{"id":16927,"date":"2025-05-12T15:07:04","date_gmt":"2025-05-12T11:07:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/arvak.am\/?p=16927"},"modified":"2025-06-30T15:25:11","modified_gmt":"2025-06-30T11:25:11","slug":"international-transport-corridors-their-impact-on-regional-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arvak.am\/en\/international-transport-corridors-their-impact-on-regional-security\/","title":{"rendered":"International Transport Corridors & Their Impact on Regional Security"},"content":{"rendered":"

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”” woodmart_inline=”no” text_larger=”no”]<\/p>\n

Alexander A. Svarants(1)<\/sup><\/a>(2)<\/sup><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text css=”” woodmart_inline=”no” text_larger=”no”]<\/p>\n

The <\/strong>relevance of the problem and the concept <\/strong>
\nof the \u201cInternational Transport Corridor\u201d (ITC) <\/strong><\/p>\n

The strength of a state\u2019s position in the international system is largely determined by the success of its economic development. This includes its GDP level, technological advancement, raw material resources, industrial capacity, physical geography, the efficiency of its security structures, and its transport and communication infrastructure. All these factors directly influence the economic security of both the nation and its surrounding region.<\/p>\n

Throughout history, transport routes have fostered trade growth and laid the foundation for state development. Historically, transport communications have been essential in shaping trade, economic, cultural, civilizational, political, and military relations between nations, civilizations, and continents.<\/p>\n

During Ancient and Medieval times, Eastern Asia was connected to the Mediterranean and Europe through a caravan trade route, known worldwide as the \u201cGreat Silk Road\u201d<\/em>. The term was introduced by German geographer Ferdinand von Richthofen in 1877. The Silk Road emerged following the conquests of Alexander the Great, which expanded knowledge between the East and West and laid the foundation for trade relations. The name \u201cSilk Road\u201d <\/em>reflects the primary export commodity from China \u2013 silk.<\/p>\n

Since then, humanity has developed numerous new transit routes, driven by technological progress and economic cooperation as the quality of roads and transportation means remains directly dependent on scientific and technical advancements, as well as economic cooperation and international rivalry.<\/p>\n

New roads (transport communications and corridors) always lead to change. These changes can positively impact some geopolitical centers and players, while negatively impacting others \u2013 especially those excluded from these projects or forced to participate against their national interests due to military defeats or dependent status.<\/p>\n

In fact, transportation and communications are essentially the \u201clifeblood\u201d of national and global economies. Major historical rivers, maritime and oceanic routes, railways, highways, and the global information network comprise our planet\u2019s communication framework, laying the foundation for intercivilizational dialogue.<\/p>\n

At the same time, international transit routes stimulate economic growth for those who benefit from such projects, thereby reshaping global trade and geopolitics. The process of defining new international transport routes often stems from the national interests of major players on the global stage and is shaped by intense geopolitical competition and conflicts. In many cases, it results from imperial ambitions and expansionist policies. Disruptions in the balance of interests among key actors in export-import operations (i.e., the global economy) can lead to external threats, conflicts, and instability at both regional and global levels.<\/p>\n

This negative trend in determining key transport corridors is frequently accompanied by local and regional wars. Conflicting parties are often backed by opposing geopolitical centers, which exploit local disputes to establish control over strategic territories and transit routes. This control allows them to influence the functioning or blocking of transport corridors if a project contradicts their national interests or imperial ambitions.<\/p>\n

It is worth mentioning that International transport corridors (ITCs) emerge from a combination of economic and geopolitical interests, and they can also cease to exist for the same reasons. Otherwise, the \u201cGreat Silk Road\u201d<\/em>, which appeared in Antiquity, would have continued uninterrupted to this day. While the modern world is reviving this project, it now serves as a new transit route for a technologically advanced China, with different export goods and alternative pathways.<\/p>\n

ITCs are shaped by economic and geopolitical shifts, which are often accompanied by conflicts of varying intensity and scale. However, their implementation requires strict security measures, including legal, technical, military, and counterterrorism protections.<\/p>\n

Simply put, no one will invest significant financial resources in the construction of extensive, multi-kilometer transit communications and corridors (including road, rail, air, maritime, energy, and cable infrastructure) if a specific section of the route connecting countries, regions, or continents faces a high risk of military conflict, international terrorism, or sabotage warfare.<\/p>\n

A clear example of this principle is the containment of Kurdish insurgency in eastern and southeastern Turkey at the turn of the 20th\u201321st centuries. This was crucial for implementing Azerbaijan\u2019s \u201cContracts of the Century\u201d, which aimed to establish an alternative Caspian oil and gas transit route to global markets, bypassing Russia.<\/p>\n

In February 1999, a collaborative intelligence operation of the United States, Israel, and Turkey led to the capture of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), at the Greek Ambassador\u2019s residence in Kenya. Ocalan had threatened sabotage operations along the potential transit route for Azerbaijani oil and gas through Turkey, posing a risk not only to Turkey\u2019s security but also to the financial and economic interests of EU nations and major Western and Turkish energy companies (including British Petroleum, Pennzoil, Amoco, Total Energies, and BOTA\u015e). His arrest and life imprisonment effectively deprived the Kurdish movement in Anatolia of its central leader.<\/p>\n

The containment of the Kurdish threat in Turkey played a salient role in the Istanbul OSCE Summit in November 1999, where the main transit route for Azerbaijani oil was determined\u2013bypassing Russia and passing through Turkey to Europe. At the time, Russia was focused on justifying its military actions in Chechnya, aiming to restore constitutional order, but missed the opportunity to secure Caspian oil transit from Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n

In essence, the Chechen incursions into Dagestan (Karamakhi and Chabanmakhi) in the summer of 1999, allegedly aimed at creating an Islamic Confederation in the North Caucasus, were part of a covert operation by U.S., British, and Turkish intelligence to block Russia\u2019s oil transit route from Baku. At the time, Chechnya was controlled by separatists (Basaev, Yandarbiyev, and Maskhadov), who blocked the Baku\u2013Grozny\u2013Novorossiysk pipeline. Moscow proposed an alternative route to the Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, bypassing Chechnya via Dagestan to Stavropol and then to Novorossiysk. However, in response, Chechen militants \u2013 allegedly under external influence \u2013 ignited conflict in Dagestan, thereby disrupting Russia\u2019s plans for Azerbaijani oil transit control.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the West secured its preferred Caspian oil route from Azerbaijan through two intelligence operations by NATO countries and Israel. This ensured geo-economic entry into the South Caucasus and the formation of new multimodal international transport corridors. Today, having established influence in the South Caucasus, Turkey and the West (U.S. and Europe) are expanding their reach into post-Soviet Central Asia, a resource-rich region.<\/p>\n

The Istanbul OSCE Summit in late 1999, attended by U.S. President Bill Clinton, finalized the main transit route for Azerbaijani oil and gas through Georgia, Turkey, and into Europe. The West invested billions of dollars in building pipelines, highways, and railways. In the first quarter of the 21st century, this strategy by London, Washington, and Ankara led to the creation of the \u201cSouthern Transport Corridor\u201d<\/em> (STC) and the establishment of Azerbaijan as a geopolitical hub in the South Caucasus. Due to its strategic location, Azerbaijan is of key interest to Anglo-Saxon powers and Turkey, serving as a gateway to Central Asia under the guise of Pan-Turkism and the modern Organization of Turkic States (OTS).<\/p>\n

The ongoing Arab-Israeli war in Gaza is another example of how geopolitical conflicts shape international transport corridors. Specifically, Tel Aviv\u2019s policy regarding the southern territories of the country \u2013 effectively the deportation of Gaza\u2019s two-million Arab population \u2013 is largely aimed at securing full control over its southern Mediterranean ports, where a key maritime trade route from India to Europe is planned.<\/p>\n

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar world order established after World War II, the international community has been experiencing turbulent transformations. The U.S. aspiration to declare itself the sole victor of the Cold War and establish a unipolar world under Washington\u2019s dominance proved unrealistic due to objective contradictions and the presence of multiple power centers seeking to maintain global balance and create a multipolar world structure.<\/p>\n

