Statesmanship in the Silk Road Region

I began writing this essay near the end of a triple jubilee year for Heydar Aliyev: the centenary of his birth, the thirtieth anniversary of his return to Baku (celebrated as National Salvation Day), and the twentieth anniversary of his death. Heydar Aliyev was a significant leader who left a lasting impact in the Caucasus region—not just in Azerbaijan. Heydar Aliyev was indispensable in shaping Azerbaijan’s vision for the future and establishing the country as a vital player in the Silk Road region. Several key traits (in the final part of this essay, I identify nine such traits) characterized his leadership style and contributed to his success, particularly in navigating the complex dynamics of the region between East and West, oil and energy, and its future development.

Heydar Aliyev’s presence in Azerbaijan’s history represents a leader who was able to quell civil war and unrest and offer stability to the country, which became instrumental in launching the economic growth, and development of the country—and eventually of the region. These, in turn, enabled several things, including improved living standards, putting Azerbaijan on the global energy map, and significantly modernizing its military. Azerbaijan has demonstrated to the world that sustained economic efforts, accompanied by political patience and apt international analysis and evaluation of the world’s political situation, made true—in the middle of the COVID‑19 pandemic—the “day for which all Azerbaijani people were waiting,” namely the return of Karabakh.

Like most foreigners, when I arrived in Baku several years ago, I would repeatedly see the figure of a single person, Heydar Aliyev, displayed at intersections, in parks, and on the walls of buildings—everywhere. His name also adorns multiple streets and state institutions. This got me thinking and remembering that in Mexico (my home country) there are eight municipalities and more than 60,000 streets that carry the name Benito Juarez (the president who established the basis of a secular state, and consolidated the country as a federal republic), more than 14,000 streets that honor Miguel Hidalgo (he initiated our War of Independence), and more than 12,000 streets commemorating Emiliano Zapata (he fought for peasants’ right to their land).

In the United States, 12.2 percent of homes nationwide are located on a street named after George Washington, with streets named after Abraham Lincoln in second place. In France, Charles de Gaulle is equally memorialized alongside Victor Hugo and Louis Pasteur. Atatürk is the most common street in Türkiye. Winston Churchill is commemorated in Great Britain in two Royal Navy warships (one destroyer and one submarine), parks, gardens, schools, and buildings, and also in Belgium, Canada, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, U.S.A., Australia, Czech Republic, Fiji and probably elsewhere, too. Every country has its way of commemorating its historical development. Founders, re‑founders, liberators, generals, statesmen, renowned poets, writers, and artists; and naturally, philosophers—grateful nations give due public honor to the men and women who belong to their country’s pantheon.

For me, the question became, who was Heydar Aliyev, really?

And so, for me, the question became, who was Heydar Aliyev, really? After recognizing this Azerbaijani statesman’s imprint in comparative terms vis‑à‑vis Mexican history, I came to analogously associate him with the historical hallmarks of six Mexican presidents.

Leaders abound; statesmen are in need. We all recognize statesmen when we see them, partly because they are so rare.

First, Heydar Aliyev consolidated the Azerbaijani state into a self‑sustaining independent country. Second, a fundamentally important fact for the state’s future, he stabilized the country domestically by quelling impending civil war, thus allowing the economy and industry to develop. Third, as a continuation of his domestic policy, the stabilization of the country allowed Azerbaijan to assert its dependability internationally by defining its identity and, above all, its reliability as an independent partner—a subject of international order. Fourth, drawing from the country’s history and his previous experience in statecraft, he mapped the route for the future based on a sophisticated geopolitical posture and economic foresight. Fifth, appreciating the country’s geographical location, he oriented the nation’s policies to strategically benefit from it without lamenting its tough neighborhood’s unique and unfortunate complexities. Sixth, attesting to his dedication to institution‑building, he set the foundation for an increasingly meritocratic system of government that  seeks to meet the needs of the many, harnessing the will of the people and its aspirations. All this took more than a century in Mexico. Heydar Aliyev achieved it all in ten years as President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. 

