How Western Elites Criticize Azerbaijan While Being Entangled in the Epstein Network
The disclosure by the U.S. Department of Justice of a massive trove of materials, known as the "Epstein Files"—over three million pages of documents, more than 2,000 video recordings, and around 180,000 photographs related to the investigation of convicted human trafficker and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—has had the effect of a bombshell.
This publication marks the largest disclosure in the history of investigations into such crimes, once again drawing global attention to the scale of the criminal network Epstein created and maintained for decades, as well as to those who were close to him—representatives of the economic, political, and social elite.
The documents contain evidence that Epstein was involved in organizing a network of sexual exploitation of minors, human trafficking, and coercing young girls into intimate relationships for money or influence. They also reveal that, even after the financier’s crimes were exposed, some of the high-profile individuals mentioned in his files continued to maintain contact with him. This raises serious questions about the moral priorities of these figures and the ethical standards of the circles that identify themselves as European and Western elites.
The mere presence in the files of prominent politicians and businessmen such as Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and others—whose names are listed in the disclosed materials and reviews by American publications—demonstrates how deeply Epstein was embedded in the social circles of the global elite. However, the publication of names alone does not constitute proof of involvement in crimes, though it provides grounds for questions about moral boundaries and the accountability of those who continued to interact with Epstein after his crimes became known.
At the same time, it is noteworthy that the published materials also include allegations concerning Donald Trump, though as of today, these are not supported by any substantial, evidentiary material. Moreover, the logic of the situation suggests the opposite: at the very moment when Trump is taking steps to push figures associated with systemic moral degradation and closed elite circles out of the political arena, the topic of his potential ties to Epstein is being used as a tool of informational pressure. This requires neither apologetics nor attacks—merely a statement of fact that, in the context of fierce domestic political struggles, even unconfirmed mentions become a convenient weapon, especially when directed against those who disrupt the established balance of interests within the Western establishment.
The discrepancy between the words and actions of those who publicly position themselves as champions of rights, moral order, and democratic values becomes particularly glaring in light of these revelations. This raises the question: who are the judges? Those who have criticized Azerbaijan’s independence, its actions on the international stage, and its domestic policies for years often find themselves in situations that call into question their own moral integrity and accountability.
How can one not mention the great and terrible Thorbjørn Jagland—former Secretary General of the Council of Europe and ex-chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee—who made significant efforts to undermine relations between Azerbaijan and Europe, and with the West as a whole. According to the disclosed archives, Jagland established connections with Russia through Epstein, visiting the latter’s residence while serving as Secretary General of the Council of Europe and simultaneously heading the Nobel Committee. This alone casts doubt on his suitability to lead such authoritative institutions.
It is also worth noting the political career of this politician, who in his youth participated in leftist movements, from which his close ties to Moscow likely originated. By the time he assumed the role of Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Jagland was, in all likelihood, already firmly under Russian influence. Overall, his tenure in this position can be characterized as biased and anti-Azerbaijani. Today, Jagland is retired. But as the saying goes, a vacant spot never stays empty for long, and now German PACE deputy Frank Schwabe has taken up the anti-Azerbaijani mantle.
As for the European Parliament, this body has long demonstrated hostility toward Azerbaijan. Its deputies, hiding their dirty, corrupt motives behind "high ideals," adopt blatantly false, biased, and reality-distorting statements and resolutions against the republic, urging the European Commission to abandon all cooperation with Azerbaijan. Given the number of corruption scandals that have erupted within the walls of the European Parliament in recent years, it is highly likely that the names of many of its members will surface in connection with the Epstein case. It seems we won’t have to wait long for new revelations.
Even the materials published to date from the financier’s archives reveal the extent of systemic moral degradation among Western elites, especially in Europe, where many politicians retain influence and public platforms despite questionable connections.
For instance, in several materials, the name of British politician and diplomat Lord Peter Mandelson appears frequently in the context of long-term contacts with Epstein, including the transmission of confidential government information to the latter. This has intensified pressure on his political career, leading to a forced resignation from the House of Lords and a renunciation of party affiliation after the facts came to light. British authorities are already considering the possibility of stripping him of his title. For a society that bases its legitimacy on the principles of the rule of law and respect for human rights, such cases undermine trust in governmental institutions.
This crisis is exacerbated when the same politicians criticize states, including Azerbaijan, on issues of democracy and human rights. Meanwhile, some representatives of the European political elite who have criticized Azerbaijan are themselves embroiled in scandals linked to figures like Epstein or mentioned in compromising materials, making their accusations against Azerbaijan particularly cynical in light of their own moral failings.
Epstein himself, as the study of the materials shows, kept records of his plane flights, address books, correspondence, and journals that documented contacts with many prominent individuals, as well as plans and events involving worldwide travel, invitations to private events, and meetings with various elite circles. These records include routes and interactions with political and public figures.
The Clinton family is another example of such connections. The materials reveal that former U.S. President Bill Clinton participated in joint trips and meetings where Epstein was present, including flights on the financier’s private plane. This has fueled debates about the depth and nature of these contacts, especially given the numerous suggestive photos of the former president embracing young women, as well as images of him in a pool and hot tub at Epstein’s residence. Participation in what might be called "social events" does not, of course, constitute proof of involvement in crimes, but combined with subsequent refusals to disclose full information and attempts to minimize reputational damage, this episode becomes emblematic of how elites strive to maintain influence despite clear risks to public trust.
Yet in Azerbaijan, people remember how the wife of the former U.S. president, Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as U.S. Secretary of State and later during her election campaigns, often used harsh rhetoric against Azerbaijan. Her team actively supported the Armenian lobby in the U.S. and advocated for increased pressure on Baku over human rights issues. This heightens the sense of hypocrisy when the same political circles tirelessly proclaim standards, refuse honest dialogue with Azerbaijan, and call for sanctions or condemnations while remaining tied to figures accused of serious crimes or questionable social connections.
The context of anti-Azerbaijani criticism from Western politicians and institutions, on the one hand, and their connections to figures like Epstein, on the other, demonstrates double standards, where unfounded accusations become tools of foreign policy unsupported by the genuine moral authority of the accusers. Under such circumstances, the reputation and objectivity of European structures are undermined, and trust in international institutions is eroded.
This is precisely why the current scandal involving the updated Epstein files is not just another exposure of one man’s criminal network but a large-scale mirror for Western elites, reflecting their inability to honestly assess their own moral compass. If Western political circles continue to dictate standards to Azerbaijan and expect it to adhere to rules they themselves do not follow, this is not criticism but hypocrisy—and that, perhaps, is the main takeaway from the current scandal. If the judges themselves are under suspicion, on what grounds do they judge others?
Author: Yalchin Aliyev
