Speech by Ilham Aliyev at the opening ceremony of the 11th Global Baku Forum themed “Fixing the Fractured World”

- Dear ladies and gentlemen, dear guests.

Welcome to Azerbaijan. I am glad to see all of you here today at the annual Forum, which transformed many years ago into one of the leading international conferences on a global scale. I think that Global Baku Forum now stands in line with other leading international fora like the Davos World Economic Forum and the Munich Security Conference. With respect to the potential of Nizami Ganjavi International Center and the list of participants, we really see that the discussions held annually here in Baku contribute to a better understanding of different important international issues.

The world is changing rapidly. Unfortunately, new areas of instability and confrontation are emerging. If we compare what we discussed last March to what we are discussing today, we see substantial changes, including geopolitical changes. Therefore, the experience of members of NGIC and participants, their knowledge, and their experience as heads of state and government, and foreign ministers are something that the world needs today to address issues of global importance.

This time, we have, I think, a record number of participants, more than 400 guests attending the 11th Forum from 68 countries. So, we also have expanded the geography among our guests, we have more than 40 acting and former heads of state and government. So, this really is an illustration of the huge intellectual potential of the Forum.

Yesterday, I met with the members of the Board of NGIC. We had very good and sincere discussions about many issues. Our meetings prior to the Forum already had a good record of establishing a positive tradition. Yesterday, I once again expressed gratitude to the members of the Board for their activity. Throughout the year, the NGIC has been doing a great job in bringing the most important and urgent issues of the global agenda to the attention of decision-makers in different parts of the world.

Once again, I'd like to express my gratitude to the co-chairs of NGIC, Madame Vike-Freiberga, and Mr. Serageldin, for their continuous contribution to the NGIC and for their excellent performance as co-chairs. They managed to create a strong team of very special personalities and to organize the work of the center as a result-oriented international NGO, which today is well-respected on a global scale.

As I said, since we met last time, many things have happened in the world and also in our region. Changes in our region may seem to have a local character, but actually, I think that they have much broader implications. The main geopolitical change, which happened since we met last time here a year ago is the full restoration of territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan. This is a very serious geopolitical change, which I think will have a lot of positive consequences with respect to the resolution of conflicts, which seem to be unresolvable.

For many years, we've been working to find a peaceful solution to the conflict. For many years, including our annual meetings here prior to the Second Karabakh War, we were always talking about injustice, occupation, violation of international law, and the non-implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, and we continued to talk about that because we wanted this issue to be in the center of attention of the international community. We wanted justice to prevail, but unfortunately, it didn't happen by peaceful means.

For 28 years of the activity of the former Minsk Group, the result was zero. And now, after 28 years, when we analyze and look back, on how it continued, we are absolutely sure that the main objective of the Minsk Group was not to resolve the conflict but to freeze it, to make Armenian occupation eternal, and to try to communicate with us the inevitability of our agreement with the occupation.

This is the main reason why the conflict was not resolved by peaceful means, along with of course, the unconstructive position of Armenian governments, and different governments starting from the beginning of the 1990s until today. There was another message, which regularly was channeled to us from the world's leading capitals that there is no military solution to the conflict. We said yes, okay. We may agree with that. But what is the alternative? If the alternative is to agree with occupation and agree with the existence of the separatist regime on almost 20% of our internationally recognized territory, that's not something we can agree with.

We can agree that there can be no military solution in one case: if you, the Minsk Group co-chairs, the leading countries of the world, the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, will force the occupational forces of Armenia to withdraw from our lands. You, who yourself adopted four United Nations Security Council resolutions, that demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijani territories, should provide the implementation of these resolutions, otherwise, the conflict will never be resolved.

Unfortunately, all our attempts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict have failed, and the reason I have already explained. So, the resolution of the conflict by military-political means actually demonstrates that, in order to achieve peace, sometimes you have to use the military option, and that is what is happening now. Now we're closer to peace with Armenia than ever before. Never in the history of the independence of the Southern Caucasus has peace been as close as it is today. This is a result of the Second Karabakh War. This is a result of the anti-terror operation we held last September, which lasted less than 24 hours and put an end to separatism forever in Azerbaijan, restoring our sovereignty and territorial integrity.

