Never before has the world seen a true global power capable of shaping the international order to the same extent as the United States. While great empires have existed — Roman, Chinese, Mongol, British, and others — none managed to establish the comprehensive global system that America built in the 20th century.

The Roman Empire was powerful but fundamentally regional, focused on Europe and the Mediterranean. Its military infrastructure and citizenship policies promoted assimilation, yet excessive spending and inflation ultimately led to division and decline.

The Chinese Empire, supported by its vast population and Confucian culture, was often technologically ahead of its rivals. However, isolationism and the Opium Wars weakened China’s global influence, preventing it from becoming a world power.

The Mongol Empire created history’s largest contiguous land empire, but unlike Rome or China, it did not impose its culture. Instead, Mongols assimilated into conquered societies, which fueled fragmentation and collapse.

The British Empire, along with Spanish, French, and Dutch colonial powers, expanded through trade, exploitation, and cultural imposition. Yet even Britain, despite controlling vast territories, could not unify Europe under its leadership. Its strength rested on maintaining a balance of power — once broken, its dominance faded.

The United States, however, emerged from two world wars as the world’s first true global power. With inclusive democratic institutions, unrivaled military reach, and global cultural influence, America established a system that endures today. It built a worldwide network of alliances and institutions: NATO in Europe, APEC in Asia, NAFTA in North America, and global frameworks like the UN, IMF, World Bank, and WTO.

Unlike past empires, the U.S. positioned itself as a democratic leader rather than a colonial overlord, which gave its system resilience and legitimacy. Its culture continues to attract youth across the globe, reinforcing American soft power.

For Brzezinski, the United States is the first state to create a truly global order — one that balances hard power with institutions and cultural appeal. The central question remains: will America’s hegemony endure, or will another power build a rival system to challenge it?

In the past, the world was defined by bipolarity: nations asked themselves “Which side are we on — communist or capitalist?” Today, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and earlier empires, the question has shifted to “Who are we?”

Huntington argues that the defining characteristic of civilizations is religion. Five world religions form the backbone of today’s main civilizations. He identifies nine civilizations in total (with two having disputed status).

• Sinic: centered on China and related cultures in East and Southeast Asia.
  
  

• Japanese: distinct from the Sinic world.
  
  

• Hindu: led by India but extending beyond its borders.
  
  

• Islamic: uniting Arabs, Persians, and parts of Africa under Islam since the 7th century.
  
  

• Orthodox: represented by Russia, claiming Byzantine heritage and shaped by Mongol domination and limited Renaissance influence.
  
  

• Western: dating back to the 8th–9th centuries, encompassing Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand.
  
  

• Latin American: Catholic, authoritarian in tradition, and culturally distinct from Europe.
  
  

• African: debated, as much of Africa belongs to Islam, while Ethiopia and others are unique, and many areas are shaped by Western missions.
  
  

• Buddhist: also disputed due to its diversity and loose sense of unity.
  
  

Civilizations often have core states. For Japan it is Japan itself, for the Hindu world India, and for the West both the U.S. and the Franco-German center in Europe. By contrast, Latin America, Africa, and the Islamic world still lack clear core states, though Brazil and South Africa may emerge as such. No Islamic state currently has the resources or legitimacy to lead the entire Muslim world.

Huntington also identifies “torn” states, such as Turkey, Russia, Mexico, and Australia, caught between civilizational identities. Turkey, for example, historically Islamic, was reshaped by Atatürk to pursue Westernization, but remains divided between secular and Islamist forces. Russia is rooted in Orthodoxy but has long oscillated between Europe and Eurasia.

Civilizations interact along fault lines, often violently. The collapse of Yugoslavia, uniting Orthodox, Western, and Islamic communities under communism, and later disintegration of the USSR, are prime examples.

Western civilization has historically attempted to export its values — individualism, pluralism, Christianity, secularism, and classical heritage. These allowed rapid modernization, but Huntington questions whether they are universally necessary. China, for example, modernized while rejecting Western liberalism.

Huntington warns that the West faces resistance from other civilizations, especially Islam and Sinic China. Multiculturalism in the U.S. and mass migration in Europe may undermine Western cohesion. The West must strengthen alliances with Japan, India, and key Asian democracies to counterbalance China, while also carefully managing relations with Islam.

Conclusion: Huntington’s thesis remains controversial but deeply influential. It suggests that the post-Cold War world is defined less by ideology than by civilizational identity, with cultural and religious differences driving conflict and shaping global politics.

Margaret Thatcher on the Idea of a United Europe: A Utopian and Dangerous Project for Democracy

According to Margaret Thatcher, the concept of a united Europe is nothing but a utopia, one that could even undermine democracy itself. History, she argued, shows repeated and often destructive attempts to unify Europe under a single authority: from the Holy Roman Empire of the Habsburgs, to Napoleon’s bloody wars, to Hitler’s ambitions of imposing one ideology and one flag over the continent.

Thatcher was particularly critical of the EU’s economic and social policies. She denounced the excessive growth of public spending and intervention in the private sector. Left-leaning forces within the EU believed that reducing working hours, lowering the retirement age, and granting social privileges would reduce unemployment. Yet the opposite happened: while unemployment rates declined steadily in the UK and the US without overspending on pensions, in many EU states unemployment decreased slowly—or even rose—and pension spending consumed 30% of GDP in some cases, with projections showing it could reach 50% in the coming decades.

The creation of the euro and the monetary union, in Thatcher’s view, stripped member states of one of their most fundamental sovereign rights: their national currency. Public opinion, such as in Germany where many resisted giving up the Deutsche Mark, was ignored, and the euro was imposed. Countries reluctant to join were pressured through political and economic sanctions.

Politically, Thatcher criticized the EU’s tendency to intervene when right-wing or far-right parties won elections. Instead of respecting democratic outcomes, the EU imposed sanctions or pressured governments, as seen in Austria when a right-wing party came to power. Rather than weakening the government, these actions united the population around it.

In agriculture, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was seen by Thatcher as a protectionist tool that hindered farmers in less developed member states and distorted fair competition.

On defense, Thatcher viewed proposals for a European army independent of NATO as unrealistic French ambitions. First, Europe could not build a modern and large-scale army without U.S. support and intelligence capabilities, as demonstrated during the Balkan wars. Second, Europe lacked the resources and political will to mobilize forces on the same scale as the United States.

Ultimately, Thatcher believed the concept of a united Europe to be utopian and unworkable. Without a common culture, language, or historical identity, Europe would always face internal conflicts and challenges to sovereignty. For her, the dream of “ever closer union” was not a promise of stability, but a recipe for friction and a threat to democratic self-determination.

Rogue States and the Problem of Islam

Margaret Thatcher offered the West advice on how to deal with so-called rogue states. According to her view, such states must be contained and isolated, and only when they show a genuine willingness to cooperate and move closer to the West should the West reciprocate and engage with them. There are numerous examples of such rogue states: North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, Iraq, as well as Iran’s quasi-state proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

North Korea

The DPRK was created under the guidance of Joseph Stalin, when the USSR occupied part of the Korean peninsula previously under Japanese control. Its first leader, Kim Il-Sung, driven by his ambitions, launched war against South Korea, which was backed by the UN and Western powers. The Korean War might have lasted longer had it not ended after Stalin’s death in 1953. The peninsula was divided along the 38th parallel, and only an armistice — not a peace treaty — was signed. To this day, the war remains officially unresolved.

Unlike its southern neighbor, North Korea chose the path of communism, or more precisely its rigid Korean variant known as Juche. Private property was considered one of the gravest crimes, punishable by labor camps or even execution. The country continues to suffer from chronic food and industrial crises, with all resources monopolized by a narrow circle of elites handpicked by Kim Il-Sung. Institutions remain extractive, preventing the rise of a middle class. After Kim Il-Sung’s death, his son Kim Jong-Il inherited power. Facing the collapse of the Soviet Union — one of North Korea’s two crucial allies and suppliers — Kim Jong-Il turned toward both China and the West for survival. Understanding that his regime’s stability depended on feeding and maintaining the army, he sought humanitarian aid from the UN and Western organizations. Massive flows of food and medicine entered North Korea, though in practice they were diverted to the military.

