МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ПРАВО (последнее)
The CIS Countries at a Crossroads
Актуальные публикации по вопросам международного права и международных отношений.
The October 1997 meeting of the heads of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) in Chisinau, Moldova, lifted the veil off the state of affairs in the Commonwealth. For the first time, instead of following a routine agenda and "stamping" heaps of documents of different significance, the leaders of the CIS countries had a frank conversation about what is going on in the CIS, and to what extent the current state of mutual co-operation corresponds to the integrational goals and intentions that were proclaimed earlier. Perhaps, this was the most important result of the meeting.
Are the CIS Countries Integrating or Breaking Away?
One does not need to be an expert in order to see a wide gap between words and deeds in the Commonwealth. On the one hand, a ramified network of international structures (about 80 in number) has been formed to deal with questions of integrational interaction. Hundreds of joint decisions and agreements were adopted to determine goals and directions of co-operation in the sphere of trade and payment relations, industrial and scientific-technical co-operation, investments, transportation, foreign policy and defence, on social and humanitarian problems. In the Inter-state Economic Committee and other multilateral structures, projects were developed to create various types of common space-economic, technological, energy, information, Eurasian association of coal and metal, common agricultural market and so on. The Inter-parliamentary Assembly of the CIS drafted a number of model legislative acts that are aimed at the harmonisation of national legal norms. In short, intense integrational activity is taking place at the "top" and in the structures created on the basis of various CIS arrangements.
On the other hand, one can reasonably ask: What is going on at the grass-roots level, in real life? It seems exactly opposite. Take, for example, trade among the CIS countries. In 1996, Russia's trade with its CIS partners was $30 billion, which is 4.6 times less than in 1991. During the current year it decreased by 10%. Accordingly, in the total Russian foreign trade the share of the CIS countries now make up 22% against 59% in the past. At the same time, the process of foreign trade flows being reoriented toward countries that are not part of the CIS is gaining strength. The trade with these countries exceeded the 1991 level.
This is a typical process which is taking place not only in Russia. Similar tendencies have been registered in most CIS states. In Ukraine's foreign trade the share of non-CIS countries rose up to 56%, in Uzbekistan this figure is up to 72%, in Azerbaijan-57%, in Armenia-64%, in Georgia-55%.
As a result, the CIS countries, and first of all Russia, are gradually losing their former status of main trade partners for each other. This tendency has been even more conspicuous in the credit-investment sphere. Only during the past year, the total amount of loans that were received by Russia's partners in the CIS from third countries almost doubled, reaching $25 billion, and the proportion of CIS donors decreased to about 30%. As far as foreign investment in these countries is concerned, Russia's share is no more than 1% on average.
Now that a number of CIS countries began to come out of economic crisis and started structural reforms in their economies, the question of where the Commonwealth members are drifting, following their foreign trade flows, has became especially important. This creates new conditions for the expansion of their export- import potential. It is significant that during 1995-96, foreign trade in the CIS states increased by 31%, including that with non-CIS countries-by 38%, and with CIS partners-only by 18%.
By now, many of the CIS participating states have seemingly lost the interest in the CIS as some "buffer" for transition from the USSR to a full independence, and, to a certain degree, in Russia as a reliable donor. Accordingly, they found themselves at something of a crossroads, with the option to either integrate with their Commonwealth partners or to pave the way to the European Union and other associations with neighbouring states.
Who Is to Blame?
The who-is-to-blame question could not be avoided at the Chisinau meeting, and this, as it turns out, is typical not of Russians only. The reasons for the situation that has developed certainly require a thorough and balanced analysis. It seems groundless to look for such reasons only in Russia's position toward the CIS.
Undoubtedly, Russia, because of the size of its economic potential (Russia's GDP is equal to 80% of the total GDP of the CIS countries), and because of its political and cultural influence, objectively occupies a special place in the Commonwealth. No doubt, too, Russia is far from being fully able to play the role of leader in the integrational process. Among other reasons for that is a passive, wait- and-see position which prevails in Russia's approach to the CIS countries. The course proclaimed by the Russian leadership-to give a priority to the development of relations with the CIS partners-is not always implemented in practice.
