Monday Commentary: Tourism is good for the South Caucasus

The summer tourist season has started, and the South Caucasus is now surely and truly on the global tourist trail. Millions of visitors are expected in the region this year, giving Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia a truly cosmopolitan air. Tourism is good for the region in many ways, but there is a cost too, and governments should not be complacent, writes Dennis Sammut in this week's Monday Commentary.

The South Caucasus was a popular holiday destination for internal tourism in the USSR. A holiday on Georgia's Black Sea cost was a priced perk for the communist nomenklatura and other elite institutions. The chaos following the collapse of the USSR, the costly conflicts that engulfed the region in the 1990s, and lack of new investments, all but destroyed the tourist industry. It is now back with a vengeance. Investment has been coming in - mostly private in Armenia and Georgia, mostly state in Azerbaijan - and so have the tourists. All three countries have plenty of history, culture and natural beauty to attract visitors.

The region will see millions of visitors this year. Until recently tourists to the region came mainly from other post Soviet countries -  with diaspora Armenians and Iranians constituting the other large constituency. But that is changing too. Visitors from the Gulf can now be seen  in every corner of the region, with many Gulf airlines big and small now offering direct flights to all the three countries. There are also plenty of visitors from Eastern and Central Europe, and of course, Russians, Belarussians  and Ukrainians keep coming in larger numbers. Beyond that the Western Europeans, Americans, Japanese, Chinese and Koreans are also discovering the region, even if not yet on a mass scale. As a result the region is all of a sudden taking a distinctly cosmopolitan air.

Tourism has many benefits for the South Caucasus. Economically it is an important source of government revenue and contributes to a healthy balance of payments. It is attracting substantial foreign investments, and generating important foreign currency earnings. In Georgia its role in the economy is already substantial and it has the potential of becoming the most important pillar. In Armenia, tourists used to come mainly from the diaspora. Now they also come from everywhere. The new government is realizing its potential. In Azerbaijan serious government investment in tourist infrastructure unfortunately coincided with a toughening of the visa regime for visitors. That has now changed, and citizens of many countries can now travel to Azerbaijan either visa free or through a simplified system, including a fast and reliable on line application process through the ASAN service.  

A positive characteristic of the tourist industry is its ability to trickle down its economic benefits to all levels of the economically active part of society. Tourists move around and spend money buying goods and services, and even if they arrive on organized packages, their spending trickles down as they shop, eat, and travel whilst in the country. This means that many Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijanis who have not as yet benefited from the transition to the free market brought about by the collapse of the USSR, are for the first time doing so. This has both economic and political significance.

Tourism also has an important positive societal impact. The Caucasus region was for a long time isolated from the rest of the world. This resulted in a certain amount of particularism and xenophobia to which the people of the region do not admit, but which outsiders often notice. Exposure to the world through visitors from many countries will also have a long term positive impact in this regard too.

Of course, this does not come without a cost. As often happens, the environment is paying a heavy price for the tourist industry as hotels sprout out of previously idyllic settings. Some also see a social cost, as communities are absorbed in tourist enclaves, often losing much of their identity. Not enough has been done in the region to understand the problems and mitigate the damage.

The governments of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, have important challenges ahead if they are to reap the full benefit of the tourist industry. First they still need to do serious work to improve the product. The new infrastructure, particularly in Azerbaijan and Georgia is an important step forward - but not yet enough. In Armenia the challenge is even bigger. Directly related is the issue of transport infrastructure. Roads, airports, train connections and even municipal transport are not ready for the sort of tourist numbers the region hopes for in the coming years.

There is then the issue of staff and their training. Here the problem is urgent and substantial. There is in the region lack of proper training institutions for the tourism industry. The region cries for a world class tourism and catering university or training college. In the meantime, hotels, restaurants and tourist outlets improvise, with staff at all levels, even if enthusiastic, often falling way down the mark. The Georgian government particularly needs to put this at the top of their agenda, preferably through a joint venture with a foreign government or institution. Until this happens, service will remain well below world standards.

Governments must also be active in ensuring quality control and health and safety issues are of a high standard. Here again, as some recent incidents have shown, the situation is far from ideal.

Finally, governments must also be pro active in planning and coordinating  the industry - to ensure a good tourist mix, and to as much as possible insulate the industry from massive seasonal fluctuations.

In an ideal situation, the three governments should be co-operating on developing their tourist product together. Visitors who come to one country often want to visit the other two - until they realize how tricky this can be. It is important to plan for such eventuality.

In the South Caucasus, governments and citizens alike are already realizing the great benefit tourism can bring, but complacency is a big danger. Tourism can be a volatile industry. It requires peace, security and safety. The three governments need to factor the impact on tourism in every decision they now take. Not doing so my mean that what has come quickly can go quickly, leaving many of their citizens economically worse off, and politically angry.

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

 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Photo: Tourists in Georgia (archive picture).

 

 

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)