In the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, North Korea pursued nuclear weapons, but the U.S. proposed an alternative: construction of neutral nuclear power plants and fuel supply at America’s expense. Kim Jong-Il manipulated Western aid while offering empty promises in return. In 2000, a historic meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea was held in Pyongyang with U.S. mediation. The lesson: the West should not fall for deceptive gestures from the regime and must adopt a more flexible but firm approach to such states.

Afghanistan

Afghanistan is tragically in the hands of the radical Islamic Taliban, a group that suppresses women’s rights, opposes the West, and sponsors global terrorism. As I mentioned in my earlier analysis on Qatar, that country has often served as a crucial channel for dialogue with radical Islamist movements.

Syria

Syria is a secular state but one inspired by socialist and authoritarian methods of governance. The Assad family, drawn from a minority sect, has consistently oppressed and violated the rights of other groups in the country. While not directly hostile to the West, the regime positions itself against Israel, a key Western ally, while simultaneously building up its military with the help of Russia and North Korea. Thatcher suggested that the West should engage with Syria where possible, recognizing its potential to evolve into a more normal state, but without easing pressure on its authoritarian leadership.

Iraq

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was ruled by a Sunni minority elite, while the wider population lived in poverty. Saddam and his circle enjoyed luxury, financing aggressive wars in Iran and Kuwait. According to Thatcher, the West must punish Iraq through sanctions and prevent it from acquiring or developing weapons capabilities.

Iran

Iran is unique among rogue states in that it is governed by clerics. Its system is a theocracy, where ultimate power rests not with an elected president or parliament but with the Supreme Leader. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran has been at odds with the West, particularly the United States. Today, Iran’s main threat is its pursuit of nuclear weapons, coupled with its destabilizing role in the Middle East through funding of proxies. The West must strictly monitor Iran’s nuclear program and prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The Israeli–Palestinian Conflict

The conflict around Israel remains one of the most sensitive regional challenges and a key to peace between Israel and Arab states. Egypt once took steps toward reconciliation, but its leader was assassinated by Islamist terrorists for showing openness to peace. Today, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar are moving toward normalization with Israel. The West must work to establish a Palestinian state — but without Hamas — to allow both peoples to live in peace and prosperity.

India: The World’s Largest Democracy and Its Strategic Role in Asia

India is the largest democracy on the Asian continent. According to Margaret Thatcher, the West must not distance itself from India but rather strengthen its role in the region as a counterbalance to an undemocratic China.

India’s history as an independent nation began on 15 August 1947, when the British Empire left behind a powerful legacy in governance and legal systems. In a country with many languages, Hindi was adopted as the official language, while English was maintained as the second official language. This decision significantly boosted India’s international standing, as English is the language of global diplomacy and commerce.

India’s democratic institutions provided stability, even though challenges existed, such as religious tensions and discrimination against minorities. These institutions also allowed India to attract foreign capital and investments. However, a major setback came when India leaned towards leftist and protectionist policies. During the Cold War, India positioned itself within the Non-Aligned Movement, but in practice, it often tilted toward the USSR, even supporting the Soviet side during the Afghan War.

This socialist-oriented system weakened the growth of private property and entrepreneurship. Inefficient state-owned enterprises drained the economy, while excessive money printing led to hyperinflation.

The turning point came in the 1990s under the leadership of Prime Minister Rao. India shifted to capitalist reforms, dismantling the failing socialist model. This marked the beginning of India’s “Golden Era”, which continues today. Foreign direct investment poured into the country, and India’s youthful and dynamic population became a key advantage, offering global companies both cheap labor and a rapidly growing market.

Today, India represents two realities:

A poor, underdeveloped India, where many villages still lack schools and hospitals.

A modern, wealthy India, with booming IT industries, advanced research, and scientists contributing to global innovation.

The situation with Pakistan complicates India’s progress. The Kashmir conflict remains a dangerous flashpoint, and the West must not stand idly by. Europe and the US must encourage compromise to prevent Pakistan from falling under the influence of Islamist extremists.

Margaret Thatcher also envisioned the possibility of India becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council, highlighting its nuclear capability as a decisive factor that Japan lacks.

India’s future will depend on how effectively it balances its democratic institutions, economic modernization, and regional security challenges. For the West, supporting India is not merely about economics—it is about securing a strategic partner in the struggle for global stability against authoritarian regimes.

As the book notes, China, despite its incredible historical and cultural achievements, is often underestimated in its ability to surpass Western countries economically and militarily. It is my duty to quote and analyze the opinion of Margaret Thatcher, who, as the book shows, had hopes for China's democratization.

China is one of the most ancient countries with a rich culture and history. During the Age of Discovery, China was a superpower due to its strong economy, vast territory, and military might. The Chinese have always been able to rise, as their culture is built on hard work and entrepreneurial skills, which have helped them reach the highest echelons of world politics time and again. The might of the Chinese Empire was broken by Western countries who invasively pushed for "free trade" and forced the country to open up to the world through the Opium Wars. This was a moment of humiliation, and China was divided into spheres of influence by Western powers. In contrast to China, Japan, which was also forced to open up, embraced free trade and Western values. As a result, during the Meiji era, it quickly transformed into one of the most developed countries.

After Mao Zedong came to power, the "Great Leap Forward" and "Cultural Revolution" programs led to millions of deaths and economic stagnation. Following Mao's death, the reformist Deng Xiaoping came to power, who partially put the Chinese economy on a capitalist track, gradually allowing private ownership.

China hopes to catch up with and surpass the U.S. economically and militarily while preserving the Communist Party. However, as the book suggests, this is a profound misconception. Without political pluralism, inclusive institutions, and democracy, the PRC will never be able to surpass Western countries. (China's current goal is to dominate its region, and, as noted in the book, it has not yet presented a global project One Belt one Road that could increase its worldwide influence). The Communist Party mistakenly believes it can retain power even as the population's well-being grows, which contradicts their communist ideals, as they are creating a middle class—or, as they call it, the "bourgeoisie"—with their own hands. History shows that the middle class will always demand strong legislation to protect their right to property and freedom of speech, which ultimately leads to the country's democratization. This is why many autocratic and totalitarian leaders seek to destroy the middle class to prevent such situations from arising.

Taiwan and its Role

Taiwan is a bastion of democratization in Asia, and its existence serves U.S. interests. Mao Zedong, as noted in the previous analysis, understood that there was no need to invade Taiwan, as it could be used to blackmail and threaten Western countries. This country on a small island is a prime example of how democratic institutions, combined with the Chinese people's entrepreneurial culture, can create a nation with a very strong and advanced economy. Taiwan will never agree to even the "One Country, Two Systems" status of Hong Kong.

Margaret Thatcher hoped that by 2015, China would also become a democracy, and this would be a victory for the West. Unfortunately, she was mistaken. Instead, China is building a club of autocratic and totalitarian regimes, making them dependent on the PRC.

Russia after the Collapse of the USSR — Causes of Stagnation and Authoritarian Return

Introduction

The collapse of the Soviet Union created 15 independent states. Russia, as the legal successor of the USSR, faced unique challenges: corruption, ethnic conflicts, economic crisis, and failed reforms. The country’s historical legacy played a decisive role in preventing a successful transition to a liberal and democratic system.

1. Historical Legacy and Extractive Institutions

– Unlike Western Europe, where limitations on state power, protection of property rights, and the rise of a middle class developed, Imperial Russia remained feudal and backward.

– Extractive institutions blocked scientific, industrial, and agricultural progress.

– Even industrial growth in the late 19th century was cut short by the First World War, which drained human and economic resources.

2. Communism and Its Consequences

– After the Bolsheviks took power, Russia’s industrial base was severely damaged.

– The population remained uneducated and dependent on a centralized system.

