The growing complexity of global power competition, driven by shifts in economic and military dominance, has created a volatile environment. The “great power rivalry” between the United States and China, particularly concerning access to strategic resources and influence over international institutions, is no longer confined to traditional battlegrounds. The increasing competition in the Indo-Pacific, coupled with China’s expanding footprint in Africa and Latin America, is generating a ripple effect, forcing nations to reassess their strategic alignments. This instability directly impacts smaller states reliant on existing alliances and trade relationships, demanding adaptation and diversification. The 2024 establishment of the Yerevan Dialogue, facilitated by Armenia and envisioned as a space for discussion surrounding regional identity and strategic autonomy, signifies a significant, albeit nascent, effort to address these anxieties.
Historically, the region’s geopolitical landscape has been defined by overlapping ambitions and territorial disputes. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a decades-long source of instability, continues to cast a long shadow. The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 unleashed a wave of ethnic tensions and border disputes, culminating in the 2020 war. Furthermore, the presence of Russian military bases in Armenia has long been a point of contention, reflecting the remnants of the Cold War’s geopolitical architecture. The dialogue, however, transcends immediate territorial concerns, aiming to explore broader themes of regional identity and the strategies nations employ to safeguard their interests in the face of great power competition. As Dr. Anya Petrova, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Studies in Moscow, noted, “The Dialogue’s utility hinges on its ability to foster a space for frank discussion, acknowledging existing realities while seeking collaborative solutions – a significant challenge given the deep-seated mistrust.”
Key Stakeholders and Motivations
The Yerevan Dialogue brings together a diverse group of actors. Armenia, a strategically located nation bordered by Azerbaijan and Turkey, seeks to bolster its regional security and navigate its relationship with Russia and the West. China, increasingly invested in the region through infrastructure projects and diplomatic initiatives, likely views the dialogue as an opportunity to expand its influence and establish a strategic foothold. Representatives from the European Union, particularly France, are interested in maintaining stability in the Caucasus and promoting democratic values. Thailand, motivated by its “bridge-builder” strategy, seeks to enhance regional cooperation and diversify its partnerships. As Thailand’s Special Envoy, Mr. Arthayudh Srisamoot, articulated during the session on “Regional Identity and Strategic Autonomy,” “Thailand’s approach is rooted in promoting dialogue, encouraging mutual understanding, and fostering sustainable solutions – values that are essential for navigating the complexities of the 21st-century geopolitical landscape.”
Data from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) indicates a 38% increase in Chinese investment in Armenia’s infrastructure sector over the past three years, coupled with a significant rise in the number of Chinese citizens visiting the country for tourism and business. This demonstrates a tangible shift in China’s regional priorities, coinciding with a growing awareness of the strategic importance of the South Caucasus as a transit corridor and a potential base of operations. Furthermore, recent polling data from the Caucasus Institute suggests a growing sense of anxiety amongst Armenians regarding the security situation and the perceived lack of robust support from traditional allies.
Short-Term and Long-Term Impact
Over the next six months, the Yerevan Dialogue is likely to remain a primarily symbolic exercise, facilitating limited but valuable exchanges between key stakeholders. Expect continued discussions regarding energy security, border security, and the role of international actors in the region. However, a substantial breakthrough in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is unlikely. Longer-term (5-10 years), the dialogue could evolve into a more substantive platform for regional cooperation, particularly if the geopolitical environment stabilizes. A key development would be an increased level of engagement from ASEAN member states, fostering a more coordinated Southeast Asian response to the broader challenges. The success of this depends heavily on the willingness of all parties to compromise and prioritize shared interests.
Looking ahead, the potential for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict to escalate remains a critical concern. Increased Russian military presence in the region could further destabilize the situation, creating a security vacuum that could be exploited by external actors. China’s continued expansion in the Caucasus – potentially including investments in port infrastructure and telecommunications networks – could exacerbate tensions. Thailand, as a country reliant on stable trade routes and regional security, will need to carefully calibrate its foreign policy approach, strengthening existing relationships while simultaneously exploring new avenues for engagement. As the recent energy crisis underscored, Southeast Asian nations face a need to accelerate diversification of their energy sources.
The Yerevan Dialogue provides a crucial, if imperfect, mechanism for navigating these turbulent times. The core question remains: can this forum, along with the broader trend of Southeast Asian nations seeking “strategic autonomy,” successfully position themselves as durable actors in a world increasingly characterized by great power competition and regional instability? The answer, ultimately, hinges on a sustained commitment to multilateralism and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue – a challenging, but fundamentally essential undertaking.