Программа: CNOUS Университет: Institut d`Etudes Politiques

Программа: CNOUS
Университет: Institut d’Etudes Politiques
Направление: “Géopolitique et Relations Internationales”
Годы обучения:2011-2012
Автор работы: ФИО_Niiazova Munara________________
Степень _Master______________________
E-mail:[email protected]______
Тема исследования: Développement de l'intégration sur la région post-Soviétique: de
la CEI à l'Union Eurasienne (Development of integration on post USSR region from CIS to Eurasian
Union)
____________________________________________________________
Краткое резюме (не более 200 слов):
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created 20 years ago. Experience
accumulated over the years allows an objective assessment of past and present of the CIS as well
as its achievements and flaws. None of the CIS countries, even Russia, is capable to integrate
alone successfully into the global economy; therefore the development of multi-level and multiintegration in all public spheres is an essential condition for economic growth in the CIS
countries. The concept of long-term social and economic development of the Russian Federation
until 2020 focuses on the CIS and its role in the strategic policy of Russia.
However, we believe that there are lots of obstacles to overcome on the way to high degree
integration. These barriers include considerable gap in economic development, territorial and
population size of states in a region, gradual disintegration of already existed unions on post
USSR region, authoritative regimes in a number of states, growing nationalism and regional
conflicts to name a few of them. Moreover, there also a number of external threats that could
impede processes of further integration, such as attractiveness of other unions, growing Islamic
and Chinese influence.
Мнения, выраженные в исследовании (отчете), не отражают точку зрения
Фонда «Сорос-Кыргызстан» и Фондов Открытого Общества.
Institut d’Etudes politiques de Toulouse
Mémoire de recherche présenté par Mlle Niiazova Munara
Directeur(rice) du mémoire : Mme CABANIS Danielle,
Professeur à l'I.E.P ( Université Toulouse I-Capitole)
Date : 2012
Institut d’Etudes politiques de Toulouse
Mémoire de recherche présenté par Mlle Niiazova Munara
Directeur(rice) du mémoire : Mme CABANIS Danielle,
Professeur à l'I.E.P ( Université Toulouse I-Capitole)
Date : 2012
I would like to thank French government and Open Society Foundation for giving me such
amazing opportunity to study in France at Institute of Political Studies in Toulouse. I had a
chance to meet high qualified professors, professional academic staff that were very kind to
me.
I would also thank my dean, dear Mme Cabanis whose doors of office are always open for
students. I highly appreciated your classes on master thesis writing, where I could not only
learn useful tools and tips for research, but also had heart-to-heart talks.
I am so gracious to all library stuff that was very helpful and so warm-hearted to me during
my long days spent there.
I am also very thankful to my classmates, who helped me to settle down well in Toulouse and
feel comfortable during the classes.
My special gratitude is to my parents, people that believe in me and support me all the time.
I will never forget this nice unforgettable time in Toulouse and people that were very nice to
me.
Avertissement : L’IEP de Toulouse n’entend donner aucune approbation, ni improbation dans
les mémoires de recherche. Ces opinions doivent être considérées comme propres à leur
auteur(e).
Abbreviations
ASEAN- Association of Southeast Asian Nations
CCASG-Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf
CIS –Community of independent States (9 official members (Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) and 2
unofficial ones (Turkmenistan and Ukraine)
CSTO- The Collective Security Treaty Organization (Armenia, Belorussia, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan)
CU- Customs Union (Russia, Belorussia, Kazakhstan)
EFTA- The European Free Trade Association
EU-European Union
EvrAsEC - The Eurasian Economic Community (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan)
GATT- The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GUAM- Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, Moldova)
IMF-International Monetary Fund
MERCOSUR- an economic and political agreement among Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay,
Uruguay, and Venezuela, Spanish: Mercado Común del Sur
NAFTA- North American Free Trade Agreement
OPEC- Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
SACU-Southern African Customs Union
SCO- Shanghai Cooperation Organization (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan)
UK- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
UNO- United Nations Organization
USA –United States of America
USSR- The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
WTO-World Trade Organization
Development of integration on post USSR region from CIS to Eurasian
Union
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...1
1 The theoretical foundation of modern regionalism………………………………………9
1.1 The evolution of concepts of regional integration……………………………………....9
1.2 The modern integration processes of the 20 century………………………………….19
2 Regional Integration in the post-Soviet region: historical background, actual
development………………………………………………………………………………….32
2.1 Stages of formation and development of the CIS……………………………………...32
2.2 CIS bodies and their role in integration ……………………………………………….40
2.3 Features of economic cooperation of CIS states……………………………………….48
3 The problems, contradictions and prospects of Socio-economic and political
development of the regional integration on post-USSR region at present……………….59
3.1 Role of Russia in the CIS integration processes ………………………………………59
3.2 Assessment of current trends and prospects of regional integration development ...71
Introduction
The infrastructure of world economy has greatly changed over the years from group of statesnations with close economy to common world-wide market consisting of world market of
goods and services, labor and capital, global monetary and financial system. The main
participants of world market processes are not longer states; they are mostly firms and
enterprises, multinational companies, international organizations, regional unions. So we
observe a decline of national boundaries influence as well as obstacles concerning different
countries’ approaches to business processes. Internationalization of economic processes and
actors involved in that are due to developing system of international relations and even
“transnationalization” of production. It is main feature of contemporary world economy. On
one hand we observe the growing and reinforcing integrity of world economy, on the otherits contradictions and fragility proved by last financial crisis. We choose to write our research
paper based on geoeconomic values, since we believe that nowadays there is no geopolitics
itself, so even geopolitical issues as a rule have some economic base. We believe that this
geoeconomic approach could help us to show all processes occurring actually in post-USSR
region.
Active participation in international labor division, well-developed network of economic
links, reflecting interstate flows of goods, services and finance have already become the main
undoubted conditions for economic progress. Even most developed and hugest states cannot
autonomously expand all directions of Research and Development and provide efficient
production of goods and services. Enlargement or deepening of international research
connections are also one of the indicators of internationalization processes. We believe that
main change of nature of relations is shift from time-to-time form of exchange to strategic
long-term collaborations. Reinforcement of world economy internationalization mostly
determined ineffectiveness of Keynes methods of economy regulation on national level. In
1980-1990’s there were economic reforms determined to enhance market power role in a
number of states. Over the time, the number of countries accepting market economy as a
model has significantly increased. Several decades ago we observe hard competition between
two types of economy: market economy, presented mostly by western countries, especially,
USA and command economy, adopted by socialist states and powerful USSR. During the
Cold War, USA and USSR tried to compete in almost everything: military force, economic
force, sport achievements etc. We also believe that this fight was mostly ideological rather
than simply economical or military. It is not also just competition between free market and
regulated one; it is mostly fight between ‘individualism” and “collectivism”. Different values
1
of these states were huge obstacles on the way of cooperation between them. However,
socialism and all values and ideas related to that proved to be not as efficient as they were
supposed to be previously, One after one socialistic unions and states started falling down
with concurrent denying past ideas. Almost all of them accepted new democratic values,
liberal views and market type of economy. Creation of new states based on new models
greatly contributed to their development as open states. These new states were ready to
negotiate with almost all states in the world, cooperate with them and develop economic and
political links. Previously socialistic states cannot imagine to work with other countries due
to differences in ideologies. Actually, Czech Republic and Slovakia are independent
democratic and developed states that became members of EU, although decades ago they
were parts of one state Czechoslovakia under Socialist ideology. Latvia, Lithuania and
Estonia were members of USSR, but after its collapse in 1991 they become independent
democratic states and nowadays these Baltic States are members of EU. As we see, collapse
of opposite ideology gave a number of states the same values and ideas that a big part of rest
of the world possessed. Moreover, it also granted them the opportunity to participate in
integration processes and regional integration, specifically. Above-mentioned ex-socialist
states are pleased to have such a great opportunity and as a consequence they tried to blame
USSR for occupation of their territory. So not all states regret for USSR falling down, we
suppose that majority of ex-USSR members treated it as an opportunity to be on its own
independent way, build market economy and feel free to collaborate with all states around the
world. However, not all states of USSR are so opposite to their past existence within USSR
over almost 80 years like Baltic States. The majority of ex-members are still ready to work
with each other and with Russia specifically. But all of them are independent states with
market economy, so it is necessary to create new forms of cooperation allowing each country
to receive some gains from that.
After USSR collapse in 1991 all states-members became independent. It was hard time for
all of them regardless their size and economic development, since they need to learn playing
according new rules of independence and market economy. They need to adopt new
constitution, national currency and new legislation. Moreover, they need to establish new
economic links with ex-members of USSR as they are not part of the same country anymore,
and with other states all around the world. New democratic states emerged in a region also
need to maintain their national military and foreign policy that they have never done it before,
since all issues related to that were solved by central administration in Moscow. But even
being independent, majority of states-ex-members of USSR possessed strong links among
them that are not only economic or political. People of these states are also supposed to be
2
friendly to each other and even till now they are nostalgic to common Soviet past. Exmembers feel strong necessity to continue collaboration even after getting independence but it
was compulsory to create new organization, since USSR restoring seemed to be impossible.
So in 1991 almost all ex-USSR members besides Baltic States joined organization
Cooperation of Independent States (CIS hereinafter). CIS was established by three states
Russian Soviet Socialist Republic (RSSR), Belorussian Soviet Socialistic Republic (BSSR)
and Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) just after taking decision on termination of
USSR functioning. The document consisting of 14 clauses and preamble stated that USSR
ceased to exist as a subject of international law, however, due to common history, links
among people, bilateral and multilateral treaties, intention to establish independent democratic
states, intention to develop relations based on mutual recognize and respect of reached
independence parties decided to install CIS. By end of December in 1991, all twelve exmembers of USSR except Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia ratified this treaty. Over more than
20 years it was created a number of organizations such as EurAsEC, Customs Union, Union
State and Collective Security Treaty Organization just to promote integration among all
members of region. As we see countries try to cooperate not only in terms of economic
collaboration, but also military ones. Not all of these tries were successful; sometimes
agreements were made on a paper, but were not executed in a reality.
It is pretty evident that countries on post-USSR territory are not advanced economically, so
even the most developed among them are still on the middle level of economic development.
We suppose this to be result of rampant deindustrialization, taken place after USSR collapse
and market transformation following after that. Just to compensate all these economic losses
in 1990’s, ex-Soviet states are interested in stable economic growth that higher than world
average ones. Economic development started in 2000’s in a region was not due to
technological progress or huge renewal of production process resulted in launching new
enterprises, it was mainly caused by reinforcement of supplier’s role of raw materials and
energy resources by some states-members to the EU and China’s market. A number of states,
such as Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan cannot reach till now the amount of GDP in 1991.
The criteria of economic development conditions can divide states in a region in following
groups:
1) Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan –even being quiet different in terms of
political openness and economic liberalization; these states are able to increase
exportation potential in fuel and energy sector of economy. Transnational companies also
greatly contributed to the development of this sector and its presence in a world market.
We can also note high growth of GDP in these states in 2000’s and moreover, growing
3
favorable trade balance. Part of income got from selling energy resources is accumulated
in special national funds providing relatively stable economic development. However,
even trying to diversify its industry, they cannot produce competitive products, even
having substantial financial actives; they have pretty small internal markets for
production of high technological goods and services. Import in majority of cases proved
to be more advantageous than national production. Kazakhstan has more attempts to
diversify its economy by introducing new foreign technologies and investing national and
foreign capital.
For these states price fluctuation of hydrocarbons and its infrastructure to deliver is a
great challenge. The delivering conditions forced states to participate more actively in
regional integration.
Russia has also very close to them economic framework, so abovementioned states are
considered by Russia as competitors in the world hydrocarbons market or, also, as
possible partners in developing regional fuel-energy system. Big income of Kazakhstan or
Azerbaijan that enhanced internal demand of these states could be interesting for Russia.
Share of Russia in total exportation of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan is less
than 10%, however Russian exportation to these states is 3 or 4 times higher. Russia faced
the same challenges as these states, so their experience of economic and technological
evolution, diversification of production is of great importance for Russia.
2) The second group includes a bigger number of states that are importers of hydrocarbons.
These states can be characterized by stable problems with negative trade balance leading
to negative balance of payment. They try to solve above-mentioned issues by exportation
of labor, receiving foreign assistance in terms of credits, grants and foreign investment.
All these states have very weak financial system. The very fast changing conditions of
trade as well as fluctuation of world prices for hydrocarbons are also a huge threats for
them, since it have a direct impact on inflation, budget, balance of payment and national
debt. Countries of this group, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine, were significantly
touched by crisis. Moreover, exportation of these states greatly depended on demand in
EU and Russia that in its turn, decreased due to crisis. As a consequence, capital flow
from EU and Russia to these states also reduced.
States of this group in general lead open and liberal economic policy. They consider EU
accession or integration with ex-USSR members as a solution of their internal issues. For
them it is very important to have free access to markets of goods, services, capital and
labor of other states-partners. As a rule, Russia’s share in total external trade of these
states can fluctuate from 10 to 50%. In general, we can divide these states into two
4
groups: small states with badly diversified economies, such as Armenia, Georgia,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and big states with pretty much diversified economies, as
Belorussia and Ukraine, playing a huge role in transit of carbons between Russian and
EU.
3) In a third group just one state is supposed to be presented. Uzbekistan can be specifically
noticed due to its close economy and restricted market. This state is independent in terms
of energy resources and it does not have any significant challenges in trade balance.
Having badly developed exportation, Uzbekistan has mostly diversified production
oriented mainly to internal market and markets of neighboring states. Internal demand is
under influence of investment in fixed assets as well as transfers of labor migrants
working mainly in Russia and Kazakhstan. Even though being so close, Uzbekistan is
threatened by the fluctuation in demand for goods and services and labor force as well as
conditions for receiving credits and other financial aid.
So the question that we want to answer in our research paper is: What are the real economic
and political challenges, evident or hidden, faced by states in a region on a way to further
integration?
In general we believe that all ex-Soviet states regardless their models of development have
not only conflict of interests among carbon importers, exporters and transit states, but also
common economic issues such as poverty, high inflation, corruption or even restricted
internal markets, so they present peripheral part of world economy and can be characterized
by a significant dependence on world markets of goods and capital as well as on relationship
with huge states with strong economies. Almost all states in a region depend greatly on petrol
prices fluctuations. However among them exporters of carbons are in more advantageous
position since they can be more independent, however, they can also be characterized by poor
innovation programs, underdeveloped infrastructure, lack of qualified staff and etc.
Market transformation in ex-Soviet region unfortunately did not mean complete wide
structural changes in economy and technological modernization of production processes.
Perceiving necessity in modernization, countries try to implement new economic policy,
however they suffer from lack of financial resources or even intellectual ones to pursue that.
Modernization was necessary not only in sectors oriented in internal markets, but also to
exportation, since majority of CIS states suffer from negative trade balance.
For complete and thorough analysis, we will present

Theoretical approaches to the regional integration, especially concerning integration
among underdeveloped states
5
As we know, based on history, states decided to integrate when they possess some
economic interests. However, unions can be created due to safety reasons; Security
issues are of great importance for ex-USSR members, since majority of them are
small states with underdeveloped economy and military forces. The level of
integration could depend on readiness of states-members to delegate some national
power to supranational bodies.

History of integration in the post-Soviet Area starting from 1991 to 2012
Ex-Soviet states and their attempts to integrate can be divided into three periods:
 Transformation (1991-1999)
 Recovery (2000-2008)
 Modernization (from 2009 to nowadays)
In our research we try to present all important stages of integration in a region.
Historical facts can also significantly contribute to our understanding of what is “PostSoviet Region” and its possible strategies to integrate further.

Role of Russia in lobbying integration in a region as the most interested state in it.
In a third part, we will show that role of Russia, its participation in integration and
incentives created by it for other states in a region just to involve them in integration
process. Moreover, we believe Russia significantly contributed to the development of
CIS states through reconstruction and further enhancing of production of these states.
Russia has a considerable influence on states in a question through export prices and
quotes for carbons, import of labor forces, export and import of transit services,
investment of Russian business and Russian companies activity in these states.
However, till now Russia is not well modernized technologically itself, so it forced to
import it from EU, USA and etc and cannot export technologies to CIS states. We
also noticed that Russia transmitted fluctuation from world market to other CIS states
during economic cutback and recovery.
Second part of last decade was marked by more active Russian role in a region and creation
of multilateral zone of free trade among CIS states-members and Customs Union within
EurAsEC. However, formation of such regional unions does not provide itself stable
development, progressive structural changes of economy, it also does not equalize level of
economic development in different states, but it can create conditions for enlargement of
market, increased efficiency of used resources,
increased differentiation of goods and
services and finally, increased competition among producers. Even having enlarged market,
states still feel necessity to pursue common modernization policy by all participant of
integration. Actually more and more states in a region are forced to import technologies from
6
third states, outside CIS, that resulted in formation of cross-border technological chain and
increased trade with them. It means that trade and technological cooperation with third states,
outside region, increases, however trade within integrated states is supposed to decrease. We
also need to note that trade among CIS members decreased in 2000’s from 28.5% to 22.5%.
Situation seem to be uncertain, since Customs Union and Free Trade Zone were created for
unrestricted trade of goods and services among states-members, however production of these
goods and services will be based on third states technologies. However, we believe that
abovementioned unions were mostly created for common trade transactions and technological
cooperation is considered to be an ambition needed to be realized in a future.
Based on world experience, success of integration as well as its durable development depends
on national technological level and its place in the world innovation processes. Regional
technological achievements recognized worldwide are the basis for national economic growth
and moreover, in regional commodity circulation.
Among all CIS states Russia, as biggest and strongest state with ambition to be regional and
even world leader, is expected to take active actions toward creation of common
technological center. It is also very important to cooperate with all states-members on all
stages of technology development:
applied science, development, experiments and
production. Taking into account that some of CIS states are very rich in natural resources, it
seems to be necessary to develop regional technological market in order to use these
resources in effective and efficient manner.
Region of CIS is very interesting for studying since even being previously one state; it
contains very different states in term of not only economic development, territorial size, but
also religion and culture. There are also a number of threats for states such as Chinese
proximity and possible cultural influence, Islamism and extremism that are mostly from
activity of Arabic states and organization in Central Asia, Western influence and possible
NATO accession of some states in a region in a question etc. However, we cannot blame
some states for close relationship with USA or NATO such as Georgia; we believe that each
state has a right to choose its own way if it responds well to its national interests. But we also
think that some actions of state determined to defend national interests could provoke regional
conflicts or even war, as we see in example set by Russia and Georgia.
Military conflict occurred between Russia and Georgia in 2008 had a significant influence in
a regional situation. Even though, majority of CIS members highly assess the necessity to
preserve strong relations with Russia, no one among them supported Russia in its actions.
Even till now there is no ex-USSR member that recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as
independent states. We suppose that Russia was expecting some concrete actions, assessment
7
and support from CIS members, however it did not received that. Till now the status of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia are very doubtful. However, we believe, that Russia that did not
receive expected support from CIS members, will try to attract them in high level integration,
such as Customs Union.
Throughout the research we also tried to present positive and negative trends of integration on
post-USSR region as well as internal and external factors impeding development of
integration. Regardless current positive development, such as creation of Customs Union, first
union supposing supranational bodies, and ambitions plans related to it, such as common
budget, common currency, we believe that ex-USSR states have lots of barriers on the way of
further integration. We also think that before accession to some union, state should solve its
own national issues. Creation of union with supranational power is not a solution for all
problems, so integration itself can not lead to prosperous life.
8
1. The theoretical foundations of modern regionalism
1.1 The evolution of the concepts of regional integration
Regions and regionalism: from basic concepts to new regionalism
The terms regionalism and regional integration became widespread in research papers on
international relations and modern economics because of opposition of two big military
alliances, headed by USA and USSR during époque of bipolar world after Second World
War.
The term integration in 20 century is mostly referred to changes in political and economic
architecture of after-war Europe. Cooperation in economy and politics is considered as not
only undoubted condition of effective state management and way of conflict resolution,
occurring among states and helping to avoid military ways of conflict settlement, but also
base for new regional community development and new system of regional organization. We
believe that European regional integration was also influenced by sociological approach to
integration, which was considered as primordial function of social system providing
integration of individuals in socio-economic community.
German researcher Karl Deutch1 has greatly contributed to the development of term
integration by introducing term “communicative integration” according functional approach.
K. Deutch believed that integration was primarily based on forming, further proliferation of
“security culture” and creation of “security communities”. He treated “security communities”
as a group of people that is included in one community for peaceful conflict resolutions, since
war was supposed to be obsolete way of conflict settlement. As a rule, participants of such
communities were united not only by territorial proximity or political decisions, but mostly by
common culture, formal and informal standards, traditions and values. So this united group
becomes one formation with unconditional trust within group that leads participants to the
idea of belonging to the same group. In his work “Political Community and North-Atlantic
region introduced two types of united community: amalgamated and pluralistic. Amalgamated
community supposes creation of group of units (states) under huge supranational power. This
type of integration is seldom met in reality; however, there is an example of USA or Russia
that could create federal state.
However, pluralistic security communities proved historically to be more efficient and wide
spread since states are integrated under condition of national sovereignty. Integration of USA
and Canada in pluralistic community supposes preserving of political independence, but it
eliminate the possibility of political confrontation, especially taking into account past
1
Karl W. Deutsch, Sidney A. Burrell, Robert A. Kann, Maurice Lee, Jr.,. Martin Lichterman, Raymond E.
9
conflicts. According to Deutch, pluralistic communities are easier to create and support
further in comparison with amalgamated.
Realists as Karr and Morghentau believed that it cannot be easy to transfer from world order
based on power and violent military confrontation among states to new world order, based on
legal regulation of international relations, trade and economic cooperation. Based on their
research, they believed that political balance of power and dynamic ratio of power depending
on many factors are more close to actual reality.
In neorealist works theory of hegemonic stability was developed. Its main argument was
based on observation that international regimes were installed and supported only when one
state possess a huge power over the rest ones, like USA after Second World War. If
hegemonic power is lost and powerful resources are almost equally spread among states,
international regimes fall down and there could be a period of anarchy and straggle for
hegemony, until one powerful state is not able to set new hegemonic regime, that restore
balance of power and stability.
Actually, regionalism and regional integration are considered to be key indicators of
international relations after end of Cold War and introduction of multy polar system in
political international world. The growth of attention to regionalism and regional integration
is mostly based on increased role and activity of regional organizations as EU, ASEAN,
OPEC and NAFTA, coordinating decision making process and conflict resolution on
supranational and international level.
In new researches region is considered to be active and dynamic unit. It can develop or
disintegrate depending on many circumstances. We can also observe the situation when the
processes of integration and disintegration are developing at the same time.
One of the famous scientists on regionalism issues and comparative integration Bjorn Hettne2
emphasized the following features, influencing the integration process in a region:
1) Regions should be considered as a territorial unit and include a number of states that
recognized as states, united by geographical proximity, strong relations and
economical or political links.
2) The political, economical and cultural characteristics can be differently developed. So
there is no necessity to have every process occurring between states greatly developed
3) The degree of regional unification can increase or decrease over the time, depending
on interests that every state determine for itself.
Björn Hettne, András Inotai,1994. ” The new regionalism”, book. WIDER: World Institute
for Developement Economics Research, The United Nations University
Available through: The United Nations University Library <
www.wider.unu.edu/.../RFA14.pdf -> {Accessed 10 Mai 2012}
2
10
4) New regionalism as a new method for searching political strategies can reflect changes
in approaches for research as well as studying the practice itself of regionalization and
regional integration happening in post bipolar world. Changes can be evident in three
main parameters: features of new regional union appearance, number and participants
and their characteristics, strategic aims of members.

Features of new regional union appearance
Previously, we believe that countries integrate under conditions of having similar
economic and political structure, however, actually, necessity to integrate is mostly
dictated by common problems or threats and needs to elaborate some common
position related to problems as well as solutions for it. Since new global system is
characterized by more intensive informational flows and communicative links, the
cross border and trans-border issues’ significance, such as migration, terrorism, drug
traffic, have greatly increased. The influence of external factors on internal situation is
also considerably raised, making country more fragile and highly sensitive to external
issues. National resources are not enough for solving such huge problems in unilateral
or isolationist manner. So that’s why states prefer taking part in collective security
and install transnational coordination of policy. However, we also believe that
economic object was also pursued, since participating in collective deal could cut
cost.

Participants of regional integration:
Regional alliances during “Cold war” was mainly created by super powerful states,
however, actually, regional integration became more spontaneous, since they were
initiated by region itself, so states, nongovernmental organizations and business units
located in a region are main generators of integration.

Aims of integrated partners
Under conditions of bipolar world, military security and economic development
issues were separated. We believe that old regional unions were divided based on the
aims of their creation: military security or economic development. New regionalism is
more multidimensional, multifaceted and comprehensive process with variety of aims
such as economic integration, environment saving, social policy security, democracy
maintenance. Regional cooperation can be started by governments that negotiate on
building good neighborly relations, economic development, technology and
knowledge transfer and coordination of common policy. Moreover, it can be
considered as one of the most preferable tool to solve problems caused by global
processes.
11
Collective security as a reason for regional alliances
One of the greatest experts on security issues Fulvio Attina3, Italian scientist, in his
publication dedicated to Euro-Mediterranean partnership proposed his own concept and scale
to distinguish and range variety of forms of regional security system depending on the degree
of its members’ integration and on the level of its institutionalization.
The extreme points of proposed scale are zero-point or total absence of measures providing
collective security and one-point or well developed institutional structure for cooperation
considered by Deutch as amalgamated security community.
Between these two extremes there are five levels:

System of opposed alliances

System of collective security

Regional partnership on Security

Loosely coupled pluralistic security community

Tightly coupled security community
According to system of military-political alliances, cooperation is based on the traditional
idea of state security so that group of states coordinate functioning of their military forces,
threatening to use force as a means to deter potential aggressors. State decides to join this
military alliance when it faces the threat to its security that it cannot neutralize itself. Often,
creation of such military alliance by one group of states provokes other states that are not
included in this alliance and have another point of view to create similar alliance that will
oppose to first one. As a result, world system is appeared to be a system of opposed military
alliances and a number of states that do not join to any of them. We can also believe that,
sometimes accession to one military alliance not only do not reinforce security of this states,
but also make it object of discrimination and potential aggression due to fact of membership
in opposite union. According to Attina, European system of security was system of opposed
alliances for 40 years after Second World War.
System of collective security does not suppose creation of permanent military forces or
obligation to manage conflicts commonly. Under this system government save their national
independence in terms of their national military forces and can accept using of that only in a
case of intervention from aggressor’s side.
Collective security is believed to be a number of legal mechanisms, created for prevention
and suppression of aggression happened between states. It can be reached by demonstration of
3
Fulvio Attina, 2003, “The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Assessed: The Realist and Liberal Views”, European
Foreign Affairs Review 8: 000–000, 2003.
Available through: < www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/EMPefarde.pdf > {Accessed 1 June, 2012)
12
possibility to take measures for peace keeping or to force country-aggressor to peace. Such
measures can be ranged from diplomatic boycott to imposing sanction or even military
actions execution. So the core point of that is collective punishment of aggressor through
using superior force.
Regional partnership of Security is based on concept of cooperative security or measures of
cooperative security, stipulated in regional agreements, including measures of trust and
openness, exchange of information on military policies and national military forces as well as
maintenance of military and non military security structure, comprised in treaty.
Attina proposed to consider regional partnership on Security as a transitional form just to
organize community of security based on the formation and activity features of transregional
organizations such as OSCE, SCO, ASEAN. He mostly applied to the experience of creation
and activity of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, organization that for the
first time institutionalized regional partnership relations.
Regional partnership organizations of security are often international organization having
complicated structure, using a number of measures and mechanisms such as legal acts in
order to regulate conflicts or to prevent them.
Safety partnership could unite not only states previously in a conflict, but also states, linked
by a huge number of transactions and communications, if they share common cultural and
institutional values. Moreover, even though having distinguished security and institutional
culture but similar political and practical motifs, countries can demonstrate their readiness for
common actions, determined to decrease risks of mutual force confrontation and create
conditions for maintenance regular economic, social and political collaboration.
Actually dependence of some states and their economy on other states and institutions has
considerably grown, national economy became more open for external world, and as a
consequence, integration trends are dominating. There is a gradual appearance of unions,
comprising a number of states on the same level of economic development and, in general,
having common boundaries. It is very important for countries included in union to posses the
same level of economic development, similar structure of economy and be relatively close to
each other in terms of population and territory size. These similarities are supposed to provide
all countries-members with equal rights to participate in decision making process in union.
Even in 1950-1960 years scientists tries to explain necessity of economic regional integration.
According to traditional theory, economic reasons for integration are believed to dominate.
goods, services and capital flows among countries-participators are the main causes for that,
however, we believe that economic interests are not the only ones for union creation.
13
We can also consider other non-economic causes such as desire to strengthen military defense
and provide protection from external enemies as an incentives for integration. As we know,
the world has never been peaceful, so states, small and big, powerful or weak, need to care
about partnership in terms of military cooperation. Currently, we are in process of not only
regional economic collaboration process, but also military ones. A number of states, such as
Georgia or Ukraine intend to be a part of Western North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO
hereinafter) as well as Afghanistan and India want to enter Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. These regional military alliances intend to respond in effective and efficient
manner to global challenges such as terrorism and regional threats. Participation in these
alliances can improve quality of national army, national military equipment. So the term
“collective security becomes more and more actual and conceptual, since it is hard for single
states to address regional or world threats.
We also believe that common aims such as social stability or increasing of production volume
is possible incentive for union creation. It is expected from states-members to act in a one
voice in this case, since insisting on national interests could stimulate contradiction leading to
collapse of the union
Countries could intend to create union due to their resource limitation, so they want being
involved more actively in exchange process. This can have a huge impact on innovation
development, appearance of economy of scale and goods differentiation
Nowadays there is no universal theory of reasons for integration development as well as
advantages opened for states included in unions. However, we believe that it cannot be the
only incentive for accession to some integration
The end of opposition between capitalistic and socialistic ideology greatly influenced
development of regional integration. A number of states became independent and free from
ideological pressing. After demonstration of ineffectiveness of command economy, market
economy was installed almost everywhere, so economic conditions became similar. This
element as well as necessity for intensive development of science and technologies, that
required huge financial resources, contributed greatly to integration processes. Moreover, we
believe that completely closed economy can downgraded effectiveness of economy
Theoretic features of regional economic integration
International economic integration is a consequential process of convergence and
interpenetration of economic systems under conditions of having sufficient potential for that.
14
Country decide to enter in one economic union in order to satisfy their own economic needs
and participate more actively in labor division process. Although, as it was above mentioned,
there are also other reasons for integration, such as economic growth in integrated states,
geographical proximity, political decision to integrate, common actions toward common aims.
It is notable that real interstate integration is possible only if their markets have potential to
integrate as well. So well-established integration is supposed to start on the lowest level (trade
among firms and companies of different states or migration) and then to go higher till
governmental level. So we believe that there are two approaches for regional integration:
1) Top down when governmental treaties and agreements create incentives for integration
development
2) Bottoms up when there is an active interaction between economic units, such as companies,
firms, people, intensive investment flows. All above mentioned trends created incentives for
officials to establish agreements for facilitating this process.
Based on the experience of regional integration, adoption of governmental treaties are not
sufficient for union to operate properly and play an important role in world economic
processes.
Regional economic integration opened new opportunities for common investment,
development of common projects, pursuing researches and enhancement of production
activity.
However, before accession to one union, country should take into account all aspects of such
important step and think it over carefully. After accession, some changes will happen in
national economy and social life, so state should be ready for that. If economic development
of one-country-member is lower than that of others, this state will have difficulties in being
equal partner and as a consequence, cannot be actively involved in regional economy or world
one. During integration process, there must be created conditions for stimulating economic
growth, so there is a great need to make changes not only in economy, but also in politics and
social life.
Regional economic development is spread world-wide. Not only developed states became a
part of it, but also developing and even underdeveloped ones. However, the extent to which
countries are involved in regional union are very different, so some unions do not have
15
supranational institutions and they mostly operate based on governmental treaties. These
unions are still developing, although there are a number of unions that possess supranational
power and pursue common economic, political and social policy in a variety of states.
There are a number of stages that regional integration goes through during its development.
Actually, there are five stages: free trade zone, customs union, single market, economic union
and monetary union. All these stages can be distinguished based on extent of presence of
economical barriers Actually, there is no union gone through all these stages, except
European union, that could afford creation of supranational institutions working on common
political and economic policy. So the rest of unions existing nowadays are mostly on second
level.

