Eurasian Union: view from Tbilisi - 1

The initiative by Vladimir Putin on the forming of the Eurasian Union didn’t meet approval in the political circles of Georgia. However, it doesn’t mean that expert and journalist society of the country treated the project by Putin indifferently. The different reactions to an important political event confirms that the Georgian politicians dissemble, showing artificial indifference to the Eurasian idea: they afraid to fix their position or they simple have nothing to say in response. But journalists and experts are commenting on the situation with pleasure. Here are some trends Tbilisi, which appeared during analysis of the initiative by Putin.

Romantic flush or mercantile estimation?

Few people in Georgia consider the idea of unity of the former Soviet republics into the Eurasian Union as a pragmatic choice based on economy reasons only. It is thought to be a political project and sincere melancholy of Putin on the great state.

Some experts say that it is wrong to ascribe authorship of the idea to Nursultan Nazarbayev, stating that the Eurasian Union of the president of Kazakhstan is a cunning effort to mild circumstances of the collapse of the great country for its former province, while Putin means not a “civilized divorce,” but integration based on economy and only then on policy.

Georgian experts call the idea by Putin “a desire to reconstruct the power” and “his soulful flush.” They don’t believe that the Russian premier was encouraged by a simple mercantile estimation for establishing of the united market and comfortable conditions for business.

Such point of view is interesting, as Georgians extrapolates their own idea on motivation of politicians (Georgian or Russian) in proposing various initiatives. Personification of any processes, as well as mythologizing of the policy and politicians, is an indispensible feature of the Georgian society and its political culture.

The Eurasian idea

Few experts try to analyze the idea of the Eurasian Union from the point of view of its reasonability. Some of them remind that the European Union was founded as the alliance of coal and steel producers by France and Germany, which were historic rivals and managed to agree after three bloody wars since 1870.

At the same time observers note that the coal-and-steel union and cancel of taxes, as well as economy integration, were only a cause and an argument in the process of integration of ethnically and culturally close peoples. The European integration took place under the motto of the united identity of countries and peoples: from Ancient Greece and Rome to Magna Carta, Hanseatic League and current pluralistic democracy with its fundamental values of freedom of a person and human rights.

“What is a current common idea (after collapse of the Communist ideology), which can unite countries and peoples of the former Russian Empire and the USSR, except a beautiful idea of Eurasianism by Lev Gumilev?” skeptics question. What are common values and united identity, which can consolidate such different peoples of the Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Carpathians? It seems there are no such values. Thus, there is no sense in searching for and establishing common identity. If there are no common values and prospects for consolidation within united identity, the Eurasian project has no future, according to the critics of the idea.

David Avalishvili, one of Georgian political scientists, has found a simple but rather deep answer: “Why don’t we have united values and identity? We have. It is “Hunt and Fishery.” Why did he mention the name of a popular TV-channel in all countries of the former USSR? He meant that the Eurasian Union is a guarantee of freedom and happiness of a person, a certain individual, implementation of small (important for him or her only) plans on life, according to his or her own naive understanding of happiness and success.

It can be the common value, and the Russian language, which is spoken by the majority of population, can be an instrument for real consolidation. By the way, Europe didn’t have such instrument.

The main enemy of the union

The greatest difficulty in integration is difference of interests of national elites. These contradictions (rather than social and economy problems) destroyed the Soviet Union. One can wear himself out by urging to historic brotherhood, cultural unity and interests of a common person, but all in vain if a serious conflict of interests of national elites appear.

No economy benefits and rational reasons can resist the hydra of nationalism, national totalitarianism and crazy ethnocentric hysteria. Under these conditions national elites will find resources how to surpass a driven person.

The idea of the European integration was developed after rejection of nationalism, which was born during the epoch of the Great French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars.

Many experts believe that it is Russian society that should define its position first. What are Russia’s aims? What does Russian want to achieve? What does it build: a nation of a Eurasian unity?

If the current Russian elite, Russian society and the authorities of the country are building a “nation-state”, the Eurasian project won’t be successful. Any union is based on fragile trust and belief. It is a long process, most important components of which are cultural complementary, tolerance, absence of conflicts and compromise, just like it was in Europe.

To be continued

Georgy Kalatozishvily, Tvilisi. Exclusively to VK