Opinion: In the Caucasus, 2019 will be a year of increased opportunities and heightened risks

Opinion: Dennis Sammut looks back at an eventful 2018 in the South Caucasus and says 2019 will bring many new opportunities, but if these are squandered risks will be considerably higher

A year ago, as 2017 was coming to an end, the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia - Serzh Sargsyan, Ilham Aliyev and Giorgi Kvirikashvili, appeared on the television sets of their compatriots to wish them new year greetings. 2018 was the centenary anniversary of the establishment of the first republics of their respective nations, so continuity was a prevalent theme.

Half way through the year, two of the three had gone, pushed out rather unceremoniously, and the third, Ilham Aliyev, faced multiple challenges, including a rare religiously inspired mini-rebellion in his country's second city, Ganca, despite having easily secured another term in early elections in April.

There is no doubt that the unexpected events in Armenian politics in the spring were the highlight of the political year in the region. The elegant way in which Nikol Pashinyan presided over the proceedings was for many as inspiring as it was surprising. It was a game changer - but no one yet knows to what extent. Armenia was not in a good place when Pashinyan took over, and turning it round economically is not going to be easy. Correctly he has prioritised this, but the tools at his disposal are modest, even though now he has been emboldened by a landslide election victory.

The change of government in Yerevan has changed the dynamic around the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and conflict resolution process. The situation on the line of contact has been quieter than for many years; there are less vitriolic exchanges between the propaganda machines of the two sides, and some steps to prepare for proper negotiations have been taken. But these are simply the first small steps of what needs to be a long journey full of hazards. 2019 will tell us if 2018 was the start of that journey, or simply a blip of little consequence. Things should be clearer by the summer.

This will not depend only on Armenia, but also on Azerbaijan. In the spring, Baku watched events unfolding in Yerevan with curiosity, and in the end decided that anything was better than the status quo. Speculation that the revolutionary contagion will somehow infect Baku was never very serious. Azerbaijan's social and political fabric is very different from that in Armenia. Internal risks for Baku are more likely to come from the mosque than from street protests led by the middle class. Events in Ganca in 2018 provided the leadership with some uncomfortable moments, even if the risk was always containable. On its own the islamist factor is not strong enough to challenge the government. If however it is added to other factors then it may be. Baku will hope for reasonable oil prices in 2019 to enable it to keep the economic and social situation stable. It will also seek to cash in quickly on the new opportunities for moving the Karabakh talks forward. On both fronts 2019 offers new opportunities, but also increased risks.

2018 has been a difficult year for Georgia. In the political and economic spheres it has not been a step backward exactly, but one can hardly say that it has been a step forward either. In May, Bidhzina Ivanishvili returned to frontline politics having concluded that the political project he initiated in 2012 was at risk of unravelling. By October he had understood that the problem was even bigger than he had imagined. The vote for a largely ceremonial president turned into a bitterly fought and acrimonious campaign. The ruling Georgian Dream party candidate for the post came within a whisker of coming second place in the first round. The GD had to throw the kitchen sink at its opponents before it could secure a victory in the second round. Georgia emerged somewhat bruised from it all. Ivanishvili has now to reconcile himself to the fact that the distance he tried to create between himself and the government after he left the post of prime minister in 2013 is gone. 2018 has shown that Ivanishvili's managerial approach to government has reached its limits. In 2019 he will need to revisit the scientific skills and skilful arts of politics if he and his party are to succeed.

The big lesson for South Caucasus politicians from the events in Armenia in the spring is that throughout the region the young generation has new priorities, and new ways of seeking to achieve them. It is more cynical, not ready to accept dogmatic statements, and not ready to be patronised. The most ridiculous statement during the Armenia events was made by Serzh Sargsyan, who at the height of the crisis called on parents to rein in their children protesting on the streets, and take them back home. They soon let him know who was going home!

If this lesson has been learned in Baku, the generational transition in Azerbaijan, which has been ongoing for a while but at a very slow pace, is likely to accelerate in 2019.

As things stand 2019 will be a rare year in which no elections are planned. But speculations persist that early parliamentary elections may take place in Azerbaijan and Georgia. In any case parliaments need to play a bigger role in the future, especially now that both Georgia and Armenia are fully fledged parliamentary republics. In Armenia, all the signs are that the parliament will become the motor for change and reform. This will have a knock-on effect in Azerbaijan where re-energising parliament, and bringing in at least a part of the opposition within the parliamentary framework is now a must.

All in all, while 2018 has been a year of surprises, 2019 is likely to be a year of opportunities. However, if opportunities are missed, risks for those concerned will increase substantially.

source: Dennis Sammut is the Director of LINKS (Dialogue, Analysis and Research) and follows closely events in the South Caucasus (dennis@links-dar.org)

photo: Young people were on the forefront during street protests in Armenia in the spring. (picture courtesy of hetq.am, Yerevan)

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)