Regional co-operation is back in fashion in the South Caucasus, but three is company and six is a crowd

Over the last few weeks, the president of Azerbaijan, and the prime ministers of Armenia and Georgia, have made separate calls for regional co-operation among the three South Caucasus countries, highlighting the benefits that can come out from such co-operation. This is a big shift in positions, especially for Azerbaijan.

The last South Caucasus leader to have pushed for South Caucasus regional co-operation was Georgia’s President Shevardnadze in the 1990s. The Karabakh conflict made any prospect of such co-operation impossible, because Azerbaijan insisted it will not co-operate with Armenia whilst it occupies its territory, and Armenia, whilst nominally in favour of regional co-operation, found excuses not to engage with any. Under President Saakashvili even Georgia felt that regional co-operation was not in its interest since it felt it distracted its main mission of Euro-Atlantic integration. For the last decade, the Georgian Dream government has toyed with the idea of regional co-operation, but largely in an abstract way. So for thirty years the three countries not only did not co-operate together but drifted increasingly apart. Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Georgia relations did develop positively, but the lack of a trilateral element left many opportunities untapped.

New Beginning

Last week Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili hosted in Tbilisi his counterparts the prime ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan on the margins of the Silk Road Forum. From the perspectives of the optics of the occasion it was a perfect photo opportunity. It is unlikely that much of substance was discussed, let alone agreed. For one thing, the Azerbaijani Prime Minister Ali Asadov is not a decision-maker. Also, it was clear that the homework for this meeting had not been done, so the meeting was largely symbolic. Even that, given the past vacuum, that was important enough.

What has changed, and what are the new opportunities?

The main factor that has changed, and which has enabled a new enthusiasm to develop for South Caucasus regional co-operation is the dynamic in Armenia-Azerbaijan relations following the 2020 “44-day Karabakh War”, and the subsequent Azerbaijan military operation in September 2023, which has secured its control over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh – though not of its people who left en masse not wanting to live under Baku’s control. Armenia and Azerbaijan are now close to signing a peace agreement. Both now have an interest in regional co-operation.

Another thing that has changed is the geo-political context. After achieving independence in 1991 the three countries eventually developed different foreign policy trajectories: the Armenians aligned with the Russians, the Azerbaijanis declared themselves non-aligned, and the Georgians sought Euro-Atlantic integration. On paper, this remains the case. But various factors have now blurred these differences: Armenia, dissatisfied and disappointed with Russia is distancing itself from the CSTO military alliance, and is even questioning the presence of the Russian base on its territory; Georgia, whilst formally still seeking EU candidate status and NATO membership, has cooled down in its enthusiasm, and these days appears more comfortable acting in a similar fashion to Azerbaijan. On the other hand, Azerbaijan, which shortly will relinquish its long stint as Chair of the Non-aligned movement, has stretched the concept of non-alignment to its limits. All three countries see regional co-operation as a counterbalance to their declared foreign policy orientations, and possibly as a new way of dealing with bigger actors such as Russia and the EU.

Are they 3 or are they six?

There is an alternative vision to the trilateral regional co-operation, and this is the idea of adding to the core three South Caucasus countries, the three regional neighbours: Russia, Iran and Turkey. Meetings in this format, with the Georgians absent, have taken place in Moscow and Tehran. Those pushing for this format, whether consciously or unconsciously, are trying to destroy the idea of South Caucasus regional co-operation between the three core countries. Most things that can be done between the three (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia), cannot be done between the six. The 3 + 3 – useful only once the Georgians join, can be a talking shop. No doubt someone will come up after with the idea of the 3 + 2 – providing a forum between the three South Caucasus countries and the EU and US that can be yet another talking shop. But realistically, neither can form the basis of regional co-operation. It is clear that in the South Caucasus three is a company but six is a crowd.

South Caucasus regional co-operation can bring great benefits to the three countries, and the wider region

There is no doubt that regional co-operation can bring great benefits to the three countries and the wider region. To mention but a few of the benefits one can list the following:

• Better connectivity will enable the region to play its full role as both a transit route and a hub for trade and services moving from Russia to the Gulf and the Indian Ocean, and vice versa, and similarly for trade moving from Europe to Central Asia and China, and vice versa;

• Better relations between the three governments will enable them to play a much bigger role on the international stage;

• Open borders, or at least in the beginning simplified travel arrangements, will increase economic activity and add prosperity to countries and people alike;

• Together as a trading group the region which will be able to secure better deals in dealings with international partners;

• A framework for regional co-operation can include arrangements for the three countries to develop a joint strategy for the problem of contamination from landmines and other remnants of war.

• And last but not least, regional co-operation is going to be essential to cement any peace deal in the region and make it sustainable, and most importantly irreversible.

There are many other benefits.

This requires hard work, consistency and political determination

Regional co-operation, beyond the symbolic photo opportunities that we saw in Tbilisi last week, requires a lot of work. Every tangible step will need good preparation; institutions that are able to prepare, implement and follow-up; resources; and often change of legislation. For the last three decades, regional co-operation was such a faraway prospect, even a taboo topic in Baku, that work has to start largely from scratch. Dozens of ideas need to be developed, articulated, discussed and eventually submitted for the agreement of the political leaders.

Public opinion, which in Armenia and Azerbaijan remains locked in enemy imagery of the other, needs to be “re-educated”.

Some things need to happen soon

The three leaders (with Aliyev present this time) need to get together and ideally sign some kind of joint declaration outlining their regional vision. Work on this should start at senior diplomat level as soon as possible.

The three governments should appoint a high-powered task force that can start outlining a roadmap for making regional co-operation tangible, doable and reachable within a reasonably short time

Think tanks from the three countries, working with partners from regions that have already experience of co-operation should develop intensive programs that can accompany government processes, feeding in ideas, providing a sounding board, and also be critical when necessary

Frameworks need to be developed for people-to-people contacts at many different levels and in different spheres.

It is clear the region will require assistance to achieve the objective of developing South Caucasus regional co-operation. All indications are that the political will is now there. That is already big progress. But now the hard work of turning this into a reality must start, and the region should make use of all the help it can get to achieve this.

source: This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu and was first published on the fortnightly electronc newsletter Caucasus Concise
photo: The prime ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia meeting in Tbilisi in October 2023.

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
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (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)