Recently, Elshad Aliyev, the Deputy Chairman of Azerbaijan’s State Committee on Work with the Diaspora, held meetings with Azerbaijanis residing in Helsinki (Finland) and Stockholm (Sweden).
According to the official report published on the website of the State Committee, these meetings were said to have been well-attended. The impression given was that compatriots flocked to meet Elshad Aliyev.
However, the images from Helsinki tell a different story. There, Elshad Aliyev primarily addressed a group of young children, delivering lengthy lectures on the history of the Azerbaijani diaspora, its developmental stages, and its socio-philosophical significance. It is difficult to imagine that these young children, who live and study in “the land of white lilies,” listened with great enthusiasm to such an academic and dialectical presentation about the diaspora of their ancestral homeland. It has even been suggested—ironically—that some of them are now planning to invite Elshad Aliyev to hold more such meetings.
In reality, the meetings were far from the smooth affairs portrayed by official sources.
Unlike the younger attendees, many adults were expecting the Committee’s Chairman, Fuad Muradov, to arrive and engage with them. Their disappointment was great when it turned out that only the Deputy Chairman was present. Many had hoped to raise their questions directly with Muradov, and when it became clear he would not be coming, several expressed their dissatisfaction. They gathered outside the meeting venue, smoking and discussing the situation, which led the organizers to insult them and force them back into the hall.
The Stockholm meeting was marked by even greater tension. Several individuals who wished to express their concerns were denied the opportunity to speak, and one of them was even removed by security guards. Despite the participants patiently listening for several hours without food or drink, the promised lunch never materialized. Many who had traveled long distances from other cities left with a bitter taste in their mouths.
Another controversial detail was the conspicuous presence of Iranian-Azerbaijani participants—individuals who had not previously been seen at Azerbaijani events in the region. This raised questions as to whether their presence had been orchestrated to fill the room and create the illusion of high attendance for photography purposes.
It is also noteworthy that some of the most active and respected members of the Azerbaijani community in Sweden—individuals who have been engaged for years in the country’s social, cultural, and political life—were not even invited to the meeting. The few compatriots who were invited also voiced dissatisfaction with the Committee’s divisive rather than unifying approach. Is this truly in line with what one should expect from a state institution?
How should one interpret the fact that President Ilham Aliyev is regarded as the leader not only of Azerbaijan but also of hundreds of thousands of compatriots abroad, while the actions of the diaspora committee—and particularly those of Elshad Aliyev—undermine that trust?
Another source of criticism is the timing of the meetings: they were held a week before the 102nd birthday of the national leader Heydar Aliyev, rather than on the actual anniversary. Many rightly believe it would have been more logical and respectful to organize the meetings during the jubilee days themselves.
Unfortunately, this episode demonstrates that Elshad Aliyev and those who share his mindset lack an understanding of such sensitive and symbolically important matters. One can only hope that the responsible authorities—particularly Committee Chairman Fuad Muradov—will take this criticism seriously and reconsider both their approach and their representation moving forward.
Rauf Pen Nord
