Restart of the Abkhazian section of the railway will save the Armenian economy — expert

The Abkhazian section of the Transcaucasian Railway (TCR) is capable of radically changing the economic landscape of the region, but for decades it has been resting on political contradictions. Why not? This and other questions were answered by Doctor of Economics, Full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences Ashot Tavadyan in an interview with VERELQ.

— Do you think the situation and the political elites are ripe now to start restarting the Abkhazian section of the Transcaucasian Railway?

— I would call this project the North—South railway corridor. It is extremely important, and the main economic benefit here lies precisely for Armenia. Our main trade turnover, whether we like it or not, is directed to the north. Naturally, when solving this issue, we will immediately get a serious economic effect.

Moreover, this highway may become a transit one. If Iran joins the project, the role of the railway will increase dramatically, and this entire section will become very profitable. I talked about this ten years ago.

The most problematic segment of the route is the Georgian one, where the political issue regarding Abkhazia is acute. At one time, I offered the Russian side options for solving this problem, since the initiative should come from them. Yes, there will be certain disadvantages in political terms, it must be admitted. But economic benefits often override political differences. A vivid example of this is the relations between Russia and Japan.

— The restart of the Abkhazian section has been talked about for a long time. What has changed now, and why can the economic benefits outweigh the political problems?

— The key to the solution is to provide Georgia with significant preferences. For example, it is possible to offer her preferential conditions for the export and transportation of products, primarily agricultural, to the Russian market.

How to implement this in practice? To provide Georgia with conditions similar to those that apply to the EAEU countries, but exclusively within the framework of bilateral trade relations with the Russian Federation, without requiring Tbilisi to join the economic union itself.

I think this would be a weighty argument that could interest the Georgian side. Otherwise, we will remain in a political impasse. Political tasks should be solved through economic mechanisms. It is necessary to offer real benefits, and not be limited to beautiful declarations that the road should work. Tbilisi will always refuse slogans, citing territorial problems. A clear definition of benefits for Georgia is what both Armenia and Russia, which have real resources to implement the project, should be interested in today.

— You mentioned that the opening of this section will make the construction of the Armenian-Iranian railway more meaningful. In what way?

— The economic benefits here are quite obvious. With the restart of the Abkhazian section of the railway, Armenia really turns into an important transport crossroads.

The most promising is the highway that will connect the North and the South. Our largest trade turnover is with Russia, while there is a huge potential for its expansion with Iran and the countries of the South-Eastern region. It is obvious that the implementation of this project will bring enormous economic benefits to Armenia.

The economy dictates its own rules. I am often asked about my position, and I always answer: my fundamental principle is to proceed solely from the issues of economic benefits for our republic. And if at the same time our interests coincide with the interests of the northern or southern neighbor, so much the better, what's wrong with that?