Monday Commentary: In the South Caucasus in 2020, beware of black swans and grey rhinos

This year can be a game changer in the South Caucasus, however surprises, and failure to address long standing problems may turn out to be serious spoilers, argues Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary.

In the early years of the new century and millenium, ambitious officials and politicians in the South Caucasus used to talk confidently about 2020 - that being the year by which time their countries would have turned the corner and established themselves as successful, modern nations and societies.  Was that optimism justified?

The leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia appear to think so, and said so much in their end of year messages in the last  minutes of 2019. Nikol Pashinyan told Armenians  "2020 will be year of economic, political, social and psychological take-off", and said it was now time "to make the impossible, possible". Giorgi Gaharia told the Georgians "2020 will be the year of hope and victory". Ilham Aliyev looked back rather than forward. He told Azerbaijanis 2019  "has been a successful year for our country. All the goals we set ourselves at the beginning of the year have been successfully fulfilled and Azerbaijan has successfully developed........ the Azerbaijani people lived, built and created in the conditions of security."

There is some cause to justify this optimism. The region has been largely peaceful in 2019, even if often tense. Economic growth continues in the three countries. And all three countries are now well integrated in the international community. But those with an interest in the region will do well to look out for black swans (surprises) and grey rhinos (highly probable but neglected threats). They have created havoc with the region before, and have the potential to do so again.

Many of the same old problems of a decade ago are still around - the unresolved conflicts in which the whole region is embroiled; the problems with governance, particularly the lack of checks and balances; the unfulfilled economic potential, and societies that in essence remain deeply conservative and sometimes appear to struggle in embracing modernity. And then ofcourse there is the region's very neighbourhood, flanked as it is by Russia, Turkey and Iran. I had hardly started writing this commentary before a black swan appeared - in the form of the killing in Baghdad of Iranian and Iraqi Shia leaders by the US. Immediately the clouds of war thickened, sending a shadow over the South Caucasus too.

There is an uneasy feeling in the air that the region may now be heading towards some kind of end game in 2020. Will 2020 be a game-changer after all? And if so in what ways?

Governance

Governance issues dominate the political debate in the three countries. The core problem is the lack of checks and balances.  All three leaders can rely on a compliant parliamentary majority. Reforms and new appointments in the Judicial system in Armenia and Georgia in 2019 were seen as steps to consolidate the power of the ruling party. In Azerbaijan the judiciary have been compliant enough  with the wishes of the executive. Lack of checks and balance results in lack of scrutiny, which oten leads to mismanagement and corruption. These are not new problems.

Georgia and Azerbaijan face parliamentary elections this year. These are very different affairs, but both are  hugely significant in the current situation.

Parliamentary elections in Azerbaijan were brought forward to early February, ostensibly so that a new parliament can be elected that would support the reform agenda being pushed by the president. I cannot remember a single occasion in the last decade when the Azerbaijan parliament rejected or delayed a request of the president, so the problem was not parliament's compliance but its inertia. Hopefully  the decision to call early elections also means that there is now better understanding in the Azerbaijani leadership of the value of having a broadly representative parliament with plurality of views, and with some teeth to enforce scrutiny on the executive. For this to happen the 9 February elections in Azerbaijan need to be much better than those held in the previous decade, all of which have been criticised for their shortcomings by international observers. If this is the case it will likely mean that a number of opposition parties will be represented in the new parliament. This will be a big step forward, and the credibility of the current reform package being pushed through by president Aliyev will be greatly enhanced.

In Georgia, elections scheduled for October, are crucial for the next stage of the country's development. Georgia has in recent years had a good track record of holding free and fair elections. The 2012 parliamentary elections saw for the first (and so far only) time in the South Caucasus a transition of power from one political force to another done exclusively through the ballot box. For outsiders Georgia often appears to be in a state of permanent political crisis. This may not be always the case. But there is at the moment a stand off between government and opposition which many believe only a free and fair election can resolve. If the election results are however contested, for good reason, a major political crisis appears inevitable, and may have all sorts of conseqeuneces. Ensuring a free and fair election must now be the top priority.

There are no elections anticipated in Armenia in 2020 (although some opposition forces are calling for one). Nikol Pashinyan will continue pushing for deeply rooted changes right across society, and in the process be faced by entrenched interests whose existence he threatens. He can expect a bumpy year ahead, he appears determined to see the process through, and so far appears to have maintained the popular support to do so. 

Unresolved conflicts

Astonishingly, there are still those outside the region who think that they can engage with the South Caucasus  whilst avoiding the issue of the unresolved conflicts - the Karabakh issue as regards Armenia and Azerbaijan; Abkhazia and South Ossetia as regards Georgia, and elements of all as regards all. This is naive. If there is one grey rhino in the South Caucasus it is the unresolved conflicts.

On Karabakh there is still hope that the new dynamic of the last eighteen months can kick-start proper peace talks. 2020 will tell. However, the risk of an upsurge in violence, remains.  

With regards to the Georgian conflicts, frustration is starting building up again in Tbilisi. Any incident can easily grow very quickly. Part of the problem is that there is here no peace process. The Geneva International Discussions are an important conflict management mechanism, but no more. The maxim that Russia holds all the cards was never truer than now. Frustration can quickly turn small incidents into a serious crisis, as was seen in June at the Georgian parliament.  Incidents seen in 2019 are likely to happen again in 2020, each with the potential of escalation.

Those who say these conflicts are unsolvable are wrong. There will not be dramatic breakthroughs in 2020, but there is scope for a few dramatic gestures that may kick start the elusive peace processes.  As long as these conflicts linger the future of the South Caucasus will always remain under a shadow.

Economy

In 2019 the economies of the three republics experienced respectable rates of growth, and this is likely to continue. Yet given the expectations of citizens in all the three countries for a better quality of life this may not be good enough. The region has been waiting for its big take off, and this has not happened yet. 2020 brings opportunities but also risks.  Internal political turmoil has its economic costs. Georgia increasingly has an economy based on tourism and services, both of which require a calm political environment. This may be one argument why a spring election may be better since, hopefully, this would mean that things would have calmed down by the summer and the peak tourist season.

The South Caucasus still has huge untapped economic potential. Galvanising this potential and making it work to improve the quality of life of its people now appears to be in the vision of the leadership in all three countries. However buisness requires a sound political and legal framework and a peaceful environment. If in 2020 progress can be made on these fronts than this would be a truly remarkable year.

Spoilers

Those who anticipated that 2020 will be the long expected turning point in the South Caucasus may prove to have been too optimistic, but it may yet be a defining year in many ways. But beware of those black swans and grey rhinos. They are the spoilers that will need to be managed on the way.

source: Monday Commentary is prepared by Dennis Sammut, a member of the editorial team of commonspace.eu

photo: Young Georgians protesting against Russian's policy towards their country at a demonstration in Tbilisi in June 2019.

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
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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)