Armenia’s recent participation in a high-level global gathering in China, under the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), constitutes a very crucial and complex moment in the country's evolving foreign policy. Although symbolic moves, like attending summits have diplomatic value, 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 also extract tangible benefits from these platforms. This involves making sure that geographic and geopolitical potential of Armenia is not shunned 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. At the same time, Armenia needs to also assert itself more effectively, not as a marginal actor, but as a critical node in the South Caucasus, which has been one of the most vulnerable and strategically important areas of the globe. The landlocked yet pivotal position that Armenia is in , should be leveraged not only for economic integration but also to strengthen its diplomatic presence in the broader Eurasian structures.

However, Armenia’s strategic ambitions have recently faced a very strong obstacle in the form of its blocked application to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a regional security and political organization that is led by China and Russia. Despite Armenia and Pakistan having recently formalized 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 Deadlock

The inconsistency of Pakistan’s position raises very 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 dedicated to regional cooperation and stability. This duality depicts the unresolved tensions that exist within South Caucasus politics and also illustrates how vested interests as well as third-party influences still continue to shape international decisions. Interestingly, the move made by Pakistan might not be wholly autonomous, pointing to the potential influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan, two countries that are closely allied with Islamabad especially on regional security issues.  While concrete evidence is lacking, the trend in behaviour and strategic orientation between these three nations provides plausible grounds for speculation.

Thus, it is logical to deduce that Ankara and Baku might have urged, or even masterminded, the blocking of the bid of Armenia as a pressure tactic, perhaps in a bid to make concessions in the current negotiations over border demarcations, peace treaties, and the future of Artsakh region. This strategy, however, is contrary to the ethos of constructive diplomacy because the SCO has branded itself as a potential architect of a “new world order". If this is indeed its ambition, it must transcend legacy conflicts as well as 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 take Armenia seriously in the region, considering its willingness to develop economic relations with the Eurasian Union.  On the other hand, Pakistan would become a new partner in mediating its relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Introducing Proactive Hedging: A New Diplomatic Doctrine for Armenia

In response to such challenges, I propose a new framework for Armenian diplomacy: Proactive Hedging. In contrast to the traditional conceptualization of hedging, which typically involves risk mitigation adopting a very careful and calculated approach to interacting with multiple forces, this 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 very reactive. Rather, they need to actively determine their regional identities, diversify their partnerships, and also embed their national interests within broader international agendas.

1. Proactive Hedging involves four key pillars:

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 ended in themselves, but part of a deliberate campaign to reposition Armenia as a very responsible and capable regional actor.

2. Normative Leverage

Armenia should position itself as a very reliable and strong advocate of international principles like conflict resolution, minority rights, and post-war justice. This would not only contrast its diplomacy with more transactional models in the region but would at the same time help in attracting partners from Europe, Asia, and beyond who share these values.

3. Strategic Diversification

Armenia must continue diversifying its alliances,  politically, economically, and militarily. Any over-reliance on any single bloc (whether 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 either Azerbaijan or Turkey.

4. Hard Diplomacy with Clear Objectives

Armenia must try to couple its moral diplomacy with assertive negotiating power. In the context of the Artsakh conflict, this means developing a toolkit of diplomatic, legal, as well as multilateral mechanisms to compel Azerbaijan to restore the full rights of the displaced Artsakh population and pursue a very just and durable peace, not one that is 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 as well as a geopolitical liability. The regional players, among them China, should recognize the fact that the stability in the South Caucasus hinges not only on addressing just borders and logistics, but also the rights as well as the futures of people affected by war and displacement. A diplomacy that is subject to ignoring justice  becomes transactional and short-lived. Armenia’s foreign policy must therefore make it very clear through official communications, alliances, as well as 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 allows Armenia to assert its interests without falling into the binary logic of alliance politics. It enables Yerevan to articulate a positive vision not just for Armenia, but for the entire region  that is strongly rooted in cooperation, dignity, and also justice.

Conclusion: The Road Ahead

Armenia stands at a very crucial crossroads in its foreign policy. Between symbolic participation and substantive diplomacy lies a vast space for strategic recalibration. The BRI and SCO are more than just forums; they are very vital opportunities if leveraged wisely. However, the current geopolitical environment demands a lot and far beyond 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 also claim a highly strategic role that is both very ambitious and also principled. It must define itself beyond what others allow, to envision a sovereign, secure, and respected state, contributing a lot and very meaningfully to Eurasia’s future.

Note: Another version of the article has been published on Keghart under the title “Redefining Armenia’s Regional Diplomacy” and is accessible here