Redefining Armenia’s Regional Diplomacy

Proactive Hedging and Strategic Engagement In a  Multilateral World

By Ararat Kostanian, Yerevan, 8 September 2025

Armenia’s recent participation in a high-level global gathering in China, under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), marks a significant and complex moment in its evolving foreign policy. While symbolic gestures, such as participation in summits, carry diplomatic weight, the value of engagements must be assessed in terms of long-term strategic returns. It is not enough for Armenia to simply attend such events — it must also formulate clear expectations and extract tangible benefits from these platforms. This includes ensuring that Armenia’s geographic and geopolitical potential is not overlooked within China’s sweeping BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) plans, especially as the initiative continues to favour regional neighbours such as Georgia and Azerbaijan.

China, a global superpower with vested interests in regional connectivity and trade corridors, has a responsibility to treat Armenia as a serious partner. Simultaneously, Armenia must also assert itself more effectively, not as a peripheral player, but as a vital conduit within the South Caucasus, which remains one of the most sensitive and strategically significant regions in the world. The landlocked yet pivotal position Armenia occupies should be leveraged not only for economic integration but also to enhance its diplomatic agency in broader Eurasian structures.

However, Armenia’s strategic ambitions have recently faced an obstacle in the form of its blocked application to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — a regional security and political organization led by China and Russia. Despite Armenia and Pakistan formalizing diplomatic relations during the same visit to China, Pakistan vetoed Armenia’s membership bid to the SCO, a move many view as both contradictory and diplomatically nonconstructive.

The SCO Dilemma: A Case of Political Double Standards

The inconsistency of Pakistan’s position raises serious questions. On the one hand, Pakistan signed a historic agreement establishing diplomatic relations with Armenia. On the other hand, it imposed a veto on Armenia’s entry into a multilateral organization ostensibly committed to regional cooperation and stability. This duality reveals the unresolved tensions underlying South Caucasus politics and illustrates how vested interests and third-party influences continue to shape international decisions. Interestingly,  Pakistan’s decision may not be entirely autonomous, pointing to the potential influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan, two nations closely aligned with Islamabad, particularly on regional security matters. While concrete evidence is lacking, the pattern of behaviour and strategic alignment between these three countries offers plausible grounds for speculation.

Thus, it is logical to deduce that Ankara and Baku may have encouraged, if not orchestrated, the blocking of Armenia’s bid as a pressure tactic, possibly to extract concessions in ongoing negotiations related to border demarcations, peace treaties, and the future of the Artsakh region. This approach, however, runs counter to the spirit of constructive diplomacy, as the SCO has positioned itself as a potential architect of a “new world order.” If this is indeed its ambition, it must transcend legacy conflicts and geopolitical grudges. Blocking a country’s integration into such a structure on political or ethnonational grounds only fuels post-conflict tensions and undermines the SCO’s credibility as a platform for balanced multilateralism. Within the realm of establishing diplomatic relations, Pakistan should treat Armenia seriously in the region taking into consideration its willingness to develop economic relations with the Eurasian Union.

Introducing Proactive Hedging: A New Diplomatic Doctrine for Armenia

In response to such challenges, I propose a new framework for Armenian diplomacy: Proactive Hedging. Unlike traditional notions of hedging — which typically involve risk mitigation through cautious engagement with multiple powers — Hedging redefines the strategy as one of assertive positioning and multidimensional influence-building. This doctrine recognizes that small states like Armenia cannot afford to be reactive. Instead, they must proactively shape their regional roles, diversify their partnerships, and embed their national interests within broader international agendas.

Proactive Hedging involves four key pillars:

1. Recognition and Status-Seeking
   Armenia must seek to elevate its visibility and legitimacy within international platforms. Participation in initiatives like the BRI or potential future membership in the SCO should not be ends in themselves, but part of a deliberate campaign to reposition Armenia as a responsible and capable regional actor.
2. Normative Leverage
   Armenia should present itself as a proponent of international norms such as conflict resolution, minority rights, and post-war justice. This would not only contrast its diplomacy with more transactional models in the region but also attract partners from Europe, Asia, and beyond who share these values.
3. Strategic Diversification
   Armenia must continue diversifying its alliances — politically, economically, and militarily. Over-reliance on any single bloc (be it Russia, the West, or regional actors) reduces its room to manoeuvre. Initiatives with India, Iran, the EU, and new diplomatic ties such as those with Pakistan can all serve as counterweights to pressures from Azerbaijan or Turkey.
4. Hard Diplomacy with Clear Objectives
   Armenia must couple its moral diplomacy with assertive negotiating power. In the context of the Artsakh conflict, this means developing a toolkit of diplomatic, legal, and multilateral mechanisms to compel Azerbaijan to restore the full rights of the displaced Artsakh population and pursue a just and durable peace, not one dictated by coercive armistice.

Toward a Just Peace and Sustainable Development

No regional integration or infrastructure initiative, whether it be the Belt and Road, the Middle Corridor, or the SCO can succeed in the long term without a foundation of equitable peace. For Armenia, the unresolved status of Artsakh remains both a moral wound and a geopolitical liability. Regional actors, including China, must acknowledge that stability in the South Caucasus hinges on addressing not just borders and logistics, but the rights and futures of people affected by war and displacement. Diplomacy that overlooks justice becomes transactional and short-lived. Armenia’s foreign policy must therefore make it clear — through official communications, alliances, and international legal channels — that any roadmap for peace must include the restoration of rights to the people of Artsakh, the safe return of displaced persons, and safeguards for cultural and political autonomy. This, again, is where Proactive Hedging offers a new path. It enables Armenia to assert its interests without falling into the binary logic of alliance politics. It allows Yerevan to articulate a positive vision — not just for Armenia, but for the entire region — rooted in cooperation, dignity, and justice.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

Armenia stands at a crossroads in its foreign policy. Between symbolic participation and substantive diplomacy lies a vast space for strategic recalibration. The BRI and SCO are not just forums; they are opportunities if leveraged wisely. However, the current geopolitical environment demands more than cautious navigation. It calls for intentional, proactive engagement,  in other words, Hedging with purpose. By embracing this new doctrine, Armenia can rise above the limitations imposed by regional rivalries and claim a role that is both ambitious and principled. It must define itself not merely by what others allow, but by what it envisions a sovereign, secure, and respected state, contributing meaningfully to Eurasia’s future.

*****

Ararat Kostanian is a doctoral candidate at the International Indonesian Islamic University and a research fellow CCAS at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Formerly, he worked at the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia.
Email address: [email protected]