GEORGIA’S PM: SOUTH CAUCASUS RAILWAY CAN BE REOPENED
During a visit to Armenia on January 17, Georgia’s Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili opened for restoring the South Caucasus railway (SCR) connecting Armenia to Russia via occupied Abkhazia. Ivanishvili said that the issue can be resolved despite the troubled relations between Moscow and Tbilisi if all engaged parties are willing to do so.
The new Georgian government first aired the possibility of reopening the SCR in November, much to the irritation of Baku which considers the initiative as a challenge to its national interests. Azerbaijan’s opposition and Abkhazia’s negative response to the proposal induced the Georgian government to temporarily downplay the issue. However, a statement made by the Georgian PM a month later triggered new concerns in Baku. At that time, Ivanishvili questioned the economic value of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway (BTKR) for Georgia at an early stage of its operation. He said that BTKR – a project that links Georgia and Azerbaijan to Europe via Turkey – may decrease the cargo turnover at Georgia’s Black Sea ports.
Ivanishvili’s remarks induced Georgian and Azerbaijani media to provide extensive coverage of the BTKR issue ahead of the Georgian PM’s visit to Baku. In Azerbaijan, however, Ivanishvili had to acknowledge that he had made “hasty” and “politically flawed” comments on BTKR and that he should not have talked about it publicly but should have discussed it privately with Azerbaijani authorities.
Nonetheless, the statement Ivanishvili made in Yerevan about the possibility of restoring the SCR renewed the debate over railways. Commenting on Ivanishvili’s statements, President Mikheil Saakshvili said that they held alarming connotations. Since the BTKR would likely reduce the viability of Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railway, Saakashvili said Russia could be expected to make far-reaching efforts to challenge the project, though it should not do so through the Georgian government itself.
Another problem related to reopening the SCR, according to Saakashvili, is the fact that Russia is in control of both the Abkhaz and Armenian segments of the railway and such a move on Georgia’s part would indirectly acknowledge Russia’s right to the Abkhaz railway and facilitate Moscow’s efforts to legitimize its occupation of Abkhazia. “Georgia should not take a single step that will contribute to it, unless the de-occupation of Abkhazia is fully resolved; or this issue can be resolved in parallel with the de-occupation of Abkhazia and can be discussed as part of the de-occupation,” Saakashvili said.
Saakashvili maintained that Tbilisi does seek good relations with Yerevan though not at the expense of Georgia’s strategic interests. Saakashvili lamented that Ivanishvili’s statement on the BTKR had already complicated the country’s relations with Turkey and resulted in a suspension of Turkish investments. Any problem emerging in Georgia’s ties with Ankara would amount to losing Georgia’s historic chance to join NATO, he said.
Meanwhile, Sokhumi has seemingly changed its stance regarding the restoration of SCR. Whereas in November, the Abkhaz government categorically stated that such ploys would never lure Sokhumi into the political and diplomatic traps set by Tbilisi, at this time it clearly softened its tone. On January 18, the breakaway region’s president Aleksander Ankvab said that “If there are concrete proposals [on restoring the SCR] then we will sit down and discuss them together.”
Though it is not clear whether the SCR will be actually restored any time soon, the continued discussions over it, especially when framed as a competitor to the BTKR, raises questions regarding the future viability of the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey (AGT) transportation axis. In fact, apart from the economic benefits of BTKR, it also represents a geopolitical endeavor to boost integration between the AGT countries and reduce Russia’s role as the major transit country between Europe and China. Moreover, after the BTKR will be commissioned this year, Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries will not be depend on the Iranian Razi-Sarakhs railway for trade transit to Europe.
The BTKR project is thus intended to bring the region more autonomy vis-à-vis both Iran and Russia. However, especially in light of Moscow’s proposed Eurasian Union, Russia will plausibly seek to challenge the project via efforts to undermine unity among the AGT states that is grounded in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum projects.
Whereas the SCR does not directly overshadow the BTKR perspectives, it slams Azerbaijan’s interest in marginalizing Armenia, fuels tension between Tbilisi and Baku and hence provokes AGT disunity. In this context, the questions Ivanishvili has raised regarding the benefits generating from the BTKR and the possibility of restoring the SCR could weaken the existing confidence between the AGT states and may trigger realignment in the region.