– By the 1980s, it became evident that the USSR could not compete with the West in technology or living standards, relying instead on military strength and nuclear weapons.

3. Modern Russia and the Return to Authoritarianism

– The failed reforms of the 1990s paved the way for authoritarian consolidation under Vladimir Putin.

– Russia seeks to restore influence in the post-Soviet space, culminating in the 2022 war in Ukraine.

– The CIS was intended as a tool of integration, but in practice became a means of Russian control.

Conclusion

Russia remains trapped in historical inertia, where authoritarian structures outweigh liberal reforms. Unlike Asia’s successful models, Russia failed to build inclusive institutions, limiting its long-term development.

The Asian Tigers and Lessons of the 21st Century

Introduction

The 21st century is increasingly described as the “Asian Century.” From Japan to Singapore, Asian nations have demonstrated how culture, reforms, and investment in human capital can transform small or resource-poor countries into global economic powers.

1. Demographics and Cultural Values

– Unlike Europe, Asian societies maintain strong family values, which stabilize their social systems.

– Populations continue to grow, providing both labor and consumer markets.

2. Lessons of the Asian Financial Crisis

– The crisis exposed the fragility of rapid economic growth.

– However, in its aftermath, Asian countries built mechanisms to guard against future shocks, becoming more cautious and resilient.

3. Singapore as a Success Story

– Lee Kuan Yew prioritized human capital, education, and healthcare.

– Despite lacking natural resources, Singapore became a global hub for pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, and trade.

– With minimal corruption and one of the highest GDPs per capita in the world, Singapore represents an exceptional model of development.

4. South Korea and the Chaebol Model

– Unlike Singapore, South Korea’s economy is dominated by large conglomerates (“chaebols”).

– This system has driven rapid growth but also reduced competition and wage growth.

Conclusion

The Asian Tigers prove that non-democratic systems can still deliver economic success if they avoid the pitfalls of communism. The key lesson is clear: the true resource of a nation is its people, and investment in human capital remains the foundation of sustainable growth.

One of Margaret Thatcher’s central ideas is that cutting defense spending in favor of “butter over guns” is a dangerous illusion. History shows that defense and security never disappear from international politics.

🔹 After World War I, European states reduced their defense budgets, but this did not bring peace — instead, it paved the way for World War II.
🔹 After the Cold War, the West repeated the same mistake. While the US and Europe relaxed, countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea strengthened their military power.

👉 Today we see the consequences:

• Russia launched a full-scale war against Ukraine,
  
  

• Iran funds proxy forces in the Middle East,
  
  

• North Korea expands its nuclear arsenal.
  
  

Europe was forced to wake up only after 2022, with many countries raising their military spending to nearly 5% of GDP — a step Thatcher would have strongly approved of.

⚔️ Crucially, military power does not oppose diplomacy — it strengthens it. That is why Ronald Reagan, unlike Nixon, Ford, and Carter, adopted a tougher line against the USSR. His “Star Wars” project was a masterstroke of strategic pressure, which helped weaken the “evil empire” and secured the West’s victory in the Cold War.

💡 Conclusion:
Thatcher reminds us that peace is only possible when it rests on strength. If the West forgets this lesson once again, its global leadership will be at risk.

Introduction

Grassroots initiatives play a crucial role in addressing local challenges and fostering sustainable development, often serving as vital drivers of change from the bottom up. However, their potential is profoundly shaped by the political and institutional environment in which they operate. After the collapse of the USSR, Azerbaijan became an independent state for the first time in 71 years. While the 'Contract of the Century' under Heydar Aliyev brought economic growth through oil, this era also marked the beginning of an autocracy, characterized by the gradual establishment of a personality cult and the systemic degradation of crucial non-oil sectors like education, medicine, and agriculture. This pervasive issues leads to job losses and deepens the country's dependence on oil, making its economy vulnerable to global price fluctuations. As I've argued, the government, far from being institutionalists, has contributed to this economic degradation, despite Azerbaijan's vast potential for diversified development (Mammadov, 2025a).

Given the inherent challenges in accessing detailed information about independent grassroots initiatives and the restrictive environment for civil society in such authoritarian regimes, this essay will analyze a hypothetical, yet highly realistic, model of a citizen-led initiative. At the core of this analysis is the 'Foundational Futures Initiative,' a community-led effort established in Goranboy, Azerbaijan, dedicated to building a robust foundation for sustainable local development, with primary aims to advance quality education, reduce inequalities, and strengthen community resilience in line with SDGs 1, 4, 10, and 16.

This analysis will demonstrate that despite the critical need for such initiatives and their inherent local effectiveness, their potential for sustainable development and scalability in Azerbaijan is severely limited by specific institutional and political barriers, which will be examined through the lens of trust, fragmentation, advocacy, and institutions. The essay will first describe the initiative's context and operations, followed by a critical assessment of its prospects for success and scalability within the aforementioned external constraints.

3.1. What main problem was addressed by the initiative?

The primary challenge addressed by the Foundational Futures Initiative is the severe lack of access to quality supplementary education for children from low-income families in rural areas of Azerbaijan. Goranboy, the chosen locale for this initiative, exemplifies a region largely overlooked by the central government. It suffers from underdeveloped school infrastructure, a critical shortage of qualified teaching staff, and deplorable hygienic conditions within school facilities, including restrooms. Local residents express a profound desire for their children to receive education in clean, well-maintained, and adequately equipped schools and universities, enabling them to achieve future success. Yet, many parents are left with no alternative but to send their children to subpar educational institutions. The situation is even more dire in the deep rural areas of the region, where schools may be entirely absent, and access to higher education remains an unattainable dream.

Our initiative, "Foundational Futures," is precisely designed to address these critical gaps. By working to ensure access to quality education, it directly contributes to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 4. This foundational investment in education is envisioned to lead to a significant reduction in poverty (SDG 1) by equipping children with essential skills and knowledge. Over time, it is expected to foster a notable decrease in social and economic disparities (SDG 10). By providing children with a solid educational base, these enhanced learning environments will prepare them for successful admission to reputable universities, allowing them to become valuable human capital for the country and secure more promising job opportunities (SDG 8). Ultimately, these efforts aim to cultivate a more just and equitable society within this often-neglected region (SDG 16).

3.2. How did the initiative start, and who developed its concept?

The Foundational Futures Initiative was born out of a shared concern among five childhood friends from Goranboy, who were deeply troubled by the deteriorating conditions in local schools and the limited prospects for young people. Over a series of serious discussions held in an old park café, they began to conceptualize solutions. Their initial aspiration was to start from the ground up: helping low-income families purchase essential school supplies, cleaning up dilapidated school facilities to create more hygienic learning environments for children, and repairing broken desks and chairs to ensure a basic standard for quality education. The catalyst for their action came from witnessing the disheartening reality of children learning in dirty classrooms, surrounded by broken furniture within aging Soviet-era schools that the government showed no immediate intention of renovating or maintaining. This stark reality galvanized them to move beyond discussion and take concrete action.

3.3. Who was the initiative directed at (Target Group)?

The Foundational Futures Initiative is primarily aimed at school-aged children and students in higher education (universities and technical colleges) from low-income and impoverished families in Goranboy and its surrounding rural areas. These children often face significant barriers to accessing quality education due to their families' financial constraints, the dire state of local school infrastructure, and the pervasive lack of supplementary learning opportunities. Investing in this demographic is critical, as today’s youth are the cornerstone of the country's future economic development; providing them with quality education can empower them to make scientific discoveries or innovate in modern technologies, thereby contributing meaningfully to national progress. Furthermore, the existing poor infrastructure, lack of qualified personnel, and inadequate hygiene in schools pose substantial health and safety risks to these children. By focusing on this vulnerable group, the initiative directly contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) by improving learning opportunities, and SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by empowering beneficiaries to break cycles of poverty and achieve greater social mobility. The initiative initially planned to directly support approximately 50-70 children across 3-4 local schools during its pilot phase.

