Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the creation of the Newly Independent
States and the later formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), each
Republic became responsible for its own trade and transport affairs in a changed political
and economic environment. This resulted in a divergence from the common policies and
legislation present under the old Soviet system towards the introduction and
implementation of specific policies and legislation which met the individual needs of each
Republic, thus creating an element of trade and transport barriers between the states due to
their differing situations and interests.
The transitional problems were exacerbated by wars and civil unrest in a number of states
which resulted in closure of transport routes and political instability:
Armenia conflict with Azerbaijan resulting in closure of borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey;
Azerbaijan conflict with Armenia resulting in isolation of Nakhichevan with new routings via Iran
and Turkey;
Georgia conflict in north-west province of Abhkazia resulting its current breakaway from Georgia
and border closures. Problems in the south west resulting in a measure of autonomy in Adjaria
which covers the port of Batumi and the important border into Turkey; and
Tadjikistan on going civil conflict causing closure of the Pamir region.
In addition, there have been civil problems in adjacent countries such as western China and
Afghanistan which have affected transit trade. The war in Chetchnya resulted in closure of
the Russian borders in northern Georgia and Azerbaijan and security controls on freight
traffic routed via Turkey and Iran because of their Islamic links.
It is clear that the eight countries which were the original signatories were not a
homogeneous unit and that a co-ordinated approach to the evolution of the TRACECA
corridor would pose a significant challenge, both to the participants and the EU Tacis
programme as a whole. There were major concerns by the Central Asian Republics as to the
stability of the Caucasus route due to perception of on going civil conflict, even though
none existed at that time. Certain sections of TRACECA through Armenia and
Azerbaijan were also closed.
The development of TRACECA represented a significant re orientation of existing
transport corridors in most of the Republics as their main routes at that time were
predominantly north-south, rather than east west:
Armenia north route into Georgia and south route into Iran;
Azerbaijan north route into Russia and south route into Iran;
Georgia north route into Russia and south route into Turkey;
Turkmenistan south into Iran and Turkey;
Uzbekistan north into Kazakhstan and Russia and south into Turkmenistan and through to Iran
and Turkey ;
Kazakhstan north into Russia and south into Uzbekistan and through to Iran and Turkey;
Kyrghyzstan north into Kazakhstan through to Russia and south through Uzbekistan to Iran and
Turkey; and
Tadjikistan north through to Kazakhstan and Russia.
The orientation of the proposed TRACECA following the old Silk Road was not an
integrated transport corridor in general use, though specific sections of the route, rather
than the whole were important. These were as follows:
Black Sea ports to Baku as the central corridor through the Caucasus;
road routes Almaty to Mary in Turkmenistan for road traffic between Central Asia and Iran/Turkey;
rail section between Chardzhou in Turkmenistan and Almaty for rail traffic between Central Asia
and Russia ;
There was no major freight traffic along the entire route and therefore programme would
require some redirection of trade back along the traditional trade routes which existed in the
Middle Ages and away from those currently being used via Russia and Iran. The
development of this new route would be perceived to some extent to be in competition with
the north south-routes and this in itself posed potential problems:
Russia is still the main trading partner for most of the Republics and has a dominant role in the rail
sector. In addition, Russia has a regional security responsibility at most of the external CIS borders,
as part of a joint Border Guard, and has peace keeping forces in the Caucasus and Tadjikistan;
Turkey has a major commercial presence and interest in the region, partially due to Central Asia
formally being part of the Ottoman Empire. Many European exporters tranship cargoes bound for
Central Asia in Turkey at depots in Ankara and Istanbul;
Iran also has a strong commercial interest in both regions and is the transit country for much of the
Turkish routes traffic from Europe to Central Asia; and
Turkey and Iran have a dominant role in international road transport throughout the region.
-- Gregory P. Nowell Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Milne 100 State University of New York 135 Western Ave. Albany, New York 12222
Fax 518-442-5298