At the Munich Security Conference in February of 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly challenged U.S. global dominance, calling for respect for the diversity of the modern world. The subsequent period of the first quarter of the 21st century has demonstrated that the world has plunged into chaotic crises, contradictions, conflicts, and local wars. The previous international security system and the UN institution have proven inadequate in addressing new challenges, failing to curb military aggression by stronger powers against weaker and unprotected nations. This is evident in conflicts such as the wars in Iraq and Libya, the Georgian-Russian and Russian-Ukrainian conflicts, the 44-day War in Nagorno-Karabakh, the deportation of Armenian populations, the ongoing civil war in Syria, and the Palestinian-Israeli military conflict in Gaza.<\/p>\n

As global transformations unfold, conditions emerge for the formation of new international transport corridors, reflecting the contours of a new world order, rising powers, and new global trade dynamics. Often, the main export commodity itself becomes the subject of intense competition, including conflict-driven rivalries.<\/p>\n

For example, since the 20th century, when oil gained strategic importance in the global economy and became industrialized, history has witnessed numerous conflicts and wars over control and ownership of oil resources. These conflicts continue to simmer and could escalate again.<\/p>\n

The Soviet Union sought to carefully manage its natural resources, thereby ensuring a regional balance in the exploitation of raw materials without violating the interests of union republics, whose physical geography contained significant reserves of oil and gas. For this reason, accusations against Russia regarding imperial exploitation of national peripheries in the pre-Soviet and Soviet periods do not correspond to reality. Otherwise, Caspian countries today (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan) would not have such substantial reserves of strategic raw materials, over which a fierce struggle has emerged among global powers and key regional players in the post-Soviet era.<\/p>\n

The Caspian oil and gas transport corridors have been a focal point of geopolitical competition since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The emergence of alternative international transport-energy corridors that bypass Russia has enabled major Western energy companies from the UK, U.S., Turkey, France, and Italy to gain access to Azerbaijan\u2019s oil and gas resources. As a result, between 1994 and 2020, a multimodal transport corridor was developed, including: Baku\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Ceyhan oil pipeline, Baku\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Erzurum gas pipeline, Trans-Anatolian (TANAP) and Trans-Adriatic (TAP) gas pipelines, and Baku\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Kars railway.<\/p>\n

A new South Caucasus transport-energy corridor has emerged in Transcaucasia, which has the potential to become one of the key connecting segments of China\u2019s \u201cOne Belt\u2013One Road\u201d <\/em>Initiative (BRI) within the \u201cMiddle Corridor\u201d<\/em> project. In other words, geopolitical adversaries are always attentive to global and regional transformations, traditionally exploiting the temporary weaknesses of their competitors to expand their own opportunities and alter the historically established balance of power. Often, geopolitical ambitions become decisive factors in the implementation of seemingly economic ITC projects.<\/p>\n

A clear example of this economic-geopolitical imbalance was the Baku\u2013Tbilisi\u2013Ceyhan pipeline, the longest (1,730 km) and most expensive ($3+ billion) alternative route, despite the existence of a safer Baku\u2013Grozny\u2013Novorossiysk pipeline.<\/p>\n

Some experts suggest that local conflicts in the Caucasus during the 1990s\u20132000s (including Karabakh, Abkhazia, and Chechnya) may have been artificially initiated by foreign intelligence agencies (UK, U.S., Turkey, Israel) to block Russia\u2019s transport corridor and Caspian oil and gas transit. According to a 2020 publication, \u201cWestern and Turkish intelligence allegedly used Azerbaijan to trigger an internal military conflict in Russia (Chechnya) in late 1994, aiming to disrupt Russian oil pipeline operations\u201d(3)<\/sup><\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

In the context of global geopolitical transformations and integration processes, International Transport Corridors (ITCs), are key factors in the development of the world economy. ITCs involve the creation and operation of stable transport communications between various participants in international economic relations.<\/p>\n

ITCs refer to transit transport routes that connect multiple countries into a unified economic system for the movement of passengers and goods. In this context, the term \u201cmultimodal ITCs\u201d is often used, meaning several types of transport-communication links, including roads, railways, pipelines, and power transmission lines(4)<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

