Nationalities Papers (2024), 1–21
doi:10.1017/nps.2024.42
SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE
Presidential Discourses on Regionalism in Azerbaijan:
Turkic Solidarity and the Silk Road
Farid Guliyev
Khazar University, Baku, Azerbaijan
Emails: fguliyev@khazar.org; fareedaz@gmail.com
Abstract
Drawing on theories of comparative regionalism, this article examines the construction of regionalist frames
in Azerbaijan covering the period from 1993 to mid-2023. By examining more than 60 text passages from
presidential speeches and statements, the study identifies two framings of regionalism that have dominated
presidential discourses in Azerbaijan: the discourse of Turkic solidarity or unity (in the political-security
domain) and the narrative of an East-West corridor or the revival of the Silk Road for transport of cargo and
hydrocarbon resources (in the economic domain). By constructing these discursive frames, Azerbaijani state
leaders crafted an alternative regional order reconstituting the geographic category of “South Caucasus” into
a new, spatially broader area. In this formulation, “South Caucasus” is viewed as a central pillar of the Silk
Road, and Azerbaijan as one of its focal points or nodes. While the study underscores a key role that actors
and ideas play in the formation of regions and regional institutions, it also highlights how social construction
of regional identities is embedded in and shaped by historical experiences and country-specific politicaleconomic conditions such as historical memories, experiences of war, collective identities and cultural
affinities, geographic location, domestic political economic structures, and international linkages.
Keywords: regionalism; South Caucasus; Azerbaijan; regional cooperation; elite discourse
Introduction
Despite its potentially considerable economic benefits (Ismailov 2006), regional integration in the
South Caucasus – a region consisting of three independent states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia (Cornell 2001, 4) – is largely seen as a failure (de Waal 2012; Smith 2015).1 Ongoing
territorial disputes have hindered an integration of all three states into a common politicaleconomic community (Ismailov and Papava 2008). Instead of regional integration, the region went
through a period of regional fragmentation. Understandably, some scholars called this region the
“most fractured of the post-Soviet regions” (Broers 2018) while others either questioned the very
existence of the “South Caucasus” as a distinct “region” (German 2012) or, citing enduring conflicts,
proposed to label it a “negative region” (Broers 2018).2 Three decades after independence, a political
or economic system of intra-regional cooperation – such as the one embodied in the concept of the
“South Caucasus Community” proposed by the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in 2000
(Emerson, Tocci, and Prokhorova 2001) – failed to emerge. In the security domain, rather than
establishing a regional security governance order, these small states have been preoccupied with
devising various strategies of survival amidst great power rivalries and regional balance of power
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Association for the Study of Nationalities. This is an Open Access
article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are
made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial
use and/or adaptation of the article.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
2
Farid Guliyev
politics. Among other policies, these strategies ranged from forming bilateral alliances with more
powerful states (Russia in the case of Armenia and Turkey in the case of Azerbaijan) to entering a
military bloc with a regional hegemonic power (Armenia’s membership in the Russian-led CSTO;
Collective Security Treaty Organization) and to pursuing membership in a defense alliance
(Georgia’s bid to join NATO), rather than trying to establish a regional security governance
framework that would encompass all three South Caucasian states. There has been modest progress
in deepening economic ties within the region, with a notable exception of trilateral AzerbaijaniGeorgian-Turkey cooperation on energy and regional connectivity projects. However, such interactions have largely been confined to bilateral or trilateral economic relationships rather than
involving all three states. Armenia has been left out of all major regional energy projects, such as oil
and gas pipelines and transit routes.
How to explain the apparent failure of regional integration in the South Caucasus? As discussed
below, while the persistent legacy of protracted ethnic conflicts is often advanced as one of the most
plausible explanations for a low degree of regional integration in the South Caucasus, scant
attention has been paid to the role played by ideational factors. The in-depth case study of
Azerbaijan presented here details the links between perceived interests of political leaders and
regional identity construction in this country.
In a (neo)realist tradition of International Relations, security is the primary goal pursued by
states, and small states must align or bandwagon with great powers to protect themselves (Waltz
1979; Mearsheimer 2001). National security considerations stand out as a key factor explaining low
levels of regional integration in the South Caucasus. The fear of state disintegration, secessionist
movements and large-scale conflicts that haunted all three countries since the early 1990s – so aptly
depicted by Charles King in his book The Ghost of Freedom (2008) – instilled a deep sense of
insecurity and vulnerabilities in national governments – especially in the face of the former colonial
power Russia’s attempts and the rise of Putin to power – to establish its hegemonic dominance in
the “southern tier” of the ex-Soviet Union (Suny 2010). As Fiona Hill and Angela Stent (Hill and
Stent 2022, 122) have recently argued, “Putin is insistent on bringing tsarist Russia back.”
Challenges to state-building and the uncertain geopolitical environment in which these states find
themselves in continued to pose security risks well into the 2000s and to shape individual country’s
foreign policy choices. Ongoing territorial disputes in many Eurasian countries locked them in
intractable conflicts and recurrent vicious security dilemmas. Many of them remain “fixated with
issues of territorial integrity” (Sperling 2003, 10). It is therefore unsurprising that the South
Caucasus is often referred to as a “region of conflicts” with exceptionally heightened levels of
insecurity (Nodia 2004). These distinct political conditions and national security challenges that
each of these states is facing have had a profound impact on their respective foreign policy agendas
and the regional cooperation initiatives they have advanced. State leaders’ ideas of regionalism
reflect some of these distinct country-specific territorial sovereignty considerations, perceptions of
security threats, and historic memories.
The South Caucasus is not unique in its limited performance on regional integration. Central
Asia is viewed as another example of regionalism failure (Krapohl and Vasileva-Dienes 2020). As
Amitav Acharya (2016) shows, the need to safeguard national sovereignty has motivated much of
the regional integration projects across regions outside the Western world: “the foundational goal of
most regional groups in the post-colonial non-Western world was autonomy, defined as the
protection and preservation of state sovereignty and developing resilience against external intervention, whether from within or outside the region” (Acharya 2016, 117).
Such national sovereignty considerations have been instrumental in shaping political elites’
views on, and predispositions with regards to, region-building initiatives and their discursive
construction of alternative regional orders, which did not necessarily overlap with the Russian
imperial or Soviet-era mappings of these territorial areas or externally imposed views of these three
countries as constituting a single integrated region called “South Caucasus.” State elites thus
engaged in discursive reconstructions that often went beyond conventional topographic mappings
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
3
or commonly used geographic designations. Weak regionalism in the South Caucasus thus stems, in
part, from the ways in which state elites engaged in social construction of alternative regionalist
narratives, which often eluded the common views of this part of Central Eurasia being a region
labeled “South Caucasus.” Georgian elites have emphasized their country’s geographic location in
the Black Sea area closer to Eastern Europe – rather than the South Caucasus – to signal their
country’s belonging to the broader European civilization. This vision, of course, springs from
Georgia’s acute sense of vulnerability, exacerbated by Russian military invasion in 2018, and the
determination of Georgian elites to become part of Euro-Atlantic political and defense structures
(Gvalia et al. 2013; Abbasov and Siroky 2018). Landlocked Armenia, on the other hand, aspires to be
part of the West but, until recently, has been pushed into dependence on Russia because of “its
desire to hold on to Nagorno-Karabakh” (Nodia 2017, 72).
Owing to its vast oil and gas resources as well as its geopolitical location, Azerbaijan appears to be
a key player not only in terms of advancing regional cooperation in the South Caucasus, but also as
an indispensable actor in the geoeconomics and energy politics of a much larger Central Eurasian
region (Cutler 2020). It is also the EU’s largest trading partner in the region (Bayramov 2022),
supplying around 4.3% of the European Union’s oil imports in 2021 (EEAS 2021) and 5.9% of the
EU’s non-LNG gas imports in the third quarter of 2023 (Eurostat 2023).
The goal of this article is twofold: first, it aims to identify key narrative frames in the presidential
discourses on regionalism in Azerbaijan. Second, it seeks to uncover conditions underpinning the
emergence and crystallization of these specific discursive frames in Azerbaijani leaders’ construction of regionalist projects. Drawing on the realist and ideational approaches in regionalism studies,
this article looks at how a distinct set of country-specific variables – a landlocked location, national
sovereignty vulnerabilities, Turkic cultural affinities, and the political-economy of oil and gas –
conditioned the construction of a specific regional identity through presidential discourses in
Azerbaijan. It shows how distinct national security threats shaped Azerbaijani leaders’ views with
regard to regional initiatives and strategic allies driving preferences for alternative integrationist
initiatives centered around the idea of Turkic solidarity and the construction of an East-West transit
route – these two projects often portrayed as mutually reinforcing. In the security realm, the conflict
with Armenia over the Mountainous Karabakh region – a region situated within Azerbaijan’s
internationally recognized borders but claimed by Armenia (Huseynov 2010) – has shaped
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy choices and strategies influencing the state elite’s construction of a
specific conception of a region and Azerbaijan’s place in it. The article identifies two key narratives
in Azerbaijani presidential discourses on regionalism: a political one emphasizing Baku’s “brotherly
ties” and military partnership with Turkey crystallized, over the past decades, into the idea of the
“Turkic World.” On economic regionalism, the key discursive theme can be identified as a set of
ideas packaged under various labels such as the revival of “The Great Silk Road,” the construction of
an “East-West Corridor” or the “Trans-Caspian Corridor” (Starr 2007; Guliyev and Akhrarkhodjaeva 2009; Ziyadov 2011). While the first frame is concerned with the Turkic cultural and political
integration within the Turkic World, the second regionalist frame – for which the shorthand of “Silk
Road” will be used – is pivoted around the Caspian Basin area and its petroleum deposits as well as
the movement of goods via this route. Rather than the narrowly situated in the Caucasus,
Azerbaijan is portrayed by this discourse as a strategically important “node” or a “hub” connecting
Europe with Asia. In this account, the Caucasus and Central Asia are designated as two regions that
are inextricably linked – both culturally as Turkic-speaking countries and commercially through
the centuries-old Silk Road – via the Caspian Sea, with Baku serving as a pivotal connecting point.
