Interview with Konstantin Truevtsev, associate professor at Department of General Political Science at Research University of Higher School of Economics (Russia).
Q: To what degree the declaration on Eurasian Economic Integration and the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Commission can become attractive for other post-soviet countries?
A: Integration processes as part of the Eurasian Union can clearly be of interest to the CIS countries. This is evidenced by an agreement on Free Trade Area recently signed by a number of CIS countries, which is the lowest stage of economic integration, since it calls for a number of exemptions.
This signing which was delayed for more than 10 years became possible not least because of the effectiveness of closer cooperation within the Customs Union and efforts of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan to form it into a single economic space - the next stage of the project, which provides for free movement of not only goods, but also business, finance and people - became apparent.
It is clear that this stage of the project is particularly interesting for those CIS countries, whose citizens are constantly working on the territory of Russia and Kazakhstan, but are still in relatively powerless position. Kyrgyzstan is already taking steps in that direction. It is not excluded that Tajikistan, which previously voiced a desire to join this process, will join it, if it settles the current conflict with Russia (pilots have already been released, but several aspects of the conflict still need to be resolved.).
Q: These documents provide for the creation of supranational structures. Would not it be intimidating factor for the other countries considered as potential candidates for accession to the Eurasian space?
A: In their current form, supranational bodies are purely economic in nature. So, the Eurasian project is still not format of the European Union, but its predecessor - the European Economic Union - in the short and possibly medium term. The fact that the political integration is not the main point yet is proved by a variety of political matters. It should be recalled that economic alliance alternative to EEC existed for some time at a similar stage of development of European integration, which included the United Kingdom, Austria and some Scandinavian countries.
Concerns about the "return to the USSR" are, of course, understandable. Kazakh people, Belarusians and Russians also have these concerns. But the majority of public in the three countries support it.
Typical reaction of Tajik people to the incident with pilots shows their great interest in the project. There is similar public opinion in Kyrgyzstan, too. Moldova unexpectedly showed a great interest in the Eurasian integration. The number of its supporters outnumbered the number of supporters of European integration for the first time in several years with a margin of 10%.
Q: Does admission to the Eurasian Union mean these countries should abandon European integration?
A: Theoretically, the issue of a choice between European and Eurasian projects is almost of philosophical nature since both Russia and Kazakhstan, and Belarus not only state their desire for closer integration with the EU, but also try to take steps in this direction.
However, in practice one should make a choice. How acute this issue is can be seen in case of Ukraine, which wants to be present in both organizations. However, both Russian government and the European Union, each on their part, presented an ultimatum to the Ukrainian leadership to make a choice. As a result, the country ended in a political time pressure, since it will have to make a choice before the end of this year.
Q: What does the creation of the Eurasian Union promise for the South Caucasus? Which South Caucasus countries will seek a rapid entry into the new organization and which of them will distance themselves from it? Moreover, what advantageous does admission to the new union give to these countries, particularly Azerbaijan and Armenia, which have conflicts with each other?
A: The things concerning Georgia are clear. There will be no projects involving it in integration processes until Mikhail Saakashvili remains in power. However, negotiations between the Russian opposition and leadership showed that the process of defrosting current Russian-Georgian relations can take a fairly wide range once a question is raised. Armenia is widely integrated with Russia from an economic standpoint and acts as an observer in the Customs Union. Its leadership has repeatedly voiced a desire to participate in a closer integration. However, the lack of a common border is a serious obstacle.
All three countries, especially Russia and Kazakhstan, have a wide scope of economic ties and cooperation with Azerbaijan in a number of areas. Azerbaijan was one of the signatories to the agreement on free trade zone. However, its entry into the Customs Union seems unlikely, at least in the short term due to significant divergence of interests in oil and gas industry which is essential for both countries.
Nevertheless, if the prospects of the union were more attractive for Azerbaijan than the interests of diversification, including Nabucco and Trans-Caspian gas pipeline project, (the latter, according to some Russian media repoets, is painfully perceived by the Russian government), simultaneous admission of Armenia and Azerbaijan into the integration project could provide a solid foundation for settlement of the Karabakh problem based on a condominium, for which each of the parties would give up some principles that would be less painful for them in a common political space. Of course, the latter assumption, obviously, is still a political fantasy.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
