Monday Commentary: Time to give regional co-operation in the South Caucasus another try

Regional co-operation in the South Caucasus makes sense and will benefit all the people of the region. It is also essential for lasting peace and prosperity, and the EU is uniquely placed to push the process forward, says Dennis Sammut in this commentary.

The last two years have not been particularly good for regional co-operation and integration models in different parts of the world. In Europe, Brexit has rattled the European Union and dented its record of successful expansion. In the Middle East, the Gulf Co-operation Council, once hailed as a model, tattered on the brink of collapse as it dealt with an existential crisis resulting from the confrontation between some of its members and Qatar.

In the South Caucasus regional co-operation involving the three core countries has been non-existent. This has been largely, but not solely, due to the Karabakh conflict that has pitched Armenia and Azerbaijan against each other in a messy, and as yet unresolved, conflict. There are other reasons too.

The region has its fair share of historical baggage of past wars and conflicts, but then, which region hasn't. However, on top of that, there are failed attempts at forced co-operation as seen during the Soviet period - from the ill-conceived Transcaucasus Socialist Federative Soviet Republic of the period 1922-36, to the later softer versions of artificial "internationalism" seen in the 1970s and 1980s. They contributed to give regional co-operation a bad name, and for the concept to be seen with suspicion by many people in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.

When the three countries regained their independence in 1991 a wave of nationalism encouraged a zero-sum game approach: all three countries wanted to be "the best", and saw their relationship with the other two as competitive at best.  Conflicting visions have emerged about what they wanted to achieve: Armenia has opted for close relations with Russia and membership of the Russia-led structures such as the CSTO and EAEU; Georgia seeks full membership of NATO and the EU, whilst Azerbaijan has declared itself a non-aligned country. In the meantime three territories have seceded and exist in quasi diplomatic limbo. The region has never seemed so divided and fragmented.

Yet this is only part of the story. There are many things that connect the countries of the region, and their people, together whether they like it or not. Even Armenia and Azerbaijan - two countries that are technically at war with each other - find that there are issues, such as civil aviation safety, where a minimum level of co-operation is necessary. People contacts are extensive due to inter-marriages, family connections, business relations and population distribution. Furthermore, in between the idyllic Soviet propaganda of the past, and the often vitriolic disinformation of the present, there lies a reality in which the people of the South Caucasus, whilst conscious of the differences between themselves and their neighbouring nations, also appreciate that there are many common factors. Occasionally this expresses itself in commendable acts of regional solidarity. An example of this was seen last summer when forest fires swept over the Borjomi national park in Georgia. Fire fighting teams from Armenia and Azerbaijan worked side by side with their colleagues from Georgia to extinguish the fires.

Much more can and should be done to promote regional co-operation in the South Caucasus. Many of the problems of the region are much better dealt with in a regional context. Areas such as environment, energy, transport and communication can hugely benefit from a regional approach. Even in the present difficult times people often are able to cut through government bureaucracies to maintain contact, and even develop modest forms of regional co-operation.

Taking regional co-operation forward will however not be easy. The current state of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan has poisoned the atmosphere, and neither of these two countries is likely to take the initiative to promote trilateral co-operation. The Georgians prefer to work with their two neighbours bilaterally, considering a trilateral approach as impossible for the moment. So somebody else needs to nudge the process forward. At the moment the only international player able to do that is the European Union.

The EU is in the unique position of having good relations with the three countries, and will shortly have very extensive contractual arrangements with them too, providing a solid legal framework for the relationship. The EU has an Association Agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade area arrangement with Georgia. Last year it signed a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with Armenia. This is now going through the process of ratification. Discussions are now in an advanced stage for an agreement to be signed with Azerbaijan soon. Last week's meeting of the EU - Azerbaijan Co-operation Council in Brussels was an example of how relations have improved following a low point in 2013-16.

On paper the European Union has the political will to engage with the issue of regional co-operation. The mandate of the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus says that one of the objectives of his mission is to "to encourage and to support further cooperation between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and, as appropriate, their neighbouring countries".

In practice very little is being done to push regional co-operation. This needs to change. Prospects of some breakthrough in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue later this year make it necessary for the EU to have ready a number of plans for regional interaction which can act in support of the peace process.  There is a need for imaginative platforms that can offer opportunities for work together and interaction - starting modestly and expanding as soon as the circumstances permit. The newly appointed EUSR, Toivo Klaar, should give this part of his mandate particular attention.

A lot can be done even now at the level of citizens, even if the three governments will need to at least  acquiesce to this. The EU can provide the necessary framework and seed funding. Other international organisations can play a role too. No one is saying that this is going to be easy. There will be upsets and setbacks, but this should not be a reason from shying away from this endeavour.

Regional co-operation in the South Caucasus makes sense and will benefit all the people of the region. It is also essential for lasting peace and prosperity. It should be given another chance.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research). His Monday Commentary is published weekly on commonspace.eu

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)