Lowest level of integration is Free Trade Zone that supposes elimination of customs
duties and other non-tariff restrictions for international trade ought to be minimized.
However, restrictions concerning agricultural products are not fully implemented,
mainly partially. As a rule, there is no possibility for one party to increase customs
duties and introduce new ones unilaterally. During signing treaties on Free Trade Zone
establishing, some protective measures comprising increased duties or quoting can be
included in clauses. These treaties could make behavior of states more predictable and
made international economic situation more stable. However, under these treaties
there is no necessity to install supranational bodies, so decisions are taken by the
national official during their meetings. Although, Free Trade Zone help countries to
integrate more effectively to world economy by opening their markets even for a
number of states, this type of integration can damage national economy. Sometimes,
national producers cannot be able to resist external goods and services flows, so
international competition can be very hard fro them. This situation can lead to
aggravation of national economic situation and closure of enterprises that cannot
handle even national market.

Next level of integration is customs union. This union supposes not only elimination
of customs duties within union, but also common tariffs for states outside this union.
We also can call it as a “collective protectionism”. Countries pursue common foreign
policy; they also control goods flows in and out. So there are changes of production
and consumption structure in countries-members. As a rule, customs union has
favorable influence on development of internal market, since customs union is more
higher level of integration supposing establishment of supranational institutions due to
16
reconsideration of approaches to development of variety of economy sectors and their
regulation and negotiation on union further development as well.

Single market is believed to be third level of integration. To be transformed to single
market level, customs union’s states-members should have not only economic
incentives, but also political ones. As a rule, during negotiation process, it is not easy
to reach an agreement on a number of questions concerning economic, political and
social aspects. For that, we need new approaches for issue solving as well as
reinforcing of supranational power. Special supranational bodies are needed to be
created like European parliament, European commission, European counsel in
European Union. For implementing common policy, agreements ought to be accepted
and decisions to be made by a number of states. Union on this stage, called single
market, has the following features:
1. Develop common policy on relations with outside states
2. Determine the common way of industry and agriculture development, taking
into account all social consequences in all countries-members
3. Eliminate all obstacles impeding free flows of capital, labor and services.

The transition to a next level of integration, economic union, is possible only after
creation of common economic, legal and information center. Coordination of common
policy in terms of tax regulation, industry and agricultural development is
accomplished on this stage.

Economic and monetary union is the last stage of international economic integration.
It is mostly based on common financial policy and introducing common currency.
Only European Union was able to achieve the highest stage of integration, performing
common political, economic, financial and social policy. Over the years, economies of
European states were so tightly linked; so that it was possible create common
monetary system and common currency as well. EU states pursue common economic
policy, tax policy and observe dynamics of economic policy. Advantages of European
economic union creation let EU play bigger role on international stage, reach greater
influence and make EU a unified actor in international politics. Integration process
was mostly developed in Western Europe, where there was a gradual creation of union
in second part of 20 century.
This classification seems to be universal and showing evolutional processes of integration,
however it also seems for us to be mechanic and non applicable to practice. Actually, no one
of presented levels of integration has ever existed in its pure forms. We mostly faced mix of
17
different stages as well as another order of development toward the highest level of
integration. We suppose that EU building was based on Treaty of Rome concluded in 1957
that establishes Customs union and not Free trade zone that is supposed to be a first stage
according to theoretical approach.
18
1.2 The modern integration processes of the 20th century
The transition from one stage of integration to another is believed to be due to many factors,
such as economic, political, and geopolitical in a region or in the world. Globalization,
reinforcement of global competition, structural changes in a world economy, appearance of
new powerful states, technical progress influence regional integration a lot, changing region
itself.
Economic cooperation, modern trend of regional cooperation
We can distinguish five major trends of regional economic integration actual for last two
decades:
1) Increased number of regional trade agreements that according to WTO can be
qualified as treaties that liberalize and integrate region, including preferential
agreements, treaties on Free Trade Zone or Customs Union creation.
2) Increased number of interregional treaties or treaties between different union or groups
of states
3) Gradual complicating of regional economic integration and movement toward higher
level of integration
4) Gradual consolidation of regional association due to accession of new members ( it
not common example, since it mainly refers to EU)
5) Creation of preferential trade zone around regional association ( it also mainly refers
to EU)
During the whole period of GATT organization existence from 1948 to 1994, it
received 123 notifications on regional trade agreement creation from states-members,
however after WTO creation in 1995 it received 350 notifications. During crisis
period 2008-2009 WTO received 75 notifications. So by 2010 WTO received around
470 notifications on regional trade agreement creation.
Among all this regional
organization 278 are actual working, so the rest of them are on the stage of negotiation
or signed but did not come into force. (Table 1 in Annex)
Besides positive dynamics of regional agreements, we can also note the changes of
nature or formats of these regional integrations.

First of all, half of these agreements were concluded between states from different
regions or between regional associations: EU (European Union), countries of Eastern
and South-Eastern Asia, North and South America. Regionalism in terms of regional
economic cooperation is not the same as it was previously. Modern regionalism is
19
consecutive actions of states toward constructing external competitive environment in
order to get high profits during integration to a global market. Many developed
countries as well as developing states expect a huge economic impact from
participation in some regional organizations, however idea of classical regionalism is
not always the same.

Big part of new regional agreements was concluded with participation of already
installed regional union as a one side. Previously, EU and EFTA (European Free
Trade Association) were believed to be active regional organizations, although
currently, other regional actors such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
(ASEAN), MERCOSUR (an economic and political agreement among Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela, Spanish: Mercado Común del Sur),
Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG), Southern African
Customs Union (SACU) also demonstrate their regional ambitions to be an economic
power. Moreover, in 2008-2009 there were established first interregional agreements:
between EFTA and SACU, EFTA and CCASG, EU and African, Caribbean and
Pacific Group of States (ACP countries). During summit of EU, Latin America and
Caribbean head of EU Commission Jose Manuel Barroso said that EU and
MERCOSUR are going to start official negotiations on creation free trade zone uniting
EU and MERCOSUR and 800 their citizens. So not only states, but also regional
unions can be independent participants of global economic processes.

Modern regional integrations are not limited by creation of Free Trade Zone; they are
expected to go further to reach higher level of integration supposing trade of goods,
services, labor and capital. According to WTO, these regional agreements can be
called “Treaty on economic integration”, and supposes development of common
policy in terms of tax, customs, sanitary, competitive, dispute regulation. Most of
regional agreements, according to WTO were concluded on an economic integration
with concurrent elaboration of common policy in a number of areas.
As we see, it is not correct to suppose that modern regionalism develop fragmentally and
one union opposes to another one, since actually integration process develop not only in
region, but also globally. So trade intensity within regional union is expected to be no
more or even equal to that on global or interregional markets. We also believe that thank
to interregional trade dynamics, global market that used to be similar to independent cells
will look like network.
20
Regional associations do not have purpose to develop independently from the rest of
the world since during the process of globalization it seems to be unreal. So actual
regionalism is not any more opposition “Regions versus World”, it is mostly process
of integration of regions to one globalized world.
The development of modern economy linked with increased demand and reduced
supply required more economical approach, deep specialization, cooperation and
reinforcement of economic connections among states or enterprises. Integration
processes become logic way of international economic relations development.
Formation of integration occurs under different conditions and on different levels,
however, it has common aims and principles causing the typical activity and the same
levels of integration to go through.
There are two main opposing trends in modern economy:
1) Internationalization of national markets of goods, services, capital, as well as
technology and labor force, unification of legal and ecological standards,
developing of common rules to work with and within international organizations,
such as UNO, WTO, IMF, increased number multinational companies transactions
and foreign direct investment
2) Trade limitations in order to protect national markets and national producers,
“Trade wars”, regulation of currency rate and investment conditions.
We believe that these two contradictive trends show us the opposition of free economy
to protectionism that has been disputing by economists for a long time. Even though,
market economy are dominating over the rest types of that, we cannot say with
absolute certainty that market economy is perfect and still do not have flaws.
Therefore, countries need to use a variety of methods to protect their economic
interests. However, this trend sometimes is ignored by experts of international
organizations such as WTO or IMF since protective measures taken by states do not
respond well to proclaimed principles of these organizations.
In fact, not all countries can resist international competition, especially developing or
underdeveloped ones.
We believe that developed states are more interested in
strategic trade policy and regionalization, however for developing ones – in
mobilization of resources, regional integration and organization of trade cartels. So not
only developed, but also developing states are involved in process of regional
integration.
21
Current regionalism is well developed, there a number of already established or
developing regional unions that proved or are going to prove their effectiveness. On of
the most effective and most perfect integration is European Union. We believe that
this union has a great rich history from small community to economic and monetary
union including 27 states. Moreover, this example could show us not only the process
of integration in terms of tight economic and political cooperation, but also errors
made by EU authorities, that leaded to actual European crisis.
European Union experience, its achievements and flaws
EU is not union of depended states that managed form Brussels hosting EU commission and
other EU bodies as well as some international organizations. EU can be described and “a
union of states and union of people”, since culture and traditions seem to be pretty similar.
If we want to understand well EU and its functioning, we believe that we should revise
history and come back to the initial stage of its creation.
The basic elements of EU was made after Second World War in 1950’s when Germany was
divided into two parts, however France, Italy, Netherlands and Belgium decided to integrate
Germany too due in order to install long terms peacekeeping relations. Those times, it looked
like a dream, since Europe still remembered interstate wars. But countries in this union
decided to reinforce this peacekeeping treaty by establishing control on steel and coal
production, the most important things for war executing. This control can be maintained only
under condition of creation of community that will make this control legal and compulsory.
So this idea of reconciliation of Europe that was the base for this integration is believed to be
forgotten by young generation of Europeans that was born in 1970’s and 1980’s.
EU is one of the strongest economic forces in the world on the highest level of integration.
For EU installment and further development, there were political, economic, historical
conditions as well as cultural and religious traditions. Religion and culture also contributed to
this process, for instance, belong to the Christian religion united Europe even in Middle Ages.
Moreover, First and Second World War proved that just united European states can let them
survive, so contradictable actions of fragmented states can damage themselves. Opposition of
capitalistic world to socialistic one and competition with other capitalistic representatives also
greatly contributed to EU development.
In Western Europe there were a strong economic links among states that just reinforced over
the years.
22
The first treaty established by European states determined toward further development was on
European coal and steel community in 1951. In 1957 newly created European Economic
Community supposed creation of Customs union and common policy in some areas. Over the
years European Union on a way to fully integrated institution went through all stages of
integration. Free trade zone and common standards were established and all customs barriers
were eliminated as well. Citizens of any country-member could freely traverse any country
boundaries within union. Common economic policy is pursued by EU states, besides energy
policy, international policy. Actually we can observe rising of economic and political issues
that contributed to the disintegration process, however, till now, European union is the only
union reached the highest level of integration.
Even though economic policy of EU seems to be well operated, pursuing common foreign
and military policy EU still do not act in a one voice. Contrast between common monetary
and economic policy, intergovernmental cooperation and fragmented military and foreign
policy can be seen even nowadays.

On the one hand, EU reached supranational unity in terms of economy and social
policy: EU states-members cannot fix independently prices for agricultural production
or conclude international treaties with third countries, governmental subsidies to
national companies ought to be given according to Brussels’ treaty and statesmembers are also to comply with all ecological standards and consumer protection
norms.

On the other hand, weak common military policy was evident during conflict in
Kosovo, Bosnia, Ruanda, Somali and Iraq.
EU experience deepening of relations between EU existing members and new members,
recently accessed, enhancing of EU territory according to adopted EU enlargement policy.
Acceptance of new members brought financial issues for EU existing members that result in
ongoing financial crisis in Europe. Most countries damaged by the crisis, such as Greece,
Ireland, Spain, Portugal need sufficient assistance, mostly financial, from EU bodies, states
and international organizations. Even if Greece and its securities market are considered to be
the initial place for European crisis, actually all Euro zone is covered by crisis. Nowadays this
crisis is called European-sovereign debt crisis, since included in European zone cannot
overcome this crisis and refinance their governmental debt. However, we cannot blindly
blame these European states, drowned in a financial debt, for being ineffective and inefficient.
23
As we know, for countries-members as well as for states desired to enter EU, EU authorities
installed some norms and standards:

Political criteria:
Stability of institutions that guarantee democracy maintenance,
respecting human rights, rule of law and protection of minorities

Economic criteria: Have a well-established market economy that can compete with
EU markets and overseas ones.

Legislative alignments: Adopt the common rules, norms, standards and policies of EU
bodies; bring national laws in line with the law of European body established over the
EU existence.
EU also launched Stabilization and Association Processes, policy elaborated in order to help
South East European states to integrate more easily
However, all the indicators are of great importance for EU entrance. None of them plays such
a huge role that can be compared to economic criteria. We believe that over the history the
contribution of economic criteria have greatly increased since there are mostly geoeconomic
interests that dominate in the actual world. Almost any actions taken by states nowadays are
hiding economic motifs. So economic indicators for EU accession are the following

Inflationary rate: no more than 1.5 percentage points higher than the average of three
best functioning countries-members of EU

Exchange rate: potential members need to accept Exchange Rate Mechanism under the
European monetary system for the following two years, during this period it cannot
devaluate their currency

Long term interest rate: the nominal long term interests cannot be more than 2
percentage points higher than in the three lowest inflation member states
However the primordial criteria that had and still have a huge impact on EU economic
crisis is Government Finance criteria4:

Annual government deficit: the ratio of annual governmental deficit to Gross
Domestic Product must not exceed 3% at the end of preceding fiscal year. Only shortterm exceeding will be permitted in exceptional cases
4
Official web-site of European Union, available through http://europa.eu/index_fr.htm
Accessed 25 March 2012
24

Government debt: the ratio of total government debt to gross national product must
not exceed 60 % at the end of preceding fiscal year. Only specific conditions can let
state member to exceed this ration, however this states is still expected to approach to
necessary ratio level.
So EU is actually is one of the most successful economies in the world with the highest
GDP, developed economy and huge population. Since there are 27 members, there are can be
conflict among them, that pretty successfully regulated by European court. In European Union
bodies pay much attention to the creation of all condition for equal opportunities for all
members of European society: European students can freely study in every European country
and their diploma will be recognized as well, European entrepreneurs can run business all
over the EU with no difficulties etc. EU direction is also interested in fair competition amidst
European producers. For instance, German car producers Mercedes, Audi etc are much more
popular and successful than French or Italian ones, however, French and Italian officials
cannot give subsidies to their producers, since all these are not permitted or can be permitted
under EU authorization. Once in 1996 Germany tried to subsidize Volkswagen for $ 61
millions of dollars, but European commission banned this aid, so this help was frozen by
German officials5.
EU accepted new members even knowing that their economic development level does not
respond well to economic requirements for EU members. For instance, Greece, which
economic indicators was simply artificially improved “on the paper”, however, it does not
reflect real economic situation of Greece that times.
For the complete image of economic situation of those days, we made a comparative table of
EU members national debt and budget deficit (Table 2 in Annex). We see that Greece all the
time since 2002 has been exceeding limits of budget deficit (3%) and ratio of national debt to
GDP (60%) installed by European bodies in Maastricht treaty. However, EU bodies and other
states-members did not take some severe measures to Greece. It last till crisis time when
Greece was not able to find it-self some financial resources to cover budget deficit and
refinance national debt. Basically, EU did not have some effective tools to influence Greece
5
Article “Germany Agrees to Freeze Subsidy to VW”, published in “New York Times” news paper September
05, 1996
Available thought <http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/05/business/germany-agrees-to-freeze-subsidy-tovw.html>, accessed 1 Mai 2012
25
financial discipline. Suspicions of Greek possibilities to pay its debt leaded in lowered Greece
sovereign rating. Respectful agency Standard and Poor lowered Greece Sovereign rating to
BB (state is capable to pay its debt, but unfavorable economic conditions could influence its
solvency) in 2010 but actually it is CCC (state has difficulties to pay its debt and its
possibilities depend on favorable economic conditions and market conjuncture). For the most
of European states having rating AA-level rating, this situation was one of the shocking
during last decade.
We can also see that Portugal also neglect economic criteria of Maastricht criteria a lot even
till crisis period. We believe that EU bodies also did not pay much attention to this, until a
number of EU states members were covered by financial crisis. Spain and Ireland was mostly
touched by crisis, since based on statistics, they tried to maintain the required level of budget
deficit and national debt.
Actually all Europe are covered by economic crisis, however we cannot blame for that small
Greece. France and Germany also contributed to this crisis, since these biggest European
economies let themselves to exceed indicators in 2003-2004 and by these actions they
infringed rule that was established for all EU members in “Pact on Stability and Growth”
adopted in 1997. This treaty was considered to facilitate and maintain the stability of
monetary union of EU and was supposed to monitor fiscal stability of all 27 EU members. As
we see on the graphic (Table 3 in Annex), two main biggest states of Europe France and
Germany that not only presenting biggest European economies, but were also building a base
for European integration, did not respect terms of this pact. Several times they exceeded
budget deficit limitation installed in Pact, especially after 2008. EU bodies, certainly, tried to
take under control the situation by making France and Germany take some economic
measures to stabilize their economy in line with “Pact on Stability and Growth” requirements.
Moreover, in 2004 Holland, Greece and Great Britain exceeded the limits of budget deficit, so
biggest states of EU presenting more that 70% of GDP were not just in economic trouble, but
also they can break the pile of EU economic integration. Italy in 2005 also demonstrated 4 %
ratio of national budget deficit to GDP. We can just imagine that if biggest states do not
respect the rules and policies commonly adopted for every member of EU, there is no need to
follow these rules by other states.
EU after threats about probable economic sanctions against countries-members violating the
clauses of Pact on Stability and Growth could not rely on increased economic discipline. So
lack of economic discipline resulted in situation when number of states did not follow clauses
26
of Pact on Stability and Growth. Moreover, 6 states amongst 10 joined to EU in 2004 also did
not respect the clauses of Pact, since they have higher deficit than it was supposed to be. They
were not included in Euro zone because the EU commission mostly advised them to maintain
the necessary level of economic indicators.
European states greatly contributed to facilitation and relief of requirements included in above
mentioned Pact. On the one hand France and Germany need to be punished by EU
commission for the violation of Pact clauses, but this sanction cannot be adopted without
acceptance from French and German side. So commission formulated the following
proposals:

The emphasis from ratio of budget deficit to GDP shifted to Ratio of national debt to
GDP. Those times the majority of EU states did not have such a huge governmental
debt that could lead to economic sanctions

Use individual approach to every state, since economic conditions as well as national
market conjecture can be really unique.

