Prospects of institutional development of integration processes in the post – soviet space

Abstract. In this article possible prospects of integration processes on post – Soviet space are considered. Main obstacles for successful integration of the region and possible ways of their solution are provided. Existing integration organizations of the region are evaluated.

Geopolitical situation, including integration processes, on Eurasian territory was always the subject of comprehensive attention and discussion. The issues of choosing an optimal and adequate strategy for all post – Soviet countries remain open. In the end of the last century after the collapse of Soviet Union attempts to re­establish the destroyed allied unity in the framework of CIS were taken in 1991. The desire to bring together post – Soviet countries for integration was detected. These events were the next phase of creation of new integration project – Eurasian space. More than a quarter of a century has passed after the creation of CIS, therefore there is a need to evaluate the results of integration policy and imagine possible prospects of further development of integration processes on post – Soviet space.

Today processes of globalization gradually lose its dynamics because of states’ desire to stabilize and maintain their sovereignty. This process proceeds not in favor of full­fledged process of Eurasian integration, and eventually may slow its implementation.

Modern realities are characterized by a very complicated structure ­ simultaneously with the nationalization of states regionalization is also strengthening, which implies participation of states in the globalization. And this factor, on the contrary, strengthens the opportunities for realization of integration policy on post­Soviet space. Even apparent resistance to globalization and participation in regional integration projects doesn’t give an opportunity to choose the other way, and post – Soviet countries are not exception. But a crucial issue is that post – Soviet countries have an alternative to integration on post – Soviet space in the form of accession to European Union (particular countries) or to project of Chinese government

­ the Silk Road Economic Belt. Because these two integration projects have solid investment base, accession to innovational development technologies, effective methods of management, and opportunity of inclusion to production chain of transnational companies, post – Soviet countries may choose to participate in one of these projects.

The critical question is what processes will prevail in the foreseeable future – integration or disintegration? To our mind, political and economic fragmentation of post – Soviet space will strengthen, and disintegration processes will prevail over integration policy.

World economic crisis hit hard the economy, social development of the region, and, therefore, created additional obstacles in the way of implementation of Eurasian integration project, because it made them choose protectionism, and not transparency.

Summarizing the outcomes of the last year, it should be noted that each post – Soviet state came to different results. That is largely explained not by just their political or socio­economic model of development, but also availability of raw materials and production resources, contradictions between political and economic interests, problems in cooperation with global and regional powers. Main boost for economic prosperity in these states was income from export of goods, services, capital, and labor force.

Another important factor was investment, namely foreign. Most vividly it showed up in states with rich deposits of natural resources. High rate of economic growth during 25 years can be noted in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan. Relatively low economic growth was in Moldova and Ukraine.

Significant distinction of geopolitical strategy, methods and approaches to cooperation on post ­ Soviet space and towards Russian Federation are seen in foreign policy of post – Soviet states. Despite broad introduction of integration institutions on post – Soviet space, de facto it is not coherent whole from geopolitical point of view. Constantly present declaratory character doesn’t let ideas of Eurasian integration project advance. The main reasons of inconsistency of foreign policy orientations are the differences of cultural peculiarities, various purposes of internal policy, the desire of political elites to ensure advantageous position for own existence, and etc.

Political fragmentation of post – Soviet space happened also because of policy implemented by Russia, which until now didn’t implement targeted course on integration of post – Soviet countries. Unclear developed strategies of Russian government led to the moment, when further steps towards cohesion and acquiring political and economic effect were initially doomed to fail.

Also gradual declining of role and managerial actions of Russia in the region happened because elites of new sovereign states had firm commitment to stay away from Russian tutorship in order to preserve their sovereignty. The preservation of statehood is an objective intention of every country, and dominance on them by one or several states limits the attempts to create full­fledged system of Eurasian integration. In fact, integration is supposed to transfer part of its functional power in terms of making decisions by a state in the framework of transition from national level to supranational one. But experience has shown that any display of restriction of independent development of a country is taken very painfully by political elites and most part of society. Firm opinion (in many cases even statement) that one of the main purposes of Russia is to establish direct influence and dominance on post – Soviet space has disseminated.

But several countries, especially Kazakhstan, lately openly show interest to necessity to eradicate disintegration attitudes and go towards development of cooperation with Russia.

Analysis and evaluation of doctrines and concepts of foreign policy of post – Soviet states show that they are aimed towards implementation of multi – vector policy, based on cooperation with main centers of power. The majority of CIS countries do not nominate Russia as a priority direction of foreign policy. According to the results of the research, there are three groups of countries with various attitudes to Eurasian integration policy:

1. Countries, which are oriented on close cooperation with Russia and direct participation in its integration project (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan).
2. Countries, which desire to find fulfillment by accession to integration project of EU countries (Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine).
3. Countries, which balance between USA, EU, and Russia (Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan) [1].

Thus, today only a small part of post – Soviet space is interested in participation and realization of Eurasian integration project. To our mind, there won’t be significant changes in attitudes of post – Soviet countries towards Eurasian integration. Evaluation of international activity of post – Soviet countries revealed that the process of their establishment as stable and full­fledged actors of international relations is not fully completed, and priority directions of foreign policy are also not fully defined.

Concerning Central Asian states, political and economic influence of China and Russia is much stronger than the impact of USA. But Russia faces the row of serious challenges, regarding issues of economic expansion of Beijing in the region. Many experts mark that after economic expansion there will be military and strategic strengthening of China in the region. In turn, destabilization of Central Asian region is no profitable neither for Russia, nor for China. Beijing reacts extremely negatively for any display of instability in the region due to problematic issue in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. This fact increases the possibility that Central Asian space will not become an arena of confrontation between Russia and China. At the same time, currently new government of Uzbekistan initiated the process of establishment of constructive relations with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Central Asia is a very specific region. It usually uses the policy of maneuvering with bigger states. This practice was defined as multi­vector policy, with the help of which there is an opportunity to get certain political and financial profit from relations with each power, in particular USA, EU, China, and Russia. Each of mentioned above countries sticks to own tactics of constructing relations the region and separately taken country.

