Ten Rules for Transport Corridors and the Future of Security on Land and Sea: An Iranian Perspective
© Reuters
Trade corridors, as the main routes for transporting goods and services between countries, regions, and even continents, play a very important role in facilitating international trade and enhancing the ability of nations to cooperate and to interact economically with each other. Due to the fact that geopolitical developments and significant crises over the past few years have rocked some global and regional trade routes, it is evident that there is an urgent need for the “war of corridors” to be replaced by “corridor diplomacy”, as the role of corridors in today’s world is not only the “transit of goods”, but also to enhance regional security and stability based on connectivity, writes Mohammad Reza Dehshiri, Dean of the School of International Relations, Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, especially for the 14th Middle East Conference of the Valdai Discussion Club and Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The Middle Eastern region, one of the most sensitive and strategic parts of the world, is among those that have faced a series of crises. In fact, facilitating the transit of goods, development of investment in transport infrastructure, the creation of a network of multimodal trade corridors, as well as improving trade relations between countries in the region will bring benefits to their economies, reduce points of disagreement, and orient them towards opportunities for cooperation.
Ten rules for connectivity:
Some rules should be taken into consideration in order to maintain connectivity and sustainable security in the transport corridors of the Middle East:
Centrality of geopolitics: Each transport corridor should take into account geographical realities as well as economic needs and geo-economic aspirations. For instance, Iran, as the cradle of civilizations, with its unique geopolitical and pivotal geostrategic position in the Middle East, has accumulated a number of features which facilitate connectivity, and has a lot of potential when it comes to facilitating the transportation of goods between different sub-regions. It is located at the intersection of trade routes and economic corridors, can connect the Middle East, Central Asia, Transcaucasia and South Asia, and is known as a bridge between East-West and North-South. Iran shares land and sea borders with 15 countries, including Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan as well as with the six Arab countries in the southern part of Persian Gulf. Geographically, Iran is located at the intersection of the North-South and East-West trade corridors, and based on this position, can play an important role in the transit of goods in the region.
Counter-productivity of weaponisation of corridors: the instrumentalization of the corridors for the marginalisation of some countries or putting pressure on them is counter-productive. Any attempts to polarise or eliminate the regional consensus on the corridors would greatly reduce their effectiveness in the medium term and will hamper long-term security and stability. For instance, the IMEC transit route (The India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor which runs from India to Europe, passing through the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, and Greece), should not try to exclude countries such as Iran and Turkey. It should provide the possibility for these countries’ accession to this corridor and their benefit from the advantages of interdependence in order to increase regional stability.
Inclusivity: The corridors should be inclusive in a way that all related countries would play their own part in the process of connectivity. Therefore, an inclusive-exclusive approach is ineffectual. For instance, the Middle Corridor may aim to exclude Iran and Russia from regional equations, to deprive them of foreign exchange earnings from transit, or to bypass Iranian and Russian routes. In this context, the Zangezur Corridor as part of the Middle Corridor could hinder the free passage of goods between Iran and Armenia. It is obvious that changes in the geopolitics of corridors, the creation of new passages and the exclusion of historic corridors, over a long period of time, would reduce the geopolitical advantages of neighbours and would affect their position in the global value chain, prompting a reaction to the hindrance in the exchange of goods.
Ahmed Majdalani
In recent decades, the Middle East has encountered a range of challenges, including conflicts, revolutions, and economic crises. These challenges have left a significant impact on the region, but have provided an opportunity for its people to drive change, using these experiences to shape a “Middle Eastern Dream” rooted in innovation and renewal.
Worthlessness of politicisation of corridors: The politicisation of connectivity would lead to a zero-sum game; whereas a non-zero-sum game is the result of the de-politicisation of connectivity. From this perspective, the political trial of some countries to change internationally recognised borders is pointless. A de-politicised approach would enhance partnership and collaboration rather than animosity and confrontation and would lead to the activation of corridors based on low political requirements.