Take into account all the factors, that can influence economic indicators (reduction of
GDP, long-term period of low economic growth)
However it was supposed that the necessity to reach required level of economic indicators
mentioned in Pact still remains.
These proposals had an unfavorable impact on further development of economic integration
between EU members, since the base of any successful system is rules and policies that
performed all the time by all members of this system with no exceptions. If someone decides
that he or she could infringe rule, it becomes impossible to maintain this system and system is
going to crash. We believe that not only countries-members that are in current financial
trouble could be blamed for economic crisis covered all Europe, but also states that let these
states brake the common rule. Moreover, European and national bodies that could not
supervise effectively are also guilty.
But we also need to note outstanding achievements of European Union since it has a pretty
successful history. To name a few of them:
1) Creation of internal markets
2) EU became one of the powerful economic force, economic union
3) Successful strategy of integration
27
4) Monetary union with unique experience of creation a common currency
Introduction of common currency was one of the most integrative means that let EU reinforce
links among states and make the integration processes deeper. Stable Euro challenging Dollar
US for leadership and world monopoly became a symbol of strong Europe, important basis of
everything that was already achieved by EU and its members while constructing of “Common
European House”
However, Europe need to think strategically about future that seems to be complicated
enough. Most of expectations are linked to current economic difficulties in EU members
linked to European-sovereign debt crisis. It easy to predict that with the collapse of Euro, the
further development of euro is likely to be uncertain. Therefore, the consternation covered all
Europe after Greece state debt crisis leading to State bankruptcy and threading whole Europe
was understandable. If before just euro skeptics believe in Euro crash and European
integration as well, but now under conditions of Euro falling against US Dollar collapse of
Euro leading to deceleration of EU integration of even European economic integration crash
becomes more real. Just to stop all negative effects, European states take a number of
economic measures that must demonstrate readiness of EU members to take solider actions.
The markets “came down” and euro again became reliable currency. European politicians
tried to do everything in order to avoid repeating of this crisis. However, in November 2010
Ireland was in worse financial situations for the whole 89 years period of independence from
Britain. So actually it is early to talk about recovering process after crisis. Conclusions made
by Europeans elite after beginning of crisis will play a huge role in European future, since not
only Euro currency stability will depend on that, but also whole European Union
development.
European integration processes have never been easy, EU was deepening and enhacing,
overcoming crisis and conflicts. The more ambitious and complicated are the purposes of EU,
sometimes exceeding the real possibilities of that, the more difficult are the conflicts and
more systemic and deeper are the crisis.
Most current challenges of EU are linked to a variety of contradictions. Just to name a few of
them:
1) The processes of integration becomes more complex and deep, so it required form
states-members to limit their sovereignty. We believe that it is logic process, the more
28
we are linked the more we need to make common decisions. Unfortunately, not all
states are ready to sacrifice their independence to develop further EU.
2)
EU intends to play an important role in a world scene; however European states
cannot act in a one voice. Some EU states members try to pursue its own police,
especially in terms of foreign policy and military policy
3) There are two main group of elites in EU: on the one hand euro skeptics, that do not
want European Union to transform to Federal state) on the another euro optimists (
voice for deeper integration within EU)
4) France and Germany are the biggest states of EU; however they consider the role of
EU differently. France supposes that EU should play an important role in economic
policy, however, Germany seems to support some limits to intervention of EU in
internal economic policy
5) France seems to intend establish its leadership in Europe through active political
actions, however real economic leader in Europe is united Germany
6) Bid states of EU are believed to dictate smaller states which way to turn, but small
states do not seem to desire to obey and be under the political and economical
direction of biggest states
7) We also believe that EU bodies and national authorities are in a competition. EU states
on national level are believed to be democratic on national level, but some statesmembers could blame EU bodies for lack of democracy in EU decisions and policy
pursed by EU authorities. Some states can accept financial support from EU bodies,
however do not intend execute all the necessary requirement
8) We also believe that some of EU ambitions and as well as potential were
overestimated, since real possibilities cannot be sufficient for realization of what was
planned.
We can name other flaws of EU integration, but the most important thing is whether EU is
ready to overcome all this obstacles, impeding further development. So EU need to work on
institutional and conceptual construction of EU integration. Moreover, they contribute in
economic crisis, making it systemic. In this situation lots of successes reached by EU seemed
to be drowned in last crisis, and consequently, this crisis imposed limits on “European
Integration dream”.
The EU example is of great importance for us and our research, since we believe that over the
long time of development EU has lots of ups and downs. Being one of the strongest
economies in the world EU could reach the highest level of integration ended up in financial
29
and even institutional crisis. CIS, Customs Union, EvrAzEC are relatively young integration
established after USSR falling and including ex-USSR members. Thorough perusing of EU
experience could help CIS members to avoid a number of issues that could impede or even
stop the development of ex-USSR members’ integration.
We believe that EU could be a real perfectly functioning union, if all rules, policies and
treaties adopted by EU were executed properly by all members with no exceptions concerning
state’s authority or its contribution to EU building. Unfortunately, clauses of Maastricht treaty
comprising economic indicators for EU states were not performed well. So Germany and
France after having violated the terms of Maastricht treaty set an “example” for other statesmembers that also decided to neglect them. Unfortunately, EU authorities did not pay much
attention to those economic violations. We also suppose that everything would be well even
in this case, but due to financial crisis EU states with huge state debt were not able to stand
economic difficulties. Moreover, EU authorities was so keen on “European integration
dream” and enhanced Euro zone including new members, even though their economies did
not respond to the requirements to be comprised in EU. It seems to us that violation of
agreements and treaties by EU members was the main reason of current issues that could
threat not only further development but also existence of European integration.
Of course, we cannot say that CIS will be someday an absolute copy of actual EU, since there
are a number of differences between these two Unions as well as some similarities among
them. The huge difference is the lack of undoubted leader in EU, so there are several big
states with developed economy and huge ambitious that do not let one state to dictate
conditions to other members’ or regulate their participation in common integration processes.
We already supposed that France and Germany seem to intend to take leadership role in EU,
however they also need to take part in common European decision making process with other
states-members that organized by EU bodies.
In post-Soviet region there is an absolute leader Russia that several times bigger and richer
than other states-members. So for other states of region, in a question, involved in unions with
Russia there is a great risk to be under Russian control. That’s why CIS has also some
common features with NAFTA, union including USA, Mexico and Canada, that supposed to
be mostly managed by USA, due to unconditional leadership of USA and lack of
supranational institutions. However, this union created opportunities for free flow of goods
and services, capital and labor among countries members
30
Moreover, CIS states seem to observe carefully ongoing European crisis, since they also
could face the same difficulties during further development of integration in a region.
Economic development of CIS members varies greatly, so it seems to be impossible to
introduce common economic policy and especially common currency.
Acceptance of
countries could respond well to political or geopolitical intention to comprise as more states
as possible in order to influence them, but it could be economically mistaken if state’s
economic indicators do not satisfy all necessary requirements. So example of Greece
demonstrates well the necessity to look over and thorough analyze all potential members to
union.
However, all CIS members have common history that last almost 80 years and common
Soviet heritage that contributed to a common culture and common language of
communication, Russian. Moreover, people lived in USSR that make majority of population
nowadays, regard favorably to all integrations among ex-USSR members. We believe that
countries on ex-Soviet region have a good potential to build a strong partnership, but the form
and extent of integration is still open question.
31
2 Regional Integration in the post-Soviet region: historical background,
actual development
The Commonwealth of Independent States (hereinafter CIS) was created 20 years ago.
Accumulated experience over the years allows an objective assessment of past and present of
the CIS and more reasonably predict its future. None of the CIS countries, even Russia, is
capable to integrate alone successfully into the global economy. Therefore, the development
of multi-level and multi-integration in all spheres of public life is an essential condition of
modernization in the CIS countries. The concept of long-term social and economic
development of the Russian Federation until 2020 focuses on the CIS and its role in the
strategic policy of Russia.
2.1 Stages of formation and development of the CIS
The history of the formation and development of the Commonwealth can be divided into three
stages:
Transformation (1991-1999)
Recovery (2000-2008)
Modernization (from 2009 to nowadays)
Transformation phase
The first phase - transformation (transition) is associated with a "civilized divorce" of the
former republics of Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics when the Commonwealth was
dominated by centrifugal forces. So for each new state main objectives were the establishment
of independent state and carrying out radical market reforms. During this breakdown period
the ex-Soviet states were determined to establish national borders, customs and border
services accordingly, national currency. Instead of the common for all countries Soviet law a
new National Laws and regulations was adopted. The desire to integrate into the global
economy, accompanied by a search for new markets and partners and by weakening of ties
with neighbors, was a new “priority” for all sovereign states of the CIS in those days.
Moreover, the delay with the conduct of radical economic reforms in the USSR greatly
contributed to this. In the 1990's national capitals of future CIS members were only on
“formation stage” and did not present a solid financial force, so foreign investors with mostly
"Western" capital were of a huge interest and attractiveness for local business. Transnational
corporations, buying up companies of CIS countries reoriented them to other markets,
destroying the existing system of division of labor and industrial cooperation during Soviet
era.
32
During the time of radical political changes the delay with privatization processes in the
Soviet Union became one of the main reasons for republics-members for secession from that.
National leaders were interested in the privatization of the Soviet Union enterprises, as well as
in possibility of privatization of the republican and local enterprises without regarding to the
Union center. It was a huge opportunity to create independent states with independent
economy and law (This is probably the main reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union,
which Nobel laureate P. Krugman considers as a «One of the great mysteries of political
economy".) The distribution of Union property was not made according to the contribution of
each country in its creation, but simply based on the territorial accessory.
We can also notice the contribution of countries outside the CIS region such as United States
of America (USA hereinafter), European Union (EU hereinafter), Japan in disintegration of
the post-Soviet countries. A number of policies conducted by them and supported by direct
substantial financial assistance to CIS and through the International Monetary Fund and
World Bank conditioned anti-integrative circumstances of CIS. For example, under the
pressure of Western creditors the Kyrgyz Republic was forced to join the World Trade
Organization under unfavorable conditions not only to itself but also for its major trading
partners - Russia and Kazakhstan6. This membership in WTO almost destroyed Kyrgyz
industry and made impossible Kyrgyzstan’s participation in Customs Union and the EAEC in
effective and efficient manner. We can also say that Kyrgyzstan’s WTO accession is
considered by a majority of Kyrgyz economists as a main reason for poverty that leaded to the
"color revolutions" in this country.
In the 1990's all states of the Commonwealth, including its core center - Russian Federation,
experienced deep economic crisis, however the global economy was in the recovery phase.
Russia that time was dependent on the financial assistance of the West and could not
contribute to an attractiveness of socio-economic integration in the CIS for the neighbors.
However, Russia did not intend to lose its links with ex-USSR members. Russia tried to
compensate other countries of the Commonwealth the loss of well-established economic and
social ties during USSR era by providing its labor market without any legal or economic
limitation for all CIS members as well as by provision oil and gas resources together with
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan at prices below world prices. All abovementioned
factors caused the dependence of the CIS members, producing natural resources on members,
providing transit of these resources to the West
6
UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, 12 November 2007.
“Lessons from Kyrgyzstan’s WTO Experience for Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan”, available through:
www.unece.org/.../WTOAccessionFinalEng. , {Accessed 27 Mai 2012)
33
Recovery phase
At the beginning of the XXI century, process of countries’ legal separation after USSR falling
was fully completed. By this time, the important market reforms were executed in CIS. Since
there were conditions for real multi-level economic integration, free trade zone for all the
countries of the Commonwealth with the exception of Turkmenistan was installed. The
Eurasian Economic Community was established by signing an Agreement on Common
Economic Space of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine in 1998.
As a result of these integrative actions, in 2001-2008 CIS countries had sufficiently high rates
of economic development compared to the previous at-once-after USSR falling down period,
although CIS states did not reach the Soviet level of economic development on all counts. For
instance, during USSR era the trade volume between Russia and Ukraine was equivalent to $
70 billion, in 2000 this figure was only $ 8 billion, and in 2008 it reached almost $ 40 billion.
The past years of the existence of the CIS have shown that, that republics of Soviet Union
having had almost the same level of socio-economic development, today seemed to be in the
absolutely different situations (Tables 1 “Gross National income per capita ($US)” in Annex). We
also note that the difference among CIS members in terms of GDP and the monetary income
per capita has been increasing. For example, in 2009 monetary income per capita in the
Russian Federation raised to $ 6383, in Belarus - 3233 dollars, in Tajikistan -352 dollars.
Minimum wage per month in 2010 was in Russia $ 145, Azerbaijan and Ukraine - $ 93,
Kazakhstan - 92, Belarus - 82, Armenia - 79, Moldova - 50, Tajikistan - 14, and in
Kyrgyzstan - $ 8, that’s to say 18 times less than in Russia7.
In the first decade of the XXI century all sovereign states of the CIS were guided by a
pragmatic approach towards economic cooperation. It was manifested in the

Mutual banning to import goods from the CIS on the basis of their "foreign" origin,
sanitary and environmental conditions.

Installment of market prices for energy,

Tightening of immigration policy.
As a result, in the CIS the interests were clearly shared among

Countries importing labor (Kazakhstan, Russia) and exporting them (Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan)

Countries that produce natural resources (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan), countries that consume it (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan)
7
Official statistics provided by World Bank, , Available through: “ http://data.worldbank.org/”,
Accessed: Mai 15 2012
34
and the countries through which these resources are transited (Belarus, Moldova,
Ukraine).
Producers of raw materials, trying to diversify its supply and consumers, try to preserve a
monopoly on transit. Unfortunately, the options for the transition from undue competition to
cooperation through a joint mutually advantageous consortium were not realized till now.
Transit countries are seeking ways to provide resources bypassing Russia or outside the
Commonwealth, and the country's –producers of resources try to create alternative export
routes. Thus, the Azerbaijan delivers major oil instead of the route Odessa -Brody in the
direction of the Baku - Ceyhan. States members of GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and
Moldova) suppose to create a transportation system in Ukraine bypassing Russia, that is
actually bypassing Ukraine. We can also notice analogical situation happening with Turkmen
gas. Instead of its supplies to Ukraine through Russia or to Western Europe via Turkey (the
"Nabucco"), Turkmenistan delivers gas resources in large volumes to China. By the end of
third decade of the XXI century, Russian-Federation supposes also to have alternative routes
to export its resources to both the West ("Nord Stream" and "South Stream") and the East8.
The European Commission made its contribution to the aggravation of relations between the
transit and producing states of the CIS, as well as within the last mentioned group. As the
principal buyer of Russian resources, EU countries try to diversify supplies from the Middle
East because of geographic and political reasons and they are interested in Russia's
hydrocarbon feedstock. However part of the EU member states, mainly the Baltic, raised the
problem of the energy dependence threat of Western Europe on Russia. Thus, the former
European Commissioner for Energy, Representative of Latvia A. Piebalgs, during session on
August 21, 2007 in Berlin at the 16th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference formulated three
goals against "the Russian energy threat":

Construction of pipelines bypassing Russia

Consolidation of European energy consumers

Development of alternative energy sources.
Due to the diversification of suppliers, the prices have risen sharply and leaded to a rise in
the cost of gas in Western Europe. The calls to Western European customers speak in one
voice to exert pressure on Russian suppliers of hydrocarbons, stimulated the collaboration
of producers of CIS with each other as well as with foreign gas producers.
8
Official website available through: http://www.nord-stream.com/ru/?r=1 {Accessed 12 June 2012}
35
Attempts to pressurize on Russia stimulated it to seek new energy consumers in China,
Southeast Asia, Japan and the United States. As a result, European consumers of energy could
perceive the luck of resources in the future. Concerning the alternative resources of energy,
CIS countries have a lot to learn from the European Union. At the same time, the energy
supplied to Western Europe through a pipeline "Nord Stream", whose construction costs 7
billion Euros9, is an equivalent to the energy produced by dozens of nuclear power plants or
40 thousand "windmills", which would require six to seven times more construction costs.
Based on new situation, when the Russian Federation tries to liberalize from transit
dependence and to stop subsidizing partners in the CIS, providing with cheap resources, we
can make a false conclusion of losing interest in the integration of CIS. Indeed, the need of
national budget revising in a number of CIS states because of losing revenue from transiting
resources and the necessity to buy these resources at market prices are perceived painfully,
however it is a payment for a full sovereignty. Under these circumstances attractiveness of
participation in the Commonwealth and the need for higher levels of integration with Russia
may appear. For example, the price of Russian gas and oil for Belarus significantly lower than
for the other CIS states, since Russia and Belarus are members of Union State. As a result, the
society as well as business community in all CIS countries could estimate the benefits of
membership in union with Russia. For instance, decreasing gas prices compared with world
prices by Russia for Ukraine in 2010 was accompanied by the adoption of a number of
Ukrainian governmental decisions that deepened integration between two leading of the CIS.
Of course, it is necessary to provide some financial help mitigating the impact of the crisis for
the CIS states, which for nearly two decades accustomed to the Russian assistance. Russia,
which occupies third place in the world among countries having biggest gold reserves, has
been providing such assistance. Russian loans allow CIS countries to pay for energy resources
and reduce CIS dependence on the Western institutions financial assistance. Russia is one of
the first CIS countries that received the status of market economy and solved the problem of
external, mostly Soviet, debt, moreover, its share in total GDP of the CIS countries exceeded
77%. If in the 1990s Russian Federation was considered to be primarily interested in the
integration on post-soviet territory. However, by the beginning of global economic crisis of
the XXI century we found that Russia is interested in the CIS integration no more or less than
others countries in a region in a question. It means the Russian Federation does not intend to
keep someone in the CIS by any cost. We can see that in example of Georgia, which formally
came out of the CIS, but still continues to participate in 74 international agreements
concluded within the Commonwealth. Thus it could give us a hope that a pragmatic and
9
Official website available through: http://www.nord-stream.com/ru/?r=1 {Accessed 12 June 2012}
36
justified approach to integration will be developed. However some scientists still believe that
Russian federation is more interested in CIS integration because of long-term strategic
geopolitical interests in the region.
But in this case, we should mention that political objectives of some countries of the CIS
cannot be identified with their economic interests, because unfortunately, they are not always
the same. For example, in 2008 the volume of Ukraine's trade with Russia is 20 times higher
than the volume of Ukrainian trade with the United States, although those days the undisputed
political priority of Ukraine was the cooperation with western partner. However, in the end
the objective economic interests of Ukraine resulted in change of policy and leaded to the
integration with Russia.
Modernization phase
The beginning of the third stage (modernization) of CIS integration building is considered to
start in 2009, the year of global economic crisis that significantly influenced the CIS states.. It
became obvious that without modernization of the economy and the transition to innovation
model the Commonwealth of independent States is doomed to lag behind the of the world's
leading countries.
The Western powers that were also touched by the crisis cannot provide sufficient assistance
in the modernization of CIS states, since they have serious financial difficulties themselves.
According to the IMF, the total debt of European countries in 2010 reached 7.1 trillion Euros
(78.7% of GDP), and the U.S. is $ 13.9 trillion (94.3% of GDP). In 2011 it is expected to
further increase. U.S. budget deficit will reach 9.8% of GDP that is significantly higher than
in Russia, which has practically almost no foreign debt. As a result, the pressure of U.S. and
EU on the CIS states anti-integration fell considerably. Declaration of the summit of "Eastern
Partnership" (special program on the approximation of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,
Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine with the European Union) signed in May 7, 2009 in Prague
was not fully implemented in practice. Moreover, Ukraine and some other CIS countries did
not receive a clear signal that in the coming decades they will be accepted by EU as members.
On the other hand, during global crisis the role of a common market of the CIS dramatically
increased as well as the initiative of Russia and Kazakhstan to launch attractive incentives for
integration like Eurasian Development Bank loans and assistance of EurAzEs Anti-Crisis
Fund.
37
Multilateral intergovernmental cooperation within the CIS, as less effective, often opposed by
the development of bilateral ties between its members. But world experience proves the
opposite: a multi-third-party cooperation tends to encourage the development of bilateral
relations between states.
In the beginning, the Russian Federation has signed with ten CIS states the agreement "On
creation of a Free Trade Zone "(1994), and then concluded bilateral agreements with the
countries – participants of this agreement, specifying the implementation conditions of free
trade with each country separately. Therefore, it seems reasonably controversial the
assumption of the priority of cooperation of some States of CIS with Russia, Kazakhstan,
Belarus, with simultaneous unwillingness to do so with them within the CIS. CIS is mostly
supposed to help strengthen bilateral relations between its members. For example, each
summit of the Commonwealth requires not only common meetings, but also the bilateral
negotiations.
Not only the Russian Federation, but also other participants of CIS are supposed to have
objective interests in the development of the CIS. Of course, the CIS cannot be imagined
without Russia, but it is equally necessary for each of its members. Moreover, foreign trade
within CIS plays a much more significant role for Belarus Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine as
well as for other countries of region than for Russia. States of post USSR region got a bad
experience of entering the world market alone since they did not get successfully into new
markets. As a result, total exports of many CIS countries, even in the face of rising prices for
raw materials, significantly decreased. So probable denigration of CIS role promotes
unreasonably exaggerated success of other integrations. Meanwhile, according to
macroeconomic indicator such as part of interregional trade in total volume foreign trade, CIS
is substantially ahead of MERCOSUR and ASEAN (40% of the general of imports and 20%
of total exports), moreover, intraregional import of CIS is not inferior than imports of the
North American Free Trade zone (the U.S., Canada, Mexico)10.
Why the abbreviation CIS is not perceived by society as a solid and reliable integration?
Unfortunately independence obtained after referendum for an exit from the USSR did not
always ensure prosperity that the population of some states hoped for. The Critical perception
of some countries independent activity results can be easily transferred on the activity of
interstate associations - Commonwealth of Independent States. Some high expectations on
deepest integration among CIS countries as improved version of the Soviet Union did not
10
Official statistics provided by UNCTAD,
available through http://unctadstat.unctad.org/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=101, accessed June 1
2012
38
come true. Finally, there is a lack of information on work of CIS institutions and its agencies
in comparison with activities of the EU. The population of CIS watches «Euronews»,
however Radio and TV Company "Mir”, that is supposed to be a common informational
institute for CIS, is not so popular. The contribution to the formation of a negative image of
the CIS was made by its ideological opponents. As it will be shown later, the Commonwealth,
EurAsEC, CSTO, and the Common Economic Space is on the stage of formation and
organization. This process is greatly challenged by economic and political issues.
39
2.2 CIS bodies and their role in integration
Reinforcing role of CIS institutions as well as increasing attention during last years demand
severing requirements to its work. The structure of CIS bodies is not certainly perfect, there is
a great need to ameliorate that, although, CIS is a pretty young organization that already
created some institutions.
The common aim of deep integration for all independent countries is very important for
proper work of these bodies. However, the forms and methods of integration should not be
imposed by someone, so we believe that the current CIS structure reflects the readiness of
states to integrate. CIS experience proves that this organization has some instruments to
influence national policy through supranational bodies. The primer mean of CIS functioning
is agreements concluded during CIS meetings by head of states and other representatives.
Adoption by a national parliament of these documents and implementing them in reality is
one of the evidence in integrative work. The agreement on “Creation Free Trade Zone” as
well as “Agreement of CIS collaboration” had a significant influence on CIS political and
economical life. Counsel of head of states and counsel of head of government play the main
role in CIS functioning since during these meetings the most important interstate and
intergovernmental agreements regulating connection among CIS were concluded. Head of
states included in CIS have a regular meeting on a annual basis, head of government meet
twice a year, head of ministries on foreign Affairs as well as ministries of Finance meet four
times per a year. According to this above-mentioned information, CIS work obviously better
that some other international organization; for instance, OSCE members did not have a
regular meeting form 1999 till 2010. All organizational and supportive works are performed
by Executive committee of CIS, which is also designed for assistance to CIS members in
execution of CIS decisions.
The idea that CIS does not have some influence to its members and its internal policy is not
true. There are 30 international treaties, demanding parliamentary ratification and 300 treaties,
requiring some internal procedures, taken within the state. The decisions of CIS are supposed
to be not well performed as well as CIS treaties to be partially ratified, so just 15% of
international agreements within CIS were really executed. However, 15% of all CIS treaties is
an amount of agreements that ratified by all states-members (Table 5 in Annex). For instance,
Georgia having been a member of CIS ratified just 6 treaties and accepted 70 CIS decisions,
although it does not mean that other CIS members did not authorized CIS decisions.
40
There also lots of agreements within CIS where not all members were included. For
comparison, in EU there are also a number of treaties as European Monetary Union, the
Schengen area where not all EU members were involved. So part of EU participants till now
prefer to preserve their own currency or their own borders, however, we cannot say that EU is
not properly integrated. The integration in CIS region is mostly determined by the extent of
participation and involvement of main countries such as Russia, Kazakhstan Ukraine and
other big countries. Russia, in its turn, ratified just 65% of CIS agreements and made
necessary internal procedures just for 88% of other CIS treaties, that don’t demand
ratification. However, the role of Russia in CIS is really enormous, so the percentage of
ratified agreements does not reflect it. We can suppose that not very high percentage of
ratified treaties is a result of some agreements’ obsolescence, so it’s probably necessary to
revise and renew some of them.
Inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS
Another important and effective tool for integration is laws and recommendations accepted by
Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS. There are almost 300 documents adopted by
Assembly. Authorized delegations of all CIS members headed by speakers of National
Parliaments need to vote for these documents. These documents is not compulsory for states
members, however, they are the base of national law, providing harmonization leading to
unification of national laws. National civil, criminal, tax law as well as other laws are mostly
based on the model provided by Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS. So we can suppose
that civil law legislation of CIS members are harmonized as legislation of EU countries.
Inter-parliamentary assembly of CIS tries to elaborate contemporary laws that can correspond
well to globalization processes. For instance seven members of CIS, taking into account the
model law ‘On electronic digital signature” adopted by Assembly, authorized analogical law.
This, in its turn, creates the basis for conclusion of inter-parliamentary treaty of mutual
recognition of national electronic signatures and creation of unique certified center among
CIS. So through this law Assembly made a great contribution in development of internet
economy and e-commerce in post USSR region. Moreover, model laws adopted by InterParliamentary Assembly of CIS are international, based on European model but adjusted to
CIS reality. Implementing this law, CIS members not only unified their legislation, but also
adjusted it to modern international and European standards. We can suppose that some
opinion about different development vectors of EU and CIS are not true, since based on
abovementioned facts, CIS countries though adoption of laws proposed by Assembly just try
41
to approach to European model. So we probably can se the orientation of CIS toward EU
through that.
This important mission of Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS was highly appreciated by
European Bank for Development and Reconstruction that made a significant technical and
intellectual assistance in elaborating the following laws: “On securities’ market”, "On the
protection of investors' rights," "On Bankruptcy of Banks" (new edition), "On Joint Stock
Companies" (new edition). The first above-mentioned law played a considerable role in
securities’ market formation in CIS, and further development of capital market in CIS. In
official documents of EBRR there were recommendations to CIS members to continue using
model laws adopted by Assembly to attract foreign investment
Among other partners of inter-parliamentary Assembly on law drafting we should name
United Nations Organization, World Bank, World Intellectual Property Organization, The
International Committee of the Red Cross, UNESCO, the Government of Germany, U.S.,
Netherlands, Canada. However, the main developer of laws is national parliaments of CIS.
There is also a special role taken by the Federation Council of Federal Assembly of Russian
Federation that presented to Assembly more than 59 projects of laws.
There are a great number of model laws that became a base for international treaties among
CIS. For example, based on the model law “On the cross-border cooperation”, Assembly of
inter-parliamentary cooperation prepared and proposed to council of CIS heads Convection
“On cross-border cooperation among CIS members”. This convention was signed by 6 states
in 2008 in Bishkek, Kyrgyz republic capital and came into force in 2009. Over the years of
accumulating legislative experience, Inter-Parliamentary Assembly became an institute that
could develop laws not only within CIS, but also outside of it, since there are precedents of
using model law developed by Assembly in Europe. Assembly developed a law concerning
democratic elections, voting rights and liberty on CIS in 2002, this law was signed by nine
states. The assembly proposed this model to European parliament, even though the EU
parliament mostly supported that, this project was rejected by European counsel. Of course,
we cannot say that EU countries elections are less free or democratic than that held in CIS
members, however, CIS members is supposed to intend to be closer to democratic principles
and to try to modify its national law to make it more modern and liberal.
During its legislative activity, the Assembly pays much attention to the recommendations of
unification of national laws in terms of fight against terrorism, crime and drug traffic.
Although, these documents are mostly recommendatory; the most of them are executed by
states-members. Every year during meetings of Counsel of Inter-Parliamentary Assembly the
report on implementing model law in national laws is presented. For instance, in Kyrgyz
42
Republic parliament adopted 60 laws and recommendations proposed by Assembly (that is
25% of all law projects accepted by Assembly) and it is also going to consider the rest.
Moreover, Kyrgyz republic accepted all 11 international treaties adopted by Assembly. So the
assistance of IPA of CIS in national law development and unification is significant.
The activity of Inter-parliamentary Assembly is mostly stimulated by its international legal
status. Currently, Assembly is intergovernmental organization that was created on the basis of
Minsk convention in1995. According to article 12 of abovementioned convention, InterParliamentary Assembly has a right to conclude international treaties with other institutions,
possessing international legal status. So this let national parliament of CIS communicate or
influence to other international parliaments as OSCE, EU, Latin-American, Central-American
etc. Unfortunately, executive institutions of CIS do not have such rights, which greatly limit
their work.
The institutions of CIS are often criticized for lack of supranational power as well as using of
consensus method during making decisions. The consensus method demands acceptance of
all participant, so it could slow down the process of decision making. Moreover, when this
method is used, decisions can be really vague requiring additional clarification and
discussion, since for such decisions it’s easier to come to the consensus. So the organization
relied on this method is supposed to be less effective. However, this method was widely used
in European Union institutions till adoption of Lisbon treaty in 2007. The experience of interParliamentary Assembly shows us that it is based on this method even on principal issues,
although it is difficult to reach consensus on that. For instance, it was difficult to reach an
agreement on law “On languages”, that demands all CIS members to adopt Russian language
as an official language and to use along with state one. Consensus method is widely used in
supranational institutions on post USSR region. For instance, Russia, Kazakhstan and
Belorussia decided to create a Customs Union that assumes creation of common external
borders and common customs tariff. There were created supranational institute for that
purposes where consensus method is also used. Experience of EU can show that creation of
supranational institutions require lots of time and efforts, the delegation of authority by
national officials to supranational one has never been simple process. At the beginning, EU
delegated some functions to collect taxes and funds to common European center and then
created a supranational institute to distribute these funds.
Till now, we cannot insist on creation of some supranational institutes in CIS without
determination of functions that this institute will have and national official that are ready to
delegate some power.
43

On the one hand, it is impossible and incorrect to force CIS members to establish
supranational organization;

On the other hand we cannot deny all possibilities to create that. But some countries
are supposed to avoid the opportunity of CIS supranational institute creation, since
they see themselves in another union, for instance Ukraine intends to enter to EU.
Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS is assumed to be “non conflict institute” compared to
others international parliaments, such as EU or OSCE parliament, so it makes it less
influential and powerful.
There are some reasons for this opinion:
 Assembly discussed just those issues that were already agreed with national
parliaments, so no interests’ conflict in this case.
 The decisions of Assembly are mostly recommendations, so there is no a compulsory
need to execute them as well as there is no so much power like EU parliament adopted
laws.
 Common interests of CIS to increase the level of life of its citizens is often named as a
reason for non-conflict and as a consequence for “uninteresting” discussion in
Assembly, however we cannot consider this reason as a solid, as EU parliament as
well as other international parliaments have the same purpose.
There also some proposals to pursue direct parliament elections to Assembly, since currently
its members are members of national delegations. However, it seems impossible now because,
as we know, the decisions of Assembly are mostly recommendations. So if we hold direct
election and do not change the status of Assembly decisions, it is a big threat to provoke a
conflict between national parliament and Assembly. For example, Central American
Parliament are elected through direct system, however the documents adopted by it are just
recommendations. However there is no conflict between national parliaments and Central
American, since national parliaments do not take into account decisions of Central American.
As we see, there is a great necessity to make some changes in either election system or status
of Central American parliament decisions
Economic court
There is also Economic Court operating within CIS legal institutions. It considers litigations
between states-members and clarifies and interprets international treaties of CIS. This court
does not consider litigations between economic entities and take just recommendatory acts,
although experience proved that countries are really interested in receiving favorable decision
of CIS Economic court to its suit.
44
In addition there are almost 70 organizations that unite activity of different ministries and
agencies in CIS members. For instance, the Council of Heads of antitrust services on behalf of
the Council of CIS Heads of Government in 2010 conducted an investigation on overpricing
of CIS mobile operators services. Executed inquiry revealed lots of violation and cases of
overpricing. As a result of these actions, national antitrust agencies of Russia and Kazakhstan
obliged mobile operators to decrease the prices for their services till January, 2011. Based on
previous example, the authorities of CIS could influence on important need of CIS population
Besides CIS institution, there are also institutions of Eurasian Economic Community
(EurAsEC) and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Some institutions such as
Economic Courst and Secretary of Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of CIS also serves
EurAsEC.
EurAsEC
EurAsEC bodies, Inter-State counsel, Integration Committee, inter-Parliament Assembly,
provide collaboration among Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and The Russian
Federation. However, these institutions are not supranational, so there is no considerable
difference between EurAsEC and CIS bodies.
Customs Union of Belorussia, Kazakhstan and Russia
New body on post USSR region with real supranational power is Commission of Customs
Union of Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan. Customs union can install customs tariff
regulation and non tariff regulation of foreign trade on external boundaries of countriesmembers. In 2010 it adopted a common customs tariff and 30 documents, concerning change
of import duties, granting tariff concessions and the establishment of tariff quotas for certain
goods from third countries. In 2010 Commission adopted almost 20 decisions, clarifying
Single
list
of
goods,
which
includes
prohibitions
or
restrictions
on
import and export of countries - members of the Customs Union EurAsEC in trade with third
countries. Commission also establishes plan of measures on providing export control and
execution of technical and customs regulations.
Special supranational status of Customs union empowers EurAsEC court to consider claims
from economic entities that intend to challenge the action or omission of Customs Unions. So
authorities of Belorussia, Russia and Kazakhstan created a mechanism for judicial protection
of economic units from errors taken by Customs Union.
45
Union State of Russia and Belorussia
The Union state of Belorussia and Russia has huge potential. As it was said by President of
Belorussia Aleksandr Lukashenko “Belarusians and Russians is a one demos, turned to be
separated”. Unfortunately, till now this high level integration between Russia and Belorussia
was not greatly developed. However, we cannot deny some achievements of Union State as
common labor market, investment projects etc. The development and improvement of CIS,
EurAsEC, CSTO and Union State of Russia and Belorussia depend mostly on priority of
integrative policy in national bodies on post USSR region. Unfortunately, the Federal ministry
of CIS affairs in Russia that was linked with ministries on CIS affairs of other states-members
and coordinated the activity of other ministries on execution of all CIS agreements was
eliminated. Soon, after its liquidation, ministries on CIS affairs in other countries were also
eliminated or converted to other activity. For instance, in Armenia instead of ministry on CIS
affairs the Standing committee on European Integration was created.
However, lower level of integration still develops in CIS, mostly thank to Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly. For instance, Committee on harmonization of legislation on fight against terrorism,
criminality and drugs traffic in CIS is to observe and provide an execution of corresponding
parts of international treaties, accepted by Counsel of CIS states Heads. Another example is
Regional Cooperation on Communcation, based on Counsel of Experts of Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly created to form a coherent legal framework of CIS countries on informatization and
communication.
We also believe in necessity of cooperation between CIS and EU along with deeper
integration of CIS that could lead to creation of permanent format of interaction EU-CIS, like
EU-ASEAN or EU-MERCOSUR. However, EU as well as USA has mostly been intended to
collaborate with each country of CIS separately and not with its union except Organization for
democracy and economic development GUAM. We suppose that lack of supranational bodies
of CIS as well as difference among countries in terms of economic development, political
stability, geopolitical location etc. resulted in such approach from other unions.
In 2003 there was a possibility to conclude an agreement between Inter-Parliamentary
Assembly and European parliament. It was accepted by all fractions of EU Parliament and it
must be signed during common meeting in Saint-Petersburg. However technical delay of
signing resulted in cancellation of that since Baltic countries just entered to EU imposed veto
on this agreement.
In 2009 European union created a special project, initiated by Sweden, called ‘East
partnership” for further collaboration of EU with neighboring countries in the East, such as
46
Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorussia, Moldova and Ukraine.
So EU is ready to
collaborate deeper with CIS states separately or with their union, like with GUAM, but not
with CIS as a whole. We suppose that the core countries of EU such as Germany and France
would probably be favorable to some kind of cooperation between EU and CIS, however, ex
socialistic partners do not seem to be favorable to that.
47
3.1 Features of Economic integration in the CIS region
Over the years, economy of CIS has greatly changed from common national economy during
USSR époque to group of tightly connected economies of independent countries. Regional
economic integration under conditions of common history, common culture and common
values of ex-members of USSR became reality and well reflect a movement from simple
collaboration to complicated one, from free trade zone to economic union supposing creation
of supranational bodies.
Free Trade development in post-Soviet region
The creation of free trade zone means cancelation of custom duties within this area as well as
import and export quotas. The agreement “On creation of free trade zone” was signed almost
by all CIS-members, except Turkmenistan in 1994. Customs union, that is supposed to
organize common customs service, establishment of common tariffs, quotas as well as
measures of non-tariff regulation, was created by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belorussia in 2009.
Common market, that CIS countries supposed to reach, means free traffic not only goods and
services among countries but also factors of production, like labor, capital, technologies and
information.
Economic union or common economic space, as we know, supposes coordination of common
macroeconomic (budget, monetary, investment and tax) policies and corresponding to that
legislation. Establishment of such high and deep integration was promulgated by Belorussia,
Kazakhstan and Russia in 2011. For instance, actually they obliged each other to have no
more than 3 % budget deficit. However, they intended to create Eurasian economic union by
2015, so till that time members of Custom union will try to unify macroeconomic policy of
each country as well as regulate all treaties made among them, concerning their membership
in Customs union and EurAsEC.
Full economic integration or economic union, as it was shown by EU example, is the deepest
level of cooperation that means pursuing not only consensual, but also common policy
regarding unification of contract, financial, tax, labor, antitrust and other types of legislation,
common technical and ecological standards, and moreover, common currency and common
emission center, common budget as well as supranational executive and legislative bodies.
Within CIS such economic integration could exist in Union state of Russia and Belorussia.
In order to find some effective type of economic integration within CIS, corresponding to
modern requirements, some specific circumstances should be taken into account. They mostly
determine the necessity of combination of different types of integration.
48
The greatest economic obstacle on the way to deeper integration is constantly growing
difference of social-economic development. Any model of integration should take into
consideration this important fact in creating common market of goods, capital and labor.
World experience proves that such countries cannot create rapidly union such as EU and they
are usually supposed to be limited by creation of free trade zone. For instance,
well
developed USA and Canada and developing country as Mexico that concluded an Agreement
of Free Trade within NAFTA. A similar agreement was signed by 11 countries of CIS in
1994.
Free trade possibilities are open just for those goods and services, produced within CIS,
However, in practice under conditions of lack of effective certification system, indicating
country-producer as well as smuggling, there are lots of Chinese, Turkish, Polish etc, goods
sold in CIS under the label of CIS production. That is why there is a huge necessity to renew
Agreement “On free trade zone”, singed in 1994 to create new document, reflecting current
realities of CIS: participation of some members in WTO and creation of Custom union. The
new agreement was concluded in 2011 by CIS members during CIS meeting in SaintPetersburg in Russia. The agreement was approved by the heads of eight CIS countries:
Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Russia.
The treaty provides the establishment of suitable conditions for the effective functioning of a
free trade zone within the CIS. In addition, according to agreement there are the most
favorable conditions for further deepening of integration based on the rules of the World
Trade Organization. Under the terms of the contract, the CIS shall not apply customs duties
on exports and imports, and the list of goods subject to import duties is still minimized.
In addition, the agreement provides obligations for the parties to ensure non-discriminatory
application of the rules of non-tariff regulation, the provision of national treatment, as well as
relevant international practice rules for subsidies. The agreement also provides rules for
resolving disputes, which will contribute to the guaranteed performance of commitments by
the participants. Agreement is concluded for an indefinite period. The ratification of the
agreement replaces a number of the existing agreements between the states - participants of
CIS.
During preparation of this document, the following issues required lots of discussion:
 participation of some CIS members in WTO
 transit of natural resources
 no additional clauses in agreement
 accelerating of ratification of Rules to determine the origin of goods.
49
According to these rules if 50 % or more of good cost were produced within CIS, it possible
to consider it as a CIS production. Definite determination of this important issue is believed
to have a big impact on CIS internal trade.
However, we believe that full integrated economy with really free zone can be created within
Customs union of Belorussia, Kazakhstan and Russia, so introduction of common system of
customs and non-tariff regulation, customs code and single economic space of these countries
with a population around 170 millions could be a definite achievement of integration policy
on post-USSR region. Moreover it could let attract and move freely not only goods and
serviced, but also capital and new technologies.
According to assessment of Eurasian bank of development, the introduction of common tariff
on all types of goods and services, transfer all kinds of control on external borders, liquidation
of custom and other administrative barriers could provide 10% growth of GDP over next 10
years.
If we take an example of deep economic integration of EU, it is evident that current economic
issues, often called as European crisis, was mostly linked to the strong desire to expand EU
and to take to countries into alliance, although these countries are supposed not to correspond
well for entrance to EU. As a consequence, these states, having received a membership in EU,
got all rights and duties as well as credibility, though their social-economic development did
not comply properly with EU requirements. As a result, just 10 million population of Greece
and Hungary have 300 and 100 US $ billion debt. In general, according to the Bank for
international settlement, common debts of Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece is more
than US $ 4 trillion in 2012. To save these countries seeking for a money on international
markets because of drowning in debt, EU provides a substantial economic and financial
support to them.
European Union in 2010 created Anticrisis fund to help countries with financial difficulties
within EU. Mostly these funds were created thanks to biggest and most developed countries
of EU such as Germany, Netherlands and others. However the population of these states
started raising questions about necessity of EU and Euro maintenance, so developing of
economic nationalism can be seen in this case. Whole world observe the situation happened in
EU, especially concerning economic crisis and further EU development, since EU , as the best
integration existing nowadays, could create a precedent for other unions all over the world.
CIS members should also take into account not only EU achievements, but also some
negative experience and failures. Currently, the biggest part of CIS members’ foreign trade
belongs to other countries-non CIS members (Table 6 ‘Internal trade in CIS” in Annex).
50
Based on the world experience, we can see a number of integrations of developing countries
whereas their most important economic partners are developed countries, not including in this
integration. For instance, MERCOSUR where internal trade among its members Argentina,
Brasilia, Uruguay and Paraguay is much more less that external trade of these states with
USA. However, this type of union is unlikely to achieve higher levels of integration, such as
economic union, since for further integration and creation of common administration and
common currency there is a great need to have tight economic cooperation among members.
Just increased internal trade could stimulate countries’ interests for common coordination of
customs and monetary policy so that union could develop by itself. Even though previously
CIS members were parts of one single economy, actually under conditions of rampant
globalization to restore completely old relations seems impossible. Mostly previous economic
cooperation was not based on market principles and did not take into account real transport
cost and transaction cost.
States-producers of natural resources versus states-consumers
Moreover, CIS includes states that do not have substantial fuel and energy resources such as
Belorussia, Moldova, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and states with considerable raw material stocks.
Compared to EU, CIS is more fragmented than EU, since EU countries are in general
consumers of raw materials, however, within CIS there are producers and consumers. In spite
of being biggest producers, Russia and Kazakhstan seems to intend to develop further
integration on a region regardless of interests’ conflict. For instance, Russia within higher
level of integration will have conflict of interests of producers of raw materials and industrial
producers: on one side it will have to sell its resources for prices much lower that nowadays,
on another side, it will have a free access to CIS markets for disseminating Russian goods and
services. Russian industry, still very young and not well developed, tries to survive on the
market under hard competitive conditions and its products are supposed to be uncompetitive
on a world market. So to develop aerospace, shipbuilding, automobile and light industry,
Russia needs as more consumers as possible.
So above-mentioned difference between CIS-members and EU states makes impossible blind
copying of EU model on post-USSR region. In general, countries having big natural resources
do not integrate with countries-consumers of these resources. For instance, Norway did not
enter to EU, because Norway provide 10% of all EU needs in gas and fuel. So being EU
member, it will have to decrease prices for that and lose its profit. The role of Norway on CIS
region is mostly played by Russia and Kazakhstan. For instance, there was a conflict between
Russia and Belorussia in 2010 when Russia agreed to supply Belorussia with duty free petrol
51
needed to satisfy internal Belorussian needs, but Belorussia demanded to increase the supply
because of increased consumption. Russia that lose every year 2 US $ billion because of duty
free supply to Belorussia did not intend to accept Belorussian proposal. This issue was solved
just after taking a decision of Common Economic Zone creation, highest level of integration,
in 2010 by Belorussia, Kazakhstan and Russia. So actually Russia does not limit exportation
to Belorussia, however if Belorussia decides to export extra petrol outside customs union, it
will have to pay export duties to Russia. But anyway, Russia will lose money due to increase
duty free exportation of petrol to Belorussia.
However, it is expected to be a great issue until prices for energy resources in Russia and
Kazakhstan will be lower than World prices. Some experts believe that in nearest future
prices for petrol and gas in Kazakhstan and Russia will increase and equal to world one, so all
export duties within union would be useless. However increase prices for energy resources
will definitely decrease competitiveness of a number of industries, but it would inspire the
introduction of energy saving technologies. Moreover, western partners of Russia and
Kazakhstan have been insisted on increasing of prices for energy resources because it is one
of the requirements for WTO entrance.
So countries –members expecting increasing prices, have already taken some measures to
support competitiveness of economy. For instance, Russia and Belorussia made a agreement
on nuclear power plant construction. This plant is supposed to provide Belorussia with
relatively cheap electro energy and satisfy almost 27% of total Belorussian needs in energy.
Caring about Belorussian energy security, Russia would transfer new technologies to its
neighbor, provide with substantial financial resources and additionally, will provide
Belorussian partners with a contract for construction work execution
Lack of supranational power
Another problem related to Eurasian Customs union is lack of supranational budget that could
distribute accumulated customs duties. In EU almost 90% of customs duties, regardless where
they were collected, on boundaries of which country, go to European budget.
Under
conditions of supranational budget absence, that should be certainly accepted by supranational
parliament, there are variety of approaches of different national budgets and difficulty of
allocating accumulated resources among countries-members.
According to the Agreement on establishment and application in Customs Union of
enrollment and distribution framework of customs duties, accumulated resources are credited
to a single account of the authorized body of the party, in which these amounts are payable in
accordance with the customs legislation of the Customs Union, and are distributed according
52
to the budgets of the parties according to the standards of distribution. The norm established
For the Republic of Belarus is 4.7%, for Kazakhstan - 7.33, for the Russian Federation 87.97%.
Accession to WTO of some CIS members
If we talk about CIS members, there are countries that are members of WTO such as
Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Ukraine and other countries-members of CIS that are not member of
WTO, but would like to enter that. Countries acceded to WTO have greatly liberalized their
markets and as a result provide better access to their markets. Their experience of WTO
membership proved that after WTO accession the amount of foreign direct investments had
greatly reduced (Table 7 “The amount of foreign direct investment in CIS states- members
accessed to WTO” in Annex). This is because foreign business representatives prefer to
import final goods that capital due to reduced or lack of customs duties. Local industry often
cannot stand foreign competition and went bankrupt.
Moreover, because of suspicion of goods’ foreign origin exported from CIS states-members
that at the same time WTO members and possible deterioration of importation conditions to
CIS non WTO members, the trade within CIS greatly reduced. As a result unemployment and
migration have considerably increased.
The question appeared in this case is why did small, underdeveloped countries decide to
accede WTO? We suppose that majority of CIS that simultaneously WTO members intended
to introduce market economy and integrate fully in world trade, even though these objectives
were not reached. Some CIS members acceded WTO are believed to have additional reasons,
such as dictating terms to Russia, before Russian entering to WTO. For instance, Georgia had
barely given Russia its permission for WTO accession; finally it happened thanks to
Switzerland, its political and juridical mediation. Anyway, WTO membership of CIS states
had in general negative economic effect and for some countries it would be better to enter
WTO within one group. Ukraine that did not enter with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belorussia,
its main trading partners, was not able to defend its economic interest. For instance, Ukraine
decreased rate of import tariffs for agricultural goods from 19,71% till 11,6%, however, other
WTO members still keep it at a level of 15%. So economic expectations of Ukraine were not
satisfied, unemployment still increases as well as import grows faster than export, so domestic
production could be replaced by foreign one.
We can also believe that increased Russian contribution in Ukrainian international trade,
development of relations with CIS states and unreasonable expectations linked to WTO
accession could give an impetus to orientation of Ukraine toward CIS and Customs Union.
53
In any case, individual accession of Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, small countries with fable
economy, to WTO leaded to serous aggravation of economic situation in countries that
eventually resulted in political instability. For Customs union members it was desirable to
enter WTO all together under similar conditions, otherwise, maintenance of WTO and
customs Union membership would become impossible. For instance, if one of the Customs
Union countries decided to enter WTO individually, there would be need to change a
common customs policy and rate of customs duties. Moreover, there are no guarantees that
for other countries in Customs union the same conditions for WTO accession would be
provided. However, common accession of Customs union members became impossible, since
WTO administration did not accepted that and strongly advised to enter WTO on individual
basis. Actually Russia was already accepted by WTO as a member.
However there are huge doubts expressed by business society about necessity of WTO
accession. Till now the agreement between WTO and Russia was not ratified by Russian
Parliament. Anyway Russia, Kazakhstan and Belorussia cannot be isolated from world trade,
so they will have to accede to WTO, but they also need to negotiate carefully terms of
agreement, since they must be mutually advantageous. Thank to lack of barriers for internal
trade, Customs union members are supposed to prioritize trade within Union, even being
WTO members. Customs Union member even being WTO member could as others use
methods of non-tariff regulation to defend its market, such as technical requirements to the
goods or policy of effective currency exchange rate. For instance, devaluation of national
currency, that can stimulate exportation and made imported goods inaccessible, since they
become more expensive, compared to local goods and services.
Customs Union states and CIS members, as a whole, need to open their markets and integrate
more actively to the world trade. However, being states with transitive economy, CIS
members should pay much attention to conditions of WTO accession.
Example of
Kyrgyzstan, first CIS member to have entered WTO, proved that hasty unexpected and as a
result incompletely analyzed accession leaded to continuing aggravation of economic
situation, although in the beginning WTO accession was believed to have only positive
impact on country-members. It is also important to have common WTO accession conditions
for Customs unions states and CIS as a whole to have a possibility to create a common market
and fulfill all commitments made to WTO.
CIS labor market
Common market of goods and services should be accompanied with sufficient development
of capital and labor markets, although in this case interests of CIS members are not the same.
54
The majority of these states mostly intended to export their labor resources to Russia and
Kazakhstan. Let us examine example of Russia, where the problem of emigrants and their
integration to the Russian society is very actual. Over the years, it was believed that Russia as
majority of European countries suffer from lack of population on their territory, however they
cannot boost itself the amount of that because of decreased birth rate, so to satisfy all needs of
their labor market, they need to import labor resources. CIS labor market was supposed to be
the best possible “stock” of people, capable to work in Russia, since they have very close
culture and common history, moreover, Russian language is still widely spoken on postUSSR territory and previously, CIS countries were one state. Officially, in Russian there are
4,5 million foreigners working on a Russian territory registered in official bodies, however,
the real number is supposed to be much higher (Table 8 “Number of migrants came to Russia
from CIS states-members” in Annex). In general, the majority of these people are hired at low
qualified and low paid job in service sector of economy, such as construction, public works
etc. Russia had to develop special policy of migrants to regulate somehow flow of that in and
out of country, moreover, Russian officials, also elaborated a list of quotas, distributed
according to the each region necessity, for foreigners to work in Russia. The major market for
Russia is still Central Asia, Caucasus and Western part of CIS, such as Ukraine and
Belorussia, Moldova. These people, even living in Russia, send regularly some amount of
money to their families living in their origin countries. For instance, migrant workers from
Kyrgyzstan send to their families around US$ 1 billion, stimulating by this Kyrgyz economy
and reducing social tension. Moreover, almost half of 500 thousands Kyrgyz migrants took
Russian citizenship, so they decided not only work there, but also live.
Pretty similar
situation we can observe in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, however, biggest part of migrant
workers are from Ukraine.
In this case, we can obviously implement the theory of Karl Marx that says that if somewhere
there is a lack of workforce; this gap can be filled by people from regions with abundant labor
resources. Most of these newcomers came to Russia because they cannot find a job in their
origin country and they have to leave their families to earn money. Most of them, as it was
mentioned above, are poor qualified and ready to execute almost any work. However, Russia
intended to attract more educated people, so they are going to implement score-system for
giving a working visa, like majority developed countries. Russia also established a simplified
system for ex-USSR citizens to get a Russian citizenship. This system is supposed not only to
fill Russian population gap, but also to strengthen processes of integration with CIS states. Let
us say that Russia will be linked with CIS sates not only in terms of economy and policy, but
also “morally”, since one part of the same family will live in Russia and in another one of the
55
CIS states. In addition to this, Russia suffers from outflow of population to more developed
countries, so necessity of foreign workforce is not anymore doubtful.
However, Russia as well as Kazakhstan is mostly interested in Capital exportation and
importation. So economic integration can be seen not only in markets of goods and services
but also in labor and capital markets.
CIS investment market
However, this market of capital is not still formed. Based on Russian statistics, the amount of
foreign direct investment from CIS in Russia and from Russia in CIS states was really
negligible; however, if we take example of Kyrgyzstan, the presence of Russian and
Kazakhstan’s capital in Kyrgyz economy is major. Basically, asymmetric economic
development resulted in underdeveloped capital market and asymmetric investment, so the
presence of Kyrgyz capital in Kazakhstan and Russia is really small.Along with that, statistics
cannot count investment coming from off-shore zone or from western countries companies
and multinational companies where CIS members’ capital can also be presented.
Lack of CIS states capital presence in raw materials market can be explained by significant
foreign investment in this market and as a consequence natural resources deposit is taken over
by foreign business. This process started in 1990’s when capital market of CIS was
underdeveloped and there was a strong need in capital. However, even now Russia, the
biggest investor on post-USSR region perceive difficulties in investing directly i.e. buying
some enterprises, even though these enterprises depend on Russian investor in terms of
technology, raw materials supply.
 From one side, it can give this enterprise an access to cheap resources, technologies or
Russian selling market
 From other side some CIS countries could feel a threat from Russia and Russian
business in terms of increasing economic dependence that could lead to political one.
Sometimes, GazProm, Russian biggest company, could more easily buy German companies,
that CIS ones. We can suppose that CIS states by this policy try also to diversify its economic
partners. However Ukrainian prime-minister once said that in a number of industries Russian
and Ukrainian interests are the same; however Russian companies more and more tried to take
over Ukrainian ones.
However, capital market between Russia and Ukraine develops
regardless Ukrainian suspicions. For instance, in 2010 Ukrainian antitrust agency accepted
merger between Ukrainian “Kievstar” and Russian “Vympelcom” telecommunication
companies.
56
CIS securities market
The development of common securities market is slowing down because of immaturity of
stocks market in CIS members. The legal basis for this market forming was mostly a model
law “On securities market” that was developed with assistance of European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development. However, till now, rate of capitalization in CIS countries is
still low, compared to world rates, and greatly varies from one country to another one. More
developed securities markets are in Russia and Kazakhstan: 59% and 53, 24% respectively.
Belorussia has one of the lowest rate of capitalization. The backlog of Belorussia in execution
of privatization processes is supposed to be a reason for that. We believe, that Belorussia
won’t repeat Russian and other CIS members’ errors in pursuing privatization processes in
1990’s, often called “wild capitalism”, and will do that efficiently and effectively. In this case,
further economic integration of Custom Union could be more dynamic.
Steps toward higher level integration
Transition of CIS members to market economy stimulated them to elaborate common
macroeconomic indicators to retain in order to accelerate integration. In 2010 Counsel of
Head of CIS states recommended countries-members to retain the following indicators that
could characterize economic development, stability in a region as well as financial stability
and prices stability.
-Annual deficit of state budget- no more than 4% of GDP
-Annual public debt (external and internal) –no more that 80% of GDP
For 3 states-members of Customs Union only:
- Exceeding of current rate of inflation (consumer price index for December of the year to
December of the previous one) over the average rate of inflation fir country in a question - no
more than 5 %
-Exceeding of current interest rate for long term loans over average interest rate rate for long
term credits- no more that 3%
As macroeconomic indicators of CIS members get closer to established norms, financial
stability creates incentives for more wide use of national currency in payments between
individuals in CIS. It was also supposed to create common payment system with plastic cards
implementation within EurAsEC.
Using of national currencies of CIS as regional reserve currency was also discussed. However
nowadays there is no national currency in a region that could satisfy all requirements of
57
regional reserve currency, such as rate of inflation, long term stability, developed internal
financial market and relative independency on external market changes.
We can suppose that Moscow could be huge international financial center to unify CIS
financial markets. It is also necessary for further development of Customs union and Common
economic space to install common payment system and, in the future, Currency Union. It is
also possible to create a new supranational currency, as it was done by EU.
CIS is also very specific union because there is one members that 3 times bigger,
economically and financially stronger than all other members. So development of
attractiveness of CIS, EurAsEC and Customs Union mostly depends on Russia, its intention
to modernize and keep up the same pace as the world. Under conditions of modern economic
changes and transition to innovative, informative or e-economy, integration is not based any
more on simple exportation and importation, it is mostly exchange of experience and
technologies, scientific cooperation, common development, production and selling of
innovative goods and services, that can let create technological chain of value added
production and to take a place in a world market of high-technological goods and services.
Modernization of Russian economy could create new incentives for Eurasian integration.
As it can be evident, CIS model is very different from EU. However, majority of countries
intends to use European way of political and economical development needed just to be
adjusted to CIS conditions of reality. The aspiration for Europe and commitment to European
values are common for all CIS states. For instance, Kazakhstan, Central Asia country,
adopted a special state program “The way to Europe” for 2009-2011 years. Thanks to this
strategy, as it was said by speaker of Kazakh parliament K.J. Tokaev, gradual acceptance of
philosophical, political, legal and moral values of European society was supposed. Certainly,
Kazakhstan was not assumed to enter EU, it mostly intended to promote the idea of Eurasian
integration. However, Ukraine openly expressed its desire to accede EU as a full member as a
main geopolitical purpose. According to Ukrainian prime-minister Tigibko, the Ukrainian
society considers integration to EU as the most attractive model for development.
Eurasian model of society cannot be based just on Asian values; it should be mostly a mix of
European and Asian culture. Actually it is more important to understand what European
values are, its economic and political approach and how to apply them to CIS countries,
taking into account its special territorial division, common economic soviet past and religious
difference. Europeans are mostly Christians, however in Eurasian union there are a big
amount of Muslims and Christians. CIS and EU has also very different in terms of natural
resources, social issues such as poverty, migration, so CIS, though being Europe oriented,
could also use experience of other unions.
58
3 The problems, contradictions and prospects of Socio-economic and
political development of the regional integration on post-USSR region at
present
3.1 Role of Russia in the CIS integration processes
Modern economy develops toward globalization and further integration. We believe that
globalization could let world economy use more efficiently existing resources as well as provide
considerable economic growth for a number of countries’. However, globalization also
contributed in downgrading of competitiveness of those states that cannot find their place in a
process of international labor division and, as a consequence, are not able to use all fruits of
globalization. The most preferable solution for these states is regional integration or development
within regional group and alignment of economic potential as well that, in its turn, could
facilitate preparation process for full integration in a world economy. We believe that regional
union is an intermediary between national economy and global one.
CIS as Russian ex-colonial area
In 1991 there was an emergence of 15 new states, well determined to become democratic
countries with market economy. Those times we also received a new geopolitical term “postSocialistic states” or “ex-USSR area”. However, some experts believed that this region can be
also called as “post-colonial area”. The researcher Algis Prasauskas in its article “CIS as postcolonial area11” tried comparing CIS with other colonial empires existing in the past. The most
important question was whether countries after getting independence become really
economically, politically and culturally independent on their metropolitan. The approach of
Prasauskas was not widely accepted, since till now it is difficult to determine whether USSR
colonized region or not. However, it made us think about whether after getting independence
CIS states are really independent on Russia, its economy, political action or even in terms of
cultural influence?
According to ex-Minister of foreign affairs of UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain)
David Miliband, the term “post-Soviet area” is not actual12. He thought that Russia try to use this
term in order to increase its influence due to past belonging to one state, however, today
countries in a region are independent states with national interests and established national
boundaries. So he considered calling Ukraine or Georgia post-soviet countries as a huge mistake.
But we believe that USSR is not only state with boundaries and other attributes of independent
11
Algis Prazauskas, 1992, “CIS as post-Colonial area”, article in “Independent Newspaper”, Moskow. Available
though http://www.ualberta.ca/~khineiko/NG_92_93/1141438.htm, {Accessed Mai 3, 2012}
12
David Miliband, August 27th, 2008, article on his official web-site. Available through
http://davidmiliband.net/speech/ukraine-russian-and-european-security/ , {accessed April 18, 2012}
59
state, we think that USSR used to be a state with its own civilization. Even though states in a
region are independent for almost 20 years, the material and cultural values reached by all exmembers cannot be forgotten in a short period of time for history. We also believe that even
newly emerged independent states would try to limit popularity of Russian language or reduce
economic and political links with Russia and other CIS state members as well as to orient
themselves to the friendship with western states; it does not mean that people would easily forget
the connections, values, traditions acquired during Soviet époque.
From 1991 to actual times there was a complex process of integration formation on postUSSR region, most of which was initiated by Russia. These processes began to contribute more
and more not only in development of Russian economy and CIS as well, but also in provision of
Russian federation national security.
2000’s – period of increasing role of Russia in a region
Over last 20 years Russia received a huge experience with negative and positive moments
in realization of integration project on post-USSR region. Russian federation, as we considered it