Understanding Statesmanship

Leaders abound; statesmen are in need. We all recognize statesmen when we see them, partly because they are so rare. We also somehow grasp that, in our globalized world, it is the direction and guidance of certain countries that define all our futures. Nonetheless, although we inhabit the same planet, those who live in one hemisphere scarcely know those who live in the other.

Across the world, we find communities, nations, and regions that go through diverse and arduous circumstances set by their location. They play different roles on the world scene depending on their history, what they achieve, and how they see the world. While tradition meets modernization, countries confront new challenges. In all cases, countries must persevere and endure daily toils to achieve long‑term goals in an ever‑increasingly complex new environment while remaining in the same geographical surroundings because, well, nations cannot change their location. And above all, countries must always seek to satisfy the needs of their population.

How do we accomplish this?

Historically, societies, nations, and empires have teemed with rulers, public servants, and politicians. Leaders—and occasionally nations—make an impact on history when they attain their political pinnacle. History shows us the rise and fall of empires, but also the enduring efforts made by nations to grow.

History is unrelenting and unforgiving. It truly only remembers individuals and nations that set a path for the future, people that find the road for their country’s potential to arise and develop, personalities that uncover the ways and means to put forth their views in their region, and dignitaries that open the doors to the world. While politicians inhabit the annals of history, their presence fades away, ceding their seats to leaders, and still, these yield the way for statesmen. As some countries subsist, others become complacent and tend to fade away, while others adapt, set new paths, and grow. History and international relations flock and evoke the latter.

A nation’s life is a multifarious phenomenon wherein we can distinguish numerous facets, yet we cannot entirely separate them. The intricacies of social and international interaction are fully interwoven and cannot be disassembled—just like a hand, where we can clearly identify the palm, the fingers, and the wrist. When one moves one’s hand, everything is affected; so it is in the life of a nation.

One often hears assertions that leadership emanates from political leaders. The same concept—leadership—also applies to countries. A statesman can make breakthroughs and change the life and destiny of a nation. But it is the continued and sustained effort from successive leaders that will make that country shine and steer its route—and of its surrounding region—because the center pulls. A country may grow and develop after difficult times or during buoyant moments. However, if its policies, plans, and projects do not align with the goal or diverge from the same sustained aim, the country will lose momentum and derail from its set target. In other words, for a country to grow and develop, it is not just one leader at the rudder that makes things happen—persistence and staying the course throughout time will achieve the result. Historically, while one person can change avenues and the country may grow (Alexander the Great’s empire springs to mind), in general, one person by himself has rarely (if ever) managed to make a country a regional leader or even ensure a country’s survival: Alexander’s empire faded away rapidly after his death.

This demonstrates that when statesmen (plural) guide and focus a country throughout its life and history, the result will be attained in due time. A successful statesman and his country need worthy successors—new statesmen—to artfully manage the new surroundings and stay the course.

In a country, both the people and their national leaders play vital yet distinct roles in shaping its future. Leaders allocate resources, plan programs, develop policies, and forge partnerships to promote the long‑term improvement and progress of citizens and nations. However, it is the resolute commitment of the people that will make statesmen’s vision a reality—once it has been embraced and adopted by the people.

The effective leadership of a nation requires the foresight to fathom alternatives and possible futures, as well as pragmatism that does not hinder prospects and opportunities as well as maintains hope while maintaining a firm hold on reality

The effective leadership of a nation requires the foresight to fathom alternatives and possible futures, as well as pragmatism that does not hinder prospects and opportunities as well as maintains hope while maintaining a firm hold on reality. Effective leadership in an individual leader requires a vision for the future, an understanding of the country’s strengths and weaknesses, and the ability to prioritize and maximize available assets to achieve strategic goals. This involves making tough decisions about where to invest funds and resources, how to structure governmental policies, and how to engage stakeholders to attain shared objectives.

