The presence of an Azerbaijani diplomat at the attaché level in the hall during the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu within the framework of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly has become the subject of an information wave against Azerbaijan. Certain social media segments in Turkey, under the influence of radical Islamist circles, are making futile attempts to turn this image into the basis of a new narrative against Azerbaijan.
And what is more interesting is that the political noise created over this simple diplomatic procedure is far from the essence of Azerbaijan's foreign policy, and it is nonsense to form a completely different idea about Azerbaijan in certain circles. The main point is, since when has an attaché sitting in the UN hall become an indicator of the state's foreign policy?
One of the most dangerous mistakes in diplomacy is to attach political meaning to a technical procedure. Attaché is one of the low-level diplomatic positions in the diplomatic service system. In Azerbaijani legislation, diplomatic positions and ranks are also determined separately. Attaché is one of the lower ranks in the system of diplomatic positions. This is not about a diplomat who will make a political decision. It is about an employee who carries out the technical aspects of the diplomatic service. His job is to observe, listen, take notes, collect information, analyze the content of speeches, and prepare relevant reports.
Trying to derive state policy from an image in the UN hall without understanding this difference is either diplomatic illiteracy or a deliberate political manipulation of the fact.
In international relations, states listen to each other's positions. Even representatives of states with serious disagreements can follow each other's speeches. Because one of the important functions of diplomacy is to obtain information and analyze political positions. The presence of a representative of a state in the hall does not mean that the state accepts all the policies of the speaking country. By the same logic, leaving the hall does not automatically mean that all problems have been solved.
It should be particularly emphasized here that the Azerbaijani delegation did not leave the hall during the speeches of the occupying Armenian officials at the UN tribune over time. It should be recalled that Azerbaijan has been a state facing the occupation of its territories by Armenia for many years. Nevertheless, Azerbaijan's diplomatic behavior on international platforms was not based solely on
