Analysis: China and the South Caucasus

China is a relatively new player in the South Caucasus but has growing interests, particularly in the economic domain. While Beijing established diplomatic ties with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia in the early 1990s, it largely stayed out of the region’s geopolitics. Armenia acquired Chinese-made WM-80 multiple-launch systems in 1999, but they had little impact on the military balance with Azerbaijan.

Chinese economic ties with the South Caucasus began to grow in the early 2000s, driven by the rapid expansion of its economy. Interest in the region deepened after President Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, with the South Caucasus envisioned as a potential land route connecting China to Europe.

According to World Bank data, between 2005 and 2018 Chinese trade turnover with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia surged by approximately 2,070%, 380%, and 1,885%, respectively. Investments have since increased significantly, though unevenly, across the region.

Since the early 2000s, China has significantly increased its investments in the South Caucasus, but these have yet to be distributed equally. Armenia has attracted the lowest level of Chinese investment among the three nations. Still, bilateral trade continues to grow: in the first nine months of 2024, trade between Armenia and China reached $2.08 billion—a 34.7% increase from 2023. The launch of direct flights between the two countries in September 2024 further underscores their expanding economic ties.

In Azerbaijan, Chinese investment has concentrated on natural resources, infrastructure, and transit. By 2019, Chinese companies had invested more than $800 million in Azerbaijan’s economy, with Azerbaijani companies investing $1.7 billion in China, according to Shahin Mustafayev, Azerbaijan’s then Minister of Economics.

China has made significant investments in Georgia, particularly in ground transportation. In 2017, the Beijing-headquartered Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank provided $114 million to build a bypass around Batumi, facilitating international transit at a strategic location near the Black Sea. The Hualing Group, a prominent Chinese investor, has also developed large-scale projects, including residential areas near the Tbilisi Sea, the Tbilisi Sea Plaza shopping mall, and a free industrial zone in Kutaisi. A 2017 free trade agreement between Georgia and China has further boosted trade and investment.

China’s engagement with the South Caucasus has deepened in the last two years. Georgia signed a statement on strategic partnership with China in July 2023 focused on four domains—political, economic, people to people and culture, and international. The two sides reaffirmed their respect for all countries’ sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, and Georgia firmly adhered to the One China principle. Both sides expressed readiness to facilitate mutual investment and trade and promote cooperation in transportation, communications, infrastructure modernisation, development and strengthening of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Corridor (“Middle Corridor”), digital technologies, manufacturing, upgrading and expansion of railway networks, agriculture and food safety, and water resources. Georgia awarded the construction of a new deep sea port in Anaklia to a Chinese consortium in 2024.

Azerbaijan followed suit, signing a joint strategic partnership statement with China in July 2024. In the statement, the sides affirmed their commitment to mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty; Azerbaijan firmly supported the One China principle, recognised the existence of only one China in the world, that Taiwan was an inalienable part of Chinese territory, and firmly opposed “Taiwan independence” in any form. Both sides agreed to promote projects in transport and communications, green energy, processing and manufacturing, infrastructure, the digital economy, and agriculture. At the same time, China expressed its readiness to actively participate in constructing and operating the Middle Corridor.

China’s increased interest in Central Asian, trans-Caspian, and South Caucasus routes is not just about economic efficiency—shortening cargo transportation time. At the heart of China’s interest in the South Caucasus is geography. The region offers a strategic link between China and Europe, mainly through the Middle Corridor. China formally joined the Middle Corridor in 2024, and the China Railway Container Transport Corporation contributed to its development. This alignment is part of a broader strategy to diversify trade routes and mitigate risks from potential instability elsewhere. The Middle Corridor—extending from China through Kazakhstan, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, and Türkiye—provides Beijing with a critical alternative to traditional sea routes, and the Northern Corridor through Russia, which faces geopolitical and logistical challenges.

China’s growing involvement in the South Caucasus remains primarily driven by economic and infrastructure projects with less emphasis on regional geopolitics, though recently we saw the increase in military cooperation between China and Azerbaijan as the Azerbaijani minister of defense visited China in October 2023. The Main Directorate of International Military Cooperation of the People’s Liberation Army of China delegation visited Azerbaijan in June 2024. While China lags behind Russia, Türkiye, Iran, the European Union, and the United States in shaping the geopolitics of the South Caucasus, this may change as the global order shifts from a unipolar to a multipolar structure.

Future Prospects

All three countries have been working to advance their ties with China for economic gains and to give themselves more leverage in their relations with global and regional players. As China’s economic growth continues, it will increase its involvement in the South Caucasus, and regional states should be ready to exploit the opportunities.

Source: Benyamin Poghosyan is a Senior Fellow on foreign policy at APRI Armenia and the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.

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).

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)