THE ‘MIDDLE CORRIDOR’ AND ‘CROSSROADS OF PEACE’: EXPERTS DISCUSS THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS

Unblocking transport communications in the South Caucasus and in particular between Armenia and Azerbaijan could be a key factor in the region’s economic development, but geopolitical risks and security issues remain the main obstacle to the implementation of ambitious projects.

As part of the Yerevan and Baku Press Clubs’ joint ‘Line of Contact’ initiative, a discussion was organised on the CivilNet channel to explore the stalled process of unblocking communications in the region. Experts from Armenia and Azerbaijan, Johnny Melikyan and Rauf Agamirzaev, described the problems that are obstructing transport and economic links in the South Caucasus. They focused particularly on the Crossroads of Peace and Middle Corridor projects and their potential influence on the geopolitical and geo-economic situation.

Historical perspectives and key projects

The basic framework of the transport infrastructure in the South Caucasus was established as early as 1872. In the period since the 44-day Karabakh war it has been on the verge of significant transformation. This transformation will happen if and when Armenia and Azerbaijan manage to resolve the conflict which has blocked the development of communications in the region more or less since the collapse of the Soviet Union when the two countries gained their independence.

Negotiations about a peace agreement began shortly after the end of the war in 2020 and have continued in a variety of formats (from talks mediated exclusively by Russia and the West to bilateral contacts). As yet they have not provided tangible results and although the parties claim to have reached 80% agreement on a peace treaty, peace is still a long way off. That being said, almost all the difficult issues, including the border delimitation and demarcation and the unblocking of transport communications, are being discussed separately, through a number of different negotiating processes.

As Johnny Melikyan noted, a feature of the current process has been the deliberate removal of the topic of communications from the general context of the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty. This decision was made due to the multi-layered nature of the issue and the involvement of multiple stakeholders, both regional and global.

During the course of the discussion, Rauf Agamirzaev analysed the two main projects which are shaping the future of regional communications. The ‘Middle Corridor’, which has been functioning since 2017 thanks to the joint efforts of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, is already bearing fruit. In contrast, the Armenian ‘Crossroads of Peace’ initiative, which was recently presented in Tbilisi, so far exists primarily on a theoretical level because of Armenia’s unresolved border issues with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Meanwhile, Melikyan provided specific calculations which show that Armenia and its neighbours in the region would reap significant economic benefits from the realisation of the Crossroads of Peace initiative. The project has the potential to transport 3-5 million tonnes of goods in its first year of operation and this figure could increase to 10 million tonnes.

Overview of the Armenian project

The essence of the project is that Armenia is ready to act and is interested in organising the passage of vehicles, goods, passengers, pipelines and cables through its territory from North to South and from East to West. As noted by the Armenian government, these are the shortest routes between the Black Sea and the Persian Gulf through the territory of Iran, Armenia and Georgia and between the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Marmara through Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey.

Furthermore, Yerevan has indicated that the East to West route could of course also be used for transport and communications links between ‘mainland’ Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave, through the territory of Armenia’s Syunik Province. And at the BRICS summit in Kazan on 24 October Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that Yerevan had offered Baku mechanisms for “simplified border and customs control procedures”, as well as additional security measures, “taking into account full respect for the two countries’ jurisdictions and sovereignty”.

However, the experts were generally sceptical about the prospects of any imminent implementation of plans to unblock regional communications. The main reason for this is the significant divergence in the positions of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan on how the Meghri route, which would link the two parts of Azerbaijani territory, should function.

Russia insists that it should be directly involved in the unblocking and future use of this transport artery. Baku wants the status of the road to include certain extraterritorial elements. Yerevan categorically rejects this demand, emphasising the need to observe the four key principles of sovereignty, reciprocity, jurisdiction and equality of the parties.

Nevertheless, there have recently been signs of a shift in Armenia’s position. The country is entertaining the possibility of allowing Russia exercise security monitoring functions on regional routes that pass through Armenian territory.

Another delicate issue is the economic viability of the routes. For Armenia, it would be more effective to start the process of unblocking transport communications not with the southern section (Meghri) but with the rehabilitation of the rail link on the Ijevan-Qazax section. The reason for this is that the Meghri route currently has no direct connection to Armenia’s main rail network, whereas restoring the northern route would enable the central part of the country, with its functioning rail infrastructure, to be effectively integrated into the regional transport system.

Given this complex picture of different interests, expert Johnny Melikyan believes that the implementation of the Armenian Crossroads of Peace project is directly dependent on the stabilisation of the geopolitical situation in the region. He also highlighted the fact that the process of unblocking transport links is attracting keen attention from major international players – Russia, the European Union, Turkey, Iran, China and India. They all have an interest in the development of new international trade routes. However, he noted that the current confrontation between Russia and the West could significantly limit room for manoeuvre in the region.

Infrastructure challenges

During the discussion, Agamirzaev highlighted Azerbaijan’s active role in developing transport infrastructure, including the construction of new routes through Georgia and Iran. He also noted the construction work taking place within Azerbaijan itself of the road which will connect to Nakhchivan and further to Turkey.

“This road will either run through Armenian territory if a political solution can be found to the existing disputes, or it will bypass Armenia”, the Azerbaijani expert explained.

For his part, Melikyan drew attention to the additional challenges which Armenia’s membership of the Eurasian Economic Union poses for the integration of transport systems.

The experts didn’t overlook the technical aspects of ensuring the security of future transport routes. According to Agamirzaev, an integrated approach is envisaged, involving satellite surveillance and border guards. There are plans to build a railway line along the Araks River with two checkpoints, while the vehicle route will be based on existing infrastructure which will be modernised.

Both experts agreed that the development of economic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan could lay the foundations for increased trust between the two neighbours. The speakers felt that, if they wished to, the parties could derive numerous benefits which could stimulate the development of trading relationships.

Main conclusions

At the end of the discussion Melikyan and Agamirzaev concluded that the transport infrastructure should be developed in stages, starting with freight transport which would allow the real opportunities and risks to be evaluated. Three levels should be taken into account – domestic, regional and transcontinental.

The experts felt it was key that economic benefits should take precedence over political disagreements, although ambitious transport projects require strong political will on the part of all the participants in the process.

Until the rail links are unblocked, it would be premature to talk about an economic boom in the region. However, the potential for transport infrastructure development could provide a powerful catalyst for achieving long-term agreements between the countries of the Southern Caucasus and major players from outside the region.

Translated by Heather Stacey, the original article can be found here.