Commentary: Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan seize the day to make the Middle Corridor a viable reality

"The 10 April meeting between and agreements signed by President Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Tokayev of Kazakhstan demonstrate their desire to seize the day on developing this crucial linkage in the Middle Corridor trade route," writes commonspace.eu Deputy Editor Patrick Norén in this commentary. "Not only do Baku and Astana stand to gain hugely from this, but doing so quickly and in lock-step gets one step ahead of Russia and Iran for whom the Caspian Sea will also play an increasingly important economic role going forward."

On Monday 10 April, the presidents of Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan met in the former’s capital, Astana, to herald a new era of significantly upgraded cooperation between the two Caspian littoral states. President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and President Aliyev signed numerous memoranda of understanding in a wide range of fields, including on economic, transport and transit, cultural, scientific and humanitarian cooperation. 

That which has the most significant implications for regional connectivity, however, is their mutual commitment to rapidly increase trans-Caspian trade in an attempt to make the Middle Corridor a viable reality. Speaking in a press conference on Monday, President Tokayev said: 

“The full deployment of the potential of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, the so-called Middle Corridor, is of particular importance. We are talking about the improvement of logistical services, the creation of unified transport operators, the modernization of technical and tariff conditions, the elimination of administrative barriers and the emergence of a closed logistical cycle.”

On his part, President Aliyev said, “Of course, we need to complement each other's infrastructure, each other's industrial potential through the goods we can supply to each other, thus increasing the turnover of goods”. He also announced the intention of the two countries to double their medium-term commodity turnover from $500m to $1bn.

The Middle Corridor is a complicated, piecemeal project with huge global implications

Having emerged as a potential alternative to the Northern Corridor - the trade route stretching from China to Europe via Russia now seriously hampered by sanctions - the Middle Corridor is currently being developed piecemeal, albeit very rapidly, as all actors along the route stand to profit hugely from its effective establishment. The fact that the Middle Corridor is multimodal, crossing two seas, as well as traversing several countries, makes overcoming these logistical difficulties a particularly acute priority. 

In December 2022, Hungary, Romania, Georgia and Azerbaijan all agreed on the Black Sea Electricity Project in a potential sign of things to come once Black Sea security is stabilised. Georgia is reviving a project to build a strategically important deep-sea port at Anaklia, and has for years been building a new East-West highway through its mountainous interior, critical for the whole Middle Corridor project, although this has not been without difficulties, however. 

China meanwhile, despite recent declarations of a “no limits partnership” with Russia, is pushing increased cooperation with “Moscow’s backyard” in Central Asia, setting up the first China-Central Asia leaders summit in May where trade and infrastructure are set to be at the top of the agenda.

In addition to the above, as seamless as possible trade between Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, being on opposing sides of the Caspian Sea, is absolutely essential if the Middle Corridor is to be a viable alternative to the Northern Corridor in the long-term. Baku and Astana understand this, and, with both countries standing to gain so much from facilitating East-West trade following the effective closure of the Northern Corridor, have decided that there is no time to lose.

Having remained largely economically dependent on Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, for Central Asia the Middle Corridor is their chance to comprehensively diversify their political and economic relations. A viable Middle Corridor is Central Asia’s ticket to reducing economic dependence on Russia, whose economy is suffering under the weight of western sanctions, while expanding access to Chinese and European markets without having to go through Russia.

Time is of the essence

For Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, cementing control over trans-Caspian trade as quickly as possible is just as much a political priority as it is an economic necessity. Russia had counted on using the Caspian Sea as a North-South transport corridor with its ally Iran to help soften the blow caused by western economic sanctions, but significant infrastructural limitations are frustrating the realisation of this project, giving Baku and Astana the upper hand. 

Russian ports on the Caspian do not currently possess the adequate infrastructure to transfer huge amounts of goods from one mode of transport to another, there are serious financial limitations, a lack of sufficient shipping capacity, as well as limited icebreaker capacity to keep the ports functional in winter. 

And, although all of Russia’s Caspian Sea ports are connected to the national railway network, only one Iranian Caspian Sea port currently has direct access to their railway network, yet another weakness in the Russia-Iran, North-South multimodal transport corridor. These are issues that Russia and Iran are trying to address, and so Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are pressing home their head start over Russia and Iran on Caspian Sea trade. Removing as many bureaucratic and infrastructural barriers on the East-West route, and quickly too, is of utmost importance.

The risk of blockades, or, even worse, conflict, must be managed

This situation where two competing and rapidly expanding trade routes with enormous geopolitical implications bisect in the middle of the Caspian Sea will likely mean that tensions between Russia, Iran, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan rise. This is even more probable considering that relations between Russia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan and Iran, and Russia and Kazakhstan remain testy at best. The risk of blockades, or, even worse, outright conflict, potentially having an equally damaging effect on global trade as did Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is real and must be delicately managed.

The 10 April meeting between and agreements signed by President Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Tokayev of Kazakhstan demonstrate their desire to seize the day on developing this crucial linkage in the Middle Corridor trade route. Not only do Baku and Astana stand to gain hugely from this, but doing so quickly and in lock-step gets one step ahead of Russia and Iran for whom the Caspian Sea will also play an increasingly important economic role going forward.

source: Patrick Norén is the Deputy Editor of commonspace.eu.
photo: News Central Asia
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)