That's why when I say that what has happened here in Azerbaijan during the last three to four years is not an issue of local character. It has a lot of already positive implications on the situation, not only in the Southern Caucasus. I think it can be used as a pattern to resolve conflicts, which seem to be unresolvable. But first of all, of course, with the prevalence of international law. International law norms were on our side, Azerbaijan was the subject of illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. All these are well-known historical facts. We restored justice and international law ourselves. No one helped us, we did it ourselves.

We demonstrated strong political will, and also our potential. Because strong political will without strong military capability and unity of the people will not lead to success. So, a combination of all factors, our economic development, our financial capability, our defense capability, training of our military personnel, and active and pro-active foreign policy, when all the leading international organizations like the United Nations, OSCE, Non-Aligned Movement, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and others fully supported Azerbaijan's position on the issue of territorial integrity.

Was it possible to avoid a military solution? Yes. Yesterday we discussed broadly with the members of the Board and I a little bit opened the curtain of insights. There was a chance to reach an agreement in 2018 when there was a change of government in Armenia. We got assurances from the new Armenian government that they would behave in line with international law and that territories would be returned. We had those expectations, and if, at that time, the Armenian new government had preferred to behave as they do now, then there would have been no need to restore our sovereignty by force.

Unfortunately, in 2019, the new Armenian leadership put forward absolutely unacceptable proposals, such as “Azerbaijan has to negotiate with separatists, all that has been elaborated as a basis for a peace agreement should have been wiped out, and everything should have started from scratch, and Armenia is not going to return one centimeter of occupied territories”. Moreover, the famous slogan articulated by Armenian Prime Minister that “Karabakh is Armenia”. First, it's an absolute violation of international law, and second, it was too ambitious for a country that thought that they could keep our lands forever.

So, we had to teach them a lesson in 2020, in September-November, and we thought that this lesson was enough for them to understand that the time when they could rely on foreign forces and keep the lands of another country under occupation had gone.

Was there an opportunity to achieve peace during the last three to four years? Yes. Only if Armenia had behaved constructively with respect to our proposal of a draft peace agreement, and had not insisted on incorporation into this peace agreement the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic status. First, this kind of republic does not exist. It exists only in their dreams and in their mythology. Second, our opposition was again totally in line with international law. In interstate agreements, issues of internal politics should not be present.

Based on the capitulation act, which Armenia had to sign on 10 November 2020, they were obliged to withdraw their occupational forces from the remaining part of Karabakh, which at that time was not under our control. But for three years, they didn't do it. Not only did they not withdraw almost 15,000 of their military contingent, but they also smuggled weapons, mines, and ammunition to Karabakh, taking advantage of the situation when we did not control communication in the aftermath of the Second Karabakh War. After we started to control the communication, of course, this smuggling stopped. Nevertheless, during the last anti-terror operation, military ammunition including heavy weapons and armored vehicles, worth close to 1 billion US dollars, was destroyed and taken as trophies. During the Second Karabakh War, military trophies and what was eliminated during the war had a cost was close to 5 billion US dollars. The question is: “Where did Armenia get all that money?” Of course, it's clear that all the weapons they were using against us were given to them free of charge.

Now, that the Karabakh issue is closed, we are very close to peace. That's what we think. Azerbaijan is ready to continue the peace process. Meetings at the level of the foreign ministers of both countries have now resumed, and we think that peace is reachable. That is what we want. We restored historical justice and international law, and now it's time to put an end to hostility in the region.

One issue to which I also want to draw your attention is the international reaction to our anti-terror operation, which was absolutely adequate in the majority of cases. The international community, different countries, and international organizations in public statements, and also in our behind-the-scenes communication, expressed full understanding of what we have done and what we had to do. The understanding that there were two red lines that Armenia crossed before our anti-terror operation, and in general, the reaction of the international community was absolutely positive.

To inform you about some details, I just want to say what happened at the beginning of September, and why did the anti-terror operation happen in September? At the beginning of September, the Armenian Prime Minister sent a congratulatory letter to the separatist regime in Karabakh, congratulating them on the so-called independence. That was a big surprise and a bad surprise for us. The same Prime Minister of Armenia publicly recognized Azerbaijan's territorial integrity in 2022 at the meeting in Prague and reiterated several times that Armenia has no territorial claims to Azerbaijan.