A multimodal ITC project aims to establish optimal transit routes from major producers to large consumer markets, integrating various transport and energy networks (road, rail, air, maritime, pipeline, and cable) to ensure regular cargo and passenger movement. This includes the development of highways, railways, ports, airports, and electronic customs and border control systems.<\/p>\n

Geography, particularly access to maritime routes, often determines the strategic importance of ITCs. The Black Sea straits (Bosporus and Dardanelles) remain critical geopolitical chokepoints, controlling access to the Black Sea, Mediterranean, and Atlantic Ocean. And the one who controls the Bosporus and the Dardanelles remains in the ranks of key global geopolitics.<\/p>\n

In its turn, the opening of the Suez Canal on November 17, 1869, revolutionized global maritime trade. The construction of this lock-free canal in Egypt connected the Mediterranean and Red Seas, providing the shortest maritime route from India to the Atlantic Ocean \u2013 eliminating the need to circumnavigate Africa and reducing the sea journey by 8,000 km.<\/p>\n

ITCs generally stimulate national economies in the countries they traverse. However, they can also serve as soft power tools for dominant geopolitical players, influencing weaker participants in global trade networks. This makes ITCs a subject of interest in politics, economics, security, and academic research (political science, economics, sociology, law, etc.).<\/p>\n

It must be noted that the Russian academic research has produced a diverse range of studies on International Transport Corridors (ITCs) in recent years. These include dissertations, monographs, articles, and reports, focusing on the theoretical and methodological foundations of ITC development, as well as their economic and geopolitical impact on various countries, regions, and continents.<\/p>\n

The following scholars have made notable contributions to this field:I. Abbasaliev, L. Albrecht, P. Biryukov, L. Vardomsky, A. Volodin, V. Voronov, N. Grigoryev, A. Gorokhova, E. Gladskikh, I. Ermakov, K. Zhuravlev, M. Komov, V. Lazarev, E. Levitin, M. Turaeva, K. Khlopov, and E. Shustova. A comprehensive study of issues related to International Transport Corridors (ITCs) contributes not only to the formation of a community of specialists but also to the development of entire academic schools. These schools may have diverging or conflicting views, as their conclusions often reflect not only the objective reality of ITC formation but also the political biases of experts, influenced by the political stance of their home countries(5)<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The study of issues related to the economic and geopolitical impact of International Transport Corridors (ITCs) on national, regional, and global security are being conducted. The South Caucasus, due to its physical geography and diverse geopolitical orientations of regional actors, as well as the varied interests of external players seeking to maintain or establish influence, is transforming into both a zone of heightened external attention and a key connecting hub for international trade transit along the East\u2013West and North\u2013South routes.<\/p>\n

The South Caucasus serves as an important route for planned multimodal ITCs, which \u2013 if external and internal interests are balanced \u2013 could bring regional peace and security. However, such a balance has not yet been achieved, and the region continues to face escalating contradictions and conflicts.<\/p>\n

2. Conflicting Interests of Global and Regional Players in ITC Formation<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vladimir Lenin in his times had famously stated, that “Politics is the concentrated expression of economics”(6)<\/sup><\/a><\/em>. This principle has been proven over time, as a state’s primary task is to develop a strong economy, without which it is difficult to maintain power and ensure national security against external threats. If we analyze the policies of key global and regional states through the lens of economic interests in ITC projects, we can conclude that where there is big money, there is always a conflict of interest. Naturally, wealthy nations constantly seek greater enrichment, often at the expense of weaker and less developed countries.<\/p>\n

Regarding the constructive significance of ITCs, expert I. Abbasaliev notes: \u201cInternational transport corridors, particularly Eurasian ones, serve as a fundamentally new mechanism for international cooperation and a factor aimed at overcoming the growing turbulence in intergovernmental relations. The instability of the global political landscape and increasing foreign policy risks have led to a trend of prioritizing national agendas at the expense of international integration processes. This challenge is constructively addressed through new organizational frameworks, one of which is international transport corridors\u201d(7)<\/sup><\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