Notably, this discourse extends the spatial boundaries of the Russian-imposed colonial-era concept
of Transcaucasia (Закавказье/ Zakavkaziie) to also include Turkey and the littoral states on the
eastern coast of the Caspian Sea. Both Russia and Iran are either excluded from these discursive
frames or are seen as parts of competing transit routes and regional groupings. Juxtaposed against
Russia-led regional initiatives (e.g., the Eurasian Economic Union; EAEU) through which Moscow
has sought to reassert its influence in this once Russian-dominated region, Azerbaijan’s “Silk Road”
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
4
Farid Guliyev
regionalist project – inclusive of all Turkic-speaking countries – thus construed stems from the
perceived need to bypass and perhaps even to escape Russia’s orbit physically and overcome the
region’s legacy infrastructure that inescapably linked it to Russia in the past. It should therefore be
understood as a markedly counter-hegemonic project rooted in Azerbaijani leaders’ and society’s
collective memories of Russian subjugation of Azerbaijan in the course of 19th and 20th centuries,
as well as Moscow’s efforts to subvert independent Azerbaijani statehood in the early 1990s. The
Russian military alliance with Armenia and Moscow’s efforts to undermine Caspian energy and
transit projects in the 1990s contributed to the dominant perception of Russia as a source of threat
(Ismayilov 2018), giving rise to alternative projects for regional cooperation.
The article proceeds by laying out a theoretical framework and methodology. Then, it looks at
Azerbaijan’s approach to security- and political-economy-driven discursive constructions of both
political and economic regionalism and their respective framings by Azerbaijani leaders. It
concludes by assessing the viability of the “Silk Road” concept and a discussion of challenges in
its implementation and broader implications for regional integration.
Theoretical Framework
A growing body of literature in comparative regionalism tends to define regions as socially
constructed – by politically-relevant elites and actors – rather than merely geographically predetermined and fixed entities or processes. Börzel and Risse (2016) define regionalism “as
constituting a primarily state-led process of building and sustaining formal regional institutions
and organizations among at least three states.” Other scholars define regionalism as “those state-led
projects of co-operation that emerge as a result of intergovernmental dialogues and treaties”
(Breslin, Higgott, and Rosamond 2002, 13), suggesting “a policy of cooperation and coordination
among actors within a given region” (Fawn 2009, 13).
While there are ongoing scholarly debates on the precise meaning of regionalism, one school of
thought defines regionalism as “the ideas, identities and ideologies related to a regional project”
(Söderbaum 2003, 7). This approach to regionalism that evades geographically fixed notions also
views regionalism as constantly changing and shifting. Similar to Benedict Anderson’s insightful
definition of nations as “imagined communities” (Anderson 1983), a region may also be thought of
as “a process and a social construction” (Hettne 2003, 28). Using the case of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Acharya (2000), highlights the importance of regionalist
discourses to the processes of region construction. Moving beyond the conventional understanding
of a region as something defined by geographic location and shared cultural and historic experiences, regions can be better conceptualized as “imagined communities created by processes of
interaction and socialization which may lead to different conceptions of what constitutes a given
region at different points of time” (Acharya 2000, 27).
This view of regions as social constructs is often contrasted with a more traditional understanding of regions as territorially “bounded spaces.” In the social constructivist approach, regions are
sets of social relations and power constellations undergirded by the material base. In Anssi Passi’s
apt definition, regions are “institutional structures and processes that are perpetually ‘becoming’
instead of just ‘being’” (Paasi 2009, 133).
Even though regions can be viewed as socially constructed or imagined spaces, the process of
constructing a region takes place within a given country’s political and historical context and cannot
be separated from it. As Fawcett (2015) points out, elite ideas and beliefs play a crucial role in
shaping dominant discourses about regions and regionalism in Europe and beyond. In Africa, Latin
America, and the Middle East, collective identities and ideas acted “as a guide and constraint, setting
parameters for what is possible and acceptable” (Fawcett 2015, 38).
A regional integration project cannot be successful without the shared ideas and expectations
about the future of the region. Construction of a shared regional identity occurs through social
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
5
interactions and elite discourses in participating states and involves a complex interplay of actors,
institutions, identities, and norms (Acharya 2000).
However, regional construction involves both identity and material factors (Hemmer and
Katzenstein 2002). Social and political realities form a set of background variables that shape
relevant policymakers’ beliefs and ideas about regionalism. Such ideas are constituted by state
interests, defined primarily in terms of power and national security considerations. Interests and
preferences of elite actors in small states threatened by more powerful neighbors from the outside
and secessionist movements inside will inevitably revolve around the issues of independence and
sovereignty. Constraints on sovereignty are one of the key factors in explaining state capacity and
willingness to cooperate with other states: “It is sovereignty that still matters for states, and the
attachment to sovereignty will always check and balance any cooperative project – particularly
where that sovereignty is fragile, having only recently been obtained” (Fawcett 2004, 443).
Sovereignty concerns are particularly pronounced for smaller states such as the three states in the
South Caucasus. Smallness here indicates the “small” level of power and capabilities (Elman 1995,
171; Jesse and Dreyer 2016, 6). The level of resource capabilities influences the scope of foreign
policy, and small states command limited capabilities to confront or defend themselves against
regional hegemonic powers such as Russia, China, or the United States. Jesse and Dreyer (2016, 10)
define small states as those states that are “always weak at global and regional levels, but strong at a
sub-regional level.” In the realist tradition, to defend themselves against an external threat, small
states must either align or bandwagon with great powers (Waltz 1979; Mearsheimer 2001). In the
South Caucasus and Central Asia, small states have engaged in an intricate alliance politics
reflecting these incentives of state survival amid geopolitical competition: Georgia has sought
membership in the Euro-Atlantic community, Armenia chose to bandwagon with Russia by joining
the Moscow-led CSTO military alliance and hosting the Russian military bases (Abbasov and
Siroky 2018), and Azerbaijan pursued a more balanced foreign policy strengthening ties with
Turkey to counterbalance Russia (Cornell 2017). Gvalia and colleagues (2013) argue that Georgia’s
pursuit of Western-oriented foreign policy cannot be explained by material factors alone – that is,
without also taking into account the dominant political elite discourse emphasizing a distinct
identity of Georgia as a European country and European integration as a conduit for the country’s
modernization.
Other scholars have emphasized market forces and the preferences of domestic political
coalitions or individual leaders as driving forces behind regional cooperation. For example,
economic integration on the European Union model was explained as being triggered by the
so-called spillover effects whereby “the creation and deepening of integration in one economic
sector would create pressures for further economic integration within and beyond that sector, and
greater authoritative capacity at the European level” (Rosamond 2000, 60). In this neo-functionalist
view, increased economic interdependence creates market pressures prompting states to establish
supra-national regional institutions that help to reduce uncertainty and transaction costs for
various transnational actors (Mattli 1999). Outside the European Union, domestic preferences of
state elites are considered to be key to understanding regional cooperation. In the context of Africa,
for example, Herbst (2007) argues that participation in multiple international and regional
platforms are often viewed by African leaders as a way to strengthen their country’s national
sovereignty. However, due to the heightened sense of insecurity in office, African leaders have used
membership in regional organizations to maintain their domestic power and ensure their regime’s
survival. In the case of Central Asia, membership in regional organizations dominated by Russia,
short of tangible efforts to promote intra-regional market integration, has been a strategy by state
elites to preserve their stay in power and as a shield against the liberal agenda promoted by the West
(Allison 2008). Some scholars even coined a new term of “authoritarian regionalism” to describe
regional organizations such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established by non-democratic regimes or led by a powerful
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
6
Farid Guliyev
authoritarian hegemon (such as Russia), which function mainly to prolong authoritarian rule in
their member states (Obydenkova and Libman 2019).
In some political-economy theories of regional integration, economic integration is driven by
states seeking to maximize expected economic gains from greater cooperation (Börzel 2016). In the
Global South, regional cooperation may also be pursued by state leaders’ desire to gain access to
international export markets and to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) (Krapohl and Fink
2013). Finally, a regional hegemonic power can play an important role in promoting or obstructing
regional integration. In Central Asia, the growing competition between China and Russia has had a
divergent impact on region-building in that region. Some scholars have argued that preference for
Russia-led regional projects reflects the Central Asian leaders’ interests in deflecting western
pressures for liberalization (Allison 2008) while others believe that Central Asian regionalism
was “captured by Russia and its Eurasian integration project” and is being increasingly challenged
by the growing influence of China (e.g., through its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative) (Krapohl
and Vasileva-Dienes 2020).
In sum, the literature review above suggests that on the one hand, fragility of national
sovereignty, a history of militarized conflict, and the small state status are predicted to be negatively
related to the pursuit of political integration or comprehensive forms of security cooperation at a
regional or sub-regional level. However, in the Global South, membership in regional organizations
is viewed positively when it helps to solidify national sovereignty. On the one hand, participation in
specific forms of regional institutions is also more likely when political leaders believe that regional
platforms will shore up their legitimacy and extend their tenure in power. Furthermore, states in the
Global South are more likely to promote regional cooperation when they expect to maximize
economic benefits from regional trade or seek access to export markets or when attracting FDI is
seen as key to promoting national economic growth. Finally, regional integration in Eurasia is
influenced by actions of regional hegemons, notably Russia and China, each pursuing its own
integrationist project.
Methodology
Data sources used in this study include publicly available presidential speeches, interviews and
official statements that refer to the themes of regionalism and regional integration. The period
covered spans 30 years between 1993 and mid-2023, and focuses on regionalism discourses of the
two presidents, Heydar Aliyev (1993–2003) and Ilham Aliyev (2003–present) (for more details on
data sources, see Appendix A in the online Supplemental Material).
To examine presidential speeches and statements, the study uses qualitative content analysis
(Kuckartz 2014), which proceeds in three steps. First, the relevant material was identified by
scanning presidential speeches, statements, and interviews using key words such as region,
integration, and geographic references to the region of South Caucasus or the Caspian region.
Second, the selected segments were compiled and translated into English. In total, 62 text passages
were included in the analysis. Third, the text passages were categorized and manually coded by the
author (Appendix B in the online Supplemental Material provides more details on the coding of
data). The analysis followed “intensive reading” of textual passages to identify recurring themes and
commonly used narratives (Gibbs 2007). Table 1 gives examples of text passages and their
respective coding.
There are two key limitations to this research. First, the selection of speeches is limited to those of
presidents and may therefore not be considered representative of the views of the entire political
elite, although it is reasonable to suggest that presidents play a paramount role in shaping foreign
policy and public discourses in super-presidentialist regimes such as that of Azerbaijan. Second,
narrative analysis is by nature an interpretivist exercise. The selected material can be read and
interpreted differently by other researchers.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
7
Table 1. Coding with Examples
Analytical Dimensions
Examples
Political–Security
Regionalism
“Full security conditions should be created in the Caucasus. To achieve this [goal], all
conflicts, especially the Armenian–Azerbaijani conflict, must be resolved as soon as
possible. The recognition of the territorial integrity of each independent state is of
particular importance. It is very important to create stability and peace in the Caucasus.”
(Heydar Aliyev, January 25, 2000)
Codes: Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict, Territorial integrity
“The strengthening of relations with Member States of the Organization of Turkic States in all
fields is one of the top priorities of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy. Azerbaijan has always
contributed to the close unity of the Turkic world and will continue to be committed to the
goals of unity of the Turkic world.” (Ilham Aliyev, November 11, 2022)
Codes: Turkic World
Economic Regionalism
“I want to emphasize the Baku–Tbilisi–Kars railway connecting Europe with Asia. This railway
line will link continents. Our countries will become transit states… This is a huge
geopolitical and geo–economic project, a project of cooperation. I am confident that we
will celebrate completion of this project in the near future, next year, thus reviving the
historic Silk Road.” (Ilham Aliyev, August 16, 2013)
Codes: Transit route, Silk Road
Source: Appendix B in online Supplemental Material
Examining Azerbaijani Presidential Discourses on Regionalism
Restoring sovereignty over its entire territory in a geopolitically hostile environment (Russia to the
north and Iran to the south) has been a foreign policy priority for Azerbaijani leadership since the
full-scale war with Armenia in the early 1990s. Therefore, the pursuit of a regional security
arrangement that would include Armenia has been ruled out outright. In the early 1990s,
Azerbaijan and Armenia fought a war in which Azerbaijan lost its former autonomous region of
Nagorno-Karabakh and seven adjacent districts around it. As a result, more than 700,000
Azerbaijanis were forcibly displaced from the conflict-affected areas. A Russian-mediated ceasefire
agreement ended that war in 1994. In the autumn of 2020, the conflict that had been considered to
be “frozen” for decades erupted again into a full-scale war.3 The Second Karabakh War that lasted
44 days resulted in Armenia’s defeat and Azerbaijan’s recovery of most of its previously occupied
territories. On November 10, the sides signed a Russian-brokered ceasefire agreement. According to
the Trilateral Statement (2020), Armenia agreed to withdraw its troops from remaining occupied
districts and from Mountainous Karabakh itself. The sides also agreed to allow for the deployment
of some 2,000 Russian peacekeepers to Mountainous Karabakh and the Lachin road to patrol
the area.
To achieve its goal, Azerbaijan has generally shunned away from pursuing membership in
regional security organizations. Azerbaijan has remained a member of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS), but Baku saw little value in joining other Eurasian integration projects
advanced by Moscow (Cornell 2014). Within-regional integration in military and security domains
was ruled out due to the ongoing conflict with Armenia. Azerbaijan enthusiastically embraced
partnership with NATO and joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program; but unlike Georgia, it
did not formally seek membership. After the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, deepening the
country’s Euro-Atlantic integration seemed too costly for Baku considering threats emanating from
a more assertive Russian policy in the “near abroad.” As for the Russian-led Collective Security
Treaty Organization (CSTO), Azerbaijani elites suspected that this was the Kremlin’s plan to extend
its influence in the region and chose to opt out. Instead, Azerbaijan aligned itself with Turkey with
which it shares identity-based affinity rooted in language and culture (MacFarlane 2015). In short,
limited or non-participation in regional security organizations has been a key strategy of Baku,
which focused instead on the policy of balancing and pursuing a bilateral military partnership with
Turkey within the discursive frame of “one nation, two states.” As an extension of this ideology, in
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
8
Farid Guliyev
recent years Baku cultivated ties with Turkic-speaking nations in Central Asia within an increasingly institutionalized regional initiative known as the Organization of Turkic States (OTS) (see
Table 2). The OTS has become an important tool in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy toolbox, especially
after summits began to be held since 2011; and the OTS evolved into a full-fledged regional
organization over the following decade (Shafiyev 2023). The Turkic unity discourse is a good
example of what Paasi calls the “mobilization of collective memory” whereby identity narratives are
mobilized for the process of region-building (Paasi 2009, 133).
On economic regionalism, Azerbaijan’s comparative advantage in hydrocarbons and its geographic location gave rise from the mid-1990s onward to the discourse on “The Great Silk Road” or
the “East-West Corridor” as a meta-narrative. The discourse has its intellectual roots in a new
identity search in the early 1990s when Azerbaijan emerged as a newly independent state out of the
painful collapse of the Soviet Union. This discourse aligned well with Azerbaijan’s Western-leaning
foreign policy course adopted at that time, which was gradually replaced by a more balancing
posture vis-à-vis Russia. One local expert summed up this discourse in the following words: “Baku
will act as a gateway to Central Asia for Europe and a door to Europe for Central Asia and China. It
has the potential to become a ‘hub of hubs’ on the Caspian Sea” (Ziyadov 2011, 5). Table 3 presents
key themes in presidential discourses that emphasize the centrality of the Silk Road in the political
discourse; but of course, these ideas are not new and date back to the Heydar Aliyev’s era in the
1990s and early 2000s. For example, in his speech delivered during the meeting with the US Senator
Sam Brownback on September 8, 2000, Heydar Aliyev is quoted as saying: “As you can see, the
Caspian Sea is at the center of the Great Silk Road… Azerbaijan is located in the most important
strategic region of the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea, connecting Europe with Asia and the West
with the East” (Aliyev 2000).
Unsurprisingly, Azerbaijan’s “Silk Road” discourse encompasses Georgia and Turkey, but not
Armenia. It partly overlaps with some of the visions espoused by Georgia’s elites – with a focus on its
Table 2. Key Themes in Political-Security Regionalism Discourse
Key Themes
Obstacles to regional integration
• Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict as an obstacle to regional integration
• State sovereignty
• Territorial integrity
Meaning(s) of regionalism
•
•
•
•
Crossroads between Europe and Asia
Caspian Basin
Central Asian connection
Turkic World
Source: Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4 in online Supplemental Material
Table 3. Key Themes in Economic Regionalism Discourse
Key Themes
Meaning(s) of regional economic integration
Source: Appendix C, Tables 3 and 4 in online Supplemental Material
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Transit route
Energy exports
Energy transportation
Regional hub
East–West Corridor
Silk Road
Caspian energy (oil and gas)
Railway connection
Cargo shipment
Infrastructure projects
Nationalities Papers
9
connection to the Black Sea region – but Tbilisi later appears to have been distancing itself from its
counterparts in the South Caucasus as the (post)-Rose Revolution elites announced membership in
the European Union and NATO as their desired end goal. This highlights how political elites in
these two countries advocated divergent and frequently shifting concepts of regionalism, which
offered competing or even conflicted narratives.
Explaining the Framing of Political and Security Regionalism
In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Caucasus was in disarray. Secessionist
movements, ethnic conflicts, civil wars, and economic disintegration tore the three countries apart.
Describing this period with the Russian word raspad (“collapse”), Huttenbach wrote, “In sum,
ethnic disputes ranging from non-violent secession movements, open rebellions, violent separatism, to civil war, and quasi-inter-state war have characterized the last twelve months in Caucasia.”
In all three countries, war and chaos of the early 1990s still leaves “a heavy legacy” (1992, 90).
The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the breakaway region of Mountainous Karabakh
contributed to further regional fragmentation as the borders between the two states have been
closed and railway connections discontinued. The war in and around Karabakh has been the single
most important factor inhibiting regional integration for decades and has dominated Azerbaijan’s
foreign policy agenda ever since. At present, there is no overarching regional security institution to
which all the three countries can refer for guaranteeing security – instead, individual states pursue
different security alliances. As a result, regional security in the South Caucasus can be characterized
by a “security deficit” since the 1990s (Ismayil and Yilmaz 2022). In the military-security domain –
lacking a stronger integrationist drive and shared views of a regional identity – Azerbaijan’s elites
opted out of the dichotomy of Western vs. Russian security blocs, pursuing instead a pragmatic
policy of bilateral partnership with Turkey and, by extension, with other Turkic-speaking states in
Central Asia. Azerbaijan’s long-standing conflict with Armenia, Yerevan’s strategic alliance with
Russia, and Georgia’s strategic orientation toward NATO minimized the chances of the establishment of a regional security integration scheme. In fact, Armenia is the only state in the South
Caucasus with membership in all the major Russian-led regional organizations: the CIS, the CSTO,
and the EAEU (German 2022). In its balanced foreign policy, Baku has been treading a thin line
balancing between the West and Russia without seeking formal membership in either NATO or the
CSTO. Azerbaijan carefully leverages its strong and reliable partnership with Turkey and ties with
OTS member-states to counter Russian influence and to promote its security goals vis-à-vis
Armenia.