in a previous part, by political stimulation tries to accelerate integration process and to create
high degree union as Customs union and Single Economic Union in 2015. This project was
initiated in a partnership with Kazakhstan and Belorussia, but it is supposed to enhance and
include all EurAsEC states and be called Eurasian Union. Concurrently, Russia intends also to
deepen integration with Armenia, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tadjikistan within
Collective Security Treaty Organization.
It is difficult to distinguish integration processes in a region and integrative policy of
Russia since they absolutely linked. Moreover, external regional actors such as EU or NATO,
USA and China express their own interests in a region and propose states gradual accession to
alternative unions. Political and social structure of region, political and economical role of
Russia and internal and external processes in 2008-2011 inspired Russia to take actions toward
further integration.
At the same time, increased costs in economy and political life due to Russian forcing of
integration process caused a great necessity to develop a long term official strategy, explaining
aims of integration, creation cost and Russian participation and contribution to that.
First period lasting from 1991 to 2000 is phase of accumulating experience of integration
creation under new market and democratic conditions after USSR falling down. Over that time
CIS region was determined as a territory presenting strong geopolitical interests for Russia, so
Russia tried to achieve its political aims within CIS organization. However, big part of CIS
60
projects comprising economic and military union was supposed to be not so successful and to
show not only unwillingness of eleven states members to develop further integration, but also
failure of Russian strategies.
Due to all above-mentioned factors, Russian federation realized necessity of
transformation of Russian foreign policy in a region in a question and implementation of new
form of collaboration, aimed to develop economic links among states and to deepen integration
with restricted number of CIS members, that highly interested in mutual tight partnership within
new sub-regional integration union with Russian participation, such as EurAsEC, Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Unfortunatly,
attempt of Russia to establish Single economic Space with Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan
as well as Union States with Belorussia was not so prosperous.
According to new foreign economic strategy of Russia, elaborated in 2007 and expected to
be implemented till 2020, economic integration among states in a region should be deepened and
enhanced. Russia was believed to take actions toward that in 2008. This period was pretty hard
for Russia striving a lot for preserving CIS and EurAsEC.
o Increased difference in macroeconomic indicators of states in a region
o Competition among internal actors-suppliers of resources and external actors (EU,
USA, China) for influence in a region
o World economic crisis
o And finally Russian-Georgian military conflict that compound relations between
Russia and Western states and delayed Russian accession to WTO, all above
strengthened fragmentation of post-Soviet region.
Reaction of Russian federation to all above-mentioned factors resulted in more active
integration policy taken by Russia in 2009-2010. Moreover, these complex issues forced Russia
to concentrate on region under its traditional hegemony with concurrent orientation toward high
degree integration based on mutual profitability and respect of mutual interests.
The most important factor contributing to the third period of integration on post Soviet
region is installment of Customs Unions of Kazakhstan, Russia and Belorussia and deepening of
economic links and political collaboration among these states in a question. We believe that
integration in a region is supposed to have not only economic interests like EurAsEC or Customs
Union, based on EurAsEC, but also security interests, like CSTO. To compound to it, Russian
officials supposed to disseminate its integration project on whole Eurasia.
It is also necessary to note that by 2010 there was formed a number of conditions and
factors influenced a lot to a process of integration among CIS. For instance, consequences of
world crisis, aggravating internal economic situation in western countries, made them detract
61
attention from CIS region in order to solve their own internal issues. So Russian government
decided to take active steps to reinforce realization of economic and military potential of postsoviet states due to global challenges that are needed to be solved collectively, that is to say
through real economic and political integration, taking into account all specific features of the
region. It is also important that intention to build union was made by internal actor of the region
and not external one. Russian participation in integration could be much more considerable than
it was, however, Russia is not developed state with strong economy, it still needs reforms in
economic and political life.
Russia in CIS versus USA in NAFTA
As we know, there are lots of unions, known worldwide that have already proved their
efficiency. Integration on post USSR region is in a process of creation new unions as well as
preserving existing ones. The biggest country in a region in terms of territory, population and
economy, Russian Federation is the primer engine of integration in CIS region. We believe that
Russia aimed to rebuild union of majority of ex-USSR members have economical, political and
geopolitical purposes. So Russia is supposed to be regional leader that several times bigger and
stronger than its neighbors. It can be compared to the role of USA in North Free Trade
Agreement, since USA is also leader and the primordial motivator of NAFTA creation. NAFTA
is supposed to be mostly aimed on economic and trade collaboration. As it was mentioned above,
NAFTA cannot be compared to EU as well as other regional unions, since USA is the only
unconditional leader with strong not only regional, but also world stance. USA economy is
several times more than that of total Canada and Mexico. Moreover, Mexican and Canadian
economy is more integrated with USA one than with each other. This mono leadership can
obviously facilitate decision making process and governance of whole region, however, it can
also induce conflicts in a union, since countries perceiving pressure on them could express their
dissatisfaction and complaint. NAFTA is union that mostly was initiated not only by USA, but
also by USA companies and corporations, so NAFTA is believed to be pushed by business
interests. Only after having observed the growth of business activity among states, officials came
to idea to conclude treaty to regulate all these affairs and give corporations more possibilities and
opportunities to develop.
Based on these, Russia is not supposed to satisfy completely all economic requirements to
be called a stable regional leader. It was also contributed by factors of regional disintegration.
For instance, low involvement of states in internal regional trade (45% within NAFTA and 21%
within CIS).
As it was mentioned above, there are a number of disintegrative economic factors.
62
1) Lack of technological leadership, that cannot lead to new high level of
industrialization, achieve wide diversification and lower internal competition
2) Similar structure of exportation, resulting in unnecessary competition
3) Low competitiveness of internal goods that leads to increase of external imported
goods and reducing of internal trade
4) Lack of capital for enhanced modernization of industry in a region, specifically in
underdeveloped weakest countries. This, of course, cannot let them become developed
state
5) No economic perspectives for leader to be comprised in a union with weak partners,
since it cannot bring economic prosperity or effective exchange process of technology
or experience.
Based on the example of North Free Trade Agreement, concluded among USA, Mexico and
Canada, and USA leadership role in this union, a number of criteria to determine regional
leader could be noted:
1) Technological advantages of regional leader over other states members, that could create
new opportunities for specialization and labor division
2) Regional leader mostly interested in acquisition
 new area for enterprises installment
 new market as well
 a large amount of workers for season works in agriculture for the most part
 And release of its own workers just let them work in high technology industries.
3) Other states, non leaders of region, are interested in receiving
 Receiving capital and investment projects
 Getting new technologies
 opening of new enterprises
 increasing of tax income
 decreasing of unemployment rate because of creation new enterprises labor migration
 increasing on population income
4) In order to follow all its interest and execute supposed plan, regional leader should be
many times bigger than its regional followers and present sufficient technological and
investment potential. It should also present a huge selling market.
Economy of Russia versus economy of other CIS members
The most important feature, distinguishing CIS from other unions is the fact that among 11
members of CIS or Customs Union Russian Federation presents the huge power, compared
63
probably only to role of USA in NAFTA, although NAFTA has just 3 members (see Table 9
“Participation of Russia in CIS economy” in Annex).
Moreover, whole GDP of least developed states of CIS comprising Armenia, Kyrgyzstan,
Moldavia, Georgia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan is less than 7% of Russian GDP. Thus Russian
economy is many times bigger than its neighbors, for instance, 100 times bigger than
Armenian and Georgian economy, 165 times bigger than Kyrgyz or Moldavian economies.
Not only in terms of economy size, but also income per capita and standard of living CIS
members are enough different (See Table 10 “GDP per capita in CIS states ($US)” in Annex)
Even among Customs Union members according to macroeconomic indicators, Russia
possesses a privilege place (See Table 11 “Macroeconomic indicators of Customs Union
members (2009) in Annex).
Considerable difference among states leaded to different interests of states concerning
development of regional economic collaboration. For Russia the most important reason for
development of CIS and other unions on this territory is geopolitical interests that mostly
needed to be well organized in a strategy. However, Russian partners in CIS region mostly
consider their participation in this union as a short term opportunity to get financial and
natural resources, subsidies as well as preferential access to huge Russian market.
Features of Geo-economic policy of Russia toward deep integration
CIS states are important region for Russia for supporting status of powerful empire with a
strong influence on regional neighbors and stimulating durable development. Specifically
Russian Federation has the following motifs to stimulate deeper integration:
1) formation of common market in order to increase accessibility of EU and Asia Pacific
market
2) access to resource deposits of CIS states in order to full Russian stocks and increase
energy security, access to rare resources and metals to support Russian image in a
world raw materials market
3) avoiding of unnecessary competition among CIS states, energy resources producers,
on a world market through realization of common projects, specifically in terms of
processing primary materials
4) access to surplus labor force in CIS states that does not have any alternatives due to
internal Russian demographic issues. Moreover, migrants form CIS can easily adapt to
working conditions in Russia due to common culture, common history and knowledge
of Russian language
64
5) Access to intellectual elite of CIS states in order to diversify risks of brain drain from
Russia to Western states as well as to stimulate elaboration of innovative ideas to
modernize Russian economy and society
6) To ensure stability and predictability of CIS states policy regarding strategic issues in
military, atom, air and space spheres
7) Development of bordering territories due to active trade with all neighbors
8) Using of geostrategic potential of CIS states mostly as transit territory
We should also mention that geo-economic policy of Russia held through relations
with CIS members have following important features:
1) Financial grants and credits from Russian side are strongly required by all CIS
members. However, we believe that all expenses from Russian budget are
supposed to be supported by a number of geo-economic profits to Russia. For
Russia it is important to determine terms of getting these profits
2) Asymmetric expectations from both sides (Russia and other CIS states): Russia
hopes to get some economic or political profits in the long run; however, CIS
states try to receive something as soon as possible. So this process is stimulated
by majority of CIS members due to their seeking of short-term advantages,
although we do not consider it as a right way
3) This asymmetric interest provides asymmetric attractiveness for further
development of integration. Russia has more incentives to promote long term
deep, high degree union in order to satisfy all its geo-economic needs while
process of regionalization and regionalism is getting stronger. As for other CIS
states, they are already getting some economic profits and could be satisfied by
that. Moreover, this inspires them to think mainly about process than about final
results or aims of integration.
However, we believe that any integration stimulated by state officials should be mostly
determined on facilitation of business cooperation, creating conditions in terms of law, tax
and public regulation. Thus Russian officials are also interested in assisting national business
to disseminate largely in a region of CIS. We can observe significant presence of Russian
business almost in all states in a region.
Economic incentives proved to be one the strongest types of stimulation for further
integration. However, a number of states actually try to revise role of Russia in their national
history and rewrite history textbooks. Some of them presented Russian activity on their
territory as an occupation therefore they reduced use of Russian language. For instance,
65
Georgian young people speak better English that Russian, some Ukrainians refuse to speak in
Russian even if they can speak it fluently.
Russia-Georgia war and its meaning for CIS members
Moreover, last military conflict between Russia and Georgia occurred in 2008 proved that
Russia is not so strong regional leader as it supposed to be for such a huge country. The cause
of war between Georgia and Russia did not clear also till know. Georgian officials proclaimed
that Russia wanted to change regime in Georgia and overthrow the president Mikheil
Saakashvili. But ex-president of Russian Federation Medvedev insist on version that they
intended to defend peacekeeping forces and Russian citizens that are the majority of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia population.
As it was mentioned above this 5 days war was of great importance not only for conflicting
sides but also for world society. There are a number of countries which independent status is
not recognized. On post USSR territory there are a number of controversial territories as well
as controversial boundaries. .
War happened in August, 2008 between Georgia and Russian Federation was one of the
examples of those wars with no winner or loser. This war occurred between two independent
countries Russia and Georgia because of violence of Russian citizens’ right on Georgian
territory Abkhazia and North Ossetia.
It rose up lots of questions related to territorial
integrity and separatism not only in Georgia but worldwide. Till now there was no any
solution to satisfy both sides.
Prehistory of conflict
This conflict did not take place in 2008; it was initiated many years ago in 1989 before falling
of USSR. In that period USSR direction on the territory was mostly weak, since the number
of countries wanted to leave this union. Concurrently, in Georgia there was noticed
nationalistic movement, promoting the idea of Georgian independence and simultaneous
refusal to give independence to minorities, such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. That time
Abkhazia and Ossetia were a part of Georgian soviet republic, however they asked Moscow
to give them independence from Georgia and recognize them as republic. After falling of
USSR, Georgia was recognized as independent state and Abkhazia and Ossetia were a part of
Georgia.
In 1991 South Ossetia launched military actions against Georgia, the purpose of that was
reaching independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Even though the conflict was not
66
resolved, the end of military actions was executed because of international intervention in
1992. Mixed Forces for Keeping Peace created by Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia and
OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) facilities were installed in
South Ossetia.
After that period the South Ossetia de facto operated as independent country with its own
constitution, however, Georgia considered it as Georgian territory. Although having different
understanding, neither Georgia nor South Ossetia took some military actions against each
other.
In 1992 till 1993 in Abkhazia there was a military conflict between Georgia and Abkhazia. It
caused a big number of casualties to both sides. This issue was not resolved, so military
conflict appeared in 1998 and in 2001. Russia did not intervene directly in this conflict, it
provide humanitarian support as well as it was presented in Mixed Peace keeping forces of
community of Independent Countries.
In 1990’s and in the beginning of 2000’s Ossetia population began actively taking Russian
citizenship, concurrently, population of Abkhazia that also demanded independence from
Georgia, also started taking Russian citizenship. Thank to the law of facilitated process of
taking Russian citizenship for ex-USSR citizens, more and more Abkhazians and Ossetians
got Russian citizenship. Russia, in its turn, opened a number of centers in this region to
facilitate maximum the process. (As a result of these actions by 2006 almost 80% of
population in Abkhazia and North Ossetia was Russian citizens.) This fact and Russian
participation in it were supposed by Georgia as an “annex of Georgian territory to Russia”.
But Russia considered it as legal actions made under international law. To compound to it, in
2000 Russia cancelled visa free travel between Georgia and Russia, but permitted it for
Abkhazians and Ossetians. It also contributed to deterioration of relationship between Georgia
and Russia.
In 2004 the next stage in Russia-Georgia relations started with coming to power of Mikheil
Saakashvily. This west-oriented president proclaimed new policy of Restoring Political
Integrity of Georgia. Mikheil Saakashvily demanded a necessity for Russian peacekeeping
forces (located in North Ossetia and Abkhazia from 1992) to have a Georgian visa. After
Russian refusal, Georgia asked Russian peace-keeping forces to leave or to legalize their
presence on Georgian territory. Mikheil Saakashvily openly blamed Russia for supporting
separatism of Ossetia as well as he was seeking support of European countries and USA.
However in 2006 during participation of Saakashvili in International Conference for Security
hold by EU, he was advised to solve this issue through peaceful methods. Concurrently, In
67
2006 Parliament of Russian Federation asked president, Vladimir Putin to provide national
security of Russia, Russian citizens as well as Russian peacekeeping forces because of
situation in South Ossetia caused by Georgian military actions.
In 2006 because of “Spy Scandal” between Russia and Georgia, they almost abrupt some
diplomatic relations, Russia withdrew their ambassador, embassy stuff and stop any postal
and transport links between countries in a question. In October 2006 Georgia tried to explain
its behavior and its point of view to the world society so it warmed relations a little bit, and in
2007 Russian ambassador came back to Tbilisi. But economical suctions of Russia against
Georgia work till now.
In 2007 President Saakashvili demanded Russian military forces to leave Georgian territory,
Russian forces left it rapidly, however peace keeping forces stayed in Ossetia.
in 2008 during spring and summer, there was a crisis in Georgia and Russia relations. Mostly
it was result of mutual charges of espionage and support of separatism by Russia. Russia
started setting economic relations with Abkhazia, although according to the Treaty signed in
1996 by CIC (Community of Independent Countries) it was prohibited. Then the crisis went
deeper because of terroristic acts in Abkhazia that supposed to be Georgian response to
Abkhazian separatism.
In 2008 Russia cancelled her membership in The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe, giving by that itself a possibility to install military facilities in Caucasus and
reinforced peace-keeping forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Escalation of conflict
In July there was an escalation of conflict. The endless shooting from Georgian and Ossetia
sides forced peaceful population to leave their houses. Georgian military facilities were really
close to South Ossetia boundaries. It was supposed that not only CIS peacekeeping forces
were in Ossetia and Abkhazia, but also Russian military facilities.
Georgian version of conflict start
Mikheil Saakashvili proclaimed that Georgian military forces entered to South Ossetia only
after separatism-oriented groups attacked villages close to Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia
and after entering of Russian army to South Ossetia.
According to Georgian version, Russia was seeking a possibility to annex Georgian territory.
European Union version of conflict start
68
According to report, made by EU commission on investigation of circumstances of war
between Russia and Georgia, it was Georgia who first attacked South Ossetia, but the cause of
this action was a irritating behavior of Russia for several months before conflict. However,
the actions taken by Russia that wanted to defend not only its peacekeeping forces but also its
citizens (more than 80% of population in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are Russian citizens)
were considered by European Union Commission as allowable. But actions taken by Georgia
were not justified by International Law as well as by this commission.
But we should not consider this conflict only as territorial one. Russia could act more
patiently if Georgian president was not so rude and aggressive. His strong and open antirussian politics was also one of the reasons for military actions. Georgia’s possible
membership in NATO was interpreted as a threat to Russia. Actually Georgia is not member
of NATO, since states-members of NATO believe that Georgia should solve its own internal
issues till accession to NATO. So war with Russia delayed Georgian possible membership.
The cause of war between Georgia and Russia did not clear also till know. Georgian officials
proclaimed that Russia wanted to change regime in Georgia and overthrow the president
Mikheil Saakashvili. But president of Russian Federation Medvedev insist on version that
they intended to defend peacekeeping forces and Russian citizens that are the majority of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia population.
It should be also mentioned about Kosovo that was recognized by USA and other 85 countries
in 2008. Mostly Abkhazia and South Ossetia can be considered as a Russian answer to
“American” Kosovo. However, just 6 countries recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, even
members of CIS did not take any active actions regarding status of these territories. For CIS
countries that depend on Russia to a great extent, recognizing of these territories and
accepting separatism could be a threat to CIS countries themselves. In CIS region not all
boundaries are well installed, so demarcation and delimitation processes are still ongoing.
However, since CIS states did not recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent
states and even did not support Russia for its actions against we believe that role of Russia in
a region was a bit overestimated.
The war was stopped in a five days thank to assistance of world society and French president
Nicolya Sarkozy, His plan-agreement between conflicting sides was a great contribution to
cease of military actions. However this agreement did not solve the problem, till now the
status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not clear. Actually just Russia, Nicaragua, Venezuela,
Nauru, Vanuatu and Tuvalu recognized them as independent countries.
69
CIS states are independent states and their relation to some actions can be greatly different.
However, they are very close to each other and majority of them intend to create a strong
partnership in a region. Their way to integration or even Eurasian union cannot be easy; they
are absolutely facing lots of obstacles. We think that one the most important element
impeding further integration is the fact that even CIS state are independent states, they are still
very dependent on each other… Some of other barriers we will try to reveal in following part.
70
3.2 Assessment of current trends and prospects of regional integration development
Even speaking about newly emerged higher level of integration processes on Post-USSR
region, we cannot say that this process was simple or fast and has no obstacles for
development. Till now, the integration in this region unfortunately is not so dynamic and do
not involve all-countries members. In comparison with active geopolitical and trade processes
changes in a region, involving:
 development of CIS members relation with EU
 enhancement of political and economic influence of China on Central Asian countries
strong Arabic states interest in Central Asia
 Ukraine-EU relation, possible accession of Tadjikistan to WTO
 increased political and economic influence of EU and Rumania in Moldavia
CIS integration processes do look like static, mostly because of difficult political and
economic conditions of ex-USSR states.
However, in 2011 due to slow recovery after economic crisis, there is a division of countries’
interest regarding to deeper integration development. Some of them are interested in further
integration with CIS states within Customs union that from 2015 is expected to step to the
next level of Common Economic Space and other states of CIS, mostly on periphery, that
gradually become involved in other integration projects, such as “Eastern partnership” with
EU.
There are some negative factors that slow down integration on CIS region.
Dependence of integration perspectives on Russian economic development
The level of economic competitiveness of Russia is tightly linked with possibilities to deepen
and enhance integration on post USSR region. Even though Russian economy grows, it is
mostly on a level of developing country, so there are real opportunities for CIS members to
reoriented itself toward other states with more developed economy and financial resources as
well as to accept other proposals to create a union. We can name a few of them: EU, China,
Iran and Turkey, that already greatly increased their presence in CIS states. We can suppose
that if Russia has more innovative and modern economy that could propose its neighbors new
technologies, there will be no necessity to provide CIS members with raw materials and
energy subsidies, economic and customs subsidies, bank credits in order to stimulate further
integration within CIS.
Influence of external forces on development of further CIS integration
Global major actors, such as USA, EU and China as well as some regional leaders Poland and
Turkey, Iran as a rule have their own geopolitical and economic interests on post USSR
71
region. Western states are supposed to oppose CIS deeper integration and creation a union
around Moscow since they also intend to have access to CIS market. Russia in its turn is
assumed to develop CIS integration under pretext of having common history and future
economic advantages in order to have business expansion on undeveloped markets of CIS
members. For instance, some economic experts from Kyrgyzstan have many doubts about
necessity of Kyrgyzstan’s accession to Customs Union in 201213. According to them, due to
higher development of Russia and other customs union members, Kyrgyzstan risks to
consume their goods and services with no possibility to export something.
EU and China probably also could propose some new project of integration in a region,
however there is a lack of some strong partner-CIS member that they need to rely on to start
alternative project.
NATO and EU already intended to create universal block GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, Moldova) on post-soviet region, however it almost disappeared as a result of
Russian-Georgian war in 2008 New European initiative “Eastern partnership” is also aimed
toward political and economic cooperation, however it did not reach till now proclaimed
objectives. European version of integration and its regional initiatives could attract CIS
members mostly because of EU image, as democratic and greatly developed union. However,
CIS states really need real resource and financial assistance, that EU do not provide them. So
EU trials to create economically independent union on EU cannot operate properly on post
USSR region.
China also tries to expand its influence on this region. Especially it can be perceived in central
Asia, where high presence of Chinese business gave an impact on increased number of
students who intend to learn Chinese language and study in China. We also can suppose that
these students can be well accustomed to the Chinese culture and lifestyle. Although Chinese
culture is well disseminated all over the world, Central Asian states have common border with
China and suffer from uncontrolled flow of goods and labor force.
At the same time EU makes a little progress toward entrance of CIS states in its economic
space. For instance, Ukraine has been negotiated this possibility with EU, but still was not
accepted as a member
Economic gap
13
Erica Marat, April 2012, Analytical article “Kyrgyzstan Joins Russian-backed Customs
Union”, available through: http://kabar.kg/eng/analytics/full/810, Accessed June 2 2012
72
Economic difference among states in a region as well as unstable political class is serious
obstacles for efficient integration. For instance, economic potential of Armenia is 100 times
less than Russian one, Tajikistan’s economy is 140 times; Belorussian one is 40 times less
than Russian economic potential. Taking into account this considerable distinction, small
countries officials always feel the threat to lose the power and be taken over by Russia, its
economic force, mainly. So they also can be supposed to fear lose its power over national
industry, bank system and national currency.
Experience of integration: accumulated flaws and its current impact
The threat of creating different level integrations in a region
As we see on post USSR region there are different unions that are of different degree of
integration. Depending on degree of political and economical unification, there are a number
of organizations, operating on post USSR region from low degree to high: CIS, EvrAsEC,
Customs union, that probably in nearest future will transform in Common Economic space
and Union state of Russia and Belorussia. This variety of unions is not so good for
development of integration, since this process could not comprise all state members. We can
suppose that mostly this situation was affected by incapability of Russia to stimulate high
degree integration as well as multi-vector interests of states in a region. Moreover, states
members also have a possibility to negotiate and make bilateral agreements with no necessity
to be involved in some union. Unfortunately, all abovementioned factors do not motivate
states to participate in common organization.
Many attempts to integrate deeper
Over the years after USSR falling down, there were many attempts to rebuild previously
existed connections among ex-USSR members. Gradual accumulation of different agreements
partially ratified and partially not, bilateral agreements giving some states a privilege place
and concessions definitely disorganized the process of integration in a region and slowed it
down. All efforts to overcome stagnation leaded to appearance of unions on more advanced
level. However, not all CIS participants were comprised in EurAsEC and not all EurAsEC
members were included in Customs Union.
Gradual disintegration of already existed unions on post USSR region
Russian and Belorussian union state with its political, cultural and economic features was
considered as one of the most perspective and advanced integration on post USSR region.
However, difference of economic and political development of this union step-by-step leaded
to the stagnation of this process. Attempts to stimulate it by financial subsidies just resulted
in political and economic crisis of Russia and Belorussia relations. Currently union state of
73
Russia and Belorussia is not well developed as it supposed to be. These states worked
together mostly within Customs Union
We also can say that since Russia and Belorussia are integrated economically within Customs
union, it seems unnecessary to develop union state. Additionally, there is also Kazakhstan
who wants to integrate deeply with Russia and Belorussia within Customs Union. Customs
union commission, that has supranational credentials, regulates all issues regarding
participation of these 3 states in a question in single customs space. Because of lack of
supranational power of Union State of Russia and Belorussia bodies, that mainly lobbies
Belorussian interests, it seems meaningless to develop Union State. Final liquidation of this
State Union could greatly facilitate integration system in a region, mostly inspired by Russia
over last 20 years that consist of CIS, EurAsEC, Customs Union and Common Economic
Space. Belorussian membership in Union state increases its role and gives Belorussia more
privilege place among other CIS states. It can also motivate other CIS states to use experience
of Minsk in creating such unions with Russia in order to receive more subsidies.
All treaties concluded within Union State of Russia and Belorussia was mostly on future close
collaboration and seems to be a model of integration that all CIS states need to move toward.
Lots of agreements and negotiations, held to embody this ambitious project made hard
enough to determine future of State Union We suppose that to be a reason for preserving this
union. Moreover, termination of this project is assumed to have impact on political and
economical situation and regime of Loukashenko as a whole. It could be considered also as an
external intervention to influence internal situation. We believe that in this case, Belorussia
could refuse participating in existing unions within CIS as well as new ones.
Concurrently, loosing of partner such as Belorussia that support Russia in its integrative
attempts will definitely decrease Russian potential to unite CIS states and probably inspire
others to join that.
Influence of Customs union and EurAsEC on integration processes on post-USSR region
There was a significant change of integration processes in a region due to appearance of
Customs Union that is assumed to be in the future Single Economic Space EurAsEC. New
economic power that includes 70% of CIS GDP can have a considerable impact on economic
and political situation in a region and also makes states-neighbors take it into consideration
and develop a special economic and political strategy to get along well with new union.
Especially Kyrgyz Republic and Ukraine were greatly concerned about participating or not in
Customs Union. Even though Customs Union has been already operated, the processes of
adoption new comers are not well established, since every new state has its special economic
conditions Such as participation in other unions. There is no some universal way to increase
74
number of participants or to make integration deeper. It provokes a situation of suspicion and
uncertainty among CIS states. Kyrgyz Republic that is already become Custom Union
member greatly complicated work of Custom Union bodies, since Kyrgyzstan has been
member of WTO from 1998 and, as a consequence, Kyrgyzstan cannot give preferences to
some states or group of states. Kyrgyzstan’s conditions of accession still in a process of
discussion, since this country is smallest and poorest one in CIS, so its rights should be
definitely talked over (See Article 1 “Barrières économiques du Kirghizistan à l'entrée dans
l'Union douanière” (“Economic barriers of Kyrgyzstan in accession to Customs Union”) in
Annex). Ukraine taking profit from its position between Customs union and EU hopes to be a
link between two big actors.
Influence of Customs Union-Single Economic Space on CIS
Juridical documents of newly appeared organization, such as Customs Union can not
correspond well to agreements of previously existed one such as CIS and can provoke some
confusion. We believe that there is a necessity to create a combined legal framework that can
also contribute to preparation of states to participate in Customs Union and Single Economic
Space. For majority of CIS states participation in hirer degree of integration remains doubtful
issue because of internal economic and political reasons and external ones, such as influence
of other union or states.
Integration for image support
Under harsh economic and political conditions, when a number of states, such as Kyrgyzstan,
Tadjikistan or Moldova, cannot ensure stability and risk to lose independence, their priority
becomes to seeking some ways to support their independence and sovereignty and economic
survival. Current powerful group in these states could also looking for some advantageous for
itself. Participation in some unions becomes advantageous means to get external financial aid
or resource support. For those states, membership in unions is a possibility to get preferences
in exchange for their participation in it.
Ukraine as obstacle for further development of CIS integration
Ukraine that remains in EU influence presents a serious problem for deeper CIS integration.
Kiev establishment looks favorably to integration with EU and for the first time, creating with
EU free trade zone. Ukraine is ready to make lots of concession if it concerns EU; however it
looks suspiciously at some higher degree unions within CIS and does not intend to restrict its
independency under supranational bodies created within CIS. We can suppose that Kiev
remains EU tool to prevent further CIS intergration.
Political context of regional integration
75
Huge amount of population in CIS was born or educated during USSR period. Most of them
are nostalgic for the USSR and socialistic values, even though they understand well that it
cannot be back. High level integration with CIS states remains the most popular slogan for
political parties that want to get highest support of population and come to the power. Using
of this slogan can not only attract electorate, but also provide some stability of population
expectation and sympathy from Russia. However the difference between what was
proclaimed and what was done gets bigger.
Authoritarian trend of CIS members’ regime
Authoritative regime that exists in majority of CIS states does not stimulate development of
integration in a region. Although officials of these states can support idea of integration, they
are not ready in fact, due to obvious reasons, for creation of supranational institutions that
national officials will need to delegate some power. Authoritarian regime cannot also
guarantee stable investment climate, so within union they risk to be outsider in terms of
attractiveness of foreign investment.
According to Economic Intelligence Unit, that is included in Economist group and publish
liberal magazine “Economist”. Every year they publish rating of Democracy of 167 states,
taking into account the level of civil liberty, pluralism, political participation and culture and
etc. The rating is divided in following categories: “full democracies”, “flawed democracies”,
“hybrid regime” and “authoritarian regime”. None of CIS members was recognized as a full
and flawed democracy (See Table 12 “Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy index”, 2012
(167 states))
.
CIS members are young states, that are not about to participate fully in high degree
integration
On post-USSR region there is a complex process of national elite formation within states that
probably determine these groups’ interests, which not always correspond to potential for
integration. Political youth of CIS members’ officials do not stimulate system and deep
integration and taking strategic decision to integrate. Moreover, sometimes states in a region
cannot determine their strategic interests and aims that can finally define whether there is a
great necessity to integrate for these states or not. There are also some states that intend to
compensate their failed internal economic policy by participation in unions and getting
preferences.
Using of integration processes as a means for national officials to keep power
As we already mentioned, CIS members’ officials use the term of close integration with CIS
states as a slogan for conquering support of population. We also believe that they suppose it
76
to be a universal way to solve their internal economic problems. For authoritative states,
accession to integration legalize power of current officials, However, aims for integration are
supposed to be real political and economic interests
Regional issues impeding integration
Sub regional partners and integration
Besides Russia there are also other regional leaders:
 Kazakhstan in Central Asia
 Azerbaijan for Caucasus
Kazakhstan tried to launch Central Asia integration project, using its influence in
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. However leaders of Central Asia states have
different interests that can be even contradictory. Accessed in integration project, regional
leaders as a rule present not only their own point of view, but also its regional neighbors, even
though it can be difficult to reach an agreement even among small regions due to regional
conflicts.
Regional conflicts
There are a number of issues on post USSR region that was not solved till now and
moreover, they are unlikely to be solved in closest future. These obstacles seem to block any
intention to integrate further.

