But does this mean the “information war” surrounding COP29 has ceased? Not quite—the war, which escalated to a peak just before the summit, has drawn in some unexpected participants.
To clarify, objections to the summit’s location make sense only before a decision has been made. When these objections turn into last-minute hysterics, it’s no longer a constructive debate, much less a critical opinion; it’s simply an attempt to undermine the event. It’s clear that no one is going to relocate a summit a week before it starts.
This display of theatrics feels like déjà vu. Similar uproars surfaced before Eurovision and the European Games, with Armenian lobbyists and certain human rights advocates insisting that such events belong only in “ideal democracies.” BBC also displayed an intense anti-Azerbaijan stance. Twelve years ago, as Baku prepared for Eurovision, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) criticized BBC for bias. Azerbaijan recalls BBC’s controversial reports during the 44-day conflict, including one about a “historic Armenian chapel” from 2017 in Jabrayil. This time, however, BBC has gone beyond journalism, propaganda, or even “black PR”—it’s blatant provocation.
Recently, BBC, along with the NGO Global Witness, orchestrated this provocation. A representative of this NGO posed as the head of a fictitious investment firm from Hong Kong and secured a video meeting with Elnur Sultanov, CEO of COP29 and Azerbaijan’s Deputy Minister of Energy. During this meeting, they discussed potential investments in SOCAR gas projects. Global Witness secretly recorded this meeting and provided it to BBC, which began sensationalist reporting, casting it as shocking that Azerbaijan discussed gas projects ahead of COP29. They might as well have decried the presence of gas stations in Azerbaijan or lamented that kebabs are cooked over open flames rather than using solar-powered grills.
One might wonder why Global Witness didn’t pull this stunt with, say, BP. The answer is obvious: a lawsuit from BP could have significant consequences. The critical point, however, is that BBC was evidently eager to find some scandal before COP29, and when they couldn’t, they decided to fabricate one.
The Milli Majlis of Azerbaijan has already responded to BBC’s provocation, but we’ll add this: this isn’t a case of journalists doing their job and someone disliking the results. There was no journalism here whatsoever. It’s one thing to uncover inconvenient facts; it’s quite another to air information from a scandalous NGO with blatant ethical breaches. It’s understandable when outlets like The Voice of Armenia play such games, but when a reputed organization like BBC engages in such conduct—knowing it will have no real impact—that’s a situation calling for serious reflection. At the very least, this sets a precedent for how similar NGOs and media might approach their roles in assessing “democracy levels,” “human rights,” or any other critical issues.
And let’s remember: no organization is immune to reputational damage. The old saying still applies—there’s no talent that can’t be squandered, no money that can’t be wasted, and no reputation that can’t be lost.
Nurani
Translated from minval.az