On the eve of Soviet collapse, Azerbaijan entered a period of internal political turmoil exacerbated by the conflict with its ethnic Armenian minority, which was backed up by Armenia proper in
the former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region. The conflict began in 1988 and escalated into a
full-blown war from 1992 to 1994. As the central communist government’s grip on the Caucasus
region continued to loosen, the local struggle for power intensified. The struggle involved the
(former) communists who tried, with Moscow’s help, to retain power, and their opponents
representing the Azerbaijan Popular Front (APF), the pro‐independence nationalist movement
established by Azerbaijani academics and intellectuals in 1988 (Fuller 1996). On January 19–20 of
1990, the Kremlin sent troops and tanks to Baku to suppress the pro-independence movement, a
tragic event in which 147 civilians were killed and hundreds were injured. That event went down in
history as the “Black January.” After Soviet violent crackdown on mass protests in Baku in January
1990, Ayaz Mutalibov was installed by the Kremlin as the first secretary of the Azerbaijan
Communist Party, and in September 1991, he assumed the newly created office of the presidency
in the election poll in which he was the only candidate. In late February 1992, Armenian troops
occupied the Azerbaijani-populated town of Khojaly in Nagorno-Karabakh and massacred its
almost entire civilian population. The 366th Russian Motorized Rifle Regiment had a hand in the
massacre of 613 Azerbaijani civilians in Khojaly, and reportedly supplied weaponry and troops to
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10
Farid Guliyev
the Armenian side after it got disbanded (Goltz 1993). Facing criticism in the Supreme Soviet for
allowing the massacre to happen, Mutalibov was forced to resign. Yagub Mammadov was
appointed as interim president. In May, Mutalibov made a comeback but was expelled from
office following the APF-led mass protests in Baku. Isa Gambar, one of the leaders of the APF,
assumed the duties of interim president pending presidential elections. In June, presidential
elections were held and the chairman of the APF and former Soviet dissident Abulfaz Elchibey
won the race with 60% of the vote. The APF government remained in office for only one year, and
by the end of its tenure in office, the Popular Front lost much of its initial popularity. Analysts
believe that three factors contributed to the failure of the APF government: their lack of
administrative experience and competence, their inability to address declining socioeconomic
conditions, and the poor performance of the Azerbaijani army in the Karabakh battlefield
(Altstadt 1997, 133–137).
In June 1993, Elchibey’s government was facing a threat of an armed coup by Colonel Suret
Huseynov, backed by his private army stationed in the city of Ganja and allegedly supported by
Russia. By the time of the coup, Elchibey had no effective control of his cabinet and some of his
ministers were openly quarrelling with each other. When Elchibey dismissed Isgandar Hamidov,
the minister of internal affairs who had the loyal troops under his personal control, Elchibey was left
defenseless. In an attempt to save his position, Elchibey turned to Heydar Aliyev, a former first
secretary of the country’s communist party (appointed in 1969), Politburo member and KGB
general. But, as a New York Times journalist allegorically observed, “calling on Mr. Aliyev for help
was somewhat like calling in the fox to restore order among the chickens” (Schmemann 1993).
Aliyev arrived in Baku from his political base in the exclave of Nakhchivan and took the
chairmanship of the parliament on June 15. On June 18, Elchibey fled to his home in Nakhchivan
to later continue his political career as an opposition leader. In October 1993, Aliyev won the
presidential election with 99% of the vote and thereafter succeeded in consolidating his power. In
2003, the poor health of President Heydar Aliyev engendered a potentially destabilizing succession
crisis. But the problem of succession was resolved by orchestrating a transfer of power to his son.
Ilham Aliyev, the son of the ailing president, was nominated as a candidate and was running for
presidency together with his father until the latter pulled out of the race in favor of his son (Mydans
2003).
It is well known that in the early 1990s the government of Abulfaz Elchibey (1992–1993) took a
staunch anti-Russian stance. Under Elchibey, Baku forced Russia to withdraw its troops from
Azerbaijani territory, refused to join any Russian-led regional integration initiatives, prioritized its
strategically important ties with Turkey, and took a pro-Western foreign policy course. The
Elchibey government also declined to ratify the CIS treaty and opposed to becoming a member
of the Collective Security Treaty signed in May 1992 (Cornell 2014). Because this angered Russia,
Moscow used the conflict in Karabakh as a tool to exert pressure on Azerbaijan (Eyvazov 2016, 68)
for its Western-leaning course, which the Kremlin was not prepared to tolerate. It was Russia’s
military support that tilted the first war in Armenia’s favor, leading to Azerbaijan’s military defeat.
In 1993, the Azerbaijani army retreat and territorial losses produced a domestic political turmoil
and a Russian-backed military coup that led to Elchibey’s downfall.
When Heydar Aliyev came to power in June 1993, he reversed some of the policies of the
previous government by pursuing a more “balanced” foreign policy (Cornell 2001, 347). Russia
should not be discounted completely, Aliyev argued, but Western oil companies were prioritized in
developing Azerbaijan’s oil sector (Eyvazov 2016). US-based oil majors, in particular, were seen by
President Aliyev as an important element of a strategy to elevate Azerbaijan’s importance in US
foreign policy (Cornell 2001, 364). Baku reluctantly rejoined the CIS, despite the widespread
perceptions that this and other Moscow-led integration frameworks were “instruments of
Russia’s political strategy, specifically to recreate something akin to the Soviet space, to which
Azerbaijan was compelled to take part in order to avert state failure” (Cornell 2014, 147). Due to
unfavorable views of Russia and collective memory of Russia following the Black January of 1990 as
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
11
well as Moscow’s support for Armenia in the Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijani leadership sought to
evade Russian-led regional integrationist projects, and Baku declined to join the CSTO when the
military bloc was formally established in 2002. The perception of Russia as a “hegemony-seeking
power” dominated the public opinion; for this reason, Russia was viewed as a “source of threat” to
the country’s sovereignty (Ismayilov 2018, 181). Azerbaijan has kept membership in the CIS, which
itself is viewed as a failure and “almost anachronistic and frequently irrelevant to political,
economic, and security considerations in the post-Soviet” (Kubicek 2009, 256).
Balancing (against Russia) continued to be a key foreign policy strategy when Ilham Aliyev
became president in 2003 (Ismayilov 2018; Guliyev 2021). Azerbaijan took steps toward Western
integration. Azerbaijan signed an Independent Partnership Action Plan with NATO in 2005, and
Azerbaijani troops participated in NATO peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Azerbaijan and the EU signed the EU-Azerbaijan Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 1999;
Azerbaijan joined the EU’s Eastern Partnership Program in 2009, and negotiations are currently
under way to sign a new partnership agreement (Kamilsoy and Zamejc 2022).
In the security field, since 1993, Azerbaijan capitalized on its ties with Turkey, viewing it as a way
to counterbalance Russian influence (Cornell 2017). Pro-Western Georgia was also seen as part of
Baku’s strategy of building the east-west corridor for transit of Caspian hydrocarbon resources. In
1997, together with Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova, Azerbaijan established a regional organization
called GUAM as a mechanism to strengthen ties with the West and to promote a Europe-Asia
transit corridor, which was viewed as a safeguard against Russian growing hegemonic ambitions in
the post-Soviet space (Kubicek 2009, 246).
Turkey, in its turn, saw Georgia and Azerbaijan as its land route to connect to Central Asia
(Cornell 2017, 11). Strategic partnership with Turkey has been instrumental in the training of
Azerbaijani armed forces and bringing its military capacity up to Western standards
(Yalçınkaya 2021). Oil windfalls that began to accrue to the state coffers around mid-2000s
enabled Baku to bolster its defense budget and modernize its military forces (Eyvazov 2016, 76).
The improved military capacity played a decisive role in achieving military success in the 2020
war. On June 15, 2021, Azerbaijani President Aliyev and Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan signed the “Shusha Declaration on Allied Relations between the Republic of
Azerbaijan and the Republic of Turkey” in the symbolic city of Shusha (Şuşa). This milestone
document of strategic partnership envisages “joint efforts aimed at reorganizing and modernizing the armed forces of the two fraternal countries in accordance with modern requirements”
(Shusha Declaration 2021).
As an outgrowth of its strategic alliance based on “fraternal relations” with Turkey, Azerbaijan
cultivated the idea of deepening political and economic ties with other Turkic-speaking countries in
Central Asia by taking steps to institutionalize a new cooperation grouping formed around the idea
of Turkic solidarity (or unity). The Organization of Turkic States (OTS) is a regional organization
with headquarters in Istanbul was founded on November 1, 2012, on the basis of the Nakhchivan
Agreement of October 3, 2009, signed by the heads of state of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Uzbekistan, and Turkey. The stated goal is to “promote deeper relations and solidarity amongst
Turkic speaking countries… particularly in Central Asia and Caucasus” (OTS n.d.). The idea of the
Turkic World is, of course, linked to a similar discourse espoused by the Turkish foreign policy
establishment that positions Turkey as the leader of a “pan-Turkic community” and dates back to
the 1990s. Baku can be said to reproduce this Turkish discourse. As Köstem (2017) pointed out,
“During a period when Turkey’s national identity was under fierce contestation, ideologically
compatible Turkish decision makers in the 1990s rapidly adopted the idea of the ‘Turkic World’
promoted by nonstate actors so much so that the concept came to acquire a ‘taken for granted’ status
among the Turkish political elites” (Köstem 2017, 723).
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan have overlapping membership in the CIS,
and Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are also member-states in the Russian-led defense bloc CSTO.
Through the shared OTS membership, Baku’s has been using OTS to garner support of these
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
12
Farid Guliyev
Central Asian states in other regional platforms, such as the CSTO. Armenia tried during the 2016
escalation to leverage its CSTO membership against Azerbaijan, but to no avail as the CSTO opted
for neutrality (Guliyev and Gawrich 2021). It looks as if Baku’s strategy of using overlapping
membership might have worked as the CSTO’s response in the case of skirmishes on the border
with Armenia following the war in 2020 was equally muted. At the outset of the Second Karabakh
War, the secretary general of the OTS (then called Turkic Council) issued a statement, which,
referring to the UN Security Council resolutions of 1993, demanded “an immediate, unconditional
and full withdrawal of the armed forces of Armenia from all occupied territories of the Republic of
Azerbaijan” (Turkic Council 2020). The CSTO’s non-interference prompted criticism of the
CSTO’s inaction and Yerevan’s refusal to host CSTO military drills planned to be held in Armenia
in 2023 (Avetisyan 2023).
