Elite or social project

Yesterday participants of the first Eurasian youth forum “Yong Eurasia” agreed to establish the Eurasian Information League. The vice-president of the Eurasian Cooperation Development Fund, Andrey Smirnov, says that the organization is aimed at establishing of horizontal links between the mass media and social organizations of the former Soviet space. “The process of Eurasian integration lacks informational support. After establishing of the Eurasian Information League we will explain why it is beneficial and good,” Smirnov promised.

Yulia Yakusheva, the deputy of the executive director of political scientific center “North-South”

The Eurasian integration really lacks professional expert support. It is not a secret that in Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus a big part of population fears that the Eurasian process is a project of elites. I.e. the project is far away from demands and interests of common people. The second problem is that a part of destructive forces interested in destruction of social stability exaggerates fears on possible losing of sovereignty and national independence of the countries-members of the Eurasian project. Expert views, expert comments should resist these fears and intentional deviation of the reality. Experts should fulfill the function of explanation of problems, prospects, and advantages of Eurasian integration.

We cannot say no efforts are taken in this direction. Both Russia and Kazakhstan have many political scientific centers. State bodies are working with expert society directly. For example, in Kazakhstan recent reforms in the sphere of social security initiated by President Nazarbayev are implemented with intensive participation of the expert society.

The Integration Committee of the EurAsEC has several intergovernmental structures which include experts from Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and other countries of EurAsEC. However, we don’t see that the work of experts would find real expression in the political process at the level of practical decisions. Why is it so? I think first of all, the reason is non-coordination of actions at the level of national state structures and supra-national structures. Moreover, it is a banal lack of experience and clear mechanisms of cooperation with the expert society; it makes effective decision-making impossible. The problem might be solved by establishing a stable permanent pool of experts who will provide expert support of the Eurasian integration. Experts might participate in the process of accession of new members to the Eurasian economic space. In the nearest future Kyrgyzstan and later Tajikistan should enter the Eurasian project. In the more long-term prospect – Armenia and Ukraine. And even now representatives of the Eurasian commission and presidents of our countries speak about establishing of working groups which would provide painless integration of new members into the Eurasian Union. I mean harmonization of national economics and national laws.

Nikolai Kuzmin, political scientist, editor-in-chief of Kazworld

The project of Eurasian integration has always been strong with not only economic, but also ideological constituent. Countries cannot go further than the agreement on free trade in economic approaching, if they are separated geographically and are not united ideologically. The examples are American NAFTA, the European integration process, and ASEAN in Southeast Asia. When Nursultan Nazarbayev in 1994 said that to be friends and to unite is better than to dissolute, he expressed his conceptual view on the future of the post-Soviet space. Due to his personal vies and Soviet household experience Nazarbayev has always been a supporter of integration – any integration, within any principles and more or less acceptable geographic scales. Let’s remind projects which are actively supported and were initiated by Nazarbayev. It is the Eurasian integration which led to EurAzEC and the Customs Union, the economic format of integration; it is the CSTO which is always supported by Kazakhstan, the military-political format of integration; it is the SCO, the combined format of integration with going beyond the post-Soviet space and participation of China; there is the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia, the process became international, as today Turkey is the chair of the Conference; there is one more Turk-speaking organization. In other words, Nazarbayev is a supporter of any formats of integration. When he spoke about Eurasian integration, he projected his vies, vision, attitude after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Actually Nazarbayev believes whatever integration is implemented – quickly or slowly, in this or that format, by one step or gradually – it is good. The most important thing is a common direction at approaching, but not separation.

Alexei Vlasov, editor-in-chief of VK

21 years ago the happened events became a turning point in the long process of the USSR dissolution. I mean the August military takeover, unsuccessful establishing of GKChP and the following developments which led to signing of Belovezha Accords. But the point of no-return was passed in spring-summer of 1991 when it became clear the Union couldn’t be saved in any form. Considering further stages of the shifting from disintegration to integration in the post-Soviet countries, the first period was of course 1994 – the speech by President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev in Moscow State University, when the concept of practical Eurasianism was presented for the first time. At that moment many representatives of elites, including Russian, treated proposals of the Kazakh leader skeptically. But time showed that the choice was right. And initial economic successes of integration which we see within the Common Economic Space are a fruit of the breakthrough idea voiced 18 years ago in MSU. Then we could see a period of certain failures, hesitation connected with the fact that the first Customs Union, and many experts prefer not to mention it, appeared to be useless due to more political than economic reasons. However, later such an influential integration structure as EurAzEC was established, and it developed the Customs Union. From this moment on, when Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus signed foundation accords and shifted to the Common Economic Space since January 1, 2012, we can say that the idea voiced in 1994 becomes a political reality.

The leaders of three countries stated that by 2015 they are ready to sign the agreement of the Eurasian Economic Union. What will it give to common citizens of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus? Is it a project of elites or it is a serious social project which is supported not only by Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus, but also by population of the countries which view positively possibility of joining the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space? I mean Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and probably some countries beyond the post-Soviet space.

Dmitry Zhuravlyev, head of the Regional Problems Institute

The current integration is a revival of the integration existed till 1991. Then, 21 years ago, I spoke to an aide of one of leaders of the former Soviet republic who told me: “Don’t worry! We have a political divorce, not economic.” That time some people believed that the economy would stay common. It didn’t stay common. A complete political divorce is impossible with a common economy. And it caused a lot of problems. Today we compensate these problems. I am sure integration will go beyond, but today we are at the stage of losses’ compensation which are connected with cruel destroy of the united economic region.

Regional cooperation has taken place for 20 years. Because it is easier to cooperate at the inter-regional level. In most cases you don’t need federal decisions there. Some our governor meets a Kazakh Akim or a head of a Belarus region and discusses issues. And there are plenty of examples: Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk, Saratov – where intensive trade cooperation and joint enterprises take place. A part of Soviet industry appeared in one country, another part – in a different country. Thus, industry collapsed. It should be restored, because people need jobs. And there are many such examples. It is natural. First of all, it is demanded; secondly, it brings additional benefits – a number of working places is growing. For example, in the Chelyabinsk region 90% of external trade turnover is trading with Kazakhstan. What will the region do without it? How will they work? It is an important thing.

Moreover, the economic base is not economic only. There are cultural and social contacts. The united organism remained united. I dealt with the Saratov region a lot –if they had no contacts with Kazakhstan (there are areas of compact settlement of Kazakhs in the Saratov region and of Saratov’s citizens in Kazakhstan), the region would experience serious problems. That is how they system works. At this level dynamism is much higher than at the federal level. But the federal level helps to establish conditions – new treaties, new laws. And I think a lot can be done at this direction.

Anton Losev, scientist of the Federal State-Financed Fund of Science under RAS

Russia has joined WTO at last. We are still discussing the advantages and disadvantages of this organization. Russia opens its markets for the West. But it doesn’t mean the West opens its markets for the Russian Federation or the countries of the Eurasian space. Consolidation will enable to accumulate industry and enterprises’ capacities which belong to the countries of the Eurasian space. Some countries have only raw materials. Others have cheap labor force. Third countries have a scientific base for development of projects. Integration will establish a platform of 300 million people which will consume its own production and it will be beneficial. Moreover, it will be competitive with the Western platform.