Inter-regionalism: The connectivity requires the interconnectedness of different regions. In this context, an extended neighbourhood policy would enhance the inter-regional assets in order to create a strong economic and trade network. For example, India, Russia and Iran initiated the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) as a multi-modal transport project in 2002 in order to increase transport and trade cooperation between different regions. It is 7,200 km long and links the Indian Ocean to Russia and Europe through the Persian Gulf, Caspian Sea, and Central Asia. It could potentially be extended to the Baltic, Nordic, and Arctic regions. In 2016, Iran proposed a complementary regional initiative to develop the Persian Gulf-Black Sea International Transport and Transit Corridor (ITC), which would also include Armenia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia (the ports of Poti and Batumi on the Black Sea), Bulgaria, and Greece. This multi-modal corridor will begin in Iran at Bandar Abbas (Chahbahar & Mukran), and continue into Armenia or Azerbaijan, connecting four key maritime basins: The Persian Gulf, the Oman Sea, the Caspian Sea, and the Black Sea.
Cost and benefit analysis: Boosting region-wide trade and transport through the reinforcement of corridors requires the shortening of transit routes and reduction of transport costs. For example, the time saved through the use of the INSTC corridor is estimated to be 20 days, and the cost savings in the sea transit of goods from India to Europe have been estimated at 40% in comparison with the Middle Corridor. Using the latter would lead to an increase in costs and time required for cargo transportation.
The need to focus on similarities rather than differences: The diversity of countries and their different opinions, visions and policies should not hinder connectivity. The management of differences requires the redefinition of new types of interest based on things shared in common rather than on diverse approaches.
Maximization of creativity and flexibility of options: Crises would affect the search for alternatives and initiatives such as the identification of priorities, exploration of opportunities, assessment of route accessibility and achievability of goals, development of flagship projects, and taking into account all official and informal channels of cooperation, for the activation of corridors in the era of complexity. Therefore, maintaining openness regarding all initiatives and different options and alternatives would facilitate and reinforce connectivity in the region.
Interrelatedness of events: Due to the interconnection of events, based on the butterfly effect, and the inter-connectivity of the regions, the transport corridors should not be regarded separately. For example, the corridors passing through the Middle East, Eurasia, and Transcaucasia have witnessed extensive changes in recent years, following the war in Ukraine, as well as the tensions in the Transcaucasia and the Black Sea, especially geopolitical tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Furthermore, the perturbations in the maritime corridor of the Red Sea are connected to the Palestine issue and should be analysed based on the reaction of Houthis (Ansarollah) in Yemen to Israeli aggression and occupation and the ensuing confrontation in Palestine.
Bi-multilateralism: Both bilateralism and multilateralism are pillars of connectivity. The complementarity of bilateralism and multilateralism is a key element underscoring the stability of corridors. In the spectrum of bilateralism-multilateralism we can enumerate trilateralism, plurilateralism and minilateralism. For example, Iran-Russia relations complement structures such as BRICS, the SCO and EEC (Eurasian Economic Union) as multilateral bodies. From this perspective, we can witness the complementarity of some initiatives such as: Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul (ITI) as part of the ECO corridor, the Kazakhstan-Turkmenistan-Iran Railway Corridor (KTI), International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), (or the road route of the Persian Gulf-Black Sea International transport and Transit Corridor), the East West Transport Corridor i.e. Transport Corridor Europe Caucasus Asia (TRACECA), and Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Final Remarks:
We believe that several major transportation projects would significantly reshape the economic map of the world. In this regard, the three C’s (confidence-building measures, cooperation and complementarity) are the key elements for ensuring the sustainable security of transport corridors in the Middle East. Trust-building measures would lead to positive engagement and the coordinating of a partnership of all regional actors for developing project-based initiatives, as well as building the necessary infrastructure. Collaboration would lead to economic relations despite political differences. The complementarity of corridors would lead to framing connectivity as well as coherent and flexible economic diplomacy. Furthermore, we believe that the geostrategic conjuncture, regional players, external powers and international institutions each have their own roles and responsibility in the realization of the security of corridors.
Vitaly Naumkin, Vasily Kuznetsov
For nearly a decade and a half now, the word “transformation” has arguably been the most popular term to describe the Middle Eastern developments, including transformation of societies and economies, political systems and institutions, foreign policies and international alliances, strategies pursued by non-state and state actors, and regional and global powers.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club’s, unless explicitly stated otherwise.