To sum up, integration with Georgia and Armenia into some sort of a united South Caucasus
community was off the table for Azerbaijani elites due to the unresolved conflict with Armenia
alongside Armenia’s and Georgia’s pursuit of alternative security alignments. These divergent
paths taken by each of the three states pulled them even further away from the idea of building a
collective security governance structure within the Caucasus. Instead, bolstered by its oil wealth,
Azerbaijan pursued a relatively “independent foreign policy” (Broers 2018), balancing between
Russian and Western interests but without committing itself to any geopolitical bloc. Turkey has
been a key strategic partner allowing Baku to keep Moscow at bay. Furthermore, Azerbaijan
leveraged Turkic solidarity through the OTS and Kazakhstan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s overlapping
membership of the CSTO to counteract and neutralize Armenia’s ability to mobilize a potential
CSTO collective military intervention in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict when a second war
erupted in 2020.
Explaining Economic Regionalism Discourse
A combination of geography and international linkages are key in shaping Azerbaijan’s foreign
policy discourse on regional economic integration. The Caspian region is landlocked, which makes
construction of cross-border pipelines indispensable in delivering hydrocarbon riches of Caspian
littoral states to energy-consuming markets in Europe and China. Partnership with Western oil
majors and securing access to European markets has been a strategic choice for official Baku.
Coupled with oil wealth, this “landlocked predicament” placed transit and transportation as central
issues in Azerbaijan’s foreign policy agenda (Idan and Shaffer 2011). In the early 1990s, Azerbaijan
needed to attract foreign capital and technical expertise to develop its oil and gas sector (Bayulgen
2010, 87–89). Moreover, a new pipeline infrastructure had to be built to export Azerbaijani oil and
gas to Western markets. At the same time, the Caspian Basin gained strategic importance in US
foreign policy throughout the 1990s (Bashirov 2023). US-based oil companies were among the
biggest investors in the Caspian region, and the US provided diplomatic support for the construction of a strategically important infrastructure project – the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline – as part
of its East-West Energy Corridor Initiative (Orazgaliyev 2017). This has conditioned a specific
mode of linkages of Azerbaijan’s oil-dependent economy to the international economic system,
tying up the country’s oil and gas sector to Western-bound global oil supply chains. Western export
pipelines also created Western-vested interest in Azerbaijan’s oil and gas sector. This Westernoriented policy was also partly a strategy of decoupling from Russia and gaining national economic
independence. Linkage to the West was seen as a strategic priority for Azerbaijan – or to put it in the
words of the former foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov (2007, 41), as “a function of our
national sovereignty.”
There has been a rather weak demand for economic integration within the South Caucasus as
most of the trade is outward-oriented. Top export partners for Azerbaijan are Italy and Turkey;
Russia is a key export market for Armenia, and for Georgia, key trading partners are China, Russia,
and Turkey. Armenia has been a member of the EAEU, and there are no transactions between
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
13
Azerbaijan and Armenia. All three countries vary on levels of economic liberalization, from the
highest level in Georgia to moderate for Armenia and the state-dominated economic model of
Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani economy is heavily dependent on oil and gas, necessitating a specific
linkage of the ruling elites to the international oil value chain. The region also suffers due to a lack of
a leading economic powerhouse in the neighborhood, similar to the role played by Japan or China
for East Asia with strong regional spillover effects. The only form of partially regionalist cooperation
is the dense network of energy pipeline projects and railway links connecting Azerbaijan with
Georgia and Turkey. In sum, economic preconditions to foster economic interactions in the South
Caucasus have been insufficiently advanced, which resulted in a weak demand for greater withinregion integration. This indicates a limited applicability of the neo-functionalist theory to the South
Caucasus. Instead, specific economic patterns led to the emergence of alternative regionalist
initiatives – notably, the new Silk Road and its reincarnation in the form suited to the comparative
advantage of Azerbaijan (namely, its abundant oil and gas reserves). This discourse was first
championed by the EU, which, in the early 1990s, initiated a plan to renovate transport links to
improve connection to Central Asia and onward to China known as the Transport Corridor
Europe-Caucasus Asia (TRACECA). In recent years, it received a second impetus after China
launched its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
As noted above, Azerbaijani leaders’ key regionalist discourse has been the notion of the Caspian
Region in which Azerbaijan is envisioned to play the dual role of a key supplier and an important
transit for Central Asian oil and gas and goods (Guliyev and Akhrarkhodjaeva 2009; Idan and
Shaffer 2011). Mostly, these are oil and gas infrastructure projects to ship Azerbaijani petroleum
resources to Western markets. Notably, while keeping a membership seat in the CIS, Azerbaijan has
kept distance from Russian economic integrationist initiatives, such as the Customs Union and
Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Baku pursued this policy without alienating Russia completely.
Thus, as a way of “appeasing Moscow” (Bayulgen 2010, 93), Russia’s Lukoil was allowed to get a
stake in the major oil contract – called the “contract of the century,” signed in 1994 between
Azerbaijan and a consortium of Western oil majors – and some of Azerbaijani “early oil” was
transported through the Northern Route through the Russia’s Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. The
involvement of Western oil majors also played a domestic political function: Western FDIs were
seen by the Azerbaijani policy-makers as a tool of garnering Western support for territorial integrity
and sovereignty of their state (Bayramov 2019, 171).
In this geospatial narrative, Azerbaijan is viewed as a key node in Europe-Asia transportation
corridor (Avropa-Asiya nəqliyyat dəhlizi). In Azerbaijani public discourse, Azerbaijan’s former
president Heydar Aliyev is portrayed as a mastermind behind the revival of the historic Silk Road by
being one of the ardent proponents of the TRACECA regional connectivity initiative (Qurbanov
2019), the project launched by the EU in 1993. A milestone conference under the title “TRACECA –
Rehabilitation of the Historical Silk Route” was held in September 1998 in Baku. Alongside the
construction of a transit corridor integrating the TRACECA transport corridor with the TransEuropean Transport Networks (TEN), this EU-funded project meant to serve as “a region-building
initiative” helping countries along the route to overcome barriers in technical areas (Ziyadov 2007;
Abilov and Hajiyev 2022).
As the former presidential aide Ali Hasanov (2015) noted,
from a geopolitical and geoeconomic point of view, Azerbaijan is considered the gateway to
Eurasia [Avrasiyanın giriş qapısı] and is a pivotal state of the East-West transport and
communication corridors [Şərq-Qərb nəqliyyat-kommunikasiya dəhlizlərinin mərkəzi
dövləti]. Azerbaijan is also the driving force behind the Trans-Caucasian transport corridor
(TRACECA) and the strategically important Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway.
In 2006, a major energy infrastructure project – the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline – linking the
Caspian Sea with the Mediterranean Sea was launched. The pipeline transports Caspian – mostly
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
14
Farid Guliyev
Azerbaijani – oil from the Caspian region to Western markets. The Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas
pipeline was built in 2007. Then came the implementation of the $40 billion Southern Gas Corridor
(SGC) – Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey being main players – to transport natural gas from the
Shah Deniz-2 field. The project has four parts: full-scale development of “Shah Deniz” gas
condensate field, the expansion of the South Caucasus Pipeline (SCPX) (a gas pipeline connecting
Azerbaijan with Georgia), the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP project), and its final
leg, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) project. The Southern Gas Corridor was inaugurated in May
2018 in Baku, and the TANAP pipeline was inaugurated in Eskişehir in June the same year. The
supply of Azerbaijani natural gas to the European market through TAP began in December 2020
(Ministry of Energy of Azerbaijan 2023). It has the capacity to ship up to 16 bcm [billion cubic
meters] of gas annually, with 6 bcm earmarked for Turkey and 10 bcm to European markets. In July
2022, a memorandum was signed between the European Commission and Azerbaijan to double
imports of Azerbaijani natural gas to the EU to 20 bcm per year by 2027, but additional investments
are needed to reach this target.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Kars (BKT) rail link, with its inauguration in October 2017, is believed to be
another milestone in realization of this Silk Road vision. Symbolically, the BTK railway was
inaugurated as the “Iron Silk Road” linked to China’s One Belt One Road initiative (TRT 2017).
One has to note the state-centrist, top-down, and elite-driven nature of these initiatives, whereas
especially in the oil and gas sector and transportation of energy resources, the state acts as a leading
actor – sometimes in partnership with oil multinationals such as BP. Energy initiatives – as state-led
projects – have limited scope and spillover effects on regional integration, as would have been the
case if these projects were driven by private firms or corporate interests, broadly understood. Oil
and gas exports do not require dense networks of intra-regional cooperation to materialize.
Infrastructure projects are key here – and they were seen as a major element of Baku’s approach
to regionalism. In this respect, the regional economic initiatives are tailored to serve the interests of
political-economic elites and their multinational partners, rather than the interests of nascent
domestic private companies.
Here, the crucial components of Azerbaijan’s self-identified regional role is to serve as a supplier
and transit of Caspian energy to EU markets (Bayramov 2022). This is aligned with EU’s search for
alternatives to Russian oil and gas amid the war in Ukraine. The launch of the Southern Gas
Corridor was a milestone in laying out a supply line of Azerbaijani gas to Europe. In July 2022, the
EU and Azerbaijan signed a Memorandum on Strategic Partnership to increase supplies of gas from
Azerbaijan to the bloc.
In addition to the energy sector, Azerbaijan portends to play a key role as a transportation hub –
through the Trans-Caspian International Transportation Route (TITR), or Middle Corridor
(Kenderdine and Bucsky 2021), which is seen as one of the belts of the BRI announced in 2013
and formalized in 2015. This project is believed to be an area of overlapping EU and Chinese
interests and the South Caucasus by being the shortest rail route from China to Europe, and
promised to benefit Georgia and Azerbaijan which position themselves as strategically located
transit hubs (Rzayev and Huseynov 2018).
