A debate has resurfaced in Azerbaijan over the continued closure of the country’s land borders, as economist and opposition figure Natig Jafarli questioned whether current security arguments remain sufficient to justify the restrictions.
Jafarli reacted to recent comments by MP Zahid Oruj, who defended the policy by citing security risks and regional instability. Oruj argued that if Azerbaijan had kept its land borders open, the country could have faced a large influx of people from conflict zones, particularly during periods of heightened tension in the region.
Jafarli said such explanations raise more questions than they answer. In a social media post, he noted that neighboring countries, including Georgia and Armenia, have kept their land borders open despite facing similar or even greater regional risks.
“Georgia and Armenia are objectively weaker in terms of military and security capacity, yet they did not close their land borders,” Jafarli wrote. “Azerbaijan has a stronger army and security services, but has maintained restrictions for years.”
He also questioned the assumption that open borders would necessarily lead to an uncontrollable influx of people, arguing that border management and screening mechanisms exist precisely to address such risks.
The Azerbaijani government has repeatedly stated that national security remains the top priority and that the land border regime is part of broader preventive measures. Officials have not indicated when, or under what conditions, the restrictions could be lifted.
The issue has become increasingly visible in public discourse, particularly among citizens affected by limited cross-border mobility for travel, family visits, and trade. Critics argue that prolonged closures create social and economic pressure, while supporters of the policy insist that caution remains necessary given the regional security environment.
Azerbaijan’s land borders have largely remained closed since the COVID-19 pandemic, with the regime later extended under security-related justifications. The policy continues to divide opinion, highlighting the broader tension between security considerations and freedom of movement in the post-conflict period.
