters of gas were produced, which is more than nine times more than 20 years ago.

Of course, much of this became possible thanks to the developments during the presidency of Senior Aliyev - the father of the current president. Let us recall, for example, the Contract of the Century and the construction of an alternative pipeline system to access world markets. But even then, the current president was involved in those contracts, investments, and developments. And they would not have automatically provided the current results without their proper implementation. For comparison, consider the fate of the huge oil and gas fields in the Persian Gulf (for example, Asaluyeh), which the Iranian government began to develop - and even with the attraction of foreign investors - under Rafsanjani and Khatami, but then everything fell into hibernation under Ahmadinejad and remains there to this day.

Therefore, talking in the style of “yes, anyone could achieve the current results” of Azerbaijan is demagoguery. No, there are very few such examples in history.

Changing the geography of the region

They also forget something else: simultaneously with the development of oil and gas production, President Aliyev and his team had to redraw the geopolitics of the region so that gas and oil would simply reach the right markets. When we talk about geopolitics, we do not mean an abstract or metaphysical category in the style of Dugin and others like him. We are talking about the influence of existing geographical factors on politics. And it’s not just about mountain ranges or rivers that affect defense capabilities. The fact is that geographical factors influence transport, logistics, and production capabilities. Moreover, in the modern era, people have acquired the ability to correct geographical factors through the creation of expensive long-term infrastructure - digging canals, punching tunnels, and laying pipelines.

The task facing Azerbaijan was non-trivial. It was necessary to bring oil and gas to lucrative European markets, bypassing the Russian Federation, which was not ready to provide fair access to the former Soviet pipeline network. Such an entry into world markets through “its own pipeline” could easily lead to a clash with Russia, creating new problems instead of new opportunities.

The Aliyev government implemented an original solution by laying a pipeline through Tbilisi to the Turkish port of Ceyhan in 2003–2005. First, it made it possible to bring supplies to a port in the open and vast Mediterranean Sea, instead of being locked up by the straits of the small Black Sea. Second, as a result, Azerbaijan entered the much more profitable and stable markets of Southern rather than Eastern Europe. Thus, it prevented itself from being turned into a pawn in the West’s alien game against Russia for dominance in Eastern Europe, in which energy supplies played a significant role. Southern Europe has never been among the priorities of Russian oil and gas companies.

As a result of entering southern European markets, according to the State Statistics Committee of Azerbaijan, trade turnover with Italy over two decades increased more than fifteen times from $1.4 billion to $18.1 billion. For comparison, with Russia - only three times (to $3.7 billion).

Azerbaijan's largest trading partners today are consistently Italy, Turkey, Russia, China, and India. In other words, under the current president, Azerbaijan has built strong ties with the “core” of the European Union (a country that consistently has significant influence in it) and increased relations with Turkey, but at the same time developed relations with the Russian Federation and China. Against the background of how the countries of Eastern Europe broke off relations with one side for the sake of (obviously unequal) relations with the other, this multi-vector approach retained the broadest prospects for the Azerbaijanis.

The more people, the more money

The general development of the economy and foreign trade of Azerbaijan was reflected in the situation of citizens. From 2003 to 2022, state budget expenditures increased from $710 million to $21.5 billion. Strategic foreign exchange reserves increased from $1.4 billion in 2003 to $66.1 billion by October 1, 2023.

In 2003–2022, total investment in the country's economy amounted to $310.4 billion. Compared to 2003, in 2022 the poverty rate decreased from 44.7 to 5.5 percent, and the average monthly salary increased from $45.5 to $493. Over 20 years, unemployment fell from about 10% to 5.5%, which seems less impressive, but one should take into account the rapid growth of the country's population. To understand the scale of the task, such a reduction in unemployment required the creation of almost two million new jobs.

There are simply more people in Azerbaijan; in two decades, the population has grown by almost a quarter - to the current 10.2 million people. And it's not just the surge in birth rates. People from Azerbaijan are moving abroad less often. Since the late 2000s, I have noticed an increasingly clear phenomenon in Western universities: probably no one except Azerbaijani students has returned to their homeland in such large numbers. Especially if we are talking about a voluntary choice, and not an obligation to return. At the same time, even students from the “new countries” of the EU tried to seek happiness away from their states, “blessed” with EU membership.

This was surprising: familiar Azerbaijani boys and girls, sometimes with opposition views, returned home, clearly hoping for better prospects than those they could count on in Western societies. And it is clear that it was not only about the money that appeared in the country but also about putting things in order. Let's say that the same fight against corruption has become more and more active: the number of people convicted of bribery has increased from 11 people in 2003 to 180 last year!

Carnegie Endowment: “The opposition is simply not able to object to him with anything”

This does not prevent “independent” media and “non-governmental” organizations, often associated with foreign states and business interests, from saying the exact opposite. They say that in Azerbaijan there is a “corrupt authoritarian regime”, period.

And here it makes sense to begin to understand not even the details, but the general practice of Western politics. The Western establishment, as you know, boasts of being “democratic,” but all politics there is amazingly dependent on money, as a result of which, against the backdrop of regular leapfrog with nominal elections, governments have been ruling there for years that enjoy the support of an obvious minority of citizens - take an interest, say, in the ratings of the current US president or the German Chancellor - you will be impressed.

The West emphasizes “transparency” and accountability - but what about the Ukrainian business of the son of the current American president? What about the accusations of bribery against former French President Sarkozy? But instead of raking out their own “Augean stables,” the Hercules of “democratization” attack one of the very few countries that in recent decades has built - yes, not an ideal, but a viable sovereign state. Although democracy in principle means that only Azerbaijanis should decide who should lead the country, and only Azerbaijanis should decide how to deal with the problems of their country.

