Paragraph 1: The Modern Search for Truth
Imagine waking up each morning and scrolling through a endless stream of posts, videos, and headlines, each one claiming to be the truth. Some say one thing, others say the opposite, and behind every story there is a hidden agenda. In this chaotic digital landscape, finding something you can genuinely trust feels almost impossible. This was the concern raised by Hikmat Hajiyev, an influential advisor to Azerbaijan’s President, during a thoughtful session at the Baku Culture and Media Dialogue Platform. The session, titled “The Language of Peace and Combating Disinformation,” brought together people who understand that communication is not just about words—it is about power, influence, and the battle for public perception. Hajiyev opened with a simple but striking observation: artificial intelligence and social media have made it incredibly difficult to find the real truth. He wasn’t speaking only as an official, but as someone who watches how global narratives are shaped, twisted, and weaponized every day. In a world where a single post can go viral within seconds and shape the opinions of millions, the line between fact and fiction has blurred. We have more information than ever, yet we feel more confused. Instead of feeling empowered, we often feel lost. Hajiyev’s speech was a reminder that this is not an accident. It is the result of intentional strategies, new technologies, and a media environment that rewards speed over accuracy. He invited the audience to think deeply about what “truth” means when everyone can publish, edit, and manipulate content with a few clicks. His message was not just about the problem—it was about the need to understand it, to adapt, and to protect our ability to make informed decisions.
Paragraph 2: Disinformation as an Old Weapon, Now Sharper
One of the key points Hajiyev made was that disinformation and misinformation are not new. Throughout history, governments and groups have spread false stories to confuse enemies, rally supporters, or justify actions. But what has changed is the scale, speed, and sophistication of these efforts. Hajiyev stressed that disinformation has become part of a broader hybrid strategy—a blend of traditional warfare, cyber attacks, economic pressure, and psychological manipulation. In plain terms, this means that information is now a weapon, and it is used not just to inform or persuade, but to destabilize, divide, and weaken societies. The old days of printed pamphlets and radio whispers are gone. Today, a coordinated campaign can use thousands of fake accounts, manipulated videos, and algorithmically boosted hashtags to create a false reality that feels more real than the truth. This is not simply about individual lies; it is about creating confusion on a massive scale, so that people no longer know what to believe. Hajiyev’s point was that we must examine this phenomenon in the context of all fundamental principles—political, legal, and ethical. When we think about international rules, we usually think about borders, armies, and treaties. But now, the battle often takes place in the digital space, where there are no clear boundaries. A hostile actor can interfere in a country’s elections, tarnish its international reputation, or incite social unrest without ever sending a soldier across the border. This makes disinformation not just a nuisance, but a serious threat to sovereignty, security, and peace. Hajiyev’s words were a call to recognize that the weaponization of information is not an abstract concept. It affects real people, real communities, and real nations. And unless we address it seriously, it will only become more dangerous.
Paragraph 3: Rethinking International Law for the Digital Age
Hajiyev asked the audience to reconsider a fundamental principle of international law: the principle of non-interference in a country’s internal affairs. This principle was established long ago, when interference meant physical actions—troops crossing borders, secret agents overthrowing governments, or diplomats meddling in local politics. Back then, the rule made sense: if you wanted to respect another nation’s sovereignty, you stayed out of its physical space. But today, as Hajiyev pointed out, it is possible to interfere in a country’s internal affairs without any physical presence at all. You can do it with a smartphone, a server, and a network of fake accounts. You can spread lies that cause panic, undermine trust in institutions, and even trigger violence—all from thousands of miles away. This is a profound challenge to the existing legal framework. The old rules do not adequately address this new reality. When a country is attacked by disinformation, where does it seek justice? Which court can hold the perpetrators accountable? How do you prove who was behind a coordinated campaign when the trail leads through multiple countries and anonymous actors? Hajiyev argued that the principle of non-interference must be reconsidered and updated to include digital borders. Just as we protect our physical territory from invasion, we must protect our informational space from manipulation. This is not about silencing free speech or limiting legitimate debate—it is about defending the integrity of public discourse. It is about ensuring that foreign powers cannot use lies to destabilize a nation and then claim they were simply expressing opinions. Hajiyev’s critique of international law was not academic; it was practical. He was urging the global community to catch up with reality. If we continue to apply twentieth-century rules to twenty-first-century threats, we will remain vulnerable. Countries need new tools, new agreements, and new mechanisms to hold aggressors responsible.
