Opinion: Middle Corridor gains momentum while Zangezur Corridor remains stalled

In September, it was announced that China has joined Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia as a partner in the Middle Corridor Initiative, with the China Railway Container Transport Corporation (CRTC) participating in the project. The decision followed extended talks over several months and was confirmed during the 8th International Silk Road Expo, held in Xi’an from 19-20 September 2024. This announcement comes amid the growing significance of the Middle Corridor, also known as the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), as a crucial trade link between China and Europe, passing through several Central Asian and South Caucasian countries. The Middle Corridor Multimodal joint venture, established in 2023, offers a “one-stop-shop” service for cargo delivery along this route, aiming to enhance transport coordination, provide transparent tariffs, and ensure consistent delivery times.

The momentum of the Middle Corridor has continued to grow since disruptions occurred along the trans-Russia Northern Route between China and Europe following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Reportedly, Kazakhstan and China plan to increase the volume of cargo transportation along the Middle Corridor to 600 container trains per year in 2025 and 2026. According to the plan, the number will reach 2,000 by 2029. This growth has been positively impacted by a 65 per cent increase in the volume of transit transportation between China and Europe through Kazakhstan, which amounted to 2.76 million tons last year, compared to 1.7 million tons in 2022.

Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are actively working to optimise this transportation route to attract more European and Chinese companies. Kazakhstan is currently focused on increasing the transit capacity of the Aktau and Kuryk seaports. A container hub will be constructed in the port of Aktau, aiming to increase transportation volume to 300,000 TEU (twenty-foot equivalent units) per year. Additionally, a grain terminal is set to launch in Kuryk’s port later this year.

In the meantime, Azerbaijan and Georgia have completed the expansion of the BTK line’s capacity from 1 million to 5 million tons per year with an investment of $140 million from Azerbaijan. Similar expansion work is underway at the Baku Trade Port, where capacity is being increased from the current 15 million tons to 25 million tons.

The European Union (EU) is also supporting these efforts. In one of its latest moves toward this goal, the EU launched the Coordination Platform of the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor on October 3, during an event that brought together representatives from the EU, countries along the Trans-Caspian Transport Corridor in Central Asia and the Southern Caucasus, Türkiye, and international financing institutions. The press release from the European External Action Service (EEAS) stated that “the corridor will serve as a critical artery linking Europe and Central Asia, boosting trade, enhancing connectivity, facilitating exchanges, and driving prosperity across regions, while also ensuring improved cooperation and economic integration among Central Asian countries.” The EU plans to launch a regional transport program in 2025 to support infrastructure projects along the corridor.

Thus, while all the mentioned projects along the Middle Corridor are being successfully implemented, there is a missing link in the South Caucasus that would critically enhance regional connections and integrate Armenia into this network. This link is the Zangezur corridor, which was agreed upon by Armenia and Azerbaijan through the Russia-mediated ceasefire statement in November 2020. Azerbaijan is nearing the completion of its part of the corridor, which will connect mainland Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan exclave through the southern part of Armenia. The opening of the Zangezur Corridor would provide a shorter connection along the Middle Corridor and transform Armenia from its current isolated situation into a transportation hub.

This project has, however, been stalled due to the geopolitical complexities it faces. As recently as early October, Iran reiterated its strong objection to the opening of this corridor while expressing support for another initiative put forward by the Armenian government, namely the Crossroads for Peace initiative. While both the Zangezur corridor and the Crossroads for Peace initiative envision the opening of regional transportation routes, there are some critical differences between the two. Most importantly, while the former envisions the deployment of Russia’s border guards to the trans-Armenian corridor, the latter rejects this clause, which is enshrined in the aforementioned trilateral statement of November 10, 2020.

Another key difference is related to the fact that the Zangezur corridor envisages the reopening of the Soviet-era railway and highway connections between the western part of mainland Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic through the Syunik province of Armenia. While the Crossroads for Peace includes a railway link along this passage, it favours alternative routes for the motorway connection. Azerbaijan, having almost completed the construction of the highway in its section of the Zangezur corridor, rejects the proposal of Armenia to open highway links in other areas without opening it along the Zangezur route as well.

Due to these difficulties, neither the Zangezur corridor nor the Crossroads for Peace initiative has garnered the full support of all concerned parties. While Azerbaijan, Russia, and Türkiye favour the former, the Armenian government insists on its own initiative, supported by the United States and Iran in this endeavour. Under these circumstances, while the Middle Corridor is booming, the Zangezur Corridor faces persistent uncertainty. This situation prevents the countries of the South Caucasus from fully enjoying the benefits offered by their geostrategic position, particularly leaving Armenia in limbo isolated from the trans-regional international transportation routes. The opening of the Zangezur corridor is therefore of larger geoeconomic importance.

source: Dr Vasif Huseynov, is a Senior Advisor at the Center of Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) and Adjunct Lecturer at Khazar University in Baku, Azerbaijan.


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
King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King calls slave trade a 'shameful chapter' during Commonwealth address

King Charles has described the transatlantic slave trade as a "shameful chapter of history" that filled him with "profound sorrow" as he opened a summit of Commonwealth leaders in the Caribbean. He said the trade in enslaved persons "still casts a shadow" over the association of nations. There have been calls from some for the UK to make a formal apology for its historic role in the slave trade ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) in Antigua and Barbuda, but there was not one in the King's address. Prime Minister Andy Burnham, also at the summit, has said that he is open to Britain issuing a formal apology but has ruled out financial reparations. While there was no direct apology, the King did offer some contrition - and there was also an acknowledgement that he had personally learnt more about the legacy of the slave trade. He said: "The transatlantic trade in enslaved persons still casts a shadow over these islands and other members of our Commonwealth. "As I have said before, that shameful chapter of history is one that fills my heart with horror and my soul with the most profound personal sorrow." (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)