Two Countries, Closely Related Languages, Many Misunderstandings

Last week a relative handed me a phone and asked, “Have you seen this?” On the screen was a few seconds of footage from the UN General Assembly, with a headline in capital letters. That day another friend sent a post about Azerbaijan’s school clothing rules. Both had something in common: no one had read the regulation or heard the full speech, but everyone had a firm opinion.

The connection between Türkiye and Azerbaijan appears at dinner tables, weddings, and schools as much as in foreign policy. News from either side therefore resonates faster than news about other countries. Joy and hurt both grow quickly.

Take the school clothing debate. According to the accounts being circulated, the regulation does not explicitly mention a headscarf; the argument concerns how its provisions may be interpreted in schools. That distinction matters: a prohibition and uncertainty about implementation are different. On social media, many images lose the distinction in the first line, leaving only “they banned it.”

The UN footage presents a similar issue. A delegation remaining in or leaving a hall is a diplomatic choice and can certainly be criticized. But presenting a brief video as a summary of a relationship lasting more than thirty years loses proportion.

I do not seek to limit anyone’s right to criticize. We may dislike a decision and say so loudly. My concern is that the information beneath criticism is often incomplete.

Where linguistic closeness misleads us

Turkish and Azerbaijani are so closely related that many assume they can read an Azerbaijani official document without translation. That closeness is a great convenience, but it can also be a trap. The same word may carry a different history in each country’s law. Secularism does not emerge from the same historical experience in Ankara and Baku. Terms such as clothing, religious symbol, and educational institution may also work differently in practice.

In document and translation work, one of the most frequent mistakes I encounter is judging from the associations in our own language without reading the original. Close languages can make that error less visible. People do not pause to ask whether they misunderstood.

Who can do what?

Journalism has a straightforward starting point. On sensitive subjects between the countries, include the relevant regulatory provision, link to a complete statement, and avoid presenting an unverified interpretation as certainty in a headline.

Media organizations and professional associations can establish lasting channels of contact. A reporter in Ankara being able to verify a development in Baku with one call to a colleague there could stop many errors from growing for hours. University exchanges should extend beyond cultural visits: communications and law students should learn about each other’s institutions, legislation, and public debates.

Official institutions also need to explain a regulation when it enters force rather than wait until an argument ignites. The harshest interpretation fills a vacuum in information.

For ordinary users, the rule is simple: look at the actual text once before sharing. It often takes only a few minutes.

Two independent states cannot be expected to think identically on every issue. Different diplomatic choices and domestic arrangements are natural. Closeness between Türkiye and Azerbaijan stays strong when those differences can be discussed calmly.

That day I suggested watching the full video with my relative. Hearing the rest of the speech softened the reaction, but the first clip had already gone to several groups. The full footage viewed later rarely reaches everyone reached by the short clip sent first. I have therefore adopted a habit: before sharing a controversy between the countries, I look at its source myself at least once.