The Women Leaders podcast: The South Caucasus conundrum – European Leadership Network

Report on Geopolitical Instability in the South Caucasus and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

This report provides an analysis of the escalating geopolitical instability in the South Caucasus region, comprising Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Amidst major global conflicts, this region is experiencing significant internal and external pressures, threatening regional order and progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The analysis highlights the waning influence of the Russian Federation and the increasing engagement of other international actors, including the United States, the European Union, and Turkey. The central thesis of this report is that the current trajectory of conflict and political disarray poses a direct and severe threat to the achievement of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to peace, institutional stability, and economic prosperity.

2.0 Regional Situation Analysis

2.1 Sources of Instability

The South Caucasus is currently characterized by a state of flux, with multiple points of tension undermining regional security. Key developments include:

• Georgia: The government is reportedly engaged in repressive measures against opposition figures, creating internal political friction and jeopardizing democratic institutions.
• Armenia: The nation is experiencing significant political disarray following the military offensive by Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.
• Azerbaijan: The recent military action in Nagorno-Karabakh has fundamentally altered the regional security landscape and created a volatile post-conflict environment.

2.2 Shifting International Influence

A significant geopolitical shift is underway, defined by a decline in Russia’s traditional dominance. This has created a vacuum that other powers are seeking to fill.

1. Russian Federation: Preoccupied with the war in Ukraine, Russia’s capacity to project power and act as a regional arbiter in the South Caucasus has diminished, leading to a loss of influence.
2. Western Powers (U.S. & EU): There is an observable increase in diplomatic and strategic engagement from the United States and the European Union, who are seeking to promote stability and democratic values.
3. Turkey: Turkey is actively expanding its influence in the region, particularly through its strong ties with Azerbaijan.

3.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The instability in the South Caucasus has profound and negative implications for the attainment of the SDGs. The pursuit of peace, a prerequisite for sustainable development, remains elusive.

3.1 SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The current situation represents a significant setback for SDG 16. The core tenets of this goal are directly challenged by:

• The breakdown of peaceful conflict resolution, as evidenced by the Nagorno-Karabakh offensive.
• The erosion of strong and accountable institutions, particularly noted in the political crackdown in Georgia and the disarray in Armenia.
• A general failure to promote just, peaceful, and inclusive societies, which increases the risk of further conflict and human rights abuses.

3.2 SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

Regional conflict and political instability are fundamentally incompatible with sustained and inclusive economic growth. The current environment undermines SDG 8 by:

• Deterring foreign and domestic investment required for job creation.
• Disrupting trade routes and regional economic cooperation.
• Diverting state resources from development and social welfare towards military expenditure and conflict management.
• Dragging the entire region, including influential neighbors like Russia, further away from economic prosperity.

3.3 SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

While the shifting geopolitical landscape presents challenges, it also underscores the critical importance of SDG 17. Effective progress is contingent upon:

1. The formation of constructive international and regional partnerships to mediate conflicts and foster stability.
2. The need for external actors (U.S., EU, Turkey) to align their strategic interests with the long-term sustainable development of the region.
3. The risk that competing geopolitical interests could undermine cohesive efforts, thereby hindering rather than helping the achievement of the SDGs.

4.0 Conclusion and Outlook

The South Caucasus is at a critical juncture. The convergence of internal political crises and shifting external power dynamics has created a volatile environment that threatens to reverse development gains and trigger wider conflict. A concerted focus on the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for navigating this period. The international community must prioritize de-escalation and support for inclusive institutions to steer the region away from disorder and towards a future defined by peace and sustainable prosperity.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article’s central theme revolves around political instability, conflict, and the breakdown of order in the southern Caucasus. It explicitly mentions a “military offensive,” a government “cracking down on opposition leaders,” “political disarray,” and the general state of “roiling between order and disorder.” The text highlights the need for peace and stable institutions, which is the core focus of SDG 16.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article discusses the geopolitical dynamics of the region, noting that it is “attracting the attention of many power players” including Russia, Turkey, the US, and the EU. This focus on international relations, the shifting influence of global powers, and their impact on regional stability directly relates to the importance of global partnerships and policy coherence for sustainable development, as outlined in SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. This target is directly relevant due to the mention of “Azerbaijan’s military offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023.” This event represents a clear form of organized violence that this target aims to reduce.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article points to institutional failures. The description of the Georgian government as “Russia-backed” and “cracking down on opposition leaders,” along with Armenia being in “political disarray,” suggests a lack of effective, accountable, and transparent governance.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The crackdown on opposition leaders in Georgia is a direct contradiction of inclusive and participatory decision-making. It indicates that the political process is not representative of all voices within the country.

2. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.14: Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. The article illustrates a lack of policy coherence, where the actions of external powers (Russia, Turkey, US, EU) have significant and sometimes conflicting impacts on the region’s stability. Russia’s “insane war on Ukraine” is shown to have a destabilizing effect on its influence in the Caucasus, creating a power vacuum and further instability.
   • Target 17.16: Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development. The involvement of the US, EU, and Turkey is presented as a shift in regional partnerships. The analysis of whether “the West is on the up” implies a change in the nature of partnerships influencing the region’s development, peace, and security.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Target 16.1 (Reduce violence):
   • Implied Indicator: The occurrence and scale of military conflict. The article cites “Azerbaijan’s military offensive” as a key event. A reduction in or cessation of such offensives would be a primary indicator of progress.
2. For Target 16.6 & 16.7 (Effective and inclusive institutions):
   • Implied Indicator: The state of political freedom and stability. The article points to negative indicators such as the “cracking down on opposition leaders” and “political disarray.” Progress could be measured by the absence of such crackdowns, the establishment of stable governing coalitions, and the protection of political opposition.
3. For Target 17.14 & 17.16 (Policy coherence and partnerships):
   • Implied Indicator: The nature and effect of foreign influence. The article describes Russia’s waning grip and the rising influence of the West. An indicator of progress would be whether these shifting international partnerships contribute positively to regional peace and stability (“peace is necessary”) or exacerbate tensions.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: europeanleadershipnetwork.org