At the same time, even liberal “thought factories” bitterly admit, speaking, for example, about the latest successes in the liberation of Karabakh.

“This is presented as a historical success for President Ilham Aliyev, and ordinary Azerbaijanis share such rhetoric. The level of support for the president is now so great that the opposition is simply not able to object to it.”

There is another claim, they say, Azerbaijan is “buying up” Western politicians - either the Maltese prime minister, or members of the Bundestag, or members of the European Parliament - and is directly taken aback by the abilities of Azerbaijani diplomats and intelligence services. But here too, the West would do well to look at itself in the mirror before accusing Azerbaijan of corrupting Western politicians. Lobbying has long been a part of politics in the West. Moreover, it is actually institutionalized there.

An internship in American institutions, most often for American money, is the best ticket up the career ladder, even in key German government agencies. And it is completely unnecessary to remind how Western states and corporations, through “leader training” programs, assistance to “non-governmental organizations”, etc., interfere in the politics of the rest of the world. In other words, regardless of the actual details of contacts with foreign politicians of which Azerbaijan is accused, the very essence of the accusations is questionable - the Azerbaijani side is accused of trivial practices that traditionally exist in the politics of Western countries.

Military victories are the result of effort, not luck

The above accusations try to present the matter as saying that the achievements of Azerbaijan during the Aliyev era in domestic and foreign policy were obtained in some “dishonest” way, they are fake “Potemkin villages”. The idea is completely absurd, if only because the government can develop a successful foreign and defense policy only on the solid foundation of a truly dynamically developing state. And this is exactly what the Azerbaijani government has managed to do over the past two decades.

Real politics does not tolerate fakes: if Aliyev did not have the support of the population, and the state system of Azerbaijan was as corrupt as they like to say, then the very first emergency situation would have highlighted this with all the picturesque details: in particular, in 2016, 2020 and 2023 in Azerbaijani Karabakh we would see a remake of the defeats of 1992, 1993 and 1994. After all, war instantly shows real abilities and exposes “inflated” values. That is why after 2016 and certainly 2020, there is no point in discussing the thesis about a “corrupt dictatorship”.

The restoration of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan has become an absolutely unique example of resolving a similar issue in international politics in recent decades. At one time, the famous German philosopher Carl Schmitt noted that only one who can move away from the usual routine and introduce a “state of emergency” can be considered sovereign (that is, capable of fully managing the state). This statement should not be taken too literally, but in the case of President Aliyev, I would still like to note that he was able, when the right time came, to step away from routine and resort to the most extreme thing that could be required of the leader of a country - the use of military force.

It is not surprising that the Western media and “thought factories” controlled by the liberal establishment are especially fiercely opposed to recognizing the obvious fact of the success of Azerbaijan’s policy in restoring the territorial integrity of the country. On the eve of the final events of the Azerbaijani army in Karabakh, the American Carnegie Endowment arrogantly wrote about Azerbaijan as a “country of inflated expectations”, which, they say, is simply “lucky”. Then it supplemented this with an analysis focused on Russia and Turkey, minimizing the subjectivity of Azerbaijan.

“The possibility of concluding a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan by the end of the year is becoming quite real, and then a new era will begin in the South Caucasus. Russia’s role in it will be fading, and Turkey’s will be growing.”

However, literally, three weeks later, it revised its position: “Instead of the Russian and Western draft peace treaty, now only one remains - the Azerbaijani one, and in which part of the world it is signed does not matter.”

What is it that made this stronghold of world liberal thought look at the situation differently? It’s simple - President Aliyev made it clear to Macron and his allies that manipulation in the Azerbaijani-Armenian negotiations and attempts to put pressure on Baku are unacceptable for Azerbaijan.

This position, indicated in particular by the refusal to go to the meeting in Granada, is an example of competent defense of the just interests of the Azerbaijani people. It had an effect - and last week even French President Macron discussed with Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev how to agree on the Trans-Caspian transport route from China to Europe with the participation of Azerbaijan.

After all, Baku’s foreign policy in the last two decades has not been limited to just one issue - even if it is such an important issue as Karabakh - along with ensuring the country’s development through the diversification of energy export routes, it has been strengthening the country’s position in the field of international transit, and also defended active neutrality. The result is obvious - it is Azerbaijan that is now playing the leading role in the construction of the new South Caucasus.

Man and President

Let us summarize. For all his merits, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, of course, is also, first of all, just a person. This should not be forgotten when assessing his policies - they are the fruit of hard effort, trial and error, and not a prophetic mission. Of course, certain social problems still persist in the country, and corruption has not been completely eradicated. But what has been done in the country over the twenty years of his presidency shows that Aliyev is not a random person in his post. Independent Azerbaijan will be the way the country's leadership shaped it in these years. These two decades became decisive, forming the main state, economic, social, and cultural institutions and structures.

The source of irritation for supporters of Azerbaijani “democracy” in the interests of foreign states and corporations is the refusal of the current leadership of Azerbaijan to become a pawn in their game or to give up their country to someone else’s game. But not only. The fact is that the Azerbaijani authorities are building a state actively using methods familiar to Western states. You can put it more cynically, “with wolves, live like a wolf howling”.

This is precisely what irritates the Western establishment, which denies non-Western countries the right to build a strong state and search for effective ways of development by their real needs and basic protection of their interests and even citizens.

The long-term rule of pro-Western elites, who followed all the recommendations, even in resource-rich Colombia and Iraq led to disasters. In Baku, they know about this and realize that if you want to achieve something, look to the West and adopt what you need, and do not follow the teachings of the “white masters”. This is how Türkiye, Singapore, and Malaysia did it. And they succeeded. And it is precisely this difficult but correct road that Azerbaijan is following.