Opinion: Armenia should be part of the South Caucasus-EU energy relationship

"Armenia has strong potential to become an exporter of renewable energy to the EU. The participation of Armenia in the Black Sea Energy submarine cable project will contribute to the country’s economic development," writes Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "It will boost regional economic cooperation, which is much needed to foster stability and security in the South Caucasus. It will strengthen the EU’s position and role in the region and is fully in line with overall EU strategy toward the South Caucasus."

After the end of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War Armenia and Azerbaijan launched a negotiation process with the ultimate goal of signing a peace agreement. Until the end of 2021, Russia was the only mediator in the negotiations, with the European Union and the United States joining the process later.

The Armenia–Azerbaijan negotiations have had their ups and downs. The hopes for a peaceful solution were followed by escalations, including several acts of Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia in 2021 and 2022; in recent months the negotiations have stalled – the last meeting in the Brussels format took place on 31 August 2022, while the summit meeting of Armenian prime minister Pashinyan and Azerbaijani president Aliyev at the Munich Security Conference in February 2023 did not deliver any breakthroughs. Meanwhile, in parallel with political negotiations, discussions are underway in different Track 2 and Track 1.5 formats, focused on confidence-building measures, economic cooperation, and dialogue in education and culture.

The idea of using economic cooperation to contribute to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not new. Almost immediately after the May 1994 ceasefire agreement, the international community came up with projects to boost economic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan as a way of supporting conflict resolution. The idea was simple: if Armenians and Azerbaijanis cooperated economically even on small-scale ventures, and received the benefits, this would create a more conducive environment for negotiations and contribute to confidence-building. However, Azerbaijan rejected any attempt at economic cooperation, arguing that economic contacts with Armenia or the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic would foment conflict and perpetuate the status quo.

Discussions about economic cooperation should not be confined to potential bilateral ventures

After the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, which has significantly changed the regional status quo, the idea of economic cooperation as a useful tool for building peace and stability resurfaced. Some initial attempts have been implemented to explore the potential of economic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan in different areas, such as transport, energy, and water, while representatives of Azerbaijan and the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic met to discuss the possible joint usage of the Sarsang water reservoir in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Discussions about economic cooperation should not be confined to potential bilateral ventures. Lasting peace and stability in the South Caucasus requires regional projects involving all three republics. Until now, Azerbaijan has done everything to exclude Armenia from regional projects, using this position as leverage to  put pressure on Armenia. The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline, the Baku–Tbilisi–Erzurum gas pipeline, and the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway are examples of a deliberate Azerbaijani policy of isolating Armenia from regional projects. The blockade imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey was another attempt to exclude Armenia from regional cooperation.

However, this policy did not bring any benefits either to Azerbaijan or the region. Armenia managed to develop its economy despite the blockade, and currently Armenia’s GDP per capita is almost equal to that of Azerbaijan. And the isolation of Armenia did not force Armenia to make unilateral concessions before or after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. Nevertheless, the policy contributed to the creation of a fractured region, deepened tensions and controversies, and made any prospect of stability and security unrealistic.

The international community should not support this vision of isolated regional states in the South Caucasus, and instead should take steps to encourage economic projects that involve all three states. This approach would contribute to establishing an environment more conducive to successful Armenia–Azerbaijan negotiations, hopefully bringing the sides closer to a peace agreement.

Black Sea cable

In this context, the project to develop the Black Sea Energy submarine cable may play a significant role. The 3GW high-voltage Black Sea submarine cable will be 1,195km long and is supposed to become operational in 2029. An 18-month feasibility study by CESI, an Italian consultancy, started in May 2022 and is expected to be completed in late 2023. The first official milestone followed in late 2022, with the leaders of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania, and Hungary signing an agreement in Bucharest on 17 December.

The project may be financed by the EU’s Global Gateway initiative, an international infrastructure development program poised to mobilize more than €300 billion over the four years to 2027. This project, for which the European Commission has earmarked €2.3 billion, will connect the electricity systems of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Romania, and Hungary and export electricity from renewable sources.

However, while Georgia’s electricity system is 80% hydropower, Azerbaijan’s electricity mix is nearly 95% fossil fuels. And there are a number of other concerns over the Black Sea cable, including the fact that getting the electricity to Hungary will likely require a new interconnector between Romania and Hungary to be licensed and integrated into the European network and some experts argue that the sums set aside for the project could have been spent on renewables production in Europe. However, if this project comes to fruition, the EU should emphasize the necessity of bringing Armenia in, and making it a true regional enterprise. Armenia was always an energy-exporting country, including in the Soviet era, given its nuclear power plant and hydropower resources.

The electricity currently generated in Armenia is mainly produced at three types of power plant: nuclear, hydro, and thermal. Some 39% is produced at the nuclear power plant, with 60% equally divided between hydro and thermal power plants. The government’s goal is to have 12 billion kWh of electricity by 2030, and at the same time to increase renewable energy production up to 15% by 2030.

Armenia has strong potential to become an exporter of renewable energy to the EU

Currently, two solar power plants are being constructed in Armenia, a 55MW capacity plant in Gegharquniq region and a 200MW plant in Aragatsotn, the second a joint $174 million project of the Armenian National Interest Fund and the Masdar company of Abu Dhabi. With these projects, the Government of the Republic of Armenia reaffirms its commitment to expand the renewable energy sector in Armenia, according to which it is planning to build solar power plants with a capacity of up to 1,000MW in coming years.

Armenia has strong potential to become an exporter of renewable energy to the EU. The participation of Armenia in the Black Sea Energy submarine cable project will contribute to the country’s economic development. It will boost regional economic cooperation, which is much needed to foster stability and security in the South Caucasus. It will strengthen the EU’s position and role in the region and is fully in line with overall EU strategy toward the South Caucasus.

Source: Benyamin Poghosyan is a Senior research fellow, APRI – Armenia, and the founder and Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan.
Photo: Map showing proposed Black Sea Energy Submarine Cable
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
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (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)