Then, what was that congratulations about? That was a congratulation to separatists, and that was a violation of Azerbaijan's sovereignty and an absolutely unacceptable and contradictory gesture. And then, on the 9th of September, the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which again exists only in the dreams of some people, held the so-called presidential elections, and that was another red line.

So, these were the final triggers that led to the anti-terror operation, which lasted several hours, and after 23 hours, the separatists surrendered. There were no casualties among civilians, and as soon as the separatists surrendered, we stopped the operation, and that was actually the end of the story.

Talking about international reaction, unfortunately, I have to mention the position of one country, which is absolutely in contradiction with the international community. This is France. I regret it very much because relations between Azerbaijan and France since the beginning of the 1990s developed in a positive direction. There have been numerous high-level visits, and a lot of business contacts, 13 cities from each country had an agreement, and they were named sister cities.

However, the reaction of the French government to the Second Karabakh War and the anti-terror operation was inadequate. There were five attempts to bring this issue to the Security Council of the United Nations and to impose sanctions on Azerbaijan - for what we have not done. We did not do anything in contradiction with international law. All these five attempts failed because other members of the Security Council did not support that. After that, there were several attempts to sanction Azerbaijan in the European Union. And those attempts also failed. The majority of countries in the European Union did not support that.

Unfortunately, what happened after that is absolutely beyond normal understanding. There was an act of vandalism in France, in the city of Evian, which used to be a sister city to one of the cities of Azerbaijan. The monument of Azerbaijani poetess Natavan was vandalized. I just want to show you the monument - the red color and the broken nose. This happened in France, as a result of the failure to sanction Azerbaijan in the Security Council and the EU.

And after that, what happened? The authorities did not try even to wash out the color or to restore the monument, and what have they done? They've just wrapped it, and in this wrapped position, it stayed for more than one or two months. And all our requests to the French authorities through our embassy and other channels and to the Mayor's Office of Evian just to stop continuing the vandalism because wrapping it like this and keeping it in there without even an attempt to clean this red color is vandalism in itself. There was no reaction, neither from the French government nor from Evian.

Then, we started to insist that allow us to evacuate it. Because this is an insult to us. This is a humiliation. In a country like France, which pretends to be a moral leader, in many cases, things like that are unacceptable. But it took us again several months to be able to evacuate it from Evian and bring it to the garden of the Azerbaijani Cultural Center in Paris, where Natavan is now staying.

This is just an illustration of what we're facing after we restored our sovereignty. This is an illustration of double standards. France, which declared that it would send troops to Ukraine to help Ukraine restore its territorial integrity, tries to punish Azerbaijan for its restoration of territorial integrity.

Another topic that I want to bring to your attention and that we discussed broadly yesterday is COP29. We count very much on the NGIC to be an active partner of Azerbaijan in preparation for and during the conference. COP29 in Azerbaijan is a recognition of Azerbaijan's efforts with respect to the green transition. As I have said many times, including in public comments, the fact that we have oil and gas is not our fault, and we should not be criticized for that. I think those who try to criticize us and those who made the decision to award us with this honor to host this global event should understand that our intention is to contribute to the issue of climate. All that we are doing concerning the green transition already has practical results.

Last October, we inaugurated the biggest 230 MW solar power plant in the area of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Two more are now in the process of construction and preparation. Our plans until 2030 are to have a generating potential of 5,000 megawatts of renewables. This is absolutely realistic because many contracts and MOUs have been signed.

We are actively working now on building the green energy cable from the Caspian to the Black Sea and further down to Europe, and the feasibility study of that project is almost ready.

So, first, COP29 will be for us the chance to demonstrate that a country, that lives independently and does not depend on anyone, can successfully develop. It is a demonstration of the right policy that Azerbaijan has pursued for the last 30 years. From a practical point of view, it will be a chance for us to contribute to solidarity. Because four years of our chairmanship in the Non-Aligned Movement created a very special atmosphere in this second-largest international institution after the UN, with 120 countries. With nine members of the EU, Azerbaijan signed declarations on strategic partnership. We are members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation with more than 50 members. So, we have the capability to bring together different countries, and that is what is needed now to address the issues of climate.

I don't want to take much of your time, I know that you have a very busy program. I will conclude now. Once again, expressing gratitude to all our participants for being with us, especially to the NGIC, and wish the Forum success.