In comparison to USA and Russia, EU continues to policy of Central Asian region with the help of soft power. In comparison to EU policy in Central Asia, China has a more long­term strategy of soft power aimed on the region, affecting all significant spheres of government and society. New strategy of EU towards Central Asian region [2], adopted in 2015, includes differential policy related to countries of the region, which in particular will be shown in investments to a separately taken country. In other words, EU decided to reduce the list of priority countries in Central Asia in order to get more effective results. In the view of many experts, Kazakhstan will be the main priority in the region because there is still significant volume of trade between EU and Kazakhstan, country exceeds other countries of the region in terms of social and economic development and etc.

Briefly summarizing, EU will foster its economic and trade interests, issues of energy security, and expand transport infrastructure in the Central Asian region. In general, the presence of EU in the region slightly conspicuous, because the organization doesn’t regard it as its main geopolitical partner, but, for its part, will regularly try to control situations, which impact the development of Central Asian states. According to one version, other powers, represented by China, USA, and Russia, will try to destroy close relations between the region and EU, in order to strengthen its influence in Central Asia. Consequently, EU will have to limit its relations with several Central Asian countries.

Thus, the question about further destiny of Eurasian integration project is complicated by various factors, the main of which critical relation towards Russian policy. After collapse of USSR new generation with different worldview, critically perceiving the policy of Moscow was formed in the post – Soviet countries. Society and business representatives in post – Soviet countries don’t show notable propensity to realization of Eurasian integration project. Most part of the population in these countries doesn’t imagine the essence and role of integration policy, doesn’t see any social and economic preferences due to participation in the project. Consequently, solid social and political foundation for successful realization of integration project of post – Soviet countries is not sufficiently laid for today.

In case of appearance of need for further development of integration of post – Soviet countries, options of creation of new integration projects and strengthening of their supranational bases, common financial, economic development are possible. But existence of several integration organizations can become a significant factor of contradictions among principles and interests of their members. Good opportunity to solve this problem will be either efficient legal provisions in the framework of international treaties or creation of rational and concrete mechanisms of realization. The final goal of integration on post – Soviet space will be the creation of integration platform without internal borders, meaning free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor force between former Soviet countries, above all, for economic development.

Thus, main elements of integration model on post – Soviet space must be creation of not just economic, social, cultural space, but also community of security [3], which will facilitate the build­up of economic growth at the quality level. Huge attention must be paid to creation of a single scientific space in the region, scientific and technological and cultural space, which will help to solve strategic problems. In comparison other integration projects, EEU project currently looks the most well­developed and promising. But contradictions between Russia and Western countries, reduction of economic development of post – Soviet countries due to fall in prices for raw materials, conflicts between members, slow processes of Customs Union and Eurasian Economic Space creation are the main reasons of inhibiting of EEU purposes and principles implementation [4].

In order to enhance military and political system, this economic structure relies on Collective Security Treaty Organization. CSTO is one of the main structures in ensuring of regional security. During its functioning, organization got particular results.

Lately new opportunities for implementation of other integration projects with the participation of post – Soviet states are appearing. In many aspects projected and existing integration projects are occluding each other, because the same post – Soviet countries are members of different organizations and treaties. This fact, as well as fragmentation of post – Soviet space, creates various evaluations of subregional formations – from recognition of their acceptability and justification [5] to defining them as a catalyst of CIS disintegration, although at the same time it is noted that they create real premises for search of ways and methods of strengthening of national economic security [6].

It should be noted that today only a small part of post – Soviet space is interested in participation and realization of Eurasian integration project. To our opinion, in the nearest future there won’t be significant changes in attitudes of other post – Soviet states to Eurasian integration. The evaluation of international activity of post – Soviet states showed that the process of their establishment as stable and full­fledged participants of international relations is not completed, and priority directions in foreign policy are also not finally defined.

REFERENCES

1. 25 let spustya. Itogi i perspektivy razvitiya postsovetskikh gosudarstv. ­ Rezhim dostupa URL: http://rescue.org.ru/ru/event/106­25­let­spustya­itogi­i­perspektivy­ razvitiya­postsovetskikh­gosudarstv.­ (data obrashcheniya: 08.03.2017) [in ].
2. Yevrosoyuz prinimayet novuyu strategiyu dlya Tsentral’noy Azii. ­ Rezhim dostupa URL: http://inozpress.kg/news/view/id/46301. (data obrashcheniya: 08.03.2017) [in Rus.].
3. Linder S.B. Customs Unions and Economic Development. Latin American Economic Integration. Miguel S. Wionczek, ed. ­ New York, Praeger, 1966. 32­41.
4. 25 let bez SSSR: k chemu privela postsovetskaya dez / integratsiya?Analiticheskaya zapiska 1. ­ Rezhim dostupa URL: http://minskdialogue.by/research/analitycs­notes/25­ let­bez­sssr­k­chemu­privela­postsovetskaia­dez­integratciia ­ (data obrashcheniya: 23.01.2017) [in Rus.].
5. Ziyadullayev N. SNG: natsional’naya bezopasnost’ i ekspansiya SSHA// ­ Svobodnaya mysl’ ­ XXI. ­ 2002. ­ № 6. ­ S. 73­87 [in Rus.].
6. Godin YU. Nadezhd na reintegratsiyu stanovitsya vse men’she// Sodruzhestvo NG. ­ 2000. ­ № 10. ­ S. 3 [in ].