As to the present functions of the Commonwealth, experts claim that today the CIS is a “club of presidents” (Valovaya, 2005, para.25; Kononczuk, 2003 p.36), utilized to build common ties and resolve minor difficulties.
Taking into account the uniqueness of the Post-Soviet integration process, its purposes and problems, Grinberg (2005), Grinberg and Vardomskyi (2001) conclude that the Commonwealth states, in the near-term and medium-term outlook (10-12 years), will not be able to achieve a more effective regional association status. Kaveshnikov (2003) agrees that in the nearest future, integration in the CIS, comparable to the EU model, is very unlikely. However, it does not mean that the economic integration may not take place in different forms. In the given conditions of the CIS, he admits that the maximum level of integration able to be implemented in the area is a free trade zone.
Regarding the performance of the CIS, critical opinions have been expressed both in the beginning and intermediate years of the Commonwealth existence. Often, no author misses a chance to criticise this or that flaw of the organization. Due to the large number of these opinions, it could be agreed that there exist problems and that these critics might have valid grounds for their attitude. Some of them somewhat belittle the role and
significance of the CIS; in particular, Kononczuk (2007) is critical of the CIS and writes that it “became a facade organisation, intended to preserve the illusion that the post- Soviet states were grouped in an organisation” (p.36). Other unflattering comments include for instance, “Soviet Humpty Dumpty” (Adams, 1998, p.61), and “a talking- shop” (Kononczuk, 2007, p.36).
Another group of authors is more specific, and single out particular areas of unsatisfying performance. There are a number of them including the acceptance of about 1000 joint decisions (Metcalf, 1997; Torkunov, 1999) in various areas of cooperation in the period of 1992 to 1998, while most of the decisions remained on paper. This problem has been mentioned by other authors as well. For example, Valovaya (2005, para.21) also thinks that the negative role in the CIS development is played by the “complex and poorly governable bureaucratic structure” of the integration mechanism. For instance, the CIS member states had created 70 various entities within the organization (Suezawa, 2002, p.16; Grinberg, 2005, p.7) and during the informal CIS summit in Moscow in July 2006, Kazakhstan’s president Nursultan Nazarbaev declared that according to his assessment, of the 1600 agreements adopted, only around 10 per cent had been implemented (Melikova, 2006). These facts clearly point to the systemic flaws within this organisation and a lack of mechanisms to overview the progress of these agreements and to discipline any non-fulfilment which occurs. This also shows that overall, the Commonwealth was not regarded as an authoritative organisation. In this regard, summing up the attempts in the 1990s in general, Kononczuk (2007, p.35) states that the integration projects in the CIS were based on the assumption that “anything could be signed because nothing would ever get implemented anyway”. Such an approach will not work towards integration between the countries.
Another reason includes the inability of the CIS member states to work out a “common vision” (Timmermann, 1998, p.41); there are no uniting aims which would assist in the development of integration processes. This is especially evident in the spheres of foreign policy, trade, and security.
Many experts also offer various forecasts regarding the CIS future. As is always the case with the CIS, the forecasts tend to vary from very negative to relatively positive. Grinberg (2005) thinks that there are two scenarios for the CIS. First one is a breakup of
the Commonwealth and creation of new associations in various combinations. The second scenario is gathering of the current CIS members around Russia, thanks to its domination in political and economic aspects. To some extent, the latter option reanimates in some way, the USSR model. According to Grinberg (2005) and Informant 3 (personal communication, February 25, 2008), integration in the CIS should be based on business to business integration and industry approach – that is integration of industries as was the case in Western Europe. Another factor that might influence integration is across the border cooperation, which basically includes building economic ties between the businesses of two bordering regions of partner countries.
Kubicek (1999) has a yet more gloomy prediction about the CIS future. According to him, the breakup of the CIS is inevitable. It would take place “…since throughout its life it has had, at best, a marginal impact on most of its member states” (p.24). Moreover, the dissolution of this organisation will finally give the member countries a chance to pursue their own interests and make decisions which would be favourable to them in the first place.
The member states will likely introduce a common currency, believes Astapov (2005) and forecasts that in the long term this would help them decrease trade expenses within the organisation, as well as make them independent from foreign price fluctuations on main export items. Kolesov and Os’mova (2000) and Ziyadullaev (2004) state that the CIS countries have all prerequisites needed for turning the organisation into a highly effective integration association. And Isingarin (2001, p.71) rounds up these forecasts and gives his own vision of the future for the CIS; according to him there are three possible scenarios for the CIS:
1. “Pessimistic – the CIS ceases its existence as member states would eventually quit the agreements signed within the organisation.
2. Uncