Undoubtedly, this process will take time, but the direction has been set. Azerbaijan’s cooperation with these organizations is not starting from scratch. In the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Azerbaijan has the status of a dialogue partner. BRICS is a new direction, but bilaterally, our country has the Moscow Declaration on Allied Interaction with Russia, fruitful cooperation with South Africa in the sensitive area of the military industry, and, most importantly, a strategic partnership declaration with China signed in Astana.
There is a lot to comment on here, especially today, when the rise of the economic and political influence of the Global South is evident, reminiscent of the “uprising of the third estate” during the French Revolution. SCO and BRICS countries have immense potential and ambitious plans, and although they are not yet leading figures in the global political architecture, this could change very soon.
Azerbaijan does not just consider itself part of the Global South. Our country is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, actively promoting its influence in Africa and Oceania, expanding the geography of its foreign policy. Given this growth in interest and the emergence of new cooperation formats with the SCO and BRICS, such developments were to be expected. Especially considering that under the leadership of Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan plans several steps ahead and pursues a proactive policy.
In the current situation, it is natural for Azerbaijan to choose the “Chinese vector.” The rapid growth of China’s authority and influence cannot be overlooked.
Moreover, the interest is mutual, encompassing economics, politics, and, notably, logistics. Azerbaijan began its “infrastructure revolution” years ago, when Russian experts skeptically questioned the need for Silk Road revival projects with the existence of the Trans-Siberian Railway. However, today, traditional routes from Asia to Europe via Russia and Ukraine are blocked due to Russian aggression and retaliatory sanctions, and the maritime route through the Red Sea has become too unsafe due to Yemeni Houthi attacks, increasing interest in the “Middle Corridor.” The conclusion is clear: Azerbaijan needs new, closer interaction formats with promising structures like the SCO and BRICS. Finally, unlike the EU or EAEU, the SCO and BRICS are not integration associations but platforms for cooperation, primarily economic, without requiring the abandonment of other vectors.
We could conclude here, but there is another aspect: both organizations are perceived by the expert community as “alternatives to the Western path.” Therefore, headlines like “Azerbaijan is leaving the Western path,” “Baku turns to the East,” and so on, might be expected soon. Some will reiterate clichés about “democracy,” “human rights,” and “authoritarian regimes,” while others might recall the “festival of love for Armenia” staged in Washington and Brussels.
Discussions on “human rights,” “democracy,” “authoritarianism,” etc., should be set aside immediately—cooperation with the SCO and BRICS is driven by pressing economic interests, which at such a high level cannot help but acquire political implications.
Moreover, it should be emphasized that Azerbaijan’s crucial foreign policy decisions are never made out of emotion or resentment. Azerbaijan is a mature state with a carefully calculated, thought-out, and most importantly, multi-vector policy. Baku does not make abrupt “police turns” in foreign policy.
Finally, Azerbaijan has never been a proponent of the “Western path” like Georgia or Ukraine, nor has it played the role of an “anti-Western outpost” like Armenia. Baku did not join the EAEU and CSTO, did not declare aspirations for NATO membership, and did not request a “ticket” to the EU. Our country has developed and continues to develop partnerships in multiple directions with many “centers of power,” prioritizing equal bilateral cooperation. But this cooperation must be mutual and based on international law norms, including respect for territorial integrity, state sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs. It is hardly necessary to remind how many times Western strategists have crossed these “red lines.” This is another reason for choosing the “Chinese vector,” where there won’t be scrutiny over prison conditions for the authors of the Baku metro bombings or demands for unified textbooks with China.
And most importantly, the world is not composed solely of Russia, the USA, and the European Union. It also includes China—the “awakening dragon.” So, it is high time Western strategists let go of the illusion that post-Soviet space politics will follow a simple scheme: new independent states will jostle for entry into NATO and the EU, while “big uncles” arrogantly watch this scramble and decide who to admit to the next integration step. And remember that there are four cardinal directions.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