Tension among Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, on one side, and Uzbekistan, one another side
on water and energy issues almost blocks any integration projects in Central Asia,
even though Russia and Kazakhstan try to elaborate some common policy on that.

Nagorny Karabakh is also regional conflict in South Caucasus that cannot be easily
resolved. Division of Moldavia also does not stimulate regional integration.

There are also boundaries, even between independent states, that were not determined
properly, since there was process of demarcation, but not delimitation. For instance,
Kyrgyzstan is greatly challenged by this issue, since the boundaries between
Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were not
determined, so it is ongoing process of delimitation. Based on history, all of us know
that this procedure has never been simple.
Active lobbying of integration project Customs Union-Single Economic Space is
believed to be political project that makes common trend of integration unstable and
economically risky.
From the beginning lack of effective and efficient integration projects on post-USSR region
influence competitiveness of national economic. There was a real necessity in creation of viable
77
project during economic crisis 2008-2009. Russia was also interested in integration developing
due to following political reasons: international reaction on Russian-Georgian War and delaying
of Russian accession to WTO. Intensification of economic activity among CIS members also
contributed to the idea of integration necessity.
Stimulation of economic growth within Customs Union and Single Economic Space
Implementation of different forms of integration for accelerating of social-economic
development and stimulation of GDP growth, boosting investment and usage of high technologies
in production processes are believed to be main reasons for integration. Creation of union in
Eurasia remains a principal condition for strengthening of this region transit status between EU
and major Eastern actor China that could initiate creation of logistics centers network and
communication network. So project Customs Union and Single Economic space should be
considered as huge business project.
Integration based on raw materials potential
One of the worst economic indicators of Customs Union is not only negligible trade among
members, but also underdeveloped structure of trade, since it does not almost comprise trade of
technologies and equipment. Importation of technologies in Customs Unions members occurs
mostly from EU and China, so project Customs Union is a union of states, exporting raw materials
and energy resources overseas. Certainly, there can be attempt to unite energy exporters and make
exportation process more efficient. However, lack of possibility to exchange technologies within
union to implement innovations in order to modernize economy and change its structure could
make this union an international energy syndicate. This situation might probably motivate states
search for membership in other unions that can provide high technologies and equipment.
However, there are some positive economic factors in favor of Customs Union creation
Market of Russia is the hugest market in Customs Unions (92% of Customs Union market) and
CIS region. Accessibility of Russian market of not only goods and services but also labor is of the
main requirements for development of national markets of CIS members. The most linked to
Russian economy, Belorussia is strongly interested in terms of economic advantages in integration
within Customs union (See Table 13 “Belorussian Foreign Trade Structure” in Annex)
Increased influence of Chinese business on a region that is mostly expressed by dependence of
CIS members on Chinese investment, goods and services expansion that in its turn increases
Chinese labor migration. These processes are mainly dangerous for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan. We believe that Kazakhstan is motivated to enter Customs union due to geopolitical
interest to be defended from China and its business expansion that will also lead to political one.
Attempts of China to approach Central Asia states are supposed by them as a threat from huge
78
neighboring state with huge population and sufficient economic possibilities to take over the
whole region.
Nationalism as disintegrative power
Even though previously current CIS members were included in one state and any nationalistic
trends were almost impossible and pretty hard punished, last decade we were observers of
nationalistic issues appeared in CIS states. Especially, it concerns Russia, where the number of
radical nationalistic movement is about 150. Mostly, aggression of these movements is against
migrants or migrant workers from CIS states and Caucasus. As it was presented above, the
number of migrant workers from less developed CIS sates, such as Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and
Kyrgyzstan are constantly increasing, however, they are not well secured in Russia.
Moreover, in 2010 interethnic clashes broke out between ethnic Uzbek and Kyrgyz people on
the south of Kyrgyzstan. More than 2000 victims were registered after this crisis. Till mow
relationship between Uzbek and Kyrgyz ethnic groups in Kyrgyzstan remains not so easy.
Background of this conflict comprised boundaries problem between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan
that were not resolved till nowadays as well as Central Asia water issue that has a great influence
on development of Kyrgyz-Uzbek relations. The conflict between these ethics groups were not
first one in a history, before USSR falling down in June 1990 there was a land dispute between
them that leaded to armed conflict in Osh city on south of Kyrgyzstan. Only USSR military forces
were able to deploy the conflict.
In Caucasus there was also ethnic conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia due to land
(Nagorny Karabah) and boundaries dispute.
Alternation of generation
Young generation that has never lived in USSR cannot be nostalgic for Soviet times. We
believe that this people is supposed to be more liberal, progressive and probably more western
oriented since they were born in free countries, have more information about the world, were
educated by western films, music and traditions as well. This young people, that in the future will
present an electorate, will not consider ex-USSR members as the only actors to integrate with. A
number of students from CIS states currently get education abroad: in Europe, USA, China, new
industrial countries, so there are and will be lots of options to move toward.
Since CIS states are mostly underdeveloped states, they need additional financial resources and
international donors, organizations and states that are ready to assist CIS members in democratic
regime building, Islamic organizations that pretty active in Central Asia states and Caucasus states
are presenting a menace for strategic development in these states. They not only give relatively
cheap credits, but also try to attract young people and make them more religious by giving them
education in Muslim states, such as Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. Young people
79
educated there, as a rule, change their style of living and point of view, becoming more religious,
promoting religious ideas among their relatives and friends, making them also religious or even
extremist.
80
Conclusion
Integration in CIS region was expected process due to common history, very close culture and
cultural values and even common challenges, since all CIS states-members are countries with
transitive economy. Just around 20 years ago all states in a region were parts of one huge
powerful state with one of strongest economy and ideology in the world. Moreover, people
lived during USSR époque till now seem to be nostalgic to USSR ages and try to remember
Russian language that still exist in CIS states serving as one of the strongest means for further
integration.
Over the years there were created a number of organizations in post-Soviet region aimed to
increase the level of integration, in terms of economic or political collaboration, however it is
still required to elaborate new forms of cooperation to prove regional states necessity to
integrate further. Development trends of inter-state relations in post-Soviet area over the last
years have shown that deep integration assuming common legislation, common regulation of
economic or political challenges as well as processes of integration and development of
common authorities is pretty difficult within eleven members of CIS.
The most important obstacle on the way of further integration is significant gap in economic
development and economic growth of different states-members. Moreover, we believe that
principles of economic management and national economic reforms are also quite different.
Dominance of authoritative regimes in a region and its reluctance to reduce national power in
order to create some supranational bodies are impeding elements alike. To compound to it,
majority of CIS states are determined to multivector foreign policy, so CIS states and Russia
might not be foreground partners. One of the cases showing uneven cooperation of CIS states
in terms of military and political issues is neutrality of CIS states with regard to RussiaGeorgia war. We suppose that Russia expected CIS states to support Russian military actions
in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and, probably, in nearest future to recognize them as
independent states, however, actually it does not seem to be like this. Some CIS states still
preserve neutral position, but some of them criticized Russia and were in favor of maintaining
Georgian territorial integrity.
The tendency to neutrality of CIS members was observed in a number of similar issues,
occurring in a region. Military conflicts between Azerbaijan and Armenia in NagornoKarabakh also did not receive some exact evaluation from CIS states or CIS authorities.
Military actions in Tajikistan, Transnistria or South Ossetia were not regulated by CIS
authorities; moreover, CIS officials did not even try to assess the situation and giving its own
point of view regarding that. As a rule, Russia or Kazakhstan sent its peacekeeping forces,
however CIS, as an organization, was usually neutral. This inactivity from CIS was mostly
81
perceived as incapacity to play a significant role in further integration as well as
unwillingness of some CIS states to take part in solving issues taken place in another state.
So above mentioned flaws of integration processes made us come to idea that it is desirable to
reduce the number of participants, since include all states in a region into one union is likely
to be impossible.
So experience of CIS and other regional unions proved that subregional
organizations that comprise a limited number of states for specific aims are more effective
and potentially viable.
EurAsEC were one of the effective forms of integration in a region. Created in 1995,
EurAsEC initially including Kazakhstan, Russia, Belorussia, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and
Tajikistan, actually transformed in 2007 into higher level of integration Customs union,
comprising Russia, Belorussia and Kazakhstan. As we can see, not all states-participants of
EurAsEC decided to join to the higher degree union, since it is very important step
influencing national economic and even political life.
Customs union is probably the first union in post-Soviet area with proclaimed perspectives to
reach the highest possible level of integration-monetary union. This union is actually called
by presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan as Eurasian Union, based on example of European
Union.
The heads of Kazakhstan and Russia also supposes creation of supranational
currency. Ruble as strongest currency in a region could probably be supranational one,
however, Kazakhstan’s leader Nursultan Nazabaev supposes, that there is no national
currency in a region that could be supranational, therefore, there is need to establish new
currency. Though actually it is so early to think about creation of common currency, the
discussion on of such ambitious plans made them more realistic.
Currently Eurasian Union
has aim to solve all issues impeding higher level of integration and make the integration much
deeper due to
making
regulation and legislation of different states-members more
conforming to each other. All this tasks are needed to be realized till 2015. Moreover,
members of Eurasian Union have already started looking for new partners in a region, such as
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Russia, Kazakhstan and Belorussia are the most developed states
in a region, so being pretty close to each other in terms of economic development, they have a
chance to create a viable union. But we believe that it is pretty hard to predict whether this
union will be so successful, if it accepts such small and much less developed states as
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. We also think that it can be a huge mistake not only for existing
members, but also for future ones, as small and weak members are not capable to take part in
decision-making process. They will probably admit decisions already taken by more powerful
and huge states. It can create a situation of disdain to the idea of high level integration in a
82
region, so that no one wants to join some regional union. However, this issue is supposed to
be treated in another research…
83
Annex
Table 1
Structure of regional agreements by 2011 (Source WTO report)
Preferntional Trade Treaty
(limited number of goods)
0,047
Free Trade Agreement
0,273
Agreement to join to existing
Regiona Integration
0,583
0,054
Customs Union
0,043
Agreement on Economic
Integration ( godds, services,
capital etc)
Table 2
National debt (millions Euro) and budget deficit (% of GDP) of EU members14
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009
2010
4,8
5,6
7,5
5,2
3,6
5,1
7,7
13,6
9,3
101,7
97,4
98,6
100,0
97,8
95,7
99,2
115,1
124,9
Ireland: Deficit
0,3
-0,4
-1,4
-1,6
-3,0
-0,1
7,3
14,3
11,7
National debt
32,2
31,0
29,7
27,6
24,9
25,0
43,9
64,0
77,3
Portugal: Deficit
2,8
2,9
3,4
6,1
3,9
2,6
2,8
9,4
8,5
National debt
55,6
56,9
58,3
63,6
64,7
63,6
66,3
76,8
85,8
Spain: Deficit
0,5
0,2
0,3
-1,0
-2,0
-1,9
4,1
11,2
9,8
National debt
52,5
48,7
46,2
43,0
39,6
36,2
39,7
53,2
64,9
Hungary: Deficit
8,9
7,2
6,4
7,9
9,3
5,0
3,8
4,0
4,1
National debt
55,6
58,4
59,1
61,8
65,6
65,9
72,9
78,3
78,9
Greece: Deficit
National debt
Table 3
Budget Deficit (% of GDP) of Germany and France15
14
Official data, provided by web-site of World bank, Available through: “ http://data.worldbank.org/”,
Accessed: March 12 2012
15
Official statistics provided by UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development), available
through: http://unctad.org, accessed 23 April 2012
84
1
0
-1
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
-2
-3
Germany
-4
France
-5
-6
-7
-8
Table 5
Gross National income per capita ($US)16
country
2000
2002
2004
610
720
950
Azerbayjan
660
800
1150
Armenia
1380
1370
2150
Belorussia
750
770
1100
Georgia
1260
1520
2300
Kazakstan
280
290
400
Kyrgyzstan
370
400
730
Moldova
1710
2100
2410
Russia
170
170
280
Tajikistan
650
880
1470
Turkmenistan
630
450
480
Uzbekistan
700
790
1270
Ukraine
2006
1890
1920
3470
1680
3860
500
1030
5820
400
1900
1950
600
2008
3810
3340
5430
2450
610
770
1500
9710
620
3030
890
3220
2010
5330
3200
5960
2690
7580
830
1810
9900
800
3790
1280
3000
Table 5
Execution of treaties, adopted within CIS organization17
country
documents needed to be
ratified
documents required
internal state procedures
16
Official statistics provided by World Bank, , Available through: “ http://data.worldbank.org/”,
Accessed: Mai 15 2012
17
Official web-site of Community of independent States Statistics, available through http://www.cisstat.com/ “
{Accessed June 1 2012}
85
25
Azerbayjan
1
internal state procedure were executed
number of withdrawals or intentions to withdraw
total number
number of ratified treaties
number of withdrawals or intentions to withdraw
total number
Armenia
14
174
34
29
292
Belorussia
34
33
291
Kazakhstan
29
25
282
Kyrgyzstan
35
30
299
Moldova
27
19
214
3
133
Russia
24
15
271
21
239
Tajikistan
36
34
300
233
Turkmenistan
15
9
44
3
Uzbekistan
20
1
17
144
75
Ukraine
21
2
17
174
2
9
111
1
161
278
3
206
223
8
94
Table 6
Internal trade in CIS18
Export to CIS of total export Import form CIS of total import
Country
(%)
(%)
Azerbayjan
8
30
Armeniya
20
32
Belorussia
44
64
Kazakhstan 16
42
18
Official web-site of Community of independent States Statistics, available through http://www.cisstat.com/ “
{Accessed June 1 2012}
86
Kyrgyzstan
36
57
Moldova
38
35
Russia
15
13
Tadjikistan
21
57
Ukrain
34
43
Table 7
The amount of foreign direct investment in CIS states- members accessed to WTO” (*- year
of accession to WTO)19
year
1996
1997
1998*
1999
2000
Kyrgyzstan 4,7
6,6
3,6
-0,2
0,3
year
1999
2000
2001*
2002
2003
Moldova
3,2
9,9
3,7
5,1
3,7
year
2006
2007
2008*
2009
2010
Ukraine
5,2
6,9
3,1
4,1
4,7
Table 8
Number of migrants came to Russia from CIS states-members20
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Kazakhstan
51945 38606 40258 39964 38830 27862
Kyrgyzstan
15592 15669 24731 24014 23265 20901
Moldova
6569 8649 14090 15519 16433 11814
Tajikistan
4717 6523 17309 20717 27028 18188
Turkmenistan 4104 4089 4846 3962 3336 2283
Ukraine
30760 32721 51492 49064 45920 27508
Uzbekistan
30436 37126 52802 43518 42539 24100
Table 9
Participation of Russia in CIS economy
19
Official statistics provided by World Bank, , Available through: “ http://data.worldbank.org/”,
Accessed: Mai 15 2012
20
Official web-site of Community of independent States Statistics, available through http://www.cisstat.com/ “
{Accessed June 1 2012}
87
Share of Russian GDP in total CIS GDP
72%
Share of Russian production of petrol and gas in total CIS production
77%
Share of Russian exportation and importation in total CIS exportation and importation
68%
Share of Russian GDP among biggest states (Kazakstan, Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia)
80%
Share of Russian GDP in EurAsEC
90%
Share of Russian GDP in Customs Union
90%
Table 10
GDP per capita in CIS states ($US)
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
Table 11
Macroeconomic indicators of Customs Union members (2009)
Russia
Belorussia
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
GDP ($)
1479819314058,00
142986931560,00
54713128376
4616156122
GDP per capita($)
10440
8764
5673
860
Growth of GDP (%)
4
7
7,6
-1,4
Exportations (% of GDP)
28
42
51
50
Importations (% of GDP)
20
34
62
81
Inflation (%)
11,7
7,3
12,09
6,9
88
Population
141750000
16316050
9645000
5365167
Value added in industry
33
19
42
40
5
6
10
31
(%)
Value
added
in
agriculture (%)
Table 12
Economist Intelligence Unit, Democracy index, 2012 (167 states)21
Authoritative countries
Place
Russia
117
Turkmenistan
165
Kazakhstan
137
Tadjikistan
151
Belorussia
140
Azerbayjan
139
Ouzbekistan
164
Hybrid democracy countries
Ukraine
79
Kyrgyzstan
107
Armenia
111
Georgia
102
Table 13
Belorussian Foreign Trade Structure22
Year
2009
2010
2011
Total Volume of Foreign Trade
49873
60168
86041
Volume of Foreign Trade with CIS
27540
34172
45747
23444
28036
28087
Volume of Foreign Trade with
Russia
21
Rating of democracy, made by ‘The Economist” magazine, available through: www.economist.com , accessed
Mai 5, 2012
22
Journal “Belorussia in figures 2011”, available through official web-site of Belorussian Statistical Committee
“belstat.gov.by”, accessed June 5 2012
89
Article 1
Author: Niiazova Munara
Student, Institute of Political studies -Toulouse
Barrières économiques du Kirghizistan à l'entrée dans l'Union douanière
Actuellement les processus d’intégration, l’union des État
dans différents domaines, se
développent rapidement dans le monde entier. Presque tous les pays sont forcés à se joindre à
à une ou plusieurs unions pour des motifs économiques, politiques ou geopolitique.
Le Kirghizistan fait face à un problème de choix : etant le membre de l'OMC (Organisation
Mondiale du Commerce depuis 1998), il est également tenté d’adhérer à l'Union Douanière
de la Russie, du Kazakhstan et de la Biélorussie. La constitution d’une union douanière en
2007 entre la Russie, le Kazakhstan et la Bélarussie est l’un de premier stades de
développement de l’Union Eurasienne, un modèle asiatique de l’Union Européenne. Étant
donné que l'Union douanière a des plans à long terme pour une intégration plus approfondie
(création une
monnaie supra nationale, organismes supranationaux),
l’adhésion du
Kirghizistan à cette union supposerait l'obligation de prendre toutes les politiques de l'Union
Douanière.
L’importance du sujet est basée sur le fait que le Kirghizstan n’a pas encore rejoint l’Union
Douanière, en plus le Kirghizistan a l'obligation de respecter les principes du libre-échange
avec les pays membres de l'OMC, En même temps les partenaires économiques principaux du
Kirghizstan sont les pays membres de l'Union Douanière. Donc l'objectif principal du travail
est de déterminer si le Kirghizistan est prêt à se joindre à L’Union Douanière. C’est pourquoi
la question principale de recherche est quels sont les obstacles économiques du Kirghizistan
pour joindre cette union ? De maniere générale, je soutiens l’idée que le Kirghizistan n’est pas
encore prêt à cause de la faiblesse de l'économie en comparaison avec les pays membres de
l'Union douanière. Mais pour pleinement analyser la question, dans la première partie Je vais
essayer présenter la base théorique pour l'établissement d'une union douanière et les
conditions ,l’objectif de la création de l'Union Douanière de la Russie,de la Biélorussie et du
Kazakhstan, dans la deuxième partie je vais d'analyser la situation économique dans les pays
de l'Union douanière et le Kirghizistan, ainsi que la possibilité d'une coopération économique
étroite entre eux selon la théorie de Friedrich Liste.. D’après cette théorie le pays ne doit pas
ouvrir pleinement les frontières pour le libre-échange, il suffit de créer une alliance avec
certains pays (l’Union Douanière) et de commercer avec eux. La quatrième partie est analyse
de la présence du Kirghizistan dans
l'OMC comme un facteur entravant l'entrée du
Kirghizstan dans l’ Union Douanière.
90
L'intégration économique régionale est devenue l'une des principales caractéristiques de
l'économie mondiale du 20e siècle, car cette période a été caractérisée par l'apparition des
associations, comme L’Union Écononmique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine (L'UEMOA), The
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (L'ASEAN), L'Union Européenne (l’'UE)et d'autres,
dont la plupart a prouvé son efficacité23. L'union douanière est l'une des étapes de l'intégration
régionale, ce qui implique la création de nouvelles frontières douanières pour un nouveaux
marché. Pour la première fois la question de la création d'une union douanière a été touchée
par Friedrich List au18ème siècle. Il a réfuté la théorie des économistes-libéralistes David
Ricardo et Adam Smith, qui ont défendu les principes du libre-échange, c’est-à-dire, la
suppression des barrières douanières qui entravent la libre circulation des marchandises. List
pense que une économie trop ouverte empeche le développement du pays et que un flux
incontrôlé des biens et services à travers la frontière peut ruiner l'industrie propres du pays,
par conséquent, l'État doit s’intéresser à protéger les intérêts de ses propres agents
économiques24. Dans ce cas, il ne s’agit pas de l’isolement complet de la communauté
internationale, idée principale est l'unification de pays qui ont le même niveau de
développement économique pour que cette union puisse s’integrer efficacement dans la
commerce mondiale. En analysant les unions existantes à son époque, Friedrich List a montré
que s’il ya une différence significative des niveaux de développement économique entre les
pays-membres, en règle générale, l'avantage des pays riches de cette association est plus
elevée que celle du pays pauvres. Dans un pays riche, grâce au développement de l'industrie
et par conséquent des économies d'échelle, les coûts sont beaucoup plus bas que dans les pays
pauvres. Par conséquent, les marchandises produites dans les pays riches peuvent exclurer du
marché les produits des pays pauvres. Donc, un pays pauvre est fortement dépendante de
l’importation . La pratique du Kirghizistan montre que les principes de la libéralisation totale
des échanges ne conduit pas aux résultats positifs. Les pays pauvres, comme une règle,
deviennent un fournisseur de matières premières aux pays riches. Actuellement Il est donc
nécessaire de trouver de nouvelles façons d'intégration dans la communauté mondiale 25. Par
conséquent, dans une union les pays ayant les mêmes niveaux de développement économique
23
le Cered/FORUM et le Cernea Université Paris X-Nanterre, Analyse comparative des processus d’intégration
économique régionale, page 8 URL :www.diplomatie.gouv.fr., consulte le 8 Août 2011
24
Frédéric Daniel ROUGET, CP de SES Mayotte (2006-2009),{en ligne} URL : sip2.acmayotte.fr/IMG/pdf/Libre-echange_et_protectionnisme.pdf>, page 3 Consulté le 8 Août 2011
25
Op.cit.
91
et les structures similaires de la consommation et de production doivent participer26. List a
également démontré que d'avoir une histoire commune et des valeurs culturelles peuvent
grandement faciliter le processus d'intégration27. Cependant, à mon avis, la base de
l'intégration est les intérêts économiques à cause de l'épuisement des ressources naturelles
mondiales ou la recherche de nouveaux marchés , donc ces intérêts doivent etre bien
examinés.
L'ex-Union soviétique a eu des tentatives de créer une véritable intégration économique,
comme la Communauté des Etats indépendants (CEI), L’Espace Economique Commun
(CES), Communauté Economique Eurasienne (CEEA). Toutefois, ces alliances n'ont pas été
autant approfondie que l'Union Douanière entre la Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan,
créé lors du sommet de la CEI en 200728. L'union douanière implique l'élimination de toutes
les barrières douanières entre les pays membres et l'établissement de tarif douanier commun
aux frontières de l'Union Douanière.
Ce projet a été conçu comme le début d'une intégration profonde dans les pays de la CEI, qui
finirait par la création d'un marché commun des biens, services et facteurs de production tels
que le travail et le capital29. Cependant, pour atteindre ces objectifs ambitieux il faut beaucoup
de temps. À ce stade, les pays membres de l'Union Douanière visent à protéger leurs marchés
contre les biens importés bon marché en établissant des barrières commerciales. En plus, ces
mesures peuvent aider leur propre industrie. D'une part, l'objectif est assister dévéloppement
de l’industrie, car l’industrie en tant que le producteur de marchandises avec la plus haute
valeur ajoutée est toujours dans le besoin du soutien de l'Etat. Ainsi, les États membres de
Union Douaniere, en essayant d'aider leur industrie, sont forcé à créer artificiellement des
marchés et obliger leurs citoyens à acheter des produits fabriqués au sein de l'Union
Douanière. Naturellement, les producteurs ont besoin de plus de debouchés, qui peuvent etre
fourni par les pays d'Asie Centrale, qui sont caractérisés par une faible industrie et la forte
dépendance de l’importations. De plus, selon ses créateurs
rassembler
l’union Eurasienne doit
complètement les pays de la CEI et suppose la création institutions
supranationaux, elle a manifesté un intérêt envers le Kirghizstan. Le 1 Janvier 2012 le
26
Jean-Christophe Defraigne (Institut d’Etudes Européennes, UCL) et Jean-Luc de Meulemeester (Université
Libre de Bruxelles), Le Système National de List : La fondation du réalisme pluridisciplinaire en économie
politique internationale contre le libre-échangisme anglo-saxon. Page 2 URL :
dev.ulb.ac.be/sciencespo/...luc/.../demeulemeester-jean-luc-publication.doc, Consulté le 11 Août 2011
27
Dr. Eckard Bolsinger, The Foundation of Mercantile Realism Friedrich List and the Theory of International
Political Economy, Political Studies Association of the UK,URL:
www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2004/Bolsinger.pdf
Consulté le 11 Août 2011
28
URL : http://www.tsouz.ru/db/ettr/tnved/Pages/default.aspx (Le site officiel de l'Union Douanière)
29
URL :http:// www.customsunion.kz/infoprint/4132.html (Le site officiel de L’Union Douanière au Kazakhstan)
92
Kirghizistan, sera le membre de l'Union Douanière, mais l’impact de cette démarche
primordiale n'est pas encore clair
Selon la théorie de List pour obtenir un effet maximal de l’union, les pays souhaitant
s’intégrer doivent avoir le mȇme niveau économique, la structure économique similaire et les
relations économiques entre eux bien developpées.
Cependant, l'économie kirghize, comme le montre le tableau 1 est moins developpée que les
économies des États de l'Union douanière.
Tableau 1
30
Les Indicateurs macroéconomiques de pays de l'Union Douanière et la
République kirghize (2009)
Russie
Biélorussie
Kazakhstan
Kirghizista
n
PIB ($)
PIB par habitant ($)
la
dynamique
1479819314058,0
142986931560,0
5471312837
461615612
0
0
6
2
10440
8764
5673
860
7
7,6
-1,4
42
51
50
34
62
81
du 4
PIB(%)
Exportations (% du 28
PIB)
Importations (% du 20
PIB)
Inflation (%)
11,7
7,3
12,09
6,9
Population
141750000
16316050
9645000
5365167
19
42
40
6
10
31
valeur ajoutee dans 33
l'industrie (%)
valeur ajoutee dans 5
l'agriculture (%)
Ce n'est pas seulement selon le nombre de la population, qui en principe est un indicateur de
la taille du marché, c’est plutot selon les indicateurs de la structure interne de l’économie et
30
URL:http:www.worldbank.org
93
du développement économique. L'indicateur principal de l'économie est le PIB31. Selon cet
indice, le Kirghizistan a produit des biens et des services sur son territoire plus de 300 fois
inferieur que la Russie, 30 fois moins que le Kazakhstan et 11 fois moins que Biélorussie.
Mais le PIB n'est pas un indicateur de niveau de développement de la population, pour cela,
en règle générale, les économistes utilisez le PIB par habitant32, selon lequel un résident du
Kirghizistan est 12 fois plus pauvres que un citoyen russe, est 10 fois plus pauvres que celui
du Kazakhstan et 6 fois plus pauvres que l’habitant de la Biélorussie.
En outre, les indicateurs de la structure économique, qui varient grandement, indique le fait
que le Kirghizistan produit principalement des matières premières (la valeur ajoutée produite
en l’agriculture33 est la plus élevée que dans les pays de l’Union Douanière), mais les pays de
l’Union Douanière, au contraire, produisent des produits transformés (la valeur ajoutée
produite en l'industrie34 est beaucoup plus élevé que en l'agriculture). En raison de la
différence entre les structures de l'économie, le Kirghizistan court le risque de devenir un
fournisseur de matières premières aux pays plus développés. En outre, il est clair que le
Kirghizistan est très dependant de l’importation, puisque les chiffres de l’importation sont 1,6
fois plus elevés que l’exportation. Dans les pays membres de l’Union Douanièere
l’importation est presque egale à l'exportation grâce à l’industrie suffisamment développée.
La structure des économies des trois pays de l’Union Douanière sont donc similaire.
L’Analyse sommaire macroéconomiques montrent que les économies des pays membres et
celle du Kirghizistan varient fortement. Selon la théorie de List Kirghizstan ne bénéficiera pas
de l'association.
Selon la théorie de List, les pays de l'Union doivent être aussi étroitement liés et développés35.
Généralement, cela s’exprime par une activité du commerce international, les opérations
d'import-export. Évidemment, l'économie kirghize est étroitement liée à l'économie de pays
de l’Union Douanière, car presque la moitié des marchandises importées dans le Kirghizstan
est produite dans les pays de l’Union Douanière36, mais la part des exportations kirghize dans
les pays de l’ Union Douanière ne représente que 20% des exportations totales du
Kirghizistan comme le montrent les tableau 2 et 3.
31
Le site de la Banque Mondiale URL :http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD
URL : http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
33
URL: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS
34
URL: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS
35
Frédéric Daniel ROUGET, CP de SES Mayotte (2006-2009),{en ligne}<sip2.ac-mayotte.fr/IMG/pdf/Libreechange_et_protectionnisme.pdf>, page 3 Consulté le 8 Août 2011
36
Le site des statistiques officielles du Kirghizstan URL: http : www.stat.kg
http://212.42.101.124:1041/stat1.kg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=61
32
94
Tableau 237 Le commerece internationale entre les pays-membres de l'union douanieres
et le Kirghizistan,$ millions (2009)
Exportations
2007
2008
2009
Russie
234,6
310,2
185,8
Kazakhstan
204,2
184,1
140,6
Biélorussie
1,8
5,3
3,5
Total
440,6
499,6
329,9
Importation
2007
2008
2009
Russie
973,9
1492,2
1090,4
Kazakhstan
312,4
376,6
339,9
Biélorussie
23,8
42,5
74
Total
1310,1
1911,3
1504,3
Tableau 338 Le commerce internationale du Kirghizistan avec tous les pays, $ millions
(2009)
Exportation
1321,1
1855,6
1673
Importation
2788,5
4072,4
3040,2
Par conséquent, une grande proportion de l’exportation du Kirghizistan est destinée vers
d'autres pays, c’est-ȧ-dire le degré de l’interdépendance économique du Kirghizistan avec les
pays de l’union Douanière n'est pas très juste. De plus, la part des exportations du
Kirghizistan dans le total importation pour chacun des pays de l’union Douanière est
négligeable
Tableau 439 La partie d' exportations/d'importations des pays de l'Union Douanière
dans l'exportation/ l'importation total du Kirghizstan ,% (2009)
37
URL:http:www.stat.kg
URL:http:www.stat.kg
39
URL:http:www.worldbank.org, http:www.stat.rg
38
95
Russie
Biélorussie
Kazakhstan
La partie d'exportation
0,333509954
0,26923906
0,197190675
La partie d'importation
0,469822485
0,469330125
0,494802973
La même situation avec l'importation du Kirghizistan, qui est inférieure à 1%. On peut
conclure que la présence du Kirghizistan dans l’Union Douanière aurait l’impacts
négligeables sur les économies de cette union, mais nous ne pouvons pas dire la même chose
à propos du Kirghizistan.
Le Kirghizistan, étant le voisin du Chine, le premier exportateur mondial, obtientde ce pays
une énorme quantité de marchandises importées. Selon les statistiques officielles kirghize, la
part de l'exportation de la Chine dans les importations totales au Kirghizistan a été 20% et le
chiffre d'affaires total de 642 millions de dollars en 2009.
Tableau 640 Importation/Exportation du Chine au Kirghizistan, $ million(2009)
Importation du Chine (mlrd)
623,6
Exportation du Chine (mlrd)
19,4
Mais selon les données du commerce de Chine chiffre d'affaires du commerce entre les deux
pays en 2009
s'élève à $ 4 127 513 39941. Considérant que total chiffre d'affaires du
commerce du Kirghizistan avec tous les pays du monde est $ 4.7 milliards 42, il n'est pas
difficile d'imaginer que la majorité des produits sur le marché du Kirghizistan sont chinois.
Cette différence dans les données chinois et kirghizes pourraient etre le résultat de
l'augmentation de la contrebande et l'économie illégale au Kirghizistan. Il semble approprié à
ce sujet s'appuyer sur les données de la Chine. En outre, les produits chinois sont
généralement les moins chers au Kirghizistan et à cause du fait que 30% de la population
43
vivent en dessous de la pauvreté, je peux dire que introduction d'une nouvelle politique
douanière touchera plus fortement la populations mal protégée.
40
URL:http:stat.kg
United
41
Nations
Statistics
Division
URL:http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResults.aspx?cc=TOTAL&rg=2&px=S4&r=156&y=2010
42
43
URL:http://www.stat.kg Consulté le 11 Août 2011
URL:http://www.kginform.com/ru/news/20101007/01527.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011
96
Les principaux partenaires également
du Kirghizistan dans le marché mondial sont les
suivants: La Suisse, l’Ukraine, L’Ouzbékistan, La France, Les Emirats Arabes Unis, La
Turquie.
Donc, étant donné que le Kirghizistan est encore fortement dependant de l’importation de la
Chine et le flux des échanges commerciaux avec les pays de l’Union Douanière a une
tendance à tomber, mais avec la Chine, principalement, le commerce reste stable, on peut
conclure que le Kirghizistan est autant liée avec les pays de l’Union Douanière, ainsi que
intégré avec d'autres pays.
Comme présenté ci-dessus, les pays membres de l’Union Douanière dépassent le Kirghizistan
selon les indices économiques. Sa faiblesse économique est le principal obstacle à l'entrée
dans l'Union douanière. Cependant, il ya d'autres barrières à l'entrée dans l'alliance, comme
l'appartenance à l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce
En 1998 le Kirghizstan est devenu le membre de l'Organisation Mondiale du Commerce44.
Cette organisation défend l'idée du libre-échange entre les pays membres. Le Kirghizistan
s'est engagé à fournir un accès à son marché pour les 153 pays membres de l'OMC 45, et pas
seulement pour trois pays membres de l'Union Douanière, qui ne sont pas encore membres de
l'OMC. Selon le traité signé avec l’OMC le Kirghizstan n'a pas le droit d’augmenter les tarifs
douanèrs plus haut que le niveau établi par l’OMC,en plus le Kirghizstan a supprimé les droits
de douane pour la technique agricole, les alcools, l'équipement de construction et médical,
l’acier, la bière, le meubles, pour la production pharmaceutique. Selon le point Roll-back
dans le traité le Kirghizstan n'a pas droit d'introduire les mesures protectionnistes. Par
conséquent, nous voyons un conflit d'intérêts entre l’Union Douanière et l'OMC. La question
principale dans cette affaire est le Kirghizistan est-il-capable de respecter les regles d’une
organisation, sans violer les regles d’une autre ou le Kirghizstan doit choisir entre deux?
D'une part, l'adhésion du Kirghizistan à l'OMC est estimée par divers économistes de
différentes manières, mais un fait est indiscutable : dès que le Kirghizistan a ouvert ses
frontières à la libre circulation des marchandises au sein de l'OMC, sa propre production de
biens et services ont commencé à baisser rapidement en raison d’énorme flux
44
Le protocole sur l'adhésion de la République Kirghize à l'accord de Marrakech instituant l'Organisation
mondiale du commerce ( signé le 14 octobre 1998 et est entré en vigueur le 20 décembre 1998),
URL :http :www.wto.org/french/res_f/booksp_f/wto_status_legal_inst08_f.pdf Consulté le 11 Août 2011
45
URL: http://www.mert.kg/index.php?option=com_ashimkan&view=article&article=72&Itemid=57 (Le site du
Ministère du développement économique de République Kirghize) Consulté le 11 Août 2011
97
d'importations46. Peut-être, le Kirghizistan aurait dû prendre en compte la théorie de List,
selon laquelle il n'est pas nécessaire d'ouvrir les frontières pour tous les pays. Mais cela ne
signifie pas que nous devrions quitter l'OMC et d'entrer dans une union douanière, comme la
Russie et le Kazakhstan veulent adhérer à l'OMC dans un avenir proche.
D'autre part, quand le Kirghizistan deviendra un membre de l’Union Douanièere, il faudra
augmenter les taux tarifaires pour tous les types de marchandises envers les pays en dehors du
l’Union Douanière de 5,2% à 10,6% et les pays de l'OMC ne seront pas un exception 47. Cette
situation peut influencer non seulement la détérioration des relations avec les pays de l'OMC,
mais aussi affecter de manière significative niveau d'inflation au Kirghizistan. Le
Gouvernement kirghize a proposé un moyen de résoudre ce problème 48: il veut conserver
l'appartenance a l’OMC et entrer à l'Union Douanière, avec les tarifs augmentés pour les
pays- non membres de l’Union Douanière. Cependant, le gouvernement de Kirghizistan est
disposée à offrir aux pays de l'OMC la compensation sous la forme d'une baisse des tarifs sur
certains produits, mais personne ne sait exactement comment cela fonctionnerait dans la
pratique.
En règle générale, rejoindre l'organisation internationale n'est pas aussi dur qu’en sortir. La
sortie non programmée de l'union internationale en général est accompagnée par des sanctions
punitives ou de détérioration des relations avec les pays-membres de cette organisation. Par
conséquent, toute nouvelle appartenance d'une association doit être soumis à l'examen.
Comme nous avons vu au long de ce travail, le Kirghizistan n'est pas encore prêt à entrer dans
cette union douanière car le niveau de développement économique du Kirghizistan est
inférieur au celui de pays membres de l'Union douanière. En outre, l'adhésion du Kirghizistan
à l'OMC exige un examen plus attentif et un règlement juridique. Ces faits ne créent pas les
conditions pour une intégration effective.
Cependant, en dehors des intérêts économiques, il ya aussi des raisons politiques et
géopolitiques pour l’adhésion à l'Union. La Russie est le partenaire principal du Kirghizstan
non seulement économique, mais aussi politique. La Russie influence beaucoup sur la
situation politique dans le Kirghizstan. Comme le confirme le Président du Kirghizstan Rosa
Otounbaeva: “le Kirghizstan, comme plusieurs pays, aspire aux valeurs européennes, mais
pour nous la voie à l'Europe commence par la Russie, la Russie jouait et jouera le rôle
46
Galushkina E.A. La revue de l'Université Kirghize-Russe Slave The attempt to comprehend possibilities and
threats, which Kyrgyzstan has met as a result of entering VTO. URL:
http://www.krsu.edu.kg/vestnik/2003/v1/a06.html Consulté le 15 Août 2011
47
URL :http://www.customsunion.ru/info/4421.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011
48
URL :http://www.customsunion.by/info/4231.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011
98
principal pour le Kirghizstan et mon pays se tiendra de la coopération avec la Russie comme
prioritaire ”49.
La chose la plus importante pour le Kirghizstan, à mon avis, c'est la capacité à faire sa propre
décision sur l'adhésion ou le refus d'adhérer à l'Union Douanière, en défendant ses propres
intérêts.
49
L’agence de presse « 24.kg » au Kirghizstan, URL: http://www.24kg.org/community/92837-roza-otunbaevarossiya-ndash-glavnyj.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011
99
List of literature

