Caucasian geopolitics: Finding a path towards stability and peaceful coexistence

View of the village Adishi. Upper Svaneti, Georgia, Europe. Photo: Creative Travel Projects

According to some scholars and researchers, the geopolitical landscape of the Caucasus can be divided into three distinct areas: 1) the Central Caucasus, including the three independent states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; 2) the Northern Caucasus, consisting of the autonomous border republics of the Russian Federation; and 3) the Southern Caucasus, including areas of Turkey bordering Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia (the Southwestern Caucasus) and the northwestern provinces of Iran (the Southeastern Caucasus).

Approaches to integration

The identification of the Caucasus as a distinct geopolitical unit can be understood within the framework of contemporary integration initiatives. This is despite ongoing political and military conflicts in the region, which obstruct regional security at large. Examples of these conflicts include Georgia and Russia’s ongoing tensions and Armenia and Azerbaijan’s de facto war. As a result, regional integration projects aim to promote stability and resilience. These proposals can be grouped into the following approaches:

• The Caucasian Home model, which incorporates the autonomous republics of the Northern Caucasus (arguments have been made that these areas should participate in this integration model as autonomous actors) and the independent Caucasus states;
• Models uniting the independent Caucasus states of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia;
• The 3+1 model that unites the independent Caucasus states and Russia;
• Sub-global models, incorporating the three independent Caucasus states, three regional hegemons and global powers and international organisations (3+3+2);
• Modern regional security approach built on a 3+3 format, with involvement of local actors and three regional powers (Russia, Turkey, Iran).

Whilst limited regional integration occurred during the independence period of 1917-22 before the communist era, it is important to remember the Cold War divisions that continue to shape regional security. The confrontation between Russia and the United States at the regional level is happening not only in the military, political, economic, information and psychological spheres. Indeed, there is now even a linguistic aspect to these tensions. In other words, a bipolar linguistic competition has emerged between Russia and the US. This can be seen with regards to the fact that traditional understandings of the Caucasus region as a distinct unit come from a thoroughly Russian point of view. For example, the terms Transcaucasus and Transcaucasia in western languages are translations of the Russian expression Закавказье (Zakavkazje): “the area beyond the Caucasus Mountain Range”.

Linguistic differences

It should, however, be pointed out that Transcaucasia is being increasingly replaced by the term South Caucasus (Южный Кавказ, Juzhnyi Kavkaz). This means that both Transcaucasus and South Caucasus can be found in Russian foreign policy terminology. These terms are often used in relation to official documents that discuss the state’s doctrine of Eurasianism, such as the 2016 Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation.

On the other side, there is the American or Atlanticist point of view that promotes different ideas related to the identification of the Caucasus geopolitical region. A special institution was even created in the early 2000s in order to create a new geopolitical identity for the area. This “Caucasus-Caspian Region” identity was ultimately meant to help promote US national interests in the region. The name of the institution, the Caucasus-Caspian Commission, reflected this new approach and claimed that “the Caucasus Caspian space is not a precisely defined region either geographically or politically … the Caucasus-Caspian Commission has decided to look at three concentric circles: inner core, outer ring and global circle”.

Around this time the term Central Caucasus was also introduced into the geopolitical lexicon. This concept of the Central Caucasus is more in tune with Central Eurasia and Central Asia than the concept of the Southern Caucasus. As a result, it seems that the current geopolitical dilemma facing the Caucasus region can be described as Eurasianism versus Atlanticism.

Geostrata

Having considered the ongoing geopolitical competition in the region, it is useful to also consider the area’s geoeconomic perspectives and its position in the world economy and global trade. The transportation connectivity of the Caucasus region occurs along both north-south and east-west axes. Overall, the north-south connection is very complex and this makes it more difficult for Russia to influence the region through a physical military presence. With regards to the region’s connections with Anatolia and the Middle East (particularly Iran), the contemporary situation is somewhat better. After all, the Caucasus continues to play a significant role on the international stage for various historic, geographic, ethnic and geostrategic reasons. For world powers, its geographical position has been viewed as a natural bridge between regions. The area is connected to Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and to the Middle East through its border with Iran. Furthermore, the Black, Azov, Aegean, and Marmara Seas all connect the region to Europe. Even Africa can be accessed rather quickly via the nearby Mediterranean.

The Caucasus region is a wealthy area in terms of its geopolitical position, strategic importance and history. Certainly, the geoeconomic relevance of the region has once again become clear following the end of the latest fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, the fragile peace in the former conflict zone could provide a new stimulus for development of various corridor systems. These systems include the following transit routes:

• West-East – EU-South Caucasus-Central Asia-China
• North-South – Eurasia (Russia)-South Caucasus-MENA
• West-South – EU-Black Sea Basin-South Caucasus-MENA
• East-East – Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey (Baku-Tbilisi-Kars) railway
• South-West – India-Iran-South Caucasus-Black Sea Basin-EU
• South-South – Azerbaijan-Armenia-Turkey (‘Zangezur’ corridor)

These geoeconomic transit corridors should be promoted further to strengthen geopolitical stability. In order for these routes to perform at their best, some kind of institutional arrangement should be established. For example, a Caucasus Transport Union could be created that involves various regional actors. This would also provide an opportunity for local/regional societies to cooperate in the framework of the “European four principle”. Such work could be based on the so-called Four Society development model, which would involve figures from the media, business and public diplomacy alongside various regional experts.

The dilemma of regional confrontation is by no means an easy one to solve. However, finding a solution remains the sole option available to the Caucasus region if it is to achieve peaceful coexistence as perceived by the geopolitical concept known as the Caucasus Geostrata. As a “geostrata”, the Caucasus is a region where geopolitical projects either synchronise or clash. This remains one of the leading theories of modern Georgian geopolitical thought. Peaceful coexistence should not be promoted among local states alone but also include international actors and representatives. This could result in the founding of a Caucasus Public Chamber, which could help coordinate regional NGOs, academics and media as a community aimed at directing dialogue that promotes rapprochement and open communications. This could lead to peaceful coexistence at the regional level finally becoming a reality. 

Vakhtang Maisaia PhD is a professor of Caucasus International University (Georgia) and honorary professor of the University of Business and Entrepreneurship in Ostrowiec Swietokrzyski (Poland).

Caucasus, geopolitics, South Caucasus