Paragraph 4: Azerbaijan’s Fight Against Disinformation
Amidst this bleak picture, Hajiyev also shared a message of resilience. He spoke about Azerbaijan’s own efforts to defend its reputation and truth. We have established our own system to prevent disinformation against Azerbaijan, he said. This system is not just about responding after a lie has been spread—it is about monitoring, detecting, and countering false narratives before they gain traction. It involves coordination between government agencies, media outlets, and digital platforms, as well as partnerships with international allies and fact-checking organizations. Hajiyev gave a concrete example of this proactive approach: Azerbaijan had appealed to an international court regarding a report recently published by CNN. Without diving into the details of the report, he made it clear that Azerbaijan is willing to take legal action when it believes false information has been spread against the country. This is a significant step. Too often, nations and individuals accept false narratives as an unavoidable cost of being in the public eye. By turning to international courts, Azerbaijan is sending a signal that disinformation has real consequences. It is not just a matter of public relations; it is a legal matter. This approach may not solve the problem overnight, but it establishes a precedent. It says that countries will not sit silently while their reputations are unfairly attacked. It also shows that fighting disinformation requires both defensive and offensive measures—building a strong system to protect your own truth, and being willing to challenge those who deliberately distort it. Hajiyev’s mention of the CNN case was not about scoring points against a particular media outlet; it was about the principle of accountability. If a major network can publish a story that is later shown to be misleading, it should be held to the same standard as any other source. In the fight for truth, everyone must be responsible.
Paragraph 5: Artificial Intelligence and the Crisis of Trust
Hajiyev then turned to one of the most pressing drivers of disinformation: artificial intelligence. He noted that AI plays a significant role in spreading false information. This is no longer science fiction; it is happening right now. AI can generate realistic fake videos, write convincing articles, and even mimic human voices. It can analyze the behavior of millions of people and target each one with a personalized lie designed to exploit their fears, biases, or hopes. Social media platforms amplify this problem. Their algorithms are built to maximize engagement, and sensational, provocative content often performs best. As a result, misinformation spreads faster than truth. A false rumor can circle the globe before a fact-checker can finish their morning coffee. Hajiyev said that the dissemination of misleading information into the global agenda also has a negative impact. What does this mean in everyday terms? It means that global conversations are often shaped by lies. We make decisions—about our health, our politics, our security—based on information that may be completely false. We see headlines that outrage us, and we share them without verifying. Over time, this erodes our trust not only in the media, but in each other, and even in our own ability to know what is real. This is a deeply human problem. It affects our relationships, our mental health, and our sense of stability. When we cannot agree on basic facts, it becomes impossible to have meaningful discussions about important issues. Instead, we retreat into echo chambers, where our false beliefs are constantly reinforced. Hajiyev’s warning was not about the technology itself, which has many positive uses, but about the way it is being weaponized. Without proper safeguards, AI and social media can turn our freedom of expression into a weapon against ourselves.
Paragraph 6: A Call for Wisdom and Cooperation
In the end, Hajiyev’s message was both urgent and hopeful. He reminded us that the fight against disinformation is not just a technical or legal challenge—it is a human one. We cannot rely solely on algorithms to solve the problem, because the problem is rooted in human behavior and human intentions. We need to cultivate wisdom, critical thinking, and a culture of verification. We need to teach ourselves and our children to ask questions, to seek multiple sources, and to be humble about what we know. At the same time, governments, media organizations, and tech companies must work together to create an environment where truth can flourish. This includes updating international laws, as Hajiyev suggested, but also building trust between nations and within communities. The Baku Culture and Media Dialogue Platform itself is an example of such cooperation—a neutral space where people from different backgrounds can discuss the language of peace and the dangers of disinformation. Hajiyev’s speech reminded us that peace is not only the absence of war; it is also the presence of truth, justice, and understanding. When lies are allowed to spread unchecked, peace is threatened. When misinformation divides us, we become weaker. But when we commit ourselves to the truth, and when we support each other in that pursuit, we can overcome even the most sophisticated deceptions. The path forward is not easy. Artificial intelligence will keep evolving, social media will keep changing, and new attacks on truth will emerge. But as Hajiyev’s message suggests, we have a choice. We can be passive victims of disinformation, or we can be active defenders of truth. We can accept confusion and division, or we can build systems and values that protect our shared humanity. In a world where finding the real truth is difficult, it is our determination to keep searching—and to believe that it exists—that makes all the difference.