ALAN R. MULLER, 2004, “The Rise of Regionalism” Core Company Strategies
under the Second Wave of Integration, Rotterdam School of Economics Erasmus
University Rotterdam Press.

Alan W. Cafruny and J. Magnus Ryner, 2007, “ Europe at Bay:In the Shadow of US
Hegemony”,

Algis Prazauskas, 1992, “CIS as post-Colonial area”, article in “Independent
Newspaper”,
Moskow.
Available
though
http://www.ualberta.ca/~khineiko/NG_92_93/1141438.htm, {Accessed Mai 3, 2012}

Andrew K. Rose, October 2002, “DO WE REALLY KNOW THAT THE WTO
INCREASES TRADE?” NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES NATIONAL BUREAU
OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, Available through http://www.nber.org/papers/w9273

Article “Germany Agrees to Freeze Subsidy to VW”, published in “New York Times”
news
paper
September
05,
1996,
Available
thought
<http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/05/business/germany-agrees-to-freeze-subsidy-tovw.html>, accessed 1 Mai 2012

Available
through:
The
United
Nations
University
Library
<
www.wider.unu.edu/.../RFA14.pdf -> {Accessed 10 Mai 2012}

BEACH Derek , 2005, “The dynamics of european integration: why and when eu
institutions matter” , “The European Union Series”, Palgrave Macmillan

Benoît Falaize, L'URSS et la CEI depuis 1945, 1997, Paris , Seuil

Björn Hettne, András Inotai,1994. ” The new regionalism”, book. WIDER: World
Institute for Developement Economics Research, The United Nations University

Catherine Poujol, Anne-Victoire Charrin, 2011, «Vingt ans après la fin de l'URSS : la
"jeune recherche" en sciences sociales», Paris , Publications Langues

Claire Messina, thèse dirigée par Mme Anne de Tinguy, 2005, «Mon adresse est
l'URSS : migration des Russes, nationalisation et identité dans l'espace russe,
soviétique et post-soviétique - My address is the Soviet Union : Russian migration,
nationalization and identity in the Russian, Soviet and post-soviet space»,
Institut
d'études politiques , Paris, Villeneuve d'Ascq , A.N.R.T.

Crone Olivier , « Rivalités géostratégiques en Asie centrale : le Kirghizstan au centre
d'un nouveau « Grand Jeu » ? » , Outre-Terre, 2006/3 no 16, p. 329-343. DOI :
10.3917/oute.016.0329, Available through : «http://www.cairn.info/revue-outre-terre2006-3-page-329.htm »
100

Daniel Lederman, William F. Maloney, and Luis Servén, June 2003, Lessons from
NAFTA for Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) Countries: A Summary of
Research Findings, Office of the Chief Economist for LAC The World Bank

David Miliband, August 27th, 2008, article on his official web-site. Available through
http://davidmiliband.net/speech/ukraine-russian-and-european-security/ , {accessed
April 18, 2012}

Dimitri Claveau, 2004, La Russie dans la CEI: défis et ambitions d’une puissance
régionale, Lille , ANRT

Dr. David Levi-Faur, 1995, The European Union and Economic Nationalism, from
Antithesis to Synthesis, European studies community association

Dr. Eckard Bolsinger, The Foundation of Mercantile Realism Friedrich List and the
Theory of International Political Economy, Political Studies Association of the
UK,URL:

Erica Marat, April 2012, Analytical article “Kyrgyzstan Joins Russian-backed
Customs Union”, available through: http://kabar.kg/eng/analytics/full/810, Accessed
June 2 2012

Evan A. Feigenbaum, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, South and Central Asian
Affairs, February 6, 2007, “Central Asian Economic Integration: An American
Perspective”, Remarks to the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Nitze School of
Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Fahad Alturki, Jaime Espinosa-Bowen and Nadeem Ilahi, 2009,”How Russia Affects
the Neighborhood: Trade, Financial, and Remittance Channels”, IMF Working Paper,
Middle East and Central Asia Department

Fernandes , Sandra Dias, 2012, «Le multilatéralisme et les relations entre l'Union
européenne et la Russie: la pratique d'une coopération compétitive», Reproduction de
Thèse de doctorat : Science politique. Relations internationales : Paris, Institut
d'études politiques : 2010

Françoise Daucé, Gilles Walter, Arnaud Dubien, 2006, «La Russie et les autres pays
de la CEI en 2005», Paris , la Documentation française

Frédéric Daniel ROUGET, CP de SES Mayotte (2006-2009),{en ligne} URL :
sip2.ac-mayotte.fr/IMG/pdf/Libre-echange_et_protectionnisme.pdf>, page 3 Consulté
le 8 Août 2011

Fulvio
Attinà
2009,
BUILDING
THE
UNION:
AN
EVOLUTIONIST
EXPLANATION, Centro di documentazione europea - Università di Catania - Online
Working
Paper
2009/n.
12
,
Available
through:
101
http://www.lex.unict.it/cde/quadernieuropei/storiche/12_2009.pdf, accessed February,
12 2012

Fulvio Attina, 2003, “The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership Assessed: The Realist and
Liberal Views”, European Foreign Affairs Review 8: 000–000, 2003. Available
through: < www.fscpo.unict.it/EuroMed/EMPefarde.pdf > {Accessed 1 June, 2012)

Galushkina E.A. La revue de l'Université Kirghize-Russe Slave The attempt to
comprehend possibilities and threats, which Kyrgyzstan has met as a result of entering
VTO. URL: http://www.krsu.edu.kg/vestnik/2003/v1/a06.html Consulté le 15 Août
2011

Gilles Favarel-Garrigues et Kathy Rousselet, 2010, «La Russie contemporaine», Paris
, Fayard

Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, 2010, «La Russie entre deux mondes», Paris , Fayard

Iván Arribas Fernández, Francisco Pérez García, Emili Tortosa-Ausina, 2007,
« Measuring
International
Economic
Integratio
Theory
and
Evidence
of
Globalization”, University of Valencia press.

Jean-Christophe Defraigne (Institut d’Etudes Européennes, UCL) et Jean-Luc de
Meulemeester (Université Libre de Bruxelles), Le Système National de List : La
fondation du réalisme pluridisciplinaire en économie politique internationale contre
le libre-échangisme anglo-saxon. Page 2 URL :
dev.ulb.ac.be/sciencespo/...luc/.../demeulemeester-jean-luc-publication.doc, Consulté
le 11 Août 2011

Jeffrey Harrop, 2000, The political economy of integration in the European Union,
Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, Mass. , E. Elgar.

Johannes F. Linn, Executive Director, NOVEMBER 29, 2007, Wolfensohn Center for
Development , “Central Asia: A New Hub of Global Integration” , The Brookings
Institution

Journal “Belorussia in figures 2011”, available through official web-site of
Belorussian Statistical Committee “belstat.gov.by”, accessed June 5 2012

Karl W. Deutsch, Sidney A. Burrell, Robert A. Kann, Maurice Lee, Jr.,. Martin
Lichterman, Raymond E. Lindgren, Francis L. Loewenheim, Richard W. Van
Wagenen, 1957. “Political Community and the North Atlantic Area”, Princeton
University Press

L’agence
de
presse
« 24.kg »
au
Kirghizstan,
URL:
http://www.24kg.org/community/92837-roza-otunbaeva-rossiya-ndash-glavnyj.html
Consulté le 11 Août 2011
102

L’agence
de
presse
« kginform»
au
Kirghizstan
URL:http://www.kginform.com/ru/news/20101007/01527.html

La Russie et les autres pays de la CEI , 2002, Paris , la Documentation française

La Russie et les autres pays de la CEI 2001-2002 : Ukraine, Biélorussie, Moldavie,
Sud-Caucase, Asie centrale, 2002, Paris , la Documentation française

Laurent Rucker, Gilles Walter, Arnaud Dubien, La Russie et les autres pays de la CEI
en 2003 , 2004, Paris , la Documentation française

Law and Business Review of the Americas and The International Lawyer, VOLUME
10
SUMMER
2004
NUMBER
COMPARATIVE EXPERIENCES”,
3, “REGIONAL INTEGRATION:
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW
ASSOCIATION, SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY DEDMAN SCHOOL
OF LAW,

le Cered/FORUM et le Cernea Université Paris X-Nanterre, Analyse comparative des
processus
d’intégration
économique
régionale,
page
8
URL :www.diplomatie.gouv.fr., consulte le 8 Août 2011

Le protocole sur l'adhésion de la République Kirghize à l'accord de
Marrakech
instituant l'Organisation mondiale du commerce ( signé le 14 octobre 1998 et est entré
en vigueur le 20 décembre 1998),

Le site de la Banque Mondiale : URL :http://data.worldbank.org

Le site du Ministère du développement économique de République Kirghize
URL:http://www.mert.kg/index.php?option=com_ashimkan&view=article&article=72
&Itemid=57 (Consulté le 11 Août 2011

Le
site
officiel
de
l'Union
Douanière
URL :http://www.customsunion.ru/info/4421.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011

Le
site
officiel
de
l'Union
Douanière
URL :http://www.customsunion.by/info/4231.html Consulté le 11 Août 2011

Le
site
officiel
de
l'Union
Douanière,
URL :
http://www.tsouz.ru/db/ettr/tnved/Pages/default.aspx

Les pays de la CEI 1999-2000 : reconduction du pouvoir, embellie économique,
sécurité, l'activisme russe, 2000, Paris , la Documentation française

Les pays de la CEI 2000-2001 : le 11 septembre, une date charnière, 2001, Paris , la
Documentation française

Les pays de la CEI en 1998-1999 : sous le choc de la crise russe, 1999, Paris , la
Documentation française
103

Manuela Spindler, March 2012, “New Regionalism and the Construction of Global
Order”, Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation (CSGR), University
of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. URL: http://www.csgr.org

Marc-Antoine Eyl-Mazzega, 2012, «L'Ukraine, entre la Russie et l'Union Européenne
: acteurs, règles et organisation des échanges gaziers», Villeneuve d'Asq , ANRT,
Université de Lille 3

Maria Al-Khalidi, 2011, «Télévision et pouvoir politique en Russie post-soviétique :
des interdépendances et interactions favorables à la démocratisation ?», Villeneuve
d'Asq , ANRT, Université de Lille 3

Mark P. Thirlwell, September 2010, The Return of Geo-economics: Globalisation
and National Security , Lowy institute of International Policy

Michael Dunford and Diane Perrons, 1994, Regional Inequality, Regimes of
Accumulation and Economic Development in Contemporary Europe, Blackwell
Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British
Geographers), Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/622752, Accessed: 12/03/2012
21:07

Nadine Marie CEI: où en est l'État de droit , 1999, Paris , la Documentation française

Official
statistics
provided
by
UNCTAD,
available
through
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=101,
accessed
June 1 2012

Official
statistics
provided
by
World
Bank,
,
Available
through:
“
http://data.worldbank.org/”, Accessed: Mai 15 2012

Official website available through: http://www.nord-stream.com/ru/?r=1 {Accessed 12
June 2012}

Official web-site of Community of independent States Statistics, available through
http://www.cisstat.com/ “ {Accessed June 1 2012}

Official web-site of Community of independent States Statistics, available through
http://www.cisstat.com/ “ {Accessed June 1 2012}

Official web-site of European Union, available through http://europa.eu/index_fr.htm
Accessed 25 March 2012

Raja Kali and Javier Reyes,
2007, The Architecture of Globalization: A Network
Approach to International Economic Integration, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 38, No. 4, International Expansion of Emerging Market Businesses, pp.
595-620,
Palgrave
Macmillan
Journals
Stable
URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4540445, Accessed: 20/01/2012
104

Rating of democracy, made by ‘The Economist” magazine, available through:
www.economist.com , accessed Mai 5, 2012

Robert Toulemon L' intégration économique européenne, 1976, Paris , les Cours de
droit

Roberte Berton-Hogge et Marie-Agnès Crosnier Les pays de la CEI, 1998, Paris , La
Documentation française

Robin Naylor, 1997, “International trade and economic integration when labor
markets are generally unionized”, Depurtment
of Economics,
University of
’Warwick. Cocentgj, 0 ’4 7AL, UK

Robson Peter, 2007, Problèmes actuels d'intégration économique -- Nations Unies,
Conférence sur le commerce et le développement, Revue imprimee

Roman Dudka, 2011. « L'évolution de la Communauté des Etats Indépendants (CEI) :
étude d'une corrélation entre la réforme organique et l'altération fonctionnelle au sein
d'une organisation intergouvernementale sui generis » ,Villeneuve d'Asq , ANRT,
Université de Lille 3

Shiping Tang, Source: Asian Survey, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2000), pp. 360-376,
“Economic Integration in Central Asia: The Russian and Chinese Relationship”,
Published
by:
University
of
California
Press
,Stable
URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3021137, Accessed: 12/03/2012

UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the
Pacific, 12 November 2007. “Lessons from Kyrgyzstan’s WTO Experience for
Kazakhstan,
Tajikistan
and
Uzbekistan”,
available
through:
www.unece.org/.../WTOAccessionFinalEng. , {Accessed 27 Mai 2012)

United
Nations
Statistics
Division,
URL:http://comtrade.un.org/db/dqBasicQueryResults.aspx?cc=TOTAL&rg=2&px=S4
&r=156&y=2010

URL :http :www.wto.org/french/res_f/booksp_f/wto_status_legal_inst08_f.pdf
Consulté le 11 Août 2011

URL:
http :
www.stat.kg
http://212.42.101.124:1041/stat1.kg/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
39&Itemid=61

