Johnson's Russia List
#5011
7 January 2001
[log in to unmask]
#6
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001
From: "jc benadam" <[log in to unmask]> (by way of David Johnson
<[log in to unmask]>)
Subject: HAS THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES COLLAPSED?
David,
For your consideration.
Justin Rudelson
410.467.7477
CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS ANALYST
January 3-16, 2001
HAS THE COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES COLLAPSED?
Dimitri Kemoklidze
AUTHOR BIO: Dimitri Kemoklidze is an expert with the EU-TACIS Project,
Georgian-European Policy and Legal Advice Center in Tbilisi. He was recently
an IREX Fellow and a Visiting Scholar at George Mason University. Research
for this article was supported in part by the Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs, the US Department of State under the Freedom Support Act,
and administered by IREX. These organizations are not responsible for the
views expressed.
Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS) was created to preserve linkages between the
countries. While for Russia the CIS was the only means to keep a dominant
position in the post-Soviet space, most CIS countries considered the CIS no
more than an interstate instrument of civilized divorce. This autumn, during
the UN Millennium Summit in New York, very important events took place with
dire implications for the CIS. The presidents of GUUAM countries began
negotiations toward creating a free trade area within these five countries.
At the same time, the Customs Union of the CIS was transformed into the
Eurasian Economic Union. Do these events spell the collapse of CIS?
BACKGROUND: Only several of the CIS leaders hoped that it would be possible
to reintegrate the national economies and thus maintain a single post-soviet
economic space. This was to be achieved by the Agreement on Economic Union
concluded on September 1993 by eleven of the CIS states. However, this
agreement never was implemented. Another proposal from the Russian side was
to create the Customs Union of the CIS, which required its member countries
to introduce common external tariffs on the level of Russia's tariff
schedule. In 1996, a customs union was created involving only four CIS
members, namely Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The governments
of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan
rejected the CIS-based customs union because of the predominance of Russia,
which would directly or indirectly dictate trade policy conditions. In
reality, the Customs Union has only existed on paper.
The Collective Security Treaty signed by nine countries in 1992 was another
means for preserving the CIS though Ukraine, Moldova and Turkmenistan have
never been members of this collective security pact. In 1999, the Security
Treaty expired and several members, namely Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Uzbekistan, decided to end their participation in the collective military
cooperation framework because the treaty provided no actual protection of
its members security, rather it has more to do with extending Russia's
interests. The rest of the CIS countries, previously members of the
collective security treaty, were in favor of prolonging the pact and signed
a relevant protocol.
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the treaty and formed a new
military-political-economical-grouping (GUUAM) along with previously neutral
Moldova and Ukraine. The presidents stressed cooperation in establishing the
Eurasian Trans-Caucasus transportation corridor (TRACECA), in conflict
settlement, peacekeeping activities, transportation projects, and
integration into the Euro-Atlantic and European structures of security and
cooperation. In 1999, Uzbekistan joined the GUUAM. In September 2000 in New
York, the presidents agreed on institutionalization of GUUAM and began
negotiations toward creating free trade area within these five countries.
The following month Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
agreed to set up the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on the basis of the
previously established Customs Union.
IMPLICATIONS: The newly established Eurasian Economic Union will be the
means for political control over the member countries regarding their
economic policies and external relations. This is indirectly written in the
documents signed in October 2000. The new decision-making procedure, adopted
by the same document, guarantees Russia's dominate position in the Union.
According to the voting formula, Russia will have four votes, Kazakhstan and
Belarus, two each, and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan one vote each. Considering
the level of political and economic integration of Russia and Belarus,
Russia will have majority (4+2) in the decision-making scheme of Eurasian
Economic Union.
Regarding economic integration, the appropriate document has been signed
according to which Union member countries will have to negotiate common
external tariffs/trade barriers, which will probably create a Russian-led
trading bloc. This will complicate bilateral and multilateral trade
negotiations with WTO members for Kazakhstan and it will become impossible
for Kyrgyzstan to fulfill obligations agreed during the negotiations with
WTO members. Kyrgyzstan will be required to choose between Russia and
western integration (WTO).
The GUUAM free trade area, since Georgia is already WTO member, will not
complicate WTO negotiations for Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan
because the free trade area does not require member countries to harmonize
external tariffs and thus foreign trade policies. There is no doubt that
GUUAM countries will set up a regional organization during the first quarter
of 2001 and start negotiations on the creation free trade area among GUUAM
countries. The result would be that all import tariffs and other trade
barriers will be removed between GUUAM members and each country will
continue to retain its own international trade measures vis-à-vis countries
outside the free-trade area. Regional free-trade areas are very important in
the structure of world trade. With outside countries, trade continues to be
governed by bilateral treaties and the WTO/GATT framework. The creation of a
regional free-trade area allows a group of states to cooperate in increasing
their own wealth without waiting for the rest of world.
CONCLUSIONS: The fact that GUUAM countries have common economic, political
and probably military interests strengthens this regional grouping. Among
the top priorities will be the political interaction within the framework of
integration into Euro-Atlantic and European structures of security and
cooperation. This includes the establishment of a special dialogue with NATO
on issues of mutual interest, as well as interaction with the United
Nations, OSCE and other international organizations. Economic cooperation is
of special importance, considering the plans to establish the Europe-South
Caucasus-Central Asia transit corridor on the Silk Road in which the GUUAM
countries would play an important role. The energy sector is another sphere
of cooperation, particularly development of Caspian oil deposits and the
construction of multiple pipelines to the international market.
Different political, economic and military interests divide the CIS into a
pro-Russian Economic Union and a pro-Western GUUAM. Despite Russian
insistence to the contrary, the CIS is characterized by a lack of political
cohesion and there are divergent views about the role and status of the CIS
among member countries. Russia is still willing to support an integration
process that ultimately could lead to the creation of a unified political
entity. However, the CIS cannot operate as a real integrative institution,
especially after the creation of GUUAM and the Eurasian Economic Union, two
regional organizations within the CIS that do not inspire much optimism
about the future of the CIS even from a purely economic perspective. The
CIS's future will depend on it becoming an important force in the
independence and territorial integrity of its member states. This does not
seem likely at this time.
Copyright 2001 The Analyst
All rights reserved
*******
Andrew Jameson
Chair, Russian Committee, ALL
Reviews Editor, Rusistika
Listowner, allnet, cont-ed-lang, russian-teaching
1 Brook Street, Lancaster LA1 1SL UK
Tel: 01524 32371 (+44 1524 32371)
|