Baku endorsed the BRI from the very beginning. President Aliyev paid a visit to China in
December 2015 where he signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Joint Promotion of the “Silk
Road Economic Belt” between the government of Azerbaijan and China (Bogdan and Najdov
2020). The two governments later agreed on additional investment projects with a total amount of
$821 million. Despite this, Chinese investment into the Azerbaijani economy remained relatively
low, accounting for about $800 million (as of 2018). Azerbaijan is considered to be a part of the
China-Central Asia-West Asia Economic Corridor, chiefly the Trans-Caucasus Transit Corridor
(TCTC) linking China with Europe. This corridor is seen as an alternative to the northern Russian
route (Bogdan and Najdov 2020).
Despite opportunities and expectations that “China will likely expand cooperation through
investing in logistics and infrastructure projects” (Shahbazov 2018), all infrastructure projects along
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
15
this Middle Corridor were funded by the Azerbaijani government, including the new Baku port in
Alat and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway. China has so far invested little into this project (Bogdan and
Najdov 2020). As Mardell (2019) noted, “the BKT is often associated with the BRI in official
statements, but neither Chinese finance nor Chinese companies were involved. Beijing has also been
largely absent from port developments around the Caspian Sea. The new ports of Baku and Kuryk
are keen to stress their relevance to the New Silk Road, but China played no role in their
development.”
The ongoing war in Ukraine certainly gave an impetus for the Middle Corridor as logistic
companies began to divert railway transit of goods from the Northern route to the Middle Corridor
as an alternative to the Trans-Siberian corridors passing through Russia (Mammadov 2022).
Azerbaijan Railways (ADY) reported that 3.9 million tons of cargo were transported along this
route, representing an increase of over half a million tons compared to 2021 (Railfreight 2023).
Nevertheless, there are challenges to the implementation of this promising Middle Corridor
concept. First, China has not shown interest in investing in this project whose implementation
requires huge capital investment. There are two reasons why China might have been reluctant to
more proactively support this transportation route. First, Beijing may fear that a Trans-Caspian
corridor, when put in place, would serve the interests of Turkey in reviving a Turkic-speaking world
right on the eastern border with China populated by Turkic-speaking Uyghurs. “If Turkey can have
direct access to its fellow Turkic states in Central Asia, it could promote the shortest, safest route
connecting China and Europe” (Tavsan 2021). The Turkish and Azerbaijani overlapping discourses
on the Turkic World may actually go against Beijing’s interests in this region and discourage muchneeded Chinese investment. Second, China’s reluctance may also be explained by Beijing’s
unwillingness to step on what Moscow believes to be its “own turf,” considering this region to fall
within of the sphere of Russian “exclusive interests.” Finally, a realization of a Trans-Caspian
pipeline has for decades been blocked by Russia and Iran (Blank 2013, 33). While the Caspian
Convention was signed, there are still ways the littoral states can veto projects by raising environmental arguments (Garibov 2019).
While major infrastructure projects have been implemented, economic integration has progressed rather slowly. The vision of this integration initiative, as envisaged by Baku, to be successful
requires massive capital investment, which can only come from large economies such as China.
However, China has so far invested very little, and most of the regional connectivity projects were
funded by Azerbaijan (Bogdan and Najdov 2020). The unlocking of the Trans-Caspian Corridor’s
potential also requires neutralizing potential spoilers such as Russia and Iran. The full realization of
the Middle Corridor also necessitates more effective policy coordination, and implementation of
policies to harmonize border management and customs procedures among the transit countries.
Another possible risk is that instead of regional integration, the Middle Corridor could fuel
competition between Azerbaijan and Georgia in a bid to become a best regional hub.
Conclusion
By examining the country’s historic developments and scrutinizing its foreign policies and
presidential discourses on regional cooperation and integration over the past three decades, the
present study has identified both hard power concerns with territorial sovereignty and leaders’ ideas
to be relevant for understanding the construction of regionalism in this country case. The recurrent
cycles of war with Armenia first saw Azerbaijan being defeated and losing parts of its internationally
recognized territory to Armenia and later its reversal – namely, Azerbaijan’s success on the
battlefield in 2020 and recovery of its territories. For decades, the sense of handicapped sovereignty
and Russia’s role in seeking to undermine Azerbaijan’s independent statehood – notably, through
its efforts to freeze the Karabakh conflict – dominated the domestic public discourse, shaping
political leaders’ discourses on regionalism. This led the political leadership to formulate an
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
16
Farid Guliyev
alternative regional order whose boundaries were not geographically confined to the South
Caucasus. This alternative vision sought to fit Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus into an
alternative geo-spatial space. In this view, the South Caucasus is construed to be merely a node
on a long transit corridor stretching from Europe to Asia via the Caspian Sea. The revival of the
centuries-old Silk Road served similar purposes. Having its self-identity firmly rooted in the sense of
shared Turkic historic roots and special – or indeed fraternal – relations with Turkey, Azerbaijani
elites also co-produced and promoted a parallel discourse focused on shared cultural identity of
Turkic-speaking nations, which in some ways complemented the economic regionalist discourse of
the Silk Road.
This regional identity construction and correspondent foreign policy are often taken to be
mutually constitutive. In this way, Azerbaijan eschewed membership in either Russian or Westernled regional security organizations or alliances. Russian regional integration initiatives were
perceived by national elites as Moscow’s aspirations to reestablish Russian hegemonic dominance
in this region. In countervailing Russia’s assertive foreign policy in the “near abroad” under Putin,
Baku opted out of Russia-dominated regional groupings such as the CSTO. Instead, Azerbaijan
cultivated closer ties with Turkey and Turkic-speaking countries through the OTS, and at certain
points by its participation in the Western-leaning GUAM (Goble 2022).
The Chinese BRI project breathed the fresh air to Azerbaijan’s aspiration to revive the Silk Road,
which is now focused on the transportation and transit of goods and the development of the Middle
Corridor. However, implementation of this ambitious vision is fraught with challenges, such as
Chinese reluctance to invest in a Trans-Caspian project that will provide Turkey with direct access
to Central Asian Turkic-speaking states, which could spur nationalist sentiments among China’s
large Turkic-speaking Uyghur population. Without Chinese investment this integrationist initiative can be slow as its realization requires a large injection of foreign capital. On the other hand,
rather than promoting economic integration, the Middle Corridor risks stirring a “hub
competition” between Georgia and Azerbaijan.
From a theoretical standpoint, this study contributes to the literature on comparative regionalism by highlighting discursive construction of regionalism embedded in country-specific contextual variables. It makes the case for an interaction of both ideational and structural-material
factors in the processes of regionalist order formation. While previous research on regionalism in
the South Caucasus has emphasized the fractured, fragmented or failed nature of regionalism
(de Waal 2012; German 2012), the underlying causes for regional fragmentation have been looked
at from solely realist or security perspectives. This study highlights the ways in which political
leaders may redefine their country’s regional identity in order to evade or escape the narrowly
established geo-spatial boundaries. Indeed, as the Azerbaijani case demonstrates, political leaders
have attempted to construct an alternative vision of a regional space that reflects the country’s
specific security challenges and geographic and political-economic constraints. Regionalism, thus,
cannot be understood without taking into account the structural conditions and economic interests
that shape the preferences and ideas of state leaders.
In all three states in the South Caucasus, state elites’ ideas and understandings have diverged on
their views of an “imagined region” to which their respective country belongs. The vision of a
common regional space encompassing all three states was discarded in favor of alternative
regionalist models. A lack of interest in creating or perhaps reviving the South Caucasus identity
in each of the three republics has resulted in further fragmentation of the “Transcaucasian
regionalism.” Consequently, as in the famous fable by Ivan Krylov “Swan, Pike and Crawfish,”
each animal pulled the cart in different directions – and “the cart’s still there.”
On a broader level, this article contributes to the literature on regionalism in the Global South by
providing a nuanced account of the construction of regionalist frames in a landlocked country.
Region-construction in Azerbaijan showcases how political leaders have mobilized historical
memory and cultural affinity to craft an alternative regionalist order in response to specific
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
17
domestic, regional, and geopolitical conditions such as national sovereignty issues, the mode of
incorporation into the global energy order, and Russian hegemonic pressures.
Supplementary material. The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42.
Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments.
Disclosure. None.
Notes
1
2
3
Following the convention, regions are understood as social constructions created by political
elites that have both material and ideational elements (Katzenstein 2000; Ravenhill 2009).
German (2012, 139) notes in this regard: “Notwithstanding geographic proximity, the three states
share few cultural, economic or political affinities, practising different religions, following
different political paths and experiencing very different levels of economic development.”
For more on this conflict, see contributions in Yavuz and Gunter (2022).
References
Abbasov, Namig, and David Siroky. 2018. “Joining the Club: Explaining Alliance Preferences in the South Caucasus.” Caucasus
Survey 6 (3): 252–267.
Abilov, Shamkhal, and Beyrak Hajiyev. 2022. “The European Union–Azerbaijan High-Level Transport Dialogue.” Journal of
Eurasian Studies 13 (1): 32–41.
Acharya, Amitav. 2000. Constructing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Order.
London: Routledge.
Acharya, Amitav. 2016. “Regionalism Beyond EU-centrism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, edited by
Tanja A. Börzel and Thomas Risse, 109–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aliyev, Heydar. 2000. Speech at the Summit on Regional Cooperation of the Countries Located along the Great Silk Road.
September 8, Heydar Aliyev’s Heritage Library, https://lib.aliyevheritage.org/en/763041.html. (Accessed May 15, 2023.)
Allison, Roy. 2008. “Virtual Regionalism, Regional Structures and Regime Security in Central Asia.” Central Asian Survey 27
(2): 185–202.
Altstadt, Audrey. 1997. “Azerbaijan’s Struggle Toward Democracy.” In Conflict, Cleavage and Change in Central Asia and the
Caucasus, edited by Karen Dawisha and Bruce Parrott, 110–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Avetisyan, Ani. 2023. “Armenia Pulls Out of Hosting CSTO Exercises.” OC Media, January 11, https://oc-media.org/armeniapulls-out-of-hosting-csto-exercises/. (Accessed June 10, 2023.)
Bayramov, Agha. 2019. “Great Game Visions and the Reality of Cooperation around Post-Soviet Transnational Infrastructure
Projects in the Caspian Sea Region.” East European Politics 35 (2): 159–181.
Bayramov, Vugar. 2022. “EU-Azerbaijani Economic Relations: New Perspectives and Opportunities.” Stockholm Centre for
Eastern European Studies. October 31. https://www.ui.se/globalassets/ui.se-eng/publications/sceeus/eu-azerbaijani-eco
nomic-relations-new-perspectives-and-opportunities.pdf. (Accessed June 5, 2023.)
Bayulgen, Oksan. 2010. Foreign Investment and Political Regimes: The Oil Sector in Azerbaijan, Russia, and Norway. Cambridge
University Press.
Bashirov, Galib. 2023. “The Not-So Great Game: Political Economy of Changing US Energy Policy in the Caspian Sea.” Review
of International Political Economy 30 (2): 558–583.
Blank, Stephen. 2013. “Azerbaijan’s Security and U.S. Interests.” Silk Road Paper, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, https://
silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2013_12_SRP_Blank_Azerbaijan_US.pdf (Accessed March 12, 2023.)
Bogdan, Olena, and Evgenij Najdov. 2020. “Belt and Road Initiative: Azerbaijan Country Case Study.” Washington, DC: World
Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34329. (Accessed April 3, 2023.)
Börzel, Tanja, and Thomas Risse. 2016. Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism. Oxford University Press.
Börzel, Tanja. 2016. “Theorizing Regionalism: Cooperation, Integration, and Governance.” In Oxford Handbook of Comparative Regionalism, edited by Tanja Börzel and Tomas Risse, 41–63. Oxford University Press.
Breslin, Shaun, Richard Higgott, and Ben Rosamond. 2002. “Regions in Comparative Perspective.” In New Regionalisms in the
Global Political Economy, edited by Shaun Breslin, Christopher Hughes, Nichola Philips, and Ben Rosamond, 1–19. London:
Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
18
Farid Guliyev
Broers, Laurence. 2018. “The South Caucasus: Fracture Without End?” In Russia Abroad: Driving Regional Fracture in PostCommunist Eurasia and Beyond, edited by Anna Ohanyan, 81–102. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Cornell, Svante. 2001. Small Nations and Great Powers. London: Routledge.
Cornell, Svante. 2014. “Azerbaijan: Going It Alone.” In Putin’s Grand Strategy: The Eurasian Union and its Discontents, edited
by Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell, 145–155. Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program, https://
www.silkroadstudies.org/resources/1409GrandStrategy.pdf
Cornell, Svante. 2017. “The Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict and European Security.” In The International Politics of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict, edited by Svante Cornell, 1–21. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cutler, Robert. 2020. “Azerbaijan’s Place in West-Central Eurasian Energy Security.” In Azerbaijan’s Geopolitical Landscape:
Contemporary Issues, 1991–2018, edited by Farid Shafiyev, 73–89. Prague: Charles University, Karolinum Press.
De Waal, Thomas. 2012. “A Broken Region: The Persistent Failure of Integration Projects in the South Caucasus.” Europe-Asia
Studies 64 (9): 1709–1723.
EEAS (European External Action Service). 2021. “The European Union and Azerbaijan.” July 22, https://www.eeas.europa.eu/
azerbaijan/european-union-and-azerbaijan_en?s=217. (Accessed May 5, 2023.)
Eurostat. 2023. “Drop in EU Imports of Energy Products in Q3 2023.” December 22, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/
products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20231222-1. (Accessed January 5, 2024.)
Elman, Miriam Fendius. 1995. “The Foreign Policies of Small States: Challenging Neorealism in its Own Backyard.” British
Journal of Political Science 25 (2): 171–217.
Emerson, Michael, Nathalie Tocci, and Elena Prokhorova. 2001. “A Stability Pact for the Caucasus in Theory and Practice – A
Supplementary Note.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 1 (3): 115–147.
Eyvazov, Jannatkhan. 2016. “The Ukrainian Crisis of 2014 and Changing Regional Conditions for National Security of
Azerbaijan.” In Contemporary Azerbaijan in Social and Political Dimension, edited by Piotr Bajor, 65–78, Krakow:
Księgarnia Akademicka, http://www.scfwcp.gov.az/store/media/Contemporary%20Azerbaijan%20e-book.pdf#page=67.
(Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Fawn, Rick. 2009. “Regions and Their Study: Wherefrom, What for and Where to?” Review of International Studies 35 (S1):
5–34.
Fawcett, Louise. 2004. “Exploring Regional Domains: A Comparative History of Regionalism.” International Affairs 80 (3):
429–446.
Fawcett, Louise. 2015. “Drivers of Regional Integration. Historical and Comparative Perspectives.” In Drivers of Regional
Integration in Europe and Asia, edited by Louis Brennan and Philomena Murray, 34–51. London: Routledge.
Fuller, Elizabeth. 1996. “Azerbaijan at the Crossroads.” In Challenges for the Former Soviet South, edited by Roy Allison,
117–153. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Garibov, Azad. 2019. “Hopes Reemerge for Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline, but Critical Obstacles Persist.” Eurasia Daily Monitor,
September 4, https://jamestown.org/program/hopes-reemerge-for-trans-caspian-gas-pipeline-but-critical-obstacles-per
sist/. (Accessed June 14, 2023.)
German, Tracey. 2012. “Good Neighbours or Distant Relatives?’ Regional Identity and Cooperation in the South Caucasus.”
Central Asian Survey 31 (2): 137–151.
German, Tracey. 2022. “Russia and the South Caucasus: The China Challenge.” Europe-Asia Studies 74 (9): 1596–1615.
Gibbs, Graham. 2007. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE Publications.
Goble, Paul. 2022. “Putin’s War in Ukraine Leading to Revival of GUAM.” Eurasia Daily Monitor, October 6, https://
jamestown.org/program/putins-war-in-ukraine-leading-to-revival-of-guam/.(Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Goltz, Thomas. 1993. “Letter from Eurasia: The Hidden Russian Hand.” Foreign Policy 92, 92–116.
Guliyev, Farid, and Andrea Gawrich. 2021. “NATO vs. the CSTO: Security Threat Perceptions and Responses to Secessionist
Conflicts in Eurasia.” Post-Communist Economies 33 (2–3): 283–304.
Guliyev, Farid, and Nozima Akhrarkhodjaeva. 2009. “The Trans-Caspian Energy Route: Cronyism, Competition and Cooperation in Kazakh Oil Export.” Energy Policy 37 (8): 3171–3182.
Guliyev, Farid. 2021. “Azerbaijani-Russian Relations: Transactional Diplomacy in Action.” Russian Analytical Digest
No. 273, October. https://css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/
RAD273.pdf. (Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Gvalia, Giorgi, David Siroky, Bidzina Lebanidze, and Zurab Iashvili. 2013. “Thinking Outside the Bloc: Explaining the Foreign
Policies of Small States.” Security Studies 22 (1): 98–131.
Hasanov, Ali. 2015. “Müstəqilliyimizin Memarı.” [The Architect of our Independence]. Azərbaycan (official newspaper).
https://www.azerbaijan-news.az/az/posts/detail/musteqilliyimizin-memari-143565. (Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Hemmer, Christopher, and Peter J. Katzenstein. 2002. “Why Is There No NATO in Asia? Collective Identity, Regionalism, and
the Origins of Multilateralism.” International Organization 56 (3): 575–607.
Herbst, Jeffrey. 2007. “Crafting Region Cooperation in Africa.” In Crafting Cooperation: Regional International Institutions in
Comparative Perspective, edited by Amitav Acharya and Alastair Iain Johnston, 129–144. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
19
Hettne, Björn. 2003. “The New Regionalism Revisited.” In Theories of New Regionalism, edited by Fredrik Söderbaum and
Timothy M. Shaw, 22–42. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hill, Fiona, and Angela Stent. 2022. “The World Putin Wants: How Distortions about the Past Feed Delusions about the
Future.” Foreign Affairs 101 (5): 108–123.
Huseynov, Tabib. 2010. “Mountainous Karabakh: New Paradigms for Peace and Development in the 21st Century.”
International Negotiation 15 (1): 7–31.
Huttenbach, Henry. 1992. “Raspad – the Political Crises in Post‐Soviet Caucasia.” Nationalities Papers 20 (2): 89–96.
Idan, Avinoam, and Brenda Shaffer. 2011. “The Foreign Policies of Post-Soviet Landlocked States.” Post-Soviet Affairs 27 (3):
241–268.
Ismailov, Eldar, and Vladimer Papava. 2008. “A New Concept for the Caucasus.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 8
(3): 283–298.
Ismailov, Eldar. 2006. “On Integration and the Conception of the Central Caucasus.” In The Central Caucasus: Essay on
Geopolitical Economy, edited by Eldar Ismailov and Vladimer Papava, 5–19. Stockholm: CA & CC Press, https://ssrn.com/
abstract=2220312. (Accessed April 12, 2023.)
Ismayilov, Kamran. 2018. “The European Union and Russia in the Contested South Caucasus.” In Russia and the EU: Spaces of
Interaction, edited by Thomas Hoffmann and Andrey Makarychev, 171–187. London: Routledge.
Ismayil, Elnur, and Suhnaz Yilmaz. 2022. “Strategic Alignments and Balancing of Threats: Military and Political Alliances in the
South Caucasus (1991–2021).” Central Asian Survey 41 (3): 533–552.
Jesse, Neal G., and John R. Dreyer. 2016. Small States in the International System: At Peace and at War. Lanham: Lexington
Books.
Kamilsoy, Najmin, and Anna Zamejc. 2022. “Perceptions of the EU in Azerbaijan: A Normative Power in Decline?” Caucasus
Analytical Digest No. 129, https://www.laender-analysen.de/cad/pdf/CaucasusAnalyticalDigest129.pdf
Katzenstein, Peter J. 2000. “Regionalism and Asia.” New Political Economy 5 (3): 353–368.