Youri Roubinski, 2001, Les éclats de l'Empire ou La communauté des États
indépendants (CEI), Paris
105
Table of Content
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...1
1 The theoretical foundation of modern regionalism………………………………………9
1.1 The evolution of concepts of regional integration………………………………………9
Regions and regionalism: from basic concepts to new regionalism………………………….9
Collective security as a reason for regional alliances………………………………………...12
Theoretic features of regional economic integration ………………………………………...14
1.2 The modern integration processes of the 20 century………………………………….19
Economic cooperation, modern trend of regional cooperation………………………………19
European Union experience, its achievements and flaws ……………………………………22
2 Regional Integration in the post-Soviet region: historical background, actual
development…………………………………………………………………………………32
2.1 Stages of formation and development of the CIS……………………………………..32
Transformation phase………………………………………………………………………...32
Recovery phase……………………………………………………………………………….34
Modernization phase………………………………………………………………………….37
2.2 CIS bodies and their role in integration………………………………………………..40
Inter-parliamentary Assembly of CIS………………………………………………………...41
Economic court……………………………………………………………………………….44
EurAsEC…………………………………………………………………………………...…45
Customs Union of Belorussia, Kazakhstan and Russia………………………………………45
Union State of Russia and Belorussia………………………………………………………..46
2.3 Features of economic cooperation of CIS states………………………………………48
Trade among CIS states………………………………………………………………………48
States-producers of natural resources versus states-consumers………………………………51
Lack of supranational budget…………………………………………………………………52
Accession to WTO of some CIS members …………………………………………………..53
CIS labor market……………………………………………………………………………...54
CIS investment market………………………………………………………………………..56
Steps toward higher level integration…………………………………………………………57
CIS securities market…………………………………………………………………………57
3 The problems, contradictions and prospects of Socio-economic and political
development of the regional integration on post-USSR region at present………………59
3.1 Role of Russia in the CIS integration processes………………………………………59
CIS as Russian ex-colonial area………………………………………………………………59
106
2000’s – period of increasing role of Russia in a region……………………………………..60
Russia in CIS versus USA in NAFTA………………………………………………………..62
Economy of Russia versus economy of other CIS members…………………………………63
Features of Geo-economic policy of Russia toward deep integration………………………..64
Russia-Georgia war and its meaning for CIS members………………………………………66
3.2 Assessment of current trends and prospects of regional integration development…71
Dependence of integration perspectives on Russian economic development………………71
Influence of external forces on development of further CIS integration……………………71
Economic gap…………………………………………………………………………………72
Experience of integration: accumulated flaws and its current impact………………………73
Political context of regional integration………………………………………………………75
Regional issues impeding integration………………………………………………………...77
Integration based on raw materials’ potential………………………………………………..78
Nationalism as disintegrative power…………………………………………………………79
Alternation of generation…………………………………………………………………….79
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………81
Annex…………………………………………………………………………………………84
List of literature……………………………………………………………………………..100
Table of content……………………………………………………………………………..106
Cover page..............................................................................................................................108
Développement de l'intégration sur la région post-Soviétique: de la CEI à l'Union Eurasienne
(résumé de mémoire)..............................................................................................................109
107
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created 20 years ago. Experience
accumulated over the years allows an objective assessment of past and present of the CIS as
well as its achievements and flaws. None of the CIS countries, even Russia, is capable to
integrate alone successfully into the global economy; therefore the development of multi-level
and multi-integration in all public spheres is an essential condition for economic growth in the
CIS countries. The concept of long-term social and economic development of the Russian
Federation until 2020 focuses on the CIS and its role in the strategic policy of Russia.
However, we believe that there are lots of obstacles to overcome on the way to high degree
integration. These barriers include considerable gap in economic development, territorial and
population size of states in a region, gradual disintegration of already existed unions on post
USSR region, authoritative regimes in a number of states, growing nationalism and regional
conflicts to name a few of them. Moreover, there also a number of external threats that could
impede processes of further integration, such as attractiveness of other unions, growing
Islamic and Chinese influence. We also consider increased Russian power as one of the
reasons for integration processes slowing down. Regardless all above mentioned
disintegrative factors, a number of states in a region is going to create supranational Eurasian
Union.
Key words: Integration, regionalism, Ex-USSR region, contradictions, Eurasian Union.
108
Développement de l'intégration sur la région post-Soviétique: de la CEI à l'Union
Eurasienne
L'infrastructure de l'économie mondiale a beaucoup changé au fil des années, passant de
groupes d’Etats-nations à un modèle d'économie en marché mondial commun constitué du
marché mondial des biens et des services, du travail et du capital, le Système mondial
monétaire et financier. Les principaux participants de processus sur le marché mondial ne sont
plus les Etats. Ce sont principalement des entreprises, des sociétés multinationales, les
organisations internationales, les syndicats régionaux. Donc, on observe une baisse de
l’influence des frontières nationales ainsi que des obstacles concernant les différences entre
les approches des différents pays aux processus d'affaires. L'internationalisation des processus
économiques et des acteurs impliqués en raison du développement du système de relations
internationales et même «transnationalisation» de la production est la principale
caractéristique de l'économie mondiale contemporaine. D'une part on observe de plus en plus
l'intégrité et le renforcement de l'économie mondiale, de l'autre, ses contradictions et de la
fragilité prouvé par la dernière crise financière. Nous avons choisi d'écrire notre document de
recherche fondée sur des valeurs géoéconomiques, car nous pensons que de nos jours il n'y a
pas de pure géopolitique. En effet même les questions géopolitiques, en règle générale ont une
base économique. Nous croyons que cette approche géoéconomique pourrait nous aider à
montrer tous les processus qui se déroulent actuellement dans la région de l’ex-URSS.
La participation active dans la division internationale du travail, les réseaux de liens
économiques bien développés de les flux de biens, de services et de la finance entre les Etats
sont déjà devenus les principales conditions incontestables de progrès économique. Même les
Etats les plus développés ne peuvent pas élargir de manière autonome toutes les directions de
la recherche et le développement et assurer une production efficace des biens et services.
L'élargissement ou l'approfondissement des liens internationaux de recherche sont également
l'un des indicateurs de processus d'internationalisation. Nous croyons que le changement
principal de la nature des relations est le décalage, de temps en temps, d’une forme d'échange
simple à la collaboration stratégiques à long terme. Le renforcement de l'internationalisation
économie mondiale a principalement déterminé l’inefficacité des méthodes de Keynes de
réglementation économique au niveau national. En 1980-1990, il y avait des réformes
économiques déterminées à accroître le rôle du pouvoir de marché dans tous les pays
développés. Au fil du temps, le nombre de pays qui acceptent l'économie de marché comme
un modèle de développement a augmenté de façon significative.
109
Il y a plusieurs décennies nous avons observé une rude concurrence entre les deux types
d'économie: économie de marché, la plupart du temps présenté par les pays occidentaux, en
particulier, Etats-Unis et de l'économie de commandement, adoptées par les Etats socialistes
et l’URSS. Pendant la guerre froide, les USA et l'URSS ont tenté de soutenir la concurrence
dans presque tous les domaines: la force militaire, force économique, réalisations dans le
sport etc… Nous croyons aussi que cette lutte était essentiellement plus idéologique que
simplement économique ou militaire. Il ne s’agit pas simplement d’une concurrence entre le
marché libre et celui réglementé, il s’agit principalement de la lutte entre «l'individualisme» et
«le collectivisme». Les différentes valeurs de ces Etats étaient les obstacles énormes sur la
voie de la coopération entre eux. Cependant, le socialisme avec toutes ses valeurs et idées
relatives n’etait pas aussi efficace qu'il était censé être, les unes après les autres syndicats
socialistes et les Etats ont commencé à tomber avec le rejet simultané des idées passées. La
totalité d'entre eux a accepté de nouvelles valeurs démocratiques, des vues libérales et le
marché économique. Le création de nouveaux Etats sur la base de nouveaux modèles a
grandement contribué à leur développement. Les Etats ouverts qui sont prêts à négocier avec
presque tous les Etats, coopérer avec eux et développer des liens économiques et politiques
avec les Etats que précédemment les Etats socialistes ne peuvent pas imaginer travailler en
raison des différences dans les idéologies.
En fait, la République Tchèque et la Slovaquie sont les Etats indépendants, démocratiques et
développés devenus membres de l'UE, mais avant cela ils faisaient partie d'un État unique : la
Tchécoslovaquie sous l'idéologie socialiste. La Lettonie, la Lituanie et l'Estonie étaient des
membres de l'URSS, mais après son effondrement en 1991, ils ont devenu des Etats
démocratiques indépendants. Actuellement, ces Etats baltes sont membres de l'UE. Comme
on le voit, l'effondrement de l'idéologie socialiste a donné à un certain nombre d'Etats non
seulement des valeurs similaires et des idées qu’une grande partie de reste du monde possède,
mais aussi ce processus leur a accordé la possibilité de participer aux processus d'intégration
globale et l'intégration régionale, en particulier. Mentionnés ci-dessus les anciens Etats
socialistes ont été heureux d'avoir une grande chance et comme conséquence, ils ont essayé de
blâmer l'URSS pour l'occupation de leur territoire. Ainsi, si quelques Etats regrettent la chute
de l'URSS, nous supposons que la majorité de l’ex-URSS l'a traitée comme une occasion de
trouver sa voie propre et indépendante, de construire l'économie de marché et n'hésitent pas à
collaborer avec tous les Etats du monde. Cependant, certains Etats de l'URSS sont si opposés
à leur existence passée au sein de l'URSS après près 80 ans comme les Etats Baltes. La
majorité des ex-membres sont toujours prêts à travailler avec ex-membres de l’URSS et avec
la Russie en particulier, mais depuis qu’ils sont tous avec des économies de marché, il est
110
nécessaire de créer de nouvelles formes de coopération permettant à chaque pays d’en
percevoir les gains.
Après l'effondrement de l'URSS en 1991, tous les Etats-membres sont devenus indépendants.
Cela a été une période difficile pour chacun d'entre eux quel que soit leur taille et leur
développement économique. Ils ont besoin d’apprendre à jouer selon les nouvelles règles
d'indépendance et d'économie de marché. Ils ont besoin d'adopter la nouvelle constitution, la
monnaie nationale et une nouvelle législation, en outre, ils ont besoin établir de nouveaux
liens économiques avec les ex-membres de l'URSS comme ils ne font plus partie du même
pays et avec d'autres Etats du monde entier. Les nouveaux Etats démocratiques ont aussi
besoin de maintenir leur politique étrangère et militaire nationales qu'ils n’ont jamais eue
auparavant. Toutes les questions liées à la politique des affaires étrangères et militaire ont été
résolues par l'administration centrale à Moscou. Mais même en étant indépendant, la majorité
des États-ex-membres de l'URSS possédait des liens solides entre eux qui ne sont pas
seulement économiques ou politiques. Les habitants de ces pays sont également censés être
respectueux l’un envers l'autre . Même jusqu'à maintenant, ils sont nostalgiques du passé
soviétique commun. Les ex-membres sentent une forte nécessité de poursuivre la
collaboration, même après avoir obtenu l'indépendance. Mais il était obligatoire de créer une
organisation nouvelle, car la restauration de l'URSS semblait impossible. Donc, en 1991
presque tous les membres de l'ex-URSS, hormis les États baltes, ont adhéré à l'Organisation
de Coopération des Etats Indépendants (la CEI). La CEI a été créée par trois états : la
République socialiste fédérative soviétique de Russie (RSFSR), la République socialiste
soviétique de Biélorussie (RSS de Biélorussie) et la République socialiste soviétique
d'Ukraine (RSSU), juste après l’adoption de la décision sur la cessation de fonctionnement de
l'URSS. Le document constitué de 14 articles et préambule a stipulé que l'URSS cessait
d'exister en tant que sujet de droit international, cependant, en raison de l'histoire commune,
des liens entre les citoyens, les traités bilatéraux et multilatéraux, l'intention commune
d'établir des États indépendants démocratiques, l'intention de développer des relations basées
sur mutuelle reconnaissance et le respect des indépendances atteintes, les Etats ont décidé
d’instaurer la CEI. A la fin du mois de décembre 1991, les douze ex-membres de l'URSS à
l'exception de la Lettonie, la Lituanie et l'Estonie ont ratifié ce traité. Depuis plus de 20 ans, il
a été créé un certain nombre d'organisations telles que la Communauté économique
eurasienne, l'Union douanière, l’Union étatique et l’Organisation du Traité de sécurité
collective pour promouvoir l'intégration entre tous les membres de la région. Comme on le
voit, les pays s'efforcent de coopérer non seulement en termes de collaboration économique,
111
mais aussi militaire. Tous ces essais n’ont pas réussi; et parfois des ententes ont été trouvées
sur un document, mais n'ont pas été exécutées dans la réalité.
Il est assez évident que les pays de l’ex-URSS ne sont pas économiquement avancés, même
les plus avancés d'entre eux sont encore à un niveau moyen de développement économique.
Nous supposons que cela est le fait de la désindustrialisation rampante, qui a eu lieu après
l'effondrement de l'URSS et la transformation du marché à sa suite. Pour compenser toutes
ces pertes économiques en 1990, les ex-Etats soviétiques se sont intéressés à une croissance
économique stable plus élevée que celle moyenne du monde. Le développement économique
a débuté en 2000 dans la région. Elle n'est pas le fait d’un progrès technologique ou de
renouvellement énorme de processus de production qui a entraîné le lancement de nouvelles
entreprises, il a été principalement causé par le renforcement du rôle de fournisseur de
matières premières et de ressources énergétiques par certains Etats-membres vers le marché
de l'UE et la Chine. Un certain nombre d'Etats, comme la Géorgie, l'Ukraine et le Kirghizistan
ne peuvent pas atteindre jusqu'à présent le montant du PIB en 1991.
Les conditions de développement économique peuvent se diviser entre les Etats d'une région
dans les groupes suivants:
1) l'Azerbaïdjan, le Kazakhstan et le Turkménistan, même étant au calme en termes
d'ouverture politique et la libéralisation économique; sont en mesure d'accroître le potentiel
d'exportation dans le secteur des combustibles et l'énergie. Les sociétés transnationales ont
également grandement contribué au développement de ce secteur et sa présence dans un
marché mondial. Nous pouvons également noter une forte croissance du PIB dans ces pays en
2000 et en plus, la balance commerciale favorable. Une partie du revenu obtenu de la vente de
ressources énergétiques est accumulée dans des fonds spéciaux nationaux fournissant un
développement économique relativement stable. Toutefois, même en essayant de diversifier
son industrie, ils ne peuvent pas produire de produits compétitifs, même en ayant
d’importants actifs financiers, ils ont d’assez petits marchés internes pour la production de
biens de haute technologie et des services. Importer, dans la majorité des cas, s'est avéré être
plus avantageux que la production nationale. Le Kazakhstan a plus de tentatives pour
diversifier son économie en introduisant de nouvelles technologies étrangères et en
investissant des capitaux nationaux et étrangers.
Pour ces Etats les fluctuations de prix des hydrocarbures et de son infrastructure pour les
délivrer sont un grand défi. Les conditions de livraison forcent les Etats à participer plus
activement à l'intégration régionale.
112
La Russie a également une structure économique très proche de ces pays, donc les États
mentionnés ci-dessus sont considérés par la Russie comme concurrents dans le marché des
hydrocarbures mondiaux, mais également en tant que partenaires possibles dans le
développement régional du système de carburant et d'énergie. Les revenus solides du
Kazakhstan ou l'Azerbaïdjan qui a amélioré la demande interne de ces Etats pourrait être
intéressant pour la Russie. La part de la Russie dans l'exportation totale du Kazakhstan,
l'Azerbaïdjan et le Turkménistan est inférieur à 10%, mais les exportations de la Russie à ces
Etats sont 3 ou 4 fois plus élevées. La Russie fait face aux mêmes défis que ces pays, donc
leur expérience dans la diversification économique et l’évolution technologique, de la
production est d'une grande importance pour la Russie.
2) Le deuxième groupe comprend un plus grand nombre d'états qui sont des importateurs
d'hydrocarbures. Ces Etats peuvent être caractérisés par des problèmes stables avec une
balance commerciale négative conduisant à un solde négatif de paiement. Ils essaient de
résoudre les problèmes mentionnés ci-dessus par l'exportation de main-d'œuvre, réception de
l'aide étrangère en termes de crédits, des subventions et des investissements étrangers. Tous
ces Etats ont un très faible système financier. Les conditions de l'évolution très rapide du
commerce ainsi que la fluctuation des prix mondiaux des hydrocarbures sont également une
menace énorme pour eux, car ils ont un impact direct sur l'inflation, le budget, la balance des
paiements et la dette nationale. Les pays de ce groupe, la Géorgie, l'Arménie, la Moldavie,
l'Ukraine, ont été considérablement touchés par la crise. En outre, l'exportation de ces Etats
dépend grandement de la demande dans l'UE et de la Russie, qui à son tour, a diminué en
raison de la crise. En conséquence, les flux de capitaux de l'UE et de la Russie à ces États ont
également diminué.
En général les États de ce groupe mènent une politique économique ouverte et libérale. Ils
considèrent l’adhésion à l'UE ou l'intégration avec l'ex-URSS membres comme une solution
de leurs problèmes internes. Pour eux, il est très important d'avoir un accès libre aux marchés
des biens, services, capitaux et main-d'œuvre d'autres États partenaires. En règle générale, la
part de la Russie dans le commerce extérieur total de ces Etats peut fluctuer de 10 à 50%. En
général, on peut diviser ces Etats en deux groupes: les petits Etats dont l'économie est mal
diversifiée, tels que l'Arménie, la Géorgie, le Kirghizistan, le Tadjikistan et les grands Etats
dont l'économie est à peu près diversifiées, comme la Biélorussie et l'Ukraine, jouant un rôle
énorme dans le transport de charbon entre la Russie et l'UE.
113
3) Dans un troisième groupe un seul Etat est censé être présenté. L'Ouzbékistan peut être
spécifiquement remarqué en raison de son économie et de son marché restreint. Cet état est
indépendant en termes de ressources énergétiques et il n'a pas de défis importants dans la
balance commerciale. Ayant mal développé l'exportation, l'Ouzbékistan a une production
diversifiée orientée principalement versle marché intérieur et les marchés des pays voisins. La
demande interne est sous l'influence de l'investissement en actifs fixes ainsi que les transferts
des travailleurs migrants qui travaillent principalement en Russie et au Kazakhstan. Même en
étant si près, l'Ouzbékistan est menacé par la fluctuation de la demande de biens et services et
main-d'œuvre ainsi que les conditions pour recevoir des crédits et autres formes d'aide
financière.
Donc la question que nous voulons à laquelle répondre dans notre mémoire de recherche est
la suivante: Quels sont les défis réels économiques et politiques, évidents ou cachés,
rencontrés par les Etats dans une région sur une voie menant à une intégration plus poussée?
Nous pensons que l’intégration dans la région de la CEI a été prévue en raison de l'histoire
commune, une culture proche et les valeurs culturelles et même des défis communs, puisque
tous les pays de la CEI sont les pays dont l'économie est transitoire. Il ya juste 20 ans tous les
Etats de la région étaient partie d'un Etat puissant énorme avec une économie et une idéologie
fortes dans le monde. Par ailleurs, les personnes ayant vécu sous l’URSS jusqu'à maintenant
semblent être nostalgiques et essaient de ne pas oublier la langue russe qui existent encore
dans les Etats de la CEI étant l'un des plus importants moyens pour une intégration plus haute.
Au fil des ans on a créé un certain nombre d'organisations dans la région postsoviétique visant
à accroître le niveau d'intégration, en termes de collaboration économique ou politique, mais
il est encore nécessaire d'élaborer de nouvelles formes de coopération régionale pour prouver
les États la nécessité d'intégrer plus. Au cours des dernières années les tendances du
développement de relations inter-étatiques de la région post-soviétique ont montré que
l'intégration profonde supposant une législation commune, la réglementation commune des
défis économiques ou politiques ainsi que les processus d'intégration et de développement des
autorités communes supranationales sont assez difficile pour tous les onze membres de CIS.
Les principaux obstacles sur la voie vers haute intégration sont :
* Le fossé considérable dans le développement économique des différents Etats-membres.
* En outre, nous croyons que les principes de gestion économique et les réformes
économiques nationales sont également très différents.
114
* La présence des régimes autoritaires dans une région et sa réticence à réduire la puissance
nationale pour créer des organismes supranationaux sont aussi les éléments d'obstacle.
* De plus, la majorité des Etats de la CEI sont déterminés à la politique étrangère multi
vectorielle, afin Etats de la CEI et la Russie pourraient ne pas être des partenaires de premier
plan.
En général, nous pensons que tous les Etats ex-soviétiques, quels que soient leurs modèles de
développement ont non seulement les conflits d'intérêts entre les importateurs de carbone, les
exportateurs et les États de transit, mais aussi les problèmes économiques communs comme la
pauvreté, une forte inflation, la corruption ou restreint marché intérieur. Ils représentent donc
une partie périphérique de l'économie mondiale et peuvent être caractérisé par une forte
dépendance des marchés mondiaux de marchandises et des capitaux ainsi que des relations
avec les Etats énormes avec de fortes économies. Presque tous les États d'une région
dépendent grandement des fluctuations des prix du pétrole. Cependant, les exportateurs de
carbones sont en position plus avantageuse, car ils peuvent être plus indépendants, toutefois,
ils peuvent également être caractérisés par de mauvais programmes d'innovation, les
infrastructures sous-développés, le manque de personnel qualifié etc…
La transformation de l’économie en économie du marché en région de ex-Union soviétique,
malheureusement, ne signifie pas de larges changements structurels complets dans l'économie
et la modernisation technologique des procédés de production. En percevant la nécessité de la
modernisation, les pays essaient de poursuivre une nouvelle politique économique mais ils
souffrent du manque de ressources financières ou même intellectuelles. Cette modernisation
était nécessaire, non seulement dans les secteurs orientés vers les marchés internes, mais aussi
à l'exportation, puisque la majorité des Etats de la CEI souffrent d’une balance commerciale
déficitaire.
Pour une analyse complète et approfondie, nous présenterons
1) Les approches théoriques de l'intégration régionale, en particulier concernant l'intégration
entre les Etats sous-développés
Comme nous le savons, les États décident d'intégrer quand ils possèdent des intérêts
économiques. Cependant, les syndicats peuvent être créés pour des raisons de sécurité. Les
questions de sécurité sont d'une grande importance pour les membres de l'ex-URSS, puisque
la majorité d'entre eux sont de petits États dont l'économie et les forces militaires sont sous115
développées. Le niveau d'intégration pourrait dépendre de la volonté des Etats-membres à
déléguer un certain pouvoir national à des institutions supranationales.
2)Histoire de l'intégration dans l'espace post-soviétique à partir de 1991 à 2012 et de leurs
tentatives d'intégration peut être divisée en trois périodes:
* La Transformation (1991-1999)
* La Récupération (2000-2008)
* la Modernisation (de 2009 à nos jours).
Dans notre recherche, nous essayons de présenter toutes les étapes importantes de l'intégration
dans cette région. Les faits historiques peuvent également contribuer de manière significative
à notre compréhension de ce qui est «l’espace post-soviétique» et ses stratégies possibles pour
pousser l’intégration plus avant.
3)La pression de la Russie (l'Etat le plus intéressé) dans l'intégration d’une région
Dans une troisième partie, nous allons montrer le rôle de la Russie, sa participation dans
l'intégration et les incitations créées par elle pour les autres Etats dans une région juste pour
les impliquer dans le processus d'intégration. En outre, nous pensons que la Russie a contribué
de manière significative au développement des pays de la CEI par la reconstruction et afin de
renforcer encore la production de ces Etats. La Russie a une influence considérable sur les
Etats dans le région par les prix à l'exportation et des devises de carbones, l'importation de
main-d'œuvre, l'investissement et l'activité des entreprises russes dans ces Etats. Toutefois,
jusqu'à présent, la Russie n'est pas bien moderne technologiquement elle-même, donc elle est
forcée d’importer des technologies de l'UE et des USA et ne peut pas les exporter aux Etats de
la CEI. Nous avons également remarqué que la Russie a transmis les fluctuations du marché
mondial à d'autres Etats de la CEI au cours de compressions et redressements économiques.
La deuxième partie de la dernière décennie a été marquée par un rôle plus actif de la Russie
dans la région et la création de la zone multilatérale de libre-échange entre les Etats-membres
de la CEI et Union douanière au sein de la Communauté économique eurasienne. Toutefois, la
formation de ces unions régionales ne fournit pas elle-même un développement stable,
progressistes changements structurels de l'économie, elle ne peut pas non plus égaliser le
niveau de développement économique dans les différents Etats, mais elle peut créer les
conditions pour l'élargissement du marché, d'accroître l'efficacité des ressources utilisées,
116
augmenter la différenciation des biens et services et enfin, accroître la concurrence entre les
producteurs. Même les marché sont élargis, il existe encore la nécessité de poursuivre la
politique de modernisation commune par les pays-participants de l'intégration., Les Etats sont
impliqués de plus en plus dans le processus d’échange de technologie avec les pays tiers en
dehors de la CEI qui a abouti à la formation de la coopération transfrontalière de la chaîne
technologique et l'accroissement du commerce entre les pays de CEI and pays tiers. Cela
signifie que le commerce et la coopération technologique avec les Etats tiers, la région en
dehors, augmentent, mais le commerce entre Etats intégrés est censé diminuer. Nous devons
également noter que les échanges entre membres de la CEI ont diminué de 2000 à 2010 de
28,5% à 22,5%.
La situation semblent être incertaine, car l'Union douanière et la zone de libre-échange ont été
créés pour le commerce sans restriction de biens et services entre les Etats-membres, mais la
production de ces biens et services seront basés sur les technologies d’Etats tiers. Cependant,
nous croyons que les unions mentionnées ci-dessus ont été créés principalement pour les
transactions commerciales communes et la coopération technologique est considérée comme
une ambition nécessaire pour être réalisé dans un avenir. Basé sur l'expérience du monde, le
succès de l'intégration ainsi que son développement durable dépend du niveau technologique
national et sa place dans les processus mondiaux de l'innovation. Les réalisations régionales
technologiques reconnues dans le monde entier sont la base de la croissance économique
nationale et, en plus, dans la circulation des marchandises régionales. Parmi tous les Etats de
la CEI la Russie, comme le plus grand et le plus fort l'état avec l'ambition d'être leader
régional et même mondial, s'attend à prendre des mesures actives pour la création d'un centre
technologique commun. Il est également très important de coopérer avec tous les Etatsmembres sur toutes les étapes du développement technologique: sciences appliquées, le
développement, l'expérimentation et la production. Tenant compte du fait que certains Etats
de la CEI sont très riches en ressources naturelles, il semble nécessaire de développer le
marché régional technologique afin de pouvoir utiliser ces ressources de manière efficace .
La région de la CEI est très intéressante pour l'étude car même étant déjà un Etat autrefois, il
contient des Etats très différents en terme non seulement de développement économique, de
taille du territoire, mais aussi de religion et de culture. Il y a aussi un certain nombre de
menaces pour les Etats tels que la proximité chinoise et possible influence culturelle,
l'islamisme et l'extrémisme qui sont pour la plupart de l'activité des Etats et des organisations
arabes en Asie centrale, l'influence occidentale et possible adhésion à l'OTAN de certains
Etats dans une région etc Toutefois, nous ne pouvons pas blâmer certains Etats pour des
117
relations étroites avec l'OTAN ou avec les Etats-Unis comme la Géorgie. Nous croyons que
chaque état a le droit de choisir sa propre voie, si elle répond bien à ses intérêts nationaux.
Mais nous pensons aussi que certaines actions de l'Etat déterminé à défendre ses intérêts
nationaux pourraient provoquer des conflits régionaux ou même la guerre, comme nous le
voyons dans l'exemple fixé par la Russie et la Géorgie
Le conflit militaire qui a eu lieu entre la Russie et la Géorgie en 2008 a eu une influence
significative dans une situation régionale. Même si la majorité des membres de la CEI
apprécie beaucoup la nécessité de préserver des relations fortes avec la Russie, pas un d'entre
eux ne soutient la Russie dans ses actions. Même jusqu'à présent aucun membre de l'ex-URSS
n’a reconnu l'Ossétie du Sud et d'Abkhazie comme Etats indépendants. Nous supposons que
la Russie attendait des actions concrètes, l'évaluation et le soutien de membres de la CEI, mais
elle ne l’a pas reçu. Jusqu'à présent, le statut de l'Abkhazie et l'Ossétie du Sud sont très
douteux. Cependant, nous croyons, que la Russie qui n'a pas reçu le soutien attendu de
membres de la CEI, va essayer de les attirer dans l'intégration de haut niveau, tels que l'Union
douanière.
La tendance à la neutralité des membres de la CEI a été observée dans un certain nombre de
questions similaires, survenant dans la région. Les conflits militaires entre l'Azerbaïdjan et
l'Arménie dans le Haut-Karabakh n'ont pas reçu une évaluation exacte de pays de la CEI ou
les autorités de la CEI. Les actions militaires au Tadjikistan, en Transnistrie ou en Ossétie du
Sud ne sont pas réglementés par les autorités de la CEI. Par ailleurs, la CEI comme une
organisation n'a même pas essayé d'évaluer la situation et de donner son propre point de vue.
En règle générale, la Russie et le Kazakhstan envoient leurs forces pour maintenir la paix .
Toutefois la CEI, en tant qu'organisation, est généralement neutre. Cette inactivité de la CEI a
été perçue comme une incapacité à jouer un rôle important dans une intégration plus haute
ainsi que la réticence de certains Etats de la CEI à prendre part à la résolution des problèmes
survenus dans un autre Etat.
Donc, les défauts mentionnés ci-dessus des processus d'intégration nous a mener à l'idée qu'il
était souhaitable de réduire le nombre de participants, puisque l'ensemble des Etats dans une
région en une seule union semble être impossible. Donc, l'expérience de la CEI et d'autres
unions régionales ont prouvé que les organisations sous-régionales qui incluent un nombre
limité d'Etats pour le but déterminé sont plus efficaces et potentiellement viables. La
Communauté économique eurasienne étaient l'une des formes efficaces de l'intégration dans
une région. Créé en 1995, la Communauté économique eurasienne, initialement compris le
118
Kazakhstan, la Russie, la Biélorussie, le Kirghizistan, l'Ouzbékistan et le Tadjikistan, est
transformée en 2007 en niveau supérieur d'intégration Union Douanière, comprenant la
Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan. Comme on peut voir, tous les Etats-membres de la
Communauté économique Eurasienne ne se sont pas décidé à se joindre à l'union, car cette
action importante influence beaucoup la vie nationale économique et politique.
Tout au long de la recherche nous avons également essayé de présenter les tendances
positives et négatives de l'intégration pour la région de l'après-URSS ainsi que les facteurs
internes et externes qui entravent le développement de l'intégration. Malgré l’évolution
positive, comme la création de l'union douanière, premier syndicat supposant des organes
supranationaux, et les plans ambitieux, tels que le budget commun, une monnaie commune,
nous croyons que l'ex-URSS Etats ont beaucoup de barrières pour l'intégration . Nous pensons
également que, avant l'adhésion à certains unions, l'État doit résoudre ses propres problèmes
nationaux. La création de l'union avec la puissance supranationale n'est pas une solution pour
tous les problèmes, de sorte que l’intégration elle-même ne peut pas conduire à une vie
prospère.
119