Above all, for a country to become a leader in its region and the world, it necessitates not only sound leadership from politicians. Continued and sustained statesmanship becomes essential. This implies the ability to create a stable and prosperous future for the country and its citizens, including long‑term perspectives, and the willingness to invest soundly in infrastructure, education, and other key areas. However, of particular interest is the aptitude and talent to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges. The statesman passes on the baton to his successors, who follow the path set for the country and develop it even further. And yet, it does not define an exclusive path. The baton lights the way to change when it is warranted.

My colleague Damjan Krnjević Mišković recently shared an essay written by a now largely forgotten figure from Weimar‑era Germany by the name of Kurt Riezler. Writing in exile in the United States right after World War II, Riezler wrote a passage contrasting the statesman and the politician that, to my knowledge, encapsulates like no other one thread of the distinction that the preceding paragraphs have tried to convey. It reads thusly:

_{While the politician merrily plays his game from one short‑lived smartness to another, trusting that he will find a way out of every mess in which he gets entangled, the real statesman is not allowed to be, like ordinary man, a short‑range planner and a long‑range dreamer. He is bent on shaping the future. He does not take it for granted. If he fails— there may be no future for his nation [...]. He knows his ends, he has a goal, a hierarchy of purposes, long‑term and short‑term; he subordinates one to the other; he has a vision of both the possible and the desirable and looks at the one under the aspect of the other; he thinks the possibilities through to their end; he follows up his actions, keeping ready a possible answer for whatever their foreseeable consequence—trying to keep his hand on the events and their interaction, flexible at short range, rigid at long range, passionately reasonable, a knower of human nature, suspicious even of his own love and hate and of the many passions that blind the children of man. His eyes are cold and hard yet the flame burns in his heart as he opposes his specific virtue to the play that necessity and chance play with each other. (emphasis added).}

Good political leadership—a “real statesman,” as Riezler put it—requires a person who can effectively steer a country through the complexities of an ever more convoluted modern world—with good skills to draw lessons from the past. Regional leadership requires a country to set the trail for others to join, not by imposition but by conviction. This involves a deep understanding of the historical context that led to the current state of affairs and the capability to use such knowledge to make informed decisions about the future. It demands distinguishing between success and failure to adequately grasp one’s own performance and that of the nation. A competent and experienced leader learns from past failures to make better decisions in the future. A nation—whose agency is embodied in its leaders—learns from past errors and mistakes to prevent history from repeating itself to its detriment.

Nations and political leaders succeed by embodying visionary thinking—a crucial trait that manifests in daring to conceive bold new ideas and turn them into reality. Such notions require an understanding of the current and future needs and aspirations of the people and country and the ability to communicate their vision compellingly. Having a vision does not suffice. The people must embrace it. Ideas must be transformed into practical action.

Countries and good political leaders must operate effectively in the modern world. This means being comfortable with new technologies and modes of communication and capable of piloting through the complex web of international relationships that define our global society. To attain a goal, you achieve it by yourself. To reach significance in the world, you do so with friends and allies. Social life, diplomacy, and international engagement become essential.

National leadership is not a one‑person issue. The life of a nation necessitates the continuation of plans, vision, projects, and above all, an unwavering commitment to attain the goal. There may be some detours, but political leaders, when they are “real statesmen” and comprehend their country’s needs and goals—and countries when they grasp the needs of the forthcoming and impending circumstances— will pursue the same aim, sharing similar aspirations.

The Hydrocarbon Effect 

In the Silk Road region, as in other parts of the world, geographical constants and the perspectives derived therein are clearly and naturally interwoven with domestic and international political processes. While physically at the intersection of Asia and Europe, the Silk Road region is better conceptualized as a link between East and West. This variance of views builds bridges, opens the door for cooperation (amidst competition), and assembles new partners. This allows the Silk Road region’s abundant resources to meet strategic geopolitical interests and serve not as a divider but as the conduit for the passage of energy, trade, culture, and connection. This is particularly in evidence in the South Caucasus part of the Silk Road region, where Azerbaijan is increasingly coming to be seen as a “keystone state,” a case for which Nikolas Gvosdev and other scholars have made in previous editions of Baku Dialogues and will not be repeated here. 

Building on the legacy of Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan has shown the world what a reliable partner can achieve and what it offers to the advancement of global stability. 

Building on the legacy of Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan has shown the world what a reliable partner can achieve and what it offers to the advancement of global stability. It has come as a consequence of its leaders putting forward this posture, and the people—of the country and the region—absorbing and owning the thought and the scheme. The upshot of grasping the strategic importance of Azerbaijan’s location is that instead of dividing the South Caucasus, the Caspian Sea builds bridges between East and West and opens the gates to Central Asia. 

More importantly, Azerbaijan is the only country on the western shore of the Caspian Sea, with Russia to the North and Iran to the South. Hence, in a world of Western‑led sanctions imposed on Russia, if the Caspian Sea is the door between East and West, then Azerbaijan—by geographical necessity—becomes the hinge that allows the door to open between the two regions. Further, Azerbaijan pursued partnerships with countries such as Türkiye and Georgia to strengthen ties with the West while cultivating relationships with Russia and Iran to promote regional stability. Azerbaijan’s nature as a landlocked country drives the development of trilateral formats and the like, but the world increasingly feels its growing impression. The successful conclusion of its chairmanship of the Non‑Aligned Movement and the assumption of the presidency of COP29 speaks further to this overall point.

The Caspian Sea is one of the world’s largest oil‑ and gas‑producing regions, such that in 1999, it was dubbed the “new Persian Gulf.” The region has been the focal point of global energy geopolitics for decades. The Caspian Sea’s five littoral states (Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan) have adapted. The discovery and development of resources attracted the attention of regional powers (Russia, Türkiye, Iran), major international actors (U.S., China, the European Union), and transnational energy companies. The geopolitical landscape, as countries compete for access to and control over these resources, has led to political tensions, conflicts, and alliances among the countries in the region and beyond, but astute maneuvering brings about fruitful political and regional associations.

Heydar Aliyev possessed nine traits of statesmanship that he demonstrated during the times in which he served Azerbaijan.

Construction of oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea and the European continent has been a major regional geopolitical issue, with countries and companies competing to control pipelines and transit routes, utilizing projects such as Baku‑Novorossyisk, Baku‑Supsa, and Baku‑Tbilisi‑Ceyhan pipelines. Examples of the genuine geopolitics involved are that discussions about the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC) took place while agreements and possibilities continued about the Nabucco pipeline and its alterations, such as Nabucco West. A pragmatic and reality‑oriented vision was put into play. Whereas Nabucco was simply too large by design (considering oil sources in Iraq, Iran, the Caspian Sea, and Turkmenistan) to deliver to markets in Austria and Eastern Europe, the SGC “only” planned to deliver Caspian Sea gas via a 3,500‑kilometer pipeline to Italy. The latter has been proven to be a reliable alternative to alleviate the EU’s dependence on Russian gas. What is even more impressive is that once the SGC became operational, several “add‑on” pipelines and countries in Southeast Europe came into play. The end result is coming to resemble a modified but implemented Nabucco.

Nine Traits

The remainder of this essay consists of nine of the traits of statesmanship that, in my view, Heydar Aliyev demonstrated during the times in which he served Azerbaijan, culminating in his decade of service as its head of state (1993‑2003). Heydar Aliyev possessed nine traits of statesmanship that he demonstrated during the times in which he served Azerbaijan. The first of these traits is pragmatism. A country sets its goals and puts into play the resources it has. Success necessitates realistically assessing all situations and maintaining pragmatism, as sometimes certain conditions may not be easily overcome. To paraphrase Churchill, we know that neither success nor failure is final nor fatal, and the country shows the courage to continue. Azerbaijan comprehends the importance of balancing the needs of various stakeholders, including international partners, domestic interest groups, and its society.

Steering through a complex maze of political and economic challenges requires making testing decisions in the national interest. After independence, resorting to history and the oil riches it had, Azerbaijan pursued the international markets. However, with the available infrastructure at the time, it needed to go through Russia first to reach the oceans. Thus, on 18 February 1996, an agreement was reached to transport Azerbaijani oil via Russia to the Black Sea port by reverting the flow in the Novorossyisk‑Baku pipeline (BNP). This in and of itself was a very pragmatic act. It was a politically sound decision yet revenue‑affecting. To export through BNP, Azerbaijan agreed to blend its higher‑quality crude with Russia’s oil and market it as Urals blend, sold at 10 percent less. It shows that having 90 percent of something is better than 100 percent of nothing. The result was increased hard currency income and sound footing for the county’s further development.

We must keep in mind other pragmatic ways of doing things. For years, Azerbaijan has been following what I refer to as a policy of self‑financing and constructing large regional infrastructure projects—and/or finding the appropriate financing capabilities by joining with interested parties (countries, international financial institutions, and energy companies). Projects include the Baku‑Tbilisi Erzurum gas pipeline (BTE), the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Ceyhan oil pipeline (BTC), the Baku‑Tbilisi‑Kars (BTK) railway, and the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC). This policy would result in a higher degree of certainty—for all parties involved, especially partners‑to‑be—of concluding the project, promoting national economic development, and increasingly focusing the world’s attention on Azerbaijan for inter‑regional infrastructure projects. And when infrastructure becomes operational, it utterly increases the entry cost for any similar project— particularly one championed by a competitor or a foe.

The second trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is vision. In Heydar Aliyev’s view, Azerbaijan had a clear vision for its future, which over time came to encompass the entire Silk Road region. This was even more patent in terms of the key role that the South Caucasus, and particularly Azerbaijan, could play—and is now playing—between East and West. Clarity of ideas is of the essence. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor of the United States, said that Heydar Aliyev was straightforward during his conversations. This allows a good flow of ideas and arguments, as Brzezinski was known to affirm. It may also have helped the former senior U.S. official think through the strategic implications of his famous 1997 characterization of Azerbaijan as being the “cork in the bottle containing the riches of the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia.”

Assembling from the past, Azerbaijan recognized the importance of developing its oil and gas resources. Building on projects undertaken since the nineteenth century and continued during Soviet rule, Azerbaijan has worked to erect the infrastructure necessary to support and develop this industry. A long‑term vision for the country’s economic development was in place. It demanded the establishment of a stable and secure environment for foreign investment because, grand as dreams may be, they require financing. Azerbaijan worked to establish itself as a bridge between East and West while promoting cooperation and stability— both its own and, as a result, that of the Silk Road region. And through such actions, it achieved national and regional effects. As President George W. Bush stated, “The attitude and actions had played a primary role in attracting foreign investments that had strengthened the economic position of Azerbaijan […], had improved the lives of millions of Azerbaijanis, and had helped Azerbaijan enter the twenty‑first century as an independent state.”

The third trait is collaboration. An important part of leadership involves dealing with partners, colleagues, and confreres who put their part into action. An idea must flow and become a reality. In the face of increasing demand for fresh perspectives, those peoples and countries capable of adopting decisive and resolute deeds and achievements attain a high level of responsibility, making peers and staff essential. In early 1971, Heydar Aliyev publicly named officials at fault and the reasons for their removal. Stories abound on how recruitment needed to be done with professionalism, including in everyday life.

The views of neighboring partners also come into play—if performance and projects come alive, expectations run higher, and doubts become a will. Gas and oil were important for Georgia. Regarding Heydar Aliyev, Georgia’s former president, Eduard Shevardnadze, said, “in the near future, Azerbaijan will become the most prosperous country in the Near East and the West.”

The fourth trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is achieving results. A vision with no results amounts to nothing—actions must take place. Products and outcomes must be evident, with deliverables becoming the order of the day. Accountability is essential for a country.

At the national and policy level, there is further evidence that sustained efforts oriented to benefit the people achieve results. The world easily recalls that Azerbaijan started to receive international revenue when it exported its oil to the world, albeit with somewhat limited volumes through the Baku‑Supsa pipeline and with discounted prices via the Baku‑Novorossyisk pipeline. And it remembers that when Azerbaijan started directly selling its oil to the world markets through the BTC, it received substantial amounts of international revenue. But few evoke that in the first years of independence, according to the World Bank, Azerbaijan’s GDP went through negative growth: ‑0.7 percent (1991), ‑22.6 percent (1992), ‑23.1 percent (1993), ‑19.7 percent (1994), ‑11.8 percent (1995), and finally 1.3 percent (1996). However, with its oil strategy in place, again, as per World Bank data, Azerbaijan recorded exceptional annual GDP increases: 27.9 percent (2005), 34.5 percent (2006), and 25.5 percent (2007). This was the result of concerted planning and continued implementation of infrastructure projects being designed and becoming operational—namely the BTC.

While the BTC was envisioned in the Contract of the Century, it had generally been seen as a myth or a “pipeline on paper.” However, thanks to the continuous efforts of Azerbaijan and its leadership, BTC was brought into being. Its impact at the regional—and global—level is evident. The BTC has achieved special global importance in the modern period, not only because it became an essential factor in actualizing Azerbaijan’s policy of providing an alternative energy export route to world markets but also because it, together with the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), began to transport Kazakh oil from the Caspian Sea region, and shattered Russia’s until then monopoly on the export of Caspian Sea oil.

The fifth trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is strategic thinking. Influential leaders and countries have intent and vision. They must anticipate and respond to changes in the political, economic, energy, and any other landscape that may directly or indirectly affect their possibilities. This requires skillfully balancing the interests of different stakeholders, including foreign governments, investors, and domestic political factors. While resolving today’s problems, the focus must be on long‑term goals and objectives. Azerbaijan prioritized the development of the country’s oil and gas sector, recognizing its potential to bring economic growth and stability to the country. Then, once stability was assured, Azerbaijan moved to develop other economic sectors. A leader and a country must diagnose and appreciate benefits and risks, differentiate advantages and disadvantages deriving from daily—national and global—commotion and  events, and clearly identify the economic, political, energy, and cultural trends.

The sixth trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is decisiveness. With the vision in place, a country and its leaders must act unfalteringly and with a willingness to make difficult decisions when necessary. Courageous action to protect the country’s interests, even in the face of opposition from powerful external actors. A leader must be capable of making “the right decision at the right time.” Because actions greatly affect people, leaders must duly ponder and meditate on assessment and decision. Even more importantly, leaders must stand by their choices and follow them through yet be willing to review their progress and adapt.

The seventh trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is diplomacy. Countries and statesmen imagine potentiality and opportunities. They express these images with neighbors and prospective stakeholders. When other countries and leaders understand where the proposals are heading, they jump on board. Leaders have a duty to their population, and statesmen have a duty to the region and the world. This is the art of balancing what is right for the country, the region, and the world. Countries will offer opportunities in a shared manner, recognizing unique sectors and a global perspective. This is even more evident for land‑locked countries, which—by necessity—require heightened collaboration with neighboring countries. Thus, statesmen must travel widely and make their countries known. World gatherings give way to sharing expertise and differing visions with other countries. They are the means to forge a valuable and advantageous network with internationally prominent leaders. To better the place of a country in the world, a global perspective is a must.

Azerbaijan is a landlocked country in natura. Thus, to reach the world market, dealing with other countries is an intrinsic necessity, as noted above. As a leader in a region that is often marked by conflict and tension, Azerbaijan required a skilled diplomat capable of building strong and lasting relationships with leaders of the regional neighborhood and from areas far away, from both the East and the West—and not only from the diplomatic arena but from other international actors as well, such as transnational corporations prone to its available resources. Understanding the importance of maintaining good relations with neighboring countries and international partners, Azerbaijan worked to establish itself as a reliable partner capable of effectively negotiating with international partners and regional leaders and maintaining and keeping its commitments in place.

The international sphere becomes evident when we see that in the first decade after independence, between 1993 and 2003, when international state visits were not often, thirty official and state visits to other countries took place—in addition to visits to Azerbaijan. Efforts were made to build strong relationships with neighboring countries to promote regional security and stability in an internationally balanced approach, bringing major powers and companies both near and afar into play. The countries visited included neighbors such as Russia and Iran, regional actors like Türkiye, and major powers like the U.S. and China.

Recognizing the globalization of international relations and the need to be a part of the world, Azerbaijan further sought to enhance its visibility by promoting and strengthening links with countries near and far. From 2003 to 2023, there have been 319 official and state visits (99 between 2003 and 2008, 72 between 2008 and 2013, 73 between 2013 and 2018, and 75 between 2018 to 2023), encompassing the above‑mentioned countries, numerous European countries, all Central Asian countries, and Asian and North African states, such as Japan, Egypt, and Morocco. Again, it must be stressed that this is in addition to the official and state visits that have taken place in Baku. Still to pursue is the geographical periphery, as seen from Azerbaijan’s perspective: Latin America, Africa, and Oceania. Verbi gratia, in 2022 and 2023, there have been vice‑ministerial visits to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, and Uruguay.

The eighth trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is empathy. A country’s vision is not just about conceiving and actualizing an effort to lead its surrounding region. Such images and concepts must vie for the benefit of the population—the only goal there is for serving in office. Society’s interests were evident when you see that shortly after becoming party leader of Azerbaijan in mid‑1969, Heydar Aliyev took to incognito visits, taking advantage of the fact that, at that time, few people could recognize him. He would dress in plain clothes, leave his house, and take the first available taxi, taking a long route to better talk to the driver and ask him what life was like for the people and what they didn’t like. Or he would go into shops and ask for the cost of food, meat, and other staples. Upon finding amassing of food or any legal deviation or wrongdoing, he would take action. His picture soon found its way to all establishments as they became afraid—not necessarily of wrongdoing, but of being caught. Baku taxi drivers called him “Mikhailo,” from the 1958 Azerbaijani movie On Distant Shores, where legendary Soviet partisan Mehdi Huseynzade, a.k.a. Mikhailo, was fighting behind enemy lines. This also evidences another important part of Heydar Aliyev’s persona. A statesman is able to inspire and motivate his people, and he had the ability to connect with the people of Azerbaijan. His popularity and leadership style played a key role in stabilizing the country after years of political turmoil and economic hardship. A statesman understands the challenges ordinary citizens face and works to improve their lives through social and economic policies.

The ninth trait of Heydar Aliyev’s statesmanship is leadership by example. An essential part of leadership is the ability to inspire others. The most difficult aspect for a leader, whether an individual or a country, is to convince other peoples and countries to assist in achieving a goal. This can only be realized by providing a clear example and encouragement. When one’s peers see how one reacts when the going gets tough, the country leads by example. A country facing and overcoming difficulties will lead others, and other countries will feel inclined to at least pursue parallel goals—if not precisely the same one. This becomes evident from analyzing situations and maintaining confidence in one’s just and legal position while encouraging neighbors. Remember that in 2017 Azerbaijan refused to provide an agreement to proposed Russian ambassadors. Deeds like this do not go unnoticed.

Overall, Azerbaijan’s leadership—and that of its leaders between East and West, oil and energy, and future development was marked by a combination of strategic thinking, diplomatic skills, and a clear vision for the future, one accepted by international partners and major powers and proven right by regional conflicts, such as the Russia invasion of Ukraine. The legacy of Azerbaijan’s statesmen continues to shape the region today.

Leadership in the region serves as an example of what can be achieved through effective statesmanship in a complex and dynamic environment facing political and economic challenges. One result is unblemished: Azerbaijan is now a key player in the Silk Road region—a keystone state in a part of the world that is critical to the advancement of the connectivity ambitions of most if not all of the world’s major powers. This is the result of a pragmatic approach to geopolitical and geoeconomic realities—a result attained by countries, statesmen, and people. BD