Kenderdine, Tristan, and Peter Bucsky. 2021. “Middle Corridor - Policy Development and Trade Potential of the Trans-Caspian
International Transport Route.” ADBI Working Paper 1268, Asian Development Bank Institute, https://www.adb.org/
publications/middle-corridor-policy-development-trade-potential
King, Charles. 2008. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Oxford University Press.
Köstem, Seçkin. 2017. “When Can Idea Entrepreneurs Influence Foreign Policy? Explaining the Rise of the ‘Turkic World’ in
Turkish Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy Analysis 13 (3): 722–740.
Krapohl, Sebastian, and Simon Fink. 2013. “Different Paths of Regional Integration: Trade Networks and Regional Institution‐
Building in Europe, Southeast Asia and Southern Africa.” JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (3): 472–488.
Krapohl, Sebastian, and Alexandra Vasileva-Dienes. 2020. “The Region that Isn’t: China, Russia and the Failure of Regional
Integration in Central Asia.” Asia Europe Journal 18 (3): 347–366.
Kubicek, Paul. 2009. “The Commonwealth of Independent States: An Example of Failed Regionalism?” Review of International
Studies 35 (S1): 237–256.
Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to Methods, Practice and Using Software. London: SAGE Publications.
MacFarlane, Neil. 2015. “Identity and Alignment in Central Eurasia.” In Identity and Politics in Central Asia and the Caucasus,
edited by Mohammed Ayoob and Murad Ismayilov, 158–180. London: Routledge.
Mattli, Walter. 1999. The Logic of Regional Integration. Europe and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mammadyarov, Elmar. 2007. “A New Way for the Caspian Region: Cooperation and Integration.” Turkish Policy Quarterly 6
(3): 39–46.
Mammadov, Mahammad. 2022. “Implications of Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine for the Emergence of the Middle Corridor as a
Viable Route for East-West Trade.” Policy Brief No. 44, Georgian Institute of Politics, https://gip.ge/wp-content/uploads/
2022/11/Policy-Brief-44-1.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2023.)
Mardell, Jacob. 2019. “On the ‘Middle Corridor,’ China is Largely Absent.” Berlin Policy Journal, October 15, https://www.
merics.org/en/analysis/middle-corridor-china-largely-absent (Accessed April 22, 2023.)
Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Ministry of Energy of Azerbaijan. 2023. “The Southern Gas Corridor.” https://minenergy.gov.az/en/layiheler/cenub-qazdehlizi_2196 (Accessed March 2, 2023.)
Mydans, Seth. 2003. “Letter from Asia: Free of Marx, but Now in the Grip of a Dynasty.” October 15. New York Times, https://
www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/world/letter-from-asia-free-of-marx-but-now-in-the-grip-of-a-dynasty.html
(Accessed
March 10, 2023.)
Nodia, Ghia. 2004. “The South Caucasus, a Region of Geo-Strategic Importance.” In The South Caucasus: Promoting Values
Through Cooperation, edited by Jean Dufourcq and Lionel Ponsard, 17–24. Rome: NATO Defense College, https://www.
files.ethz.ch/isn/26465/seminar_20.pdf (Accessed June 2, 2023.)
Nodia, Ghia. 2017. “Georgia’s Pro-Western Policies: An Obsession or a Pragmatic Choice.” In The New Geopolitics of the South
Caucasus: Prospects for Regional Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, edited by Shireen T. Hunter, 65–98. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
20
Farid Guliyev
Obydenkova, Anastassia, and Alexander Libman. 2019. Authoritarian Regionalism in the World of International Organizations:
Global Perspectives and the Eurasian Enigma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Orazgaliyev, Serik. 2017. “Competition for Pipeline Export Routes in the Caspian Region: The New Great Game or the New Silk
Road.” Cambridge Journal of Eurasian Studies 1: 1–24.
OTS [Organization of Turkic States]. N.d. “About the OTS.” Official website. https://turkicstates.org/en/turk-konseyi-hakkinda.
(Accessed February 24, 2023.)
Paasi, Anssi. 2009. “The Resurgence of the ‘Region’ and ‘Regional Identity’: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in Europe.” Review of International Studies 35 (S1): 121–146.
Qurbanov, Cavid. 2019. Azərbaycanı Qlobal Nəqliyyat-Tranzit Mərkəzinə Çevirən Strategiyanın Yaradıcısı [The Founder of a
Strategy to Turn Azerbaijan into a Global Transport-Transit Hub]. Azərbaycan (official newspaper), May 4, No. 97, 1–4,
Presidential Library, https://files.preslib.az/projects/heydaraliyev/articles/he0456.pdf. (Accessed June 12, 2023.)
Railfreight. 2023. “KTZ’s Middle Corridor Volumes More Than Doubled in 2022.” February 8, https://www.railfreight.com/
railfreight/2023/02/08/ktzs-middle-corridor-volumes-more-than-doubled-in-2022/. (Accessed April 20, 2023.)
Ravenhill, John. 2009. “East Asian Regionalism: Much ado about Nothing?” Review of International Studies 35 (S1): 215–235.
Rosamond, Ben. 2000. Theories of European Integration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rzayev, Ayaz, and Vasif Huseynov. 2018. “South Caucasus Eyes Becoming a Hub Along EU–China Transportation Route.”
Eurasia Daily Monitor, November 26. https://jamestown.org/program/south-caucasus-eyes-becoming-a-hub-along-euchina-transportation-route/.
Schmemann, Serge. 1993. “Another Post-Soviet State Reassesses Post‐Communism.” New York Times, July 4, https://www.
nytimes.com/1993/07/04/weekinreview/the-world-another-post-soviet-state-reassesses-post-communism.html. (Accessed
June 2, 2023.)
Shafiyev, Farid. 2023. “Azerbaijan and the Rise of Turkic Unity.” Insight Turkey 25 (4): 13–24.
Shahbazov, Fuad. 2018. “China to Europe by Way of Azerbaijan’s Trans-Caspian Gateway.” The Diplomat, February 16, https://
thediplomat.com/2018/02/china-to-europe-by-way-of-azerbaijans-trans-caspian-gateway/. (Accessed May 20, 2023.)
Shusha Declaration. 2021. “Shusha Declaration on Allied Relations between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of
Turkey.” June 16, https://president.az/en/articles/view/52122. (Accessed May 5, 2023.)
Smith, Jeremy. 2015. “A Region of Regions: The Historical Failure of Integration in the South Caucasus.” In The South Caucasus
beyond Borders, Boundaries and Division Lines: Conflicts, Cooperation and Development, edited by Mikko Palonkorpi, 1–8.
Helsinki: Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/155531/1/South_Caucasus_
Beyond_Borders.pdf. (Accessed June 22, 2023.)
Söderbaum, Fredrik. 2003. “Introduction: Theories of New Regionalism.” In Theories of New Regionalism, edited by Fredrik
Söderbaum and Timothy M. Shaw, 1–21. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sperling, James. 2003. “Eurasian Security Governance: New Threats, Institutional Adaptations.” In Limiting Institutions? The
Challenge of Eurasian Security Governance, edited by James Sperling, Sean Kay, and Victor Papacosma, 3–26. Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Starr, S. Frederick. 2007 (ed). The New Silk Roads: Transport and Trade in Greater Central Asia. Washington, DC: Central AsiaCaucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program, Johns Hopkins University, https://www.silkroadstudies.org/publications/
silkroad-papers-and-monographs/item/13125-the-new-silk-roads-transport-and-trade-in-greater-central-asia.html.
(Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 2010. “The Pawn of Great Powers: The East-West Competition for Caucasia.” Journal of Eurasian Studies
1 (1): 10–25.
Tavsan, Sinan. 2021. “All-Turkic Corridor Heralds Rise of New Eurasian Political Bloc.” Nikkei Asia, November 17, https://
asia.nikkei.com/Business/Transportation/All-Turkic-corridor-heralds-rise-of-new-Eurasian-political-bloc (Accessed May
12, 2023.)
TRT [Turkish Radio and Television Corporation]. 2017. “Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia Launch ‘Silk Road’ Rail Link.”
October 30, https://www.trtworld.com/turkey/turkey-azerbaijan-and-georgia-launch-silk-road-rail-link-11789 (Accessed
February 3, 2023.)
Trilateral Statement. 2020. “Statement by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of
Armenia and President of the Russian Federation.” November 10, https://president.az/en/articles/view/45923 (Accessed
April 12, 2023.)
Turkic Council. 2020. “Statement of the Secretary General of the Turkic Council, Organization of Turkic States.” September
28, https://turkicstates.org/en/haberler/statement-of-the-secretary-general-of-the-turkic-council_2075. (Accessed February
12, 2023.)
Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yalçınkaya, Haldun. 2021. “Turkey’s Overlooked Role in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War.” German Marshall Fund,
January 21, https://www.gmfus.org/news/turkeys-overlooked-role-second-nagorno-karabakh-war. (Accessed February
20, 2023.)
Yavuz, Hakan, and Michael Gunter, ed. 2022. The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Historical and Political Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Nationalities Papers
21
Ziyadov, Taleh. 2007. “Azerbaijan.” In The New Silk Roads: Transport and Trade in Greater Central Asia, edited by Frederick
Starr, 303–334. Washington, DC: Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Programme, https://www.
silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/Monographs/GCAPUB-10.pdf. (Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Ziyadov, Taleh. 2011. “Azerbaijan as Regional Hub in Central Eurasia.” ADA University, Technical Report, https://www.ada.
edu.az/frq-content/plugins/newspaper_list_x1/entry/20220727143938_28420400.pdf (Accessed May 12, 2023.)
Cite this article: Guliyev, Farid. 2024. “Presidential Discourses on Regionalism in Azerbaijan: Turkic Solidarity and the Silk
Road”. Nationalities Papers: 1–21, doi:10.1017/nps.2024.42
https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42 Published online by Cambridge University Press