However, Russia's so-called "exit" from the CIS is connected not so much with this circumstance as with those negative factors that are common for all Commonwealth members: an acute deficit of financial resources, a decline in production and effective demand under the conditions of economic crisis. Russia is said to be paying more attention to the problems of entering international institutions rather than to integration within the CIS. However, as is well-known, the development of ties with these institutions is typical not only of Russia. Moreover, some Commonwealth participating states make important economic decisions with no regard to the interests of their partners, sometimes even simply going against joint agreements.
Take, for instance, political and ethnic conflicts that still remain in some CIS countries. Russia is practically the only country that carries peace-keeping burden there. And, at the same time, Russia is the country to which the conflicting sides try to push the responsibility for their own intractability.
In our opinion, conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that not everything depends on Russia in implementing joint initiatives. Integration is a common cause. The choice of the foreign policy course, including the level of involvement in Commonwealth affairs, is to be made by each sovereign member state of the CIS, its leaders, and its people. It is important to turn the energy that is now spent on identifying who is to blame to the search for constructive ways of the development of co-operation, based on the co-ordination of national and state interests of the countries and taking into account their real capabi-lities.
What to Do?
Unfortunately, this question was not appropriately addressed during the Chisinau summit. Mainly, proposals on reforming the institutional structure of the CIS were highlighted there. The need to completely restructure the system of inter-state organs of the Commonwealth, to clearly identify the authority of different components and to expand their analytical and supervising functions has inarguably become urgent. This should be done in order to switch the efforts to the elaboration of business programmes and guidelines documents with concrete timetables and commitments of the each side, and, through this, to raise the effectiveness of joint work.
One cannot seriously think that this will remove all obstacles in the way of development of mutual co-operation. Joint structures and specialists working there have been and will be representing the will of the CIS participating states. They can act only within the authority they have been given. There are little grounds to suggest that even after deep reorganisation, the inter-state structures would be able to independently solve problems that are within the competence of the presidents, parliaments, and governments of the CIS countries.
The main point is that each CIS participating state should independently determine-taking into account current realities of internal and international conditions-what they want from the Commonwealth, in what forms of co- operation they are interested in, if they are really ready for the establishment of an integrational community, si-milar, for instance, to the one growing in the western part of the Eurasian continent. It is obvious that answers to such questions will not be unambiguous.
Some Ideas on the Ways of the Development of the CIS
A multi-level system of co-operation has been clearly developing within the CIS, reflecting different levels of readiness of each country for rapprochement and interaction. No one can force a sovereign state to participate in projects it is not interested in. Likewise, no one can forbid countries striving for higher forms of integration to combine their efforts in solving the related problems. This provides for the objective peculiarity of the development of co-operation among the CIS countries-the "multi-speed" movement in the integration process. It has been practically implemented in the creation by the CIS countries of a number of sub- regional associations.
Under these conditions, it is unlikely that all twelve members of the Commonwealth will choose a common model of integrational formation. It is more likely that many of them will prefer "soft" forms of interaction with the transformation of the common CIS links into consultative and informational organs, with the emphasis put on the deve-lopment of bilateral relations. In the economic sphere, it seems that, at best, one can talk about an initial stage of the multilateral integration, in the form of free-trade zone. At the same time, each state will regulate the extent of its "openness" through bilateral agreements.
In our opinion, this should not prevent the four states-Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia-that have decided to create a customs union, and other members of the CIS, from realising their right to use more intensive forms of co-operation. The development of new integration models using the experience of the "four" paves the way for other countries of the Commonwealth.
It is typical that in the framework of the Belarusian-Russian Union, which is the most advanced part of the integration process, thanks to a complete removal of customs barriers and other integration measures, a dynamic and steady growth of mutual trade was registered. In 1996, the volume of trade between Russia and Belarus increased by 17%, and during the current year- by 30%, while total trade among the CIS countries decreased. Thus, during the past two years Russian- Belarusian trade increased more than 1.5 times. Both countries' drawing closer in no way encroaches upon their sovereignty, and this can be seen in quite independent position of the Belarusian leadership in the matters of internal policy. That is why it is strange to see comments with reproaches and suspicions from some of the CIS countries' leaders, addressed to the "two" and the "four." Especially when these are from those who zealously come out in defence of state sovereignty, and, at the same time, are themselves taking part in various sub-regional associations. True, both the "two" and the "four", as well as other groupings, should not isolate themselves. It is essential for them to be open to a wide co-operation with their Commonwealth partners, even to the degree that would mean their joining these organisations. This is an important condition for preser-ving the unity of the CIS.
Most serious attention should be paid to the strengthening of the market foundations of integration and increasing the role of business structures. So far, this issue has been seemingly underestimated in the programmes and agreements being developed in the CIS. The emphasis is put on inter-state co-operation, and, sometimes, attempts are made to decide at the interdepartmental level matters of goods deliveries and co-operation among business entities.
At the same time, while countries of the CIS move toward a market economy, entrepreneurs and commercial banks are becoming a decisive force in the development of economic ties. Now, the real situation makes relations with non-CIS countries more profitable than those with the CIS partners.
If one wants to head for a practical strengthening of the trade and economic ties within the Commonwealth, it is necessary, first of all, to create conditions that would stimulate interest in working on the CIS countries' markets. This implies the development and implementation of a set of practical measures, among which are:
Ыthe real introduction of the regime of free trade,
Ыthe establishment of an effective system of mutual payments;
Ыprogressive harmonisation of the national legal norms regulating business activity;
Ыpriority state support for projects on co-operation among entrepreneurs from the CIS countries, including the creation of international financial-industrial groups and multinational companies, joint ventures;
Ыco-operation at the level of small business.
Naturally, integration within the CIS should not be opposed to the goals of entering the world economy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of Russia and other CIS countries to develop their integrational co-operation as part of the world economy processes, guided by international norms and rules. Seemingly, there are no disagreements on this issue in the Commonwealth.
In our opinion, the heart of the matter is how to most effectively participate in the world structures-together or individually. It is not difficult to notice that among the main tendencies of the world's development is the formation of inter-state unions based on the principles of regional integration. Such unions, in the opinion of their members, allow to speed up economic development on their integrated market and to strengthen their positions on external markets.
The only question is whether the Commonwealth countries intend to take into account international experience, or prefer to go their own way, proceeding from immediate instead of strategic interests.
Are the CIS Countries Integrating or Breaking Away?
One does not need to be an expert in order to see a wide gap between words and deeds in the Commonwealth. On the one hand, a ramified network of international structures (about 80 in number) has been formed to deal with questions of integrational interaction. Hundreds of joint decisions and agreements were adopted to determine goals and directions of co-operation in the sphere of trade and payment relations, industrial and scientific-technical co-operation, investments, transportation, foreign policy and defence, on social and humanitarian problems. In the Inter-state Economic Committee and other multilateral structures, projects were developed to create various types of common space-economic, technological, energy, information, Eurasian association of coal and metal, common agricultural market and so on. The Inter-parliamentary Assembly of the CIS drafted a number of model legislative acts that are aimed at the harmonisation of national legal norms. In short, intense integrational activity is taking place at the "top" and in the structures created on the basis of various CIS arrangements.
On the other hand, one can reasonably ask: What is going on at the grass-roots level, in real life? It seems exactly opposite. Take, for example, trade among the CIS countries. In 1996, Russia's trade with its CIS partners was $30 billion, which is 4.6 times less than in 1991. During the current year it decreased by 10%. Accordingly, in the total Russian foreign trade the share of the CIS countries now make up 22% against 59% in the past. At the same time, the process of foreign trade flows being reoriented toward countries that are not part of the CIS is gaining strength. The trade with these countries exceeded the 1991 level.
This is a typical process which is taking place not only in Russia. Similar tendencies have been registered in most CIS states. In Ukraine's foreign trade the share of non-CIS countries rose up to 56%, in Uzbekistan this figure is up to 72%, in Azerbaijan-57%, in Armenia-64%, in Georgia-55%.
As a result, the CIS countries, and first of all Russia, are gradually losing their former status of main trade partners for each other. This tendency has been even more conspicuous in the credit-investment sphere. Only during the past year, the total amount of loans that were received by Russia's partners in the CIS from third countries almost doubled, reaching $25 billion, and the proportion of CIS donors decreased to about 30%. As far as foreign investment in these countries is concerned, Russia's share is no more than 1% on average.
Now that a number of CIS countries began to come out of economic crisis and started structural reforms in their economies, the question of where the Commonwealth members are drifting, following their foreign trade flows, has became especially important. This creates new conditions for the expansion of their export- import potential. It is significant that during 1995-96, foreign trade in the CIS states increased by 31%, including that with non-CIS countries-by 38%, and with CIS partners-only by 18%.
By now, many of the CIS participating states have seemingly lost the interest in the CIS as some "buffer" for transition from the USSR to a full independence, and, to a certain degree, in Russia as a reliable donor. Accordingly, they found themselves at something of a crossroads, with the option to either integrate with their Commonwealth partners or to pave the way to the European Union and other associations with neighbouring states.
Who Is to Blame?
The who-is-to-blame question could not be avoided at the Chisinau meeting, and this, as it turns out, is typical not of Russians only. The reasons for the situation that has developed certainly require a thorough and balanced analysis. It seems groundless to look for such reasons only in Russia's position toward the CIS.
Undoubtedly, Russia, because of the size of its economic potential (Russia's GDP is equal to 80% of the total GDP of the CIS countries), and because of its political and cultural influence, objectively occupies a special place in the Commonwealth. No doubt, too, Russia is far from being fully able to play the role of leader in the integrational process. Among other reasons for that is a passive, wait- and-see position which prevails in Russia's approach to the CIS countries. The course proclaimed by the Russian leadership-to give a priority to the development of relations with the CIS partners-is not always implemented in practice.
However, Russia's so-called "exit" from the CIS is connected not so much with this circumstance as with those negative factors that are common for all Commonwealth members: an acute deficit of financial resources, a decline in production and effective demand under the conditions of economic crisis. Russia is said to be paying more attention to the problems of entering international institutions rather than to integration within the CIS. However, as is well-known, the development of ties with these institutions is typical not only of Russia. Moreover, some Commonwealth participating states make important economic decisions with no regard to the interests of their partners, sometimes even simply going against joint agreements.
Take, for instance, political and ethnic conflicts that still remain in some CIS countries. Russia is practically the only country that carries peace-keeping burden there. And, at the same time, Russia is the country to which the conflicting sides try to push the responsibility for their own intractability.
In our opinion, conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that not everything depends on Russia in implementing joint initiatives. Integration is a common cause. The choice of the foreign policy course, including the level of involvement in Commonwealth affairs, is to be made by each sovereign member state of the CIS, its leaders, and its people. It is important to turn the energy that is now spent on identifying who is to blame to the search for constructive ways of the development of co-operation, based on the co-ordination of national and state interests of the countries and taking into account their real capabi-lities.
What to Do?
Unfortunately, this question was not appropriately addressed during the Chisinau summit. Mainly, proposals on reforming the institutional structure of the CIS were highlighted there. The need to completely restructure the system of inter-state organs of the Commonwealth, to clearly identify the authority of different components and to expand their analytical and supervising functions has inarguably become urgent. This should be done in order to switch the efforts to the elaboration of business programmes and guidelines documents with concrete timetables and commitments of the each side, and, through this, to raise the effectiveness of joint work.
One cannot seriously think that this will remove all obstacles in the way of development of mutual co-operation. Joint structures and specialists working there have been and will be representing the will of the CIS participating states. They can act only within the authority they have been given. There are little grounds to suggest that even after deep reorganisation, the inter-state structures would be able to independently solve problems that are within the competence of the presidents, parliaments, and governments of the CIS countries.
The main point is that each CIS participating state should independently determine-taking into account current realities of internal and international conditions-what they want from the Commonwealth, in what forms of co- operation they are interested in, if they are really ready for the establishment of an integrational community, si-milar, for instance, to the one growing in the western part of the Eurasian continent. It is obvious that answers to such questions will not be unambiguous.
Some Ideas on the Ways of the Development of the CIS
A multi-level system of co-operation has been clearly developing within the CIS, reflecting different levels of readiness of each country for rapprochement and interaction. No one can force a sovereign state to participate in projects it is not interested in. Likewise, no one can forbid countries striving for higher forms of integration to combine their efforts in solving the related problems. This provides for the objective peculiarity of the development of co-operation among the CIS countries-the "multi-speed" movement in the integration process. It has been practically implemented in the creation by the CIS countries of a number of sub- regional associations.
Under these conditions, it is unlikely that all twelve members of the Commonwealth will choose a common model of integrational formation. It is more likely that many of them will prefer "soft" forms of interaction with the transformation of the common CIS links into consultative and informational organs, with the emphasis put on the deve-lopment of bilateral relations. In the economic sphere, it seems that, at best, one can talk about an initial stage of the multilateral integration, in the form of free-trade zone. At the same time, each state will regulate the extent of its "openness" through bilateral agreements.
In our opinion, this should not prevent the four states-Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia-that have decided to create a customs union, and other members of the CIS, from realising their right to use more intensive forms of co-operation. The development of new integration models using the experience of the "four" paves the way for other countries of the Commonwealth.
It is typical that in the framework of the Belarusian-Russian Union, which is the most advanced part of the integration process, thanks to a complete removal of customs barriers and other integration measures, a dynamic and steady growth of mutual trade was registered. In 1996, the volume of trade between Russia and Belarus increased by 17%, and during the current year- by 30%, while total trade among the CIS countries decreased. Thus, during the past two years Russian- Belarusian trade increased more than 1.5 times. Both countries' drawing closer in no way encroaches upon their sovereignty, and this can be seen in quite independent position of the Belarusian leadership in the matters of internal policy. That is why it is strange to see comments with reproaches and suspicions from some of the CIS countries' leaders, addressed to the "two" and the "four." Especially when these are from those who zealously come out in defence of state sovereignty, and, at the same time, are themselves taking part in various sub-regional associations. True, both the "two" and the "four", as well as other groupings, should not isolate themselves. It is essential for them to be open to a wide co-operation with their Commonwealth partners, even to the degree that would mean their joining these organisations. This is an important condition for preser-ving the unity of the CIS.
Most serious attention should be paid to the strengthening of the market foundations of integration and increasing the role of business structures. So far, this issue has been seemingly underestimated in the programmes and agreements being developed in the CIS. The emphasis is put on inter-state co-operation, and, sometimes, attempts are made to decide at the interdepartmental level matters of goods deliveries and co-operation among business entities.
At the same time, while countries of the CIS move toward a market economy, entrepreneurs and commercial banks are becoming a decisive force in the development of economic ties. Now, the real situation makes relations with non-CIS countries more profitable than those with the CIS partners.
If one wants to head for a practical strengthening of the trade and economic ties within the Commonwealth, it is necessary, first of all, to create conditions that would stimulate interest in working on the CIS countries' markets. This implies the development and implementation of a set of practical measures, among which are:
Ыthe real introduction of the regime of free trade,
Ыthe establishment of an effective system of mutual payments;
Ыprogressive harmonisation of the national legal norms regulating business activity;
Ыpriority state support for projects on co-operation among entrepreneurs from the CIS countries, including the creation of international financial-industrial groups and multinational companies, joint ventures;
Ыco-operation at the level of small business.
Naturally, integration within the CIS should not be opposed to the goals of entering the world economy. On the contrary, it is in the interest of Russia and other CIS countries to develop their integrational co-operation as part of the world economy processes, guided by international norms and rules. Seemingly, there are no disagreements on this issue in the Commonwealth.
In our opinion, the heart of the matter is how to most effectively participate in the world structures-together or individually. It is not difficult to notice that among the main tendencies of the world's development is the formation of inter-state unions based on the principles of regional integration. Such unions, in the opinion of their members, allow to speed up economic development on their integrated market and to strengthen their positions on external markets.
The only question is whether the Commonwealth countries intend to take into account international experience, or prefer to go their own way, proceeding from immediate instead of strategic interests.
Опубликовано 29 апреля 2014 года
Новые статьи на library.by:
МЕЖДУНАРОДНОЕ ПРАВО:
Комментируем публикацию: The CIS Countries at a Crossroads
подняться наверх ↑
ССЫЛКИ ДЛЯ СПИСКА ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ
По стандарту ВАК Республики Беларусь
Стандарт используется в белорусских учебных заведениях различного типа.
По ГОСТу Российской Федерации
Для образовательных и научно-исследовательских учреждений РФ
Прямой URL на данную страницу для блога или сайта
Предполагаемый источник
Полностью готовые для научного цитирования ссылки. Вставьте их в статью, исследование, реферат, курсой или дипломный проект, чтобы сослаться на данную публикацию №1398781708 в базе LIBRARY.BY.
подняться наверх ↑
ПАРТНЁРЫ БИБЛИОТЕКИ рекомендуем!
подняться наверх ↑
ОБРАТНО В РУБРИКУ?
Уважаемый читатель! Подписывайтесь на LIBRARY.BY в VKновости, VKтрансляция и Одноклассниках, чтобы быстро узнавать о событиях онлайн библиотеки.
Добавить статью
Обнародовать свои произведения
Редактировать работы
Для действующих авторов
Зарегистрироваться
Доступ к модулю публикаций