3.4. How is the initiative managed?

The 'Foundational Futures Initiative' operates with a highly flexible and non-hierarchical structure, characteristic of a nascent grassroots movement. At its core are the five founding friends, who collectively form an informal coordinating council. This council meets bi-weekly to discuss progress, address challenges, and plan future activities, ensuring agile and responsive decision-making. The majority of the initiative’s work is carried out by a dedicated network of local volunteers, numbering approximately 130 individuals who contribute their time and effort. These volunteers are primarily recruited through word-of-mouth within the community, leveraging personal connections, as well as through social media and, when opportunities arise, local media channels.

Decisions are typically made through consensus among the core committee members, with significant input from active volunteers during broader discussions. Tasks are delegated based on individual skills, availability, and enthusiasm, fostering a collaborative and adaptable approach. The roles and responsibilities within the initiative are informally divided into thematic groups; for example, one group is responsible for collecting school supplies, another for organizing educational activities, and a third for maintaining communication with beneficiary families.

Initial funding for the initiative comes predominantly from the personal contributions of the founders and small, voluntary donations from supportive community members. Essential school supplies are often acquired through local collection drives or small-scale fundraising efforts within their personal networks. Similarly, any necessary renovation work on school facilities largely depends on donated materials and the manual labor provided by volunteers. This reliance on internal resources and community solidarity highlights the initiative's deep rootedness and trust within the local population, though it also underscores the challenges of scaling up without more formal institutional support.

4.1. Strengths and Enabling Factors

The Foundational Futures Initiative (FFI) possesses a significant inherent advantage due to its nature as a local, grassroots endeavor. Founded by childhood friends from Goranboy and driven by their direct personal experiences and an acute understanding of community needs, FFI benefits from profound local embeddedness. The trust within the founding group and, crucially, between the initiative and the local population, is a powerful enabling factor. This high level of social capital fosters cooperation, facilitates volunteer mobilization, and ensures the initiative's strong acceptance within the community – a strength often lacking in top-down or externally driven state projects.

Furthermore, FFI's informal and flexible structure allows it to adapt quickly to evolving local needs, providing a distinct advantage over more bureaucratic and rigid organizations. The local, volunteer-driven team, composed of individuals who have personally experienced the shortcomings of the education system, possesses an unparalleled understanding of the challenges faced by today's students in the Goranboy district. This personal connection and empathy not only make their work more effective but also significantly enhance their commitment to the cause, despite operating with limited resources. This deep popular resonance and reliance on the direct involvement of ordinary people serve as the primary drivers for greater effectiveness and resourcefulness in an environment constrained by limited formal support.

4.2. Challenges and Limiting Factors

Despite its inherent strengths, the Foundational Futures Initiative (FFI) confronts a formidable array of challenges, many of which are deeply rooted in Azerbaijan's broader socio-political and institutional context. A primary impediment is the absence or severe dysfunction of relevant state institutions that should otherwise support and enable the scaling of such grassroots initiatives. The prevailing authoritarian regime in Azerbaijan directly contributes to the necessity of these initiatives, as the government demonstrates a profound disinterest not only in improving the country's educational landscape but also in addressing the fundamental financial needs of its regions. This systemic neglect creates an environment where civil society operates under constant apprehension. Should FFI manage to secure substantial funding, there is a pervasive fear that the state could intervene, shut down operations, and seize the donated funds intended for educational improvement. This deep-seated suspicion is exacerbated by the government's perceived degradation of various economic sectors, including education and healthcare, leading to an almost complete absence of trust between state institutions and both civil society organizations and grassroots initiatives. If the Republic's government were to genuinely increase funding for education across all regions, public trust would undoubtedly grow, alleviating the burden on citizens to self-fund essential services that are, by right, the state's responsibility. Nevertheless, even with proper state funding, initiatives like FFI remain crucial and valuable for fostering social cohesion and collective action aimed at improving the nation's well-being in any sphere.

Moreover, the challenge of societal fragmentation further complicates FFI's operating environment. This fragmentation was significantly exacerbated by the policies of Heydar Aliyev, which deliberately divided the Azerbaijani nation along regional lines (e.g., Baku residents, Guba residents, Goranboy residents). Such divisions often foster conflicts and a lack of solidarity among citizens from different regions. Compounding this, Azerbaijan suffers from extreme socio-economic stratification, characterized by a stark divide between the immensely wealthy and the extremely poor, with the middle class having been effectively eroded. This profound social and economic disparity, coupled with regional divisions, inhibits broad-based collective action and makes horizontal cooperation among diverse societal groups difficult.

Consequently, FFI is critically constrained in its ability to influence policy or secure state support under the current regime, a disheartening reality for such a beneficial societal initiative. The very nature of the current political system precludes avenues for grassroots movements to advocate for systemic change or receive official endorsement. Furthermore, the initiative faces inherent sustainability challenges due to its limited funding and heavy reliance on volunteers. In the Azerbaijani context, FFI is unlikely to be permitted to acquire substantial financial support without interference; even if it did, it would likely be compelled to cede a "share" of any significant donations to the ruling elite. This threat severely undermines the initiative's integrity and stifles further motivation, implicitly dictating that FFI must largely operate with small-scale, direct contributions, primarily channeling funds towards the immediate educational needs of the impoverished segments of the population who cannot otherwise afford quality education. This restricts its potential for scalability, forcing it to remain a localized effort.

4.3. Prospects and Recommendations

Despite the significant institutional and political barriers it faces, the Foundational Futures Initiative (FFI) likely possesses the capacity to continue benefiting a limited number of individuals in Goranboy. This localized impact, though constrained, represents a significant achievement in itself, embodying the principle that all substantial change often begins modestly at the grassroots level. Unfortunately, FFI's potential for broad scalability and assisting the majority of Goranboy residents remains severely curtailed due to the state's restrictive policies concerning large-scale funding for such organizations, the pervasive institutional barriers, and the profound absence of trust. Should the founders maintain their commitment and persistence, they can realistically sustain the initiative as a small, localized project, continuing to provide essential quality education to those most in need. Given the current political climate and state policies, attempting large-scale expansion would prove counterproductive, making limited but meaningful assistance a more pragmatic and impactful approach than inaction.

The systemic nature of the challenges implies that even if FFI were to somehow register as a small local public fund, its growth and funding would still face considerable obstruction. Such efforts would not only entail significant financial expenditure (as free registration is improbable in Azerbaijan) but also risk provoking heightened scrutiny from the government, potentially jeopardizing the initiative's operations and the safety of its volunteers and founders. Regrettably, truly safe avenues for collaboration with larger, interested organizations that could offer substantial support (resources, expertise) without compromising FFI's autonomy or exposing it to undue risk are virtually non-existent.

In light of these constraints, FFI's most viable strategies for demonstrating impact and potentially garnering support involve meticulous documentation of its activities and successes through video content. Sharing this material on social media platforms could effectively raise public awareness and foster broader community support, leveraging the informal networks that are its strength. Furthermore, an alliance with other small, like-minded grassroots groups (e.g., in other Goranboy villages or neighboring districts facing similar challenges) could, to some extent, amplify their collective voice and consolidate their limited resources.

Ultimately, for initiatives like FFI to truly flourish and contribute to national development, the Azerbaijani government itself must undergo a fundamental shift. It should actively support and publicly endorse such grassroots efforts, fostering an environment where the populace could unite without fear of state reprisal or condemnation. Crucially, the government must allow these initiatives to collect and accept substantial financial aid without demanding a "share" for the ruling elite. Fundamentally, Azerbaijan must develop its institutions to cultivate genuine trust between the government and its people, thereby fostering the societal cohesion necessary for sustainable national progress.

FFI stands as a compelling example of how, even under challenging circumstances, individuals strive to "do development differently"—through a localized initiative built on trust and directly responsive to real community needs. However, without fundamental systemic changes in the broader institutional environment, such bottom-up efforts remain largely localized, vulnerable, and unable to achieve their full transformative potential. To unlock the full potential of civil society and foster sustainable development in Azerbaijan, it is imperative to confront and overcome these foundational institutional barriers and, most crucially, to cultivate genuine trust between the state and its people. 