In other words, I. Abbasaliev underscores the constructive role of ITCs, arguing that such international economic projects help overcome crises and turbulent relations between states. He believes ITCs redirect national conflicts into a more constructive framework through trade development and international integration. This perspective is constructive, provided that all ITC participants uphold equal rights, stability, security, and mutually beneficial partnerships \u2014 excluding violations of sovereignty, geopolitical ambitions, and the use of force.<\/p>\n

However, this optimistic characterization of ITCs, which dismisses the presence of conflicting interests among major geopolitical players during the development and implementation of such projects, suggests either an incomplete understanding of the subject or a biased approach to ITC concepts regarding participants, routes, and control mechanisms. Otherwise, all ITC projects, regardless of their initiators and developers, would receive universal external support, and rationalism and integration benefits would prevail in any beginning.<\/p>\n

A convincing example of this issue is the current state of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Azerbaijan, having failed to fulfill any provisions of the trilateral agreement (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Russia) signed on November 9, 2020, insists that one of the conditions for signing a peace treaty with Armenia is Clause 9 of the agreement \u2014 the unrestricted and uncontrolled opening of the so-called \u201cZangezur Corridor<\/em>\u201d to connect Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (NAR) with Turkey.<\/p>\n

The Armenian government has expressed a willingness to discuss the unblocking of transport communications, including Azerbaijan\u2019s connection to Nakhchivan via the Meghri region. However, Armenia refuses to consider this route as a \u201ccorridor\u201d <\/em>that would compromise its sovereignty. This contradiction has persisted for several years, with no resolution in sight, likely due to conflicting interests of key external players.<\/p>\n

In other words, the prospect of trade transit and financial profit has not yet become a convincing argument for regional unity or for external forces interested in the South Caucasus. If the U.S.\u2013China \u201ctariff war\u201d<\/em> initiated by President Donald Trump continues, how will Washington accept the \u201cMiddle Corridor\u201d<\/em> for Chinese goods transit through South Caucasus countries to the West (Turkey and the EU), bypassing Russia?<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, historical practice shows that some ITCs are developed and implemented at the expense of other major players and smaller states. These corridors often have political motivations, aiming to secure economic and geopolitical advantages at the cost of others’ security. A clear example is the formation of the Southern Energy and Transport Corridor, which connects Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey and Europe, bypassing Russia.<\/p>\n

In the late 1990s, the United Kingdom and the U.S. were unable to implement the proposed International Transport Corridor (ITC) in the South Caucasus in a more cost-effective manner \u2013 specifically, by reducing its length through the Zangezur route in southern Armenia. As a compromise condition for Armenia\u2019s participation in the project and the subsequent exclusion of Russia from the region, the U.S. proposed a territorial exchange between Yerevan and Baku as a solution to the Karabakh issue. This plan involved transferring the territory of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) and the Lachin Corridor to Armenia, while part of the Meghri region would be given to Azerbaijan. However, this compromise failed to materialize due to polarized opinions in Baku and Yerevan. In Azerbaijan, the resignation of presidential foreign policy advisor Vafa Guluzade and Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov disrupted negotiations. In Armenia, the parliament shooting on October 27, 1999, which resulted in the assassination of Prime Minister Vazgen Sargsyan and Speaker of the National Assembly Karen Demirchyan, further stalled the process. Today, the Zangezur route is once again relevant in the context of China\u2019s Middle Corridor<\/em> project within its ITC initiative.<\/p>\n

The conflict of interests among Arab states (Saudi Arabia and the UAE), Israel, and Turkey is particularly evident in the case of India\u2019s ITC, with repercussions in the Palestinian Gaza Strip.<\/p>\n

To better understand the nature of conflicting interests in ITC projects during the first quarter of the 21st century, it is necessary to examine the key global and regional players involved.<\/p>\n

The United States<\/em><\/strong>, positioning itself as a global player, actively participates in all major economic projects, including ITCs \u2013 either as a developer-participant or as an opponent-disruptor. The U.S. employs various pressure tactics against its competitors and adversaries, including:<\/p>\n