Despite the conference’s exceptional organizational, scientific, methodological, and informational standards, leading Western nations resorted to various insidious tactics to tarnish its reputation.
One is left to wonder: what is the real priority for the collective West—addressing the critical issues of ecological survival or pursuing hegemonic neo-imperialist ambitions?
The behavior of these forces is reminiscent of the nihilist who, as the American scholar and eco-activist Aldo Leopold put it, “looks at a plant or an animal and asks, ‘What use is it?'”—a mindset that, according to Leopold, represents the ultimate stage of ignorance.
The campaign to discredit COP29 began long before its opening. Spearheading this information frenzy were France and its ally Armenia.
The rationale for boycotting COP29 is tenuous at best. First, it is based on the false claim that hosting the summit in an oil-producing country is inappropriate. As Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev aptly remarked during his speech at the COP29 opening on November 12, “To accuse us of having oil is like accusing us of having over 250 sunny days a year in Baku.”
The anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric clashes with the indisputable fact that last year’s climate forum was hosted in the United Arab Emirates, a nation producing an average of 3.2 million barrels of oil per day. Yet this did not deter France or other Western countries from supporting the event.
Moreover, the successor to Azerbaijan in hosting the next COP session is another oil-producing country—Brazil, which extracts 3.022 million barrels daily. In this case, neither environmental activists nor states have raised any objections regarding the “inappropriateness” of hosting the conference there.
No zealous advocates of ethical criteria for environmental forums have acknowledged Azerbaijan’s effective green energy policies.
Finally, the dualism permeating the political philosophy behind France, the US, the EU, and Armenia’s failed COP29 boycott campaign extends to the so-called “ethnic cleansing” of Armenians who once lived in Karabakh. Highlighted in this narrative were figures such as American Congressmen Sheldon Whitehouse, Ed Markey, and Frank Pallone, French Member of the European Parliament Nathalie Loiseau, French Senate President Gérard Larcher, deputy editor of Le Figaro Jean-Christophe Buisson, and European Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights Nicolas Schmit.
The central question remains: why didn’t the brutal occupation of Azerbaijani territories prompt these “champions” of ethnic minorities and “discriminated” peoples to raise their voices in protest? On the contrary, they and their ilk spoke only in support of Armenian occupation and sought to perpetuate it.
The mission of the Azerbaijani army during the 44-day war and the special operation to fully liberate Karabakh—implementing four UN Security Council resolutions—was instead portrayed as “ethnic cleansing” and “violations of the rights of the Armenian minority.”
In the context of the political manipulation of the environmental forum, the illogical stance of France’s Minister of Ecology, Agnès Pannier-Runacher, stands out. She refused to participate in COP29 in Baku, citing supposed “attacks” by Ilham Aliyev on France and European organizations during the UN forum’s opening.
Hypocritically, she argued that this criticism had no relevance to environmental protection issues and was overly “politicized.” It is clear that Madame Agnès belongs to that “phenomenon” that sees the speck in another’s eye but not the beam in her own. Is politicization permitted for the West but not for Azerbaijan? Let us leave aside the inscrutable logic of the West. It fails to grasp that Aliyev’s critique resonates with growing global condemnation of the colonial policies of Western powers. For instance, does France’s nuclear testing in French Polynesia and Algeria not destroy natural habitats, harm wildlife, and inflict colossal damage on the health of the colonized peoples?
The Western establishment chooses to overlook the criminal actions of Macron’s regime in colonial territories, which were rightfully criticized by Ilham Aliyev. These lands hold around 10% of the world’s nickel reserves and rank fourth globally in nickel ore extraction. In addition, the island harbors deposits of iron ore, manganese, and chromium. This leads to ruthless exploitation of natural resources without modern labor safety and environmental protection technologies, undermining ecological stability.
Coupled with the issue of ethnic discrimination against the indigenous population of New Caledonia—the Kanaks, who make up 41.7% of the island’s population—and their use as cheap labor for easy profits, this exploitation sparked heated debates during COP29.
Another baseless accusation against Baku involved alleged human rights violations within the country. Such allegations arise in a world where the rights of entire nations and peoples are trampled upon. Are there any countries, including the United States, that are free from human rights issues? Is Azerbaijan truly the only nation in the world with these challenges?
The best response to the accusations against Azerbaijan came from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. Returning from the G20 summit, where the significance of COP29 in Baku was discussed, he stated: “At COP29, work continues on forging a unified approach… I see positive momentum for reaching an agreement.”
The final agreement—a historic breakthrough establishing the framework for the energy transition—validated Guterres’ assessment: poor countries will receive $300 billion annually!
Adem Ismail Bakuvi
Translated from haqqin.az