References (Список литературы)

• Mammadov, R. (2025a). The Socio-Political and Economic Landscape of Azerbaijan: An Insider's Perspective on Institutional Decay and Civil Society Constraints. [Unpublished manuscript/Personal Observation/Course Assignment]. (This is your main "source" that you referenced in the text).

• Coursera Course Materials. [Specific Course Name, e.g., "Doing Development Differently: Adaptive Management in Practice"]. [Year, e.g., 2025]. [Online Course]. (Это общий источник знаний из курса, на который ты опирался).

• Video Lectures for the "Doing Development Differently" Assignment. (This acknowledges the specific video lectures that guided the structure and content, as mentioned by the professor).

  
The location of the initiative (town, province, country): Goranboy, Goranboy District, Azerbaijan

Introduction

In the field of international relations, countries adjust their foreign policies in responce to changes in the configuration of regional and global power. Such adjustments are necessary to ensure security and to maintain or expand influence in an evolving geopolitical order. In this essay, I will compare how China, which recently became a great power, and Qatar, which is a small power, have adjusted their foreign policies in response to changes in regional or global power configurations. While China pursues a major strategic game to expand its influence and counter both the United States and the rising multipolar world, Qatar, as a small power, tries to navigate between major players and build alliances with various actors to secure its own economic and political security.

China: Strategic Global Expansion 

One of the most significant adjustments has been the global-scale  "Belt and Road Initiative", launched under Xi Jinoing's leadership. This strategic project is aimed at promoting economics and political cooperation among participating countries and asserting China's global hegemony, as China is the main investor in global infrastructure projects tied to the initiative. China has also established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), composed mostly of authoritarian regimes such as Russia, Central Asia states, Iran, and some Arab countries. Additionally, China is part of ASEAN for regional collaboration and a key member of BRICS, which is expanding steadily each year.

China is also enganed in a technological race with the United States and Europe in sectors such as green energy,  artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. Europe has significantly fallen behind due to its rigid technology policies, which-if not changed-may result in growing dependence on Chinese technologies. While the U.S. lags behind China, the gap is not as wide. Chine is heavily investing in emerging technologies using AI and is one of the leading producers of electronics and green energy technology. It also controls much of the world's critical mineral and rare earth resources, making the U.S. dependent on Chinese exports of these materials. This gives China strategic autonomy and the ability to fuel its industrial growth. Ultimately, China seeks not only to rival U.S. global dominance but to reshape the emerging world order.

Qatar: Securing Its Own Autonomy

Qatar is one of the global leaders in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, which grants it strong financial resources for global projects, long-term investments, and international influence. As a result, Qatar enjoys one of the highest GDP's per capita in the world.

Despite its small size, Qatar actively uses soft power tools - via AI Jazeera, diplomatic ties with both Western powers and regional actors like Iran and Turkey, and the hosting of U.S. military bases on its territory. Although it has been accused of funding groups such as Hamas, the Taliban, or Hezbollah, these actions are driven by strategic interests. For instance, in 2021, Qatar played a key role in ensuring the safe evacuation of U.S. and NATO personnel from Afghanistan. Qatar's growing influence has irritated Saudi Arabia, which sees itself as the regional leader. However, unlike Riyadh, Qatar doesn't seek regional hegemony, making it a more acceptable partner to many Western countries. Qatar is also the world's third-largest arms importer, after Saudi Arabia and India.

In conclusion, Qatar pursues a flexible and strategic foreign policy, serving as a strong model for other small states with similar capacities.

Comparative Analysis

While China and Qatar operate on very different scales, both countries have adjusted their foreign policies in response to shifting regional and global power dynamics. China, as an emerging great power, seeks to expand its influence through large-scale strategic initiatives and by challenging the current international order dominated by West. In contrast, Qatar, as a small power, relies on flexible diplomacy, balancing relations with multiple actors to ensure its economic and political security.

China's adjustments are driven by its ambition to become a global superpower and reduce dependence on Western-dominated institutions, while Qatar's strategy is rooted in survival and influence within a competitive regional environment. Despite these differences, both cases show how states-regardless of size-must adapt their foreign policies to navigate a changing world order and secure their national interests.

Conclusion

China and Qatar represent two different approaches to foreign policy amid shifting global power dynamics. China operates as a systemic actor aiming to reshape the world order to suit its interests, while Qatar, with fewer resources, skillfully leverages soft power, alliances, and strategic investments to strengthen its position. These two cases demonstrate that regardless of scale, flexibility, strategic thinking, and effective use of resources are essential factors for successful foreign policy.

Continuing to listen to the "International Relations" book, I've concluded that wealth and poverty are crucial components of international relations, as one of the ways to measure a state's power and influence is by its level of wealth. Poverty, in which over 1 billion people live, is a global issue for joint sustainable development, a goal promoted by the UN in its 17 goals. The book lists four reasons for poverty; let's discuss each one:

1. History Many of today's poor countries became so due to historical exploitation, and even today they are still being exploited by superpowers. The colonial past has influenced the further development of African and South American countries. An example is South Africa, where a white minority owned vast land, capital, and power, restricted education for the local population, and enslaved them. To this day, the white minority remains "chosen" in South Africa and still owns what the colonial past gave them. There are, of course, countries that managed to escape this, like Botswana, which Great Britain at the time considered useless as it had no resources and granted it independence (after World War II, the British Empire could no longer maintain its colonies and had to let go of the most unnecessary ones). After the British left, diamonds were found in Botswana, which have given it stable economic growth, a good per capita GDP, modern infrastructure, low poverty rates, and more. Unfortunately, not every African country was as lucky as Botswana (these two examples of Botswana and South Africa were, by the way, also described in the book "Why Nations Fail").

2. War and Political Instability One of the factors for successful economic growth and living standards is internal security and the absence of war. Prime examples of this are Switzerland, Norway, and Denmark, which are focused on their economic growth, global trade, and are among the safest countries in the world. There are also examples of countries that couldn't achieve this, such as Syria. In Syria, there is a civil war, terrorist groups destroy everything in their path, and local residents migrate to more developed countries, leading to a global migration crisis. As we can see, there are no positives here, and Syria (despite having a new leader after the overthrow of Assad) remains one of the most unsafe and poor countries in the world.

3. Inequality Inequality between countries has always existed, and thanks to globalization, which encourages more developed countries to help poorer ones, the world is trying to achieve some level of equality between nations so that everyone can develop. Thanks to the modern international system, things have become a little easier for countries than under the European colonial regime.

4. International Economic Organizations Although they are a very important component for joint development and trade, in most cases they hinder the development of poor countries. The World Bank and the IMF receive money from developed countries, and these organizations act as tools of influence over poor countries. Before giving loans, these organizations impose reforms in the economic or political spheres on poor countries, forcing them to privatize state-owned enterprises, etc. On one hand, this is a tool of influence for the "golden billion" countries, but on the other hand, it helps the development of poor countries to some extent.

After the Second World War, as I mentioned above, the great powers began to help poor and underdeveloped countries to lift them up and also, from a realist perspective, to bring them under someone's influence. They did this through trade, foreign direct investment, lending (which China is doing today with its "Belt and Road" project), and foreign aid (which is sometimes counterproductive and useless; for example, some African countries were given medical equipment, but the donors didn't consider that these countries didn't have enough electricity for the equipment to work, and as a result, there was no benefit from such aid).

My opinion on all this is that as long as humanity exists, there will never be zero inequality between countries. Firstly, this does not align with the national interests of the great powers, and secondly, human nature itself will not allow this to happen. I think we should just try to some extent to reduce poverty and inequality between countries, but not dream that inequality in wealth and development between countries will ever disappear (as Marxists have proposed such utopian theories).

In my ongoing study of international relations, I've come to understand that religion and culture are powerful forces that unite not only nations but also entire continents for a common purpose.

Beginning with religion, it has regained a significant role in global politics, particularly after the events of September 11, 2001, when the United States (under the neoconservatives) declared a global war on terrorism, especially in the Middle East. While religion's role in governance has somewhat decreased in favor of secularization, it still dominates in certain countries in the Middle East and the South China Sea region, though these remain isolated examples. The only truly theocratic country in the world is the Islamic Republic of Iran, while other religion-dominated countries are mostly monarchies.

I am confident that today, religion is rarely used for the common good in governance; rather, it is used for self-interest, and such regimes, like Iran's, are unstable. If another theocratic country were to emerge like Iran today, it is unlikely to last long. This is why a secular way of life, tolerance, and secularization are dominant in many countries. Throughout history, religion has often been an instrument in grand international politics. We can see many examples, such as the Pope using his power for personal enrichment through the so-called inquisitions and the selling of indulgences. Today, religion continues to be a tool for enrichment, though there are also positive aspects. The positive sides include uniting multiple nations, charity work, and helping the poor.

Culture, in turn, unites civilizations just as much as religion. Sports, especially football, unite not millions but billions of people worldwide. Culture and religion also have a huge influence on a country's economic development, as we can see in the examples of China, India, and my favorite example of Europe in the era of colonialism and up to the present day. Today, tolerance and multiculturalism are dominant values that make our world a better place: we recognize other cultures and religions and live together, sharing traditions.

Global political economy is a direct result of the two industrial revolutions, globalization peaking in the 19th and 20th centuries, and liberalism. Adam Smith famously argued that the state should not interfere in the market, believing that the "invisible hand" would guide it to efficiency. However, the Great Depression proved that the invisible hand alone could not solve all problems, leading to the rise of Keynesian economics and the idea that state intervention is sometimes necessary.

Smith was a fierce advocate for free markets and competition, as competition leads to better quality goods and lower prices, benefiting everyone. The key role of the state, in his view, was to prevent the formation of monopolies and trusts.

The Rise of Transnational Corporations

With globalization, multinational corporations emerged, creating jobs, producing high-quality goods, and influencing a country's politics through lobbyists. However, these corporations are starting to become trusts in their fields, which is not a good thing, because a monopoly kills competition, which in turn hurts the quality of goods and raises prices.

Hyper-globalization after the collapse of the USSR also increased inequality and led to the slow death of the middle class. Many corporations receive tax breaks and are even exempt from taxes, which is unpopular with the general population, who demand that corporations spend the money they earn in a country on its development. Billionaires use limited liability companies to present themselves as philanthropists, when in reality they are just trying to avoid taxes. Nevertheless, there is a positive side to this: people still receive help, but the corporations avoid paying their fair share.

Regional Unions and the Benefits of Globalization

There is a positive side to globalization. It has led to the formation of regional unions like the European Union, ASEAN, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. In the EU, for example, countries have agreed to abolish tariffs and allow the free movement of services, goods, capital, and people.

Nowadays, many countries are privatizing sectors that were traditionally managed by the state, such as water, gas, and electricity for homes and businesses. The EU also supports small and medium-sized businesses by controlling the actions of large corporations and preventing them from killing competition, a task it performs successfully.

In my opinion, globalization is a good thing, but we must work to restore the middle class and stop giving special privileges to large multinational corporations.

In the 21st century, international organizations play a huge role in our lives, often without us even realizing it. A simple example is flying to another country: the planes must follow standards set by an international aviation organization. When we go through customs after landing, the process is streamlined by an international customs organization. And when we call our loved ones after a long journey, we can do so thanks to international telecommunications organizations that enable global communication.

International organizations now exist in almost every sphere, influencing the quality and standards of the services we use. This has led to a major debate between two key theories of international relations.

Liberalism vs. Realism: Finding the Balance

Liberals argue that international organizations and institutions serve the interests of the global community, not just the great powers. Realists, on the other hand, claim the opposite, stating that great powers use these organizations to achieve their own national interests.

In my opinion, both sides are partially correct. It's unwise to fully support one theory, as both can exaggerate their claims. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The True Value of International Organizations

I believe that international organizations are vital institutions for bringing the world together and for achieving goals like poverty reduction, quality services, free trade, better education and healthcare, active communication, the protection of human rights, and gender equality. A powerful example is the Red Crescent, which rescues hundreds of thousands of people around the world from natural disasters, accidents, and the results of bloody wars.

Beyond Formal Institutions: The Rise of Civil Society

We also see the rise of civil society organizations, NGOs, volunteer groups, and charities. These organizations interact directly with the public, inform them about global events, provide crucial assistance, and fulfill the function of a global conscience. They have become key actors on the international stage, just as important as states and formal international organizations.

I think countries should actively encourage these types of organizations so that, together, we can collaborate and fight against global problems and international terrorism.

International law is, without a doubt, one of humanity's greatest collective achievements. It is the foundation upon which nations can build a new and better world. Despite its many critics, it remains an essential component of international relations, encompassing crucial frameworks like the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war, environmental protection laws, humanitarian law, economic law, human rights law, the prohibition of torture, and the promotion of democracy.

These principles and institutions prevent the kind of chaos that characterized the medieval era. They foster global solidarity and drive progress in key areas such as economics, ecology, education, healthcare, science, human rights, gender equality, poverty reduction, and infrastructure development. While international law is far from perfect, we have the ability to improve and support the development of international institutions, just as I argued in my previous analysis about reforming the UN Security Council.

International law mandates that states take action against any gross violations of these rights and bring these issues to the UN. However, the bitter truth is that today, due to the conflicting interests of powerful nations, international law often fails to stop many violations and solve critical problems.

International institutions must evolve. The world today is not the same as it was in the post-World War II era. It is a new, multipolar world with new challenges, and our legal frameworks must adapt to meet them.

Continuing my exploration of "International Relations," I've reached a fascinating chapter on the critiques of the UN from various theoretical perspectives. Analyzing the UN through the lenses of different theories reveals a more nuanced understanding of its role and limitations in the modern world.

Liberalism and Constructivism: The Case for the UN

From the perspectives of both Liberalism and Constructivism, the UN is not only a good idea but a crucial one. These theories see the organization as a vital platform for building a safer, more developed, and more collaborative world. They believe that international organizations foster cooperation, create shared norms, and prevent conflicts by providing a forum for dialogue. The UN, in this view, is a symbol of humanity's collective aspiration for peace.

Realism: A World of Power and National Interest

Realists hold a much more skeptical view. For them, the UN will never be able to stop major wars, as its power is limited by the interests of powerful states. If a UN resolution contradicts the interests of a major power, that state will simply disregard it. This was evidenced by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Russia's actions in 2022. Realism posits that states will always prioritize their national interests over any international laws or organizations.

Post-Colonialism: Support with a Major Caveat

Post-colonial theorists support the core idea of the UN because it unites countries for the common good through institutions like the IMF, WHO, WTO, and the World Bank. These organizations aim to prove that trade and development are better alternatives to war. However, post-colonialists' primary criticism is directed at the UN Security Council, where former colonizing powers hold veto power, effectively giving them the ability to block any proposal from a smaller nation.

My Proposal for UN Reform

In my opinion, the UN Security Council must be reformed. Its current structure served its purpose in the post-WWII era, but today's world is fundamentally different. It is a multipolar world, not a unipolar or bipolar one. The Security Council needs more members to reflect this new reality. Most importantly, the veto system should be abolished in favor of a fair voting process.

A Critique of the Marxist View

Some Marxist theories argue that the UN primarily serves the interests of the business class. However, this view is flawed. The UN's work in improving education and healthcare, as well as providing humanitarian and financial aid to developing countries, demonstrates its commitment to the global community, not just corporate interests.

Conclusion: The UN's Role in a Multipolar World

Ultimately, the UN serves as a crucial platform for small and medium-sized powers to make their voices heard on the global stage and increase their influence in this emerging multipolar world. It is a place where they can forge alliances, build consensus, and contribute to global governance, proving that diplomacy and cooperation still hold immense value in a world of competing national interests.

During my study of the book "International Relations," I delved into two fundamental theories that underpin the understanding of global processes: Liberalism and Realism. Their contrasting perspectives help to better grasp why states act the way they do on the world stage.

Liberalism: Ideals of Peace and Cooperation

The theory of Liberalism, rooted in the ideas of Immanuel Kant and actively promoted by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (in his famous "Fourteen Points" for world restructuring), is based on a belief in the possibility of peaceful coexistence among states through cooperation and international institutions.

The primary symbol of liberal ideals was the creation of the League of Nations after World War I. It was assumed that this organization could prevent future conflicts through collective security and diplomacy. However, when World War II began in 1939, and the League of Nations proved unable to stop it, faith in this theory was severely undermined, and the organization itself ceased to exist.

Realism: The Harsh Reality of Self-Interest and Power

Against the backdrop of the collapse of liberal ideals during World War II, the theory of Realism, whose origins can be traced back to Thomas Hobbes, revived and gained widespread prominence. The main idea of Realism is the conviction that people, and consequently states, are inherently selfish and prone to conflict, which is a complete opposite of Liberalism.

Unlike Liberalism, Realism asserts that each state acts solely out of its national interests, striving to increase its own security and power. International relations are viewed as an anarchic system where there is no central world government, and states are forced to rely only on their own strength.

The State as a Key Actor: Differences in Approaches

Both theories acknowledge the state as the main actor in international relations. However, their views on the role of international organizations and cooperation fundamentally differ:

• Liberalism sees international organizations (such as the UN, which emerged after the League of Nations) as important platforms for joint cooperation for the common good, peace, and prosperity of all humankind.

• Realism, on the other hand, believes that states use international organizations and cooperation only when it benefits their national interests, and not for universal peace and welfare.

The Search for Balance: The Optimal Theory

I believe that neither of these theories is absolutely complete. The world is too complex to be explained solely by egoism or idealism. I think the key to understanding international relations lies in finding a balance between these two approaches. This means recognizing both states' pursuit of their own interests and the potential for cooperation and collective action. An optimal theory should incorporate elements of both perspectives.

My journey into international relations revealed a fascinating truth: diplomacy and trade have always been more powerful than war. This idea, which forms the basis of our modern world, wasn't always obvious. Here's what I learned:

The Westphalian Peace and the Birth of Modern Diplomacy

The year 1648 marked a turning point in history with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia. This treaty, which ended the Thirty Years' War, stripped the Catholic Church and the Pope of their political power and laid the groundwork for a new system based on sovereign nation-states.

People realized that continuous, expensive wars were not sustainable. This led to the birth of modern diplomacy, where countries began to establish permanent embassies to maintain peaceful relations. They understood that it was cheaper and more profitable to trade and negotiate than to fight.

The Vienna Congress and the Century of Peace

The Congress of Vienna (1815) created a period of relative peace in Europe for nearly a century. This era, known as the "Concert of Europe," was a time when diplomacy and a balance of power prevented large-scale wars. During this time, the Second Industrial Revolution flourished, globalism became popular, and Great Britain emerged as the main advocate for free trade.

This period also established crucial diplomatic principles that are still in effect today, such as the inviolability of ambassadors, who were also granted the right to freedom of worship.

The Rise of Nationalism and the Road to War

However, this long period of peace was not without its challenges. In the 19th century, nationalism gained momentum. The revolutions of 1848 saw each European nation striving to create its own state. This powerful, often divisive, ideology ultimately undermined the balance of power established at the Vienna Congress.

The culmination of these tensions, fueled by nationalistic ambitions, can be seen as one of the key factors that led to the outbreak of the First World War, ending the century of relative peace.

Conclusion

Analyzing these historical events, it becomes clear that the balance between diplomacy, trade, and national interests has always been the key to peace and prosperity. The lessons from Westphalia to the First World War remain incredibly relevant today as we navigate a complex global landscape.

The industrial sector is a sensitive topic for me because it is almost completely destroyed! The country imports more than it exports, repeating the mistakes of other oil-rich nations by becoming addicted to oil and dependency. It is crucial to understand that oil prices do not stand still; they can rise as well as fall. This can lead to either additional oil dollars or budget deficits, which will affect other sectors of the economy. We urgently need to revive our industry if we want to join the EU! The state must support local producers and get our industry back on its feet!

Our country once had a huge industrial base in the city of Sumgayit and, of course, in the capital Baku! Here is a brief list of some of the minerals that can be extracted and used for industry on our land:

Non-ferrous and precious metals

• Copper (Cu): Gadabay, Gosha, Garadagh, Kharhar, Damirli, Goydag, Filizchay deposits.

• Gold (Au): Chovdar, Vejnali, Gadabay deposits.

• Silver (Ag): Filizchay, Chovdar, Gadabay deposits.

• Molybdenum (Mo): Paragachay, Teymuruchandag, Bagirsag, Garadagh, Kharhar deposits.

• Cobalt (Co): Dashkasan and Ordubad ore regions.

Ferrous and polymetallic ores

• Iron (Fe): Dashkasan deposit.

• Lead (Pb): Filizchay, Katekh, Katsdag, Gizil Dere deposits.

• Zinc (Zn): Filizchay deposit.

• Manganese (Mn): Mollajalilli, Dash Salakhli, Bichenak, Alyagi deposits.

Other elements and raw materials

• Aluminum (Al): Alunite deposits in Zaglik (Dashkasan region), Shamkir, and Ordubad regions.

• Chromium (Cr): Goydara, Kazimbinasi, Ipek, Khataveng deposits.

These can be used for:

• Copper (Cu): Electronics, energy (cables, transformers), mechanical engineering, construction.

• Gold (Au): Jewelry, finance (reserve metal), electronics (contacts, chips).

• Silver (Ag): Electronics, jewelry, medicine (antiseptics), photo and cinema film.

• Molybdenum (Mo): Metallurgy (steel alloying), petrochemistry (catalysts), aerospace engineering.

• Cobalt (Co): Battery production (including for electric vehicles), aviation, medical equipment.

• Iron (Fe): Metallurgy, construction, mechanical engineering, production of reinforcement and steel.

• Lead (Pb): Battery industry, cable protection, chemical industry.

• Zinc (Zn): Anti-corrosion coating (galvanizing), metallurgy, alloy production (brass).

• Manganese (Mn): Metallurgy (steel production), batteries, chemical industry.

• Aluminum (Al): Aircraft construction, automotive industry, packaging (foil), construction (profiles, frames), electronics.

• Chromium (Cr): Stainless steel production, electroplating, chemical industry, paints.

These elements form the basis for the metallurgical, mechanical engineering, electronics, and energy industries — both in Azerbaijan and for potential export.

Azerbaijan has the potential to build a massive industrial machine, including:

• Mining and metallurgical industries: Copper smelting and gold enrichment plants, molybdenum and cobalt ore processing plants, ferroalloy production (manganese, chromium), and enterprises for the production of zinc, lead, and aluminum.

• Petrochemicals and gas chemistry: Deep oil and gas processing plants, production of plastics, polymers, and synthetic fibers, fertilizer plants (gas-based), and production of bitumen, oils, and fuel oil.

• Energy and renewable sources: Solar and wind power plants (Nakhchivan, Absheron), assembly of solar panels and wind turbines, and battery production plants (with cobalt and a lithium-ion base).

• Construction materials: Cement and gypsum plants, ceramics, tiles, bricks, glass, and factories for the production of basalt fiber and insulation.

• Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology: Production of generics and medicines, pharmaceutical technology parks with European partnership, and diagnostic and biotechnology laboratories.

• Mechanical engineering and assembly production: Assembly of agricultural machinery, electric buses, cars, machine tool building and component production, and railway engineering (for the Trans-Caspian route).

Thanks to this potential, I believe our country will be a useful trading partner, and also a participant in the EU!

I want to start by saying that Azerbaijan currently has many social problems. For example, benefits for children from birth to age 18 are not paid, although this is the case throughout the South Caucasus. Pensions, salaries, and social benefits are paid with delays and require additional checks, simply to find a reason not to give people this money.

Another social catastrophe is the high tariffs for utilities (electricity, gas, and water), even though Azerbaijan has all the resources (we could transition to green energy with solar panels) to generate more energy than needed for internal consumption. We also have gas fields and sufficient water resources to not only meet internal needs but also to store or use for other sectors.

Although healthcare here is supposedly free, when people go for a doctor's appointment, they have to pay a certain amount for the doctor to even start working. We need quality, free healthcare and education, as these two factors are key to the successful future of our country and economy! We need to make these sectors truly high-quality and free for the people, otherwise, they are of no use to the poor and middle class. Not every person can afford to be treated in private clinics or enroll their child in a private school.

Universities should be free for our citizens, student campuses should be created for students, and for the most active and educated youth, the state should act as a sponsor for their education abroad. Then, after their studies, the government should create the conditions and job opportunities for these educated people so that they can build the future of our country!

I want to start by saying that Azerbaijan has very rich soil. Nine out of eleven climate zones are located on the territory of our country, and I am ambitious about revitalizing the agricultural sector. This sector is currently being stifled by monopolies, preventing our citizens from buying fresh, local, clean, and affordable products from our own land. I am simply astonished by the fact that we, such a rich country, famous not only for our natural resources but also for our climate and natural conditions, buy products—for example, potatoes—from other countries, even though we could grow them better and cheaper ourselves! Our farmers are not given the conditions to run their farms; on the contrary, development is being actively resisted.

I believe that our country should, first and foremost, eliminate monopolies. Secondly, it should provide interest-free loans and subsidies to our farmers so they can get back on their feet and manage their crops, with government support in the form of machinery, fertilizers, seeds, and livestock.

For a short period (2-3 years), farmers need time to recover before taxes are collected from them. The current dire state of our agriculture requires both time and resources to be restored. This will lead to increased competition, which will drive down market prices and give citizens the opportunity to buy local, fresh, clean, and affordable products, vegetables, and fruits.

The free movement of goods is one of the most fundamental principles of the European Union. This principle, which underpins the single market, aims to eliminate trade barriers between member states and support economic integration. Despite the significant progress made, certain restrictions still exist within the EU’s internal market that can impede the free flow of goods.

The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) provides the primary legal framework for ensuring the free movement of goods. Specifically, Article 34 TFEU prohibits member states from introducing quantitative restrictions and "measures having equivalent effect" on imports. Similarly, Article 35 TFEU prohibits such measures with respect to exports. These provisions have formed the basis for the Customs Union, regulated by Article 28 TFEU, which was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1957.

Case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has been a crucial tool in reinforcing this principle. A landmark example is the Cassis de Dijon case, in which the CJEU examined a ban on the import of a liqueur that did not comply with a national standard in Germany. The Court ruled that a member state cannot prohibit the import of goods from another EU country if they are lawfully produced and marketed there. This decision established the principle of mutual recognition, which has played a vital role in strengthening the internal market.

However, the free movement of goods, like any principle, has its limitations, as enshrined in Article 36 TFEU. This article allows member states to introduce restrictive measures for the protection of public morality, public policy, public security, health and life of humans, animals or plants, and national treasures. The CJEU strictly scrutinizes these measures to ensure they are proportionate and are not used for arbitrary discrimination or disguised protectionism. Unfortunately, the free movement of goods still faces illegitimate barriers such as complex administrative procedures or national standards that discriminate against imported goods.

In conclusion, it is clear that the free movement of goods is a key principle that continues to face challenges. The TFEU and the landmark case law of the CJEU, such as Cassis de Dijon, play a decisive role in promoting this principle and developing the EU's single market. While the EU has achieved significant success, continuous monitoring and judicial practice remain critically important for overcoming remaining barriers and preserving the integrity of the internal market.

The pursuit of Euro-Atlantic integration by the nations of the South Caucasus represents a multifaceted engagement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a military alliance, and the European Union as an economic, value-driven, and political bloc. This process encompasses active cooperation, with the ultimate goal of adopting European values, legal frameworks, and robust protection of human and property rights, alongside potential future membership. This trajectory has become a pivotal foreign policy vector for these countries, driven by the observed success of the European economic and political system and a desire for comprehensive collaboration across all sectors.

Drivers of Integration: Internal Aspirations and External Imperatives

The push towards Euro-Atlantic integration for the South Caucasus is fueled by a combination of internal and external factors. Internally, countries are drawn by the promise of the EU's single market, the benefits of the Schengen Area (facilitating cultural exchange, labor mobility, and investment flows), streamlined logistics, the Union's social and pension policies, and shared political institutions. These elements represent a model of prosperity and interconnectedness that regional states seek to emulate.

Externally, security and the protection of sovereignty are paramount. Given the complex and often volatile geography of the South Caucasus, NATO is perceived as offering the most robust security umbrella. Situated amidst powerful neighbors like Russia and Iran, which can exert significant pressure to advance their own interests, the countries of the region recognize the unsustainable nature of perpetual geopolitical maneuvering. In this challenging era, aligning with the Euro-Atlantic security architecture is increasingly viewed as the most pragmatic choice. For their part, the EU and NATO (particularly through the United States) are keenly interested in integrating the South Caucasus into their system. The region holds substantial trade, logistical, political, and economic potential, serving as a vital transport corridor between Asia and Europe, offering alternative routes for natural resources like oil and gas, enabling the expansion of European internet and energy cables, and providing a platform to counter Russian and Iranian influence while extending Western influence into Central Asia. This integration also promises simplified cooperation in trade and economic spheres.

Key Actors: Strategies and Regional Dynamics

The European Union employs various instruments to foster this integration. The "Eastern Partnership" initiative, for instance, focuses on instilling European values among the region's youth and disseminating European ideals. The EU also provides substantial financial support across diverse sectors, including media development, infrastructure, and agriculture. NATO collaborates with South Caucasus nations on military industrial development, conducts joint exercises, and assists in elevating their armed forces to NATO standards. The United States acts as a crucial guarantor of sovereignty for Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, safeguarding them against potential expansionist pressures from Russia and Iran. Washington's engagement includes joint military drills, as well as cooperation in education, logistics, and various economic sectors.

While Russia and Iran exert influence, their capacity to fundamentally thwart Euro-Atlantic integration is limited. Despite Moscow's attempts to instigate political unrest in Armenia, aiming to establish a more pliant regime, the Armenian populace's strong inclination towards Euro-Atlantic integration remains a core priority in this complex geopolitical landscape. Turkey, already a NATO member and increasingly aligned with the EU across various domains, is not anticipated to impede the region's integration process, but rather support it.

Progress and Challenges on the Path to Integration

Armenia and Georgia have embarked on significant adaptive reforms, aligning their labor and salary systems, social policies, human rights frameworks, and property rights protections with European standards. They have also deepened cooperation with the EU on issues related to Euro-integration and potential accession, with both nations actively participating in student exchange programs and benefiting from visa-free regimes (Georgia has secured visa-free travel with the EU). A unique commonality among Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia in their Euro-Atlantic transition is their joint defense and security cooperation with NATO. The prevailing belief within Euro-Atlantic circles is that integration should encompass all countries in the region.

Despite progress, the path is fraught with challenges. While the Karabakh conflict, a major internal impediment, is reportedly nearing resolution, individual countries still grapple with specific issues. Azerbaijan faces concerns regarding corruption and institutional weaknesses, Armenia contends with internal political divisions, and Georgia deals with the ongoing issue of Russian-occupied territories. Both the EU and NATO are actively engaged in addressing these problems, using the allure of Euro-Atlantic integration as a catalyst for reform. They often act as mediators, thereby subtly diminishing the already weakened influence of Russia and Iran in the South Caucasus.