By Vestnik Kavkaza
In 3.5 months the citizens of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan (and probably Armenia) will live in the Eurasian Economic Union. Over the years of preparation for establishment of the union a lot has been said about the effect on the populations of the member countries. Today experts warned about excessive optimism, but insist that there is no alternative to the EaEU.
Yuri Krupnov, the chairman of the Supervisory Council of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development, thinks that people should treat the issue of the EaEU more constructively: “In Russia economic growth is almost zero, while in neighboring countries serious intended devaluation of national currencies is going on. There is a complicated economic situation in Belarus.”
“We should create new economies of our common civilization space, restore the technological university. Of course it is great that Daewoo, Volkswagen, Nissan, Renault build automobile plants in our country. I remember in 1997 I was told in Malaysia that they got the first car based on Mitsubishi and the Malaysians were very happy that they have their domestic cars. Of course we can be proud that Volkswagen and Daewoo come to us, but sanctions and the situation on banning technological transfer to our Russian civilization show that the Eurasian Economic Union is unworkable without technological independence,” Krupnov thinks.
At the same time, the expert says that we should understand that “the decision of May 29th on signing the basic agreements of the Eurasian Economic Union is a matter of life and death. We are establishing a pre-economic union to build a new economy in post-Soviet space. It will be a long and difficult process. But the events in Georgia in 2008 and the Ukrainian tragedy show that the alternative to it is the collapse of the independence of our states.”
According to Krupnov, “Presidents Putin, Nazarbayev and Lukashenko say that this is a concentration of forces before serious constructive work in the next decade. The EaEU should be built. We need intermediate technological industrial projects. In Kazakhstan the term “boosted industrialization” is banal, while in Russia we have been discussing industrialization for three years, the word “boosted” is perceived as horrible, as we have a very liberalized mentality. Since the collapse of the USSR we have a big achievement this year – the law on industrial policies is being legally discussed, and “industrial policies” is not an obscene phrase anymore.”
“We have great prospects. We should understand that without joint construction, all our states and sovereignties will die. We need to survive in this security framework,” Krupnov is sure.
Vladimir Lepekhin, the head of the EurAsEC Institute, agrees with him: “Due to the political scientific center “North-South” in July a conference was held in Kazakhstan, where a model of economic development was presented. It gives us a picture of development of the Eurasian Economic Union. In Kazakhstan they do their best within the industrial plan which was adopted in 2010, but Russia has no such plan, unfortunately. The conference discussed the topic: “Raw material industry orientation of the country – bad or good?” There is a view that it is bad to depend on resources. But it is bad when all resources are exported instead of being processed in the country. Raw materials turn into goods when it is connected with an industrial plan of development. That’s what happens in Kazakhstan. And we can see these advantages, if we look carefully.”
According to Lepekhin, “on the one hand, we reduce trade turnover due to problems in Ukraine; on the other hand, there are the first steps which confirm that in the long prospect integration will bring greater economic effect. If we look attentively at the economic structure, we will see that there is a turn to intensification of the industrial development of Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia. Kazakhstan is the leader among the three countries in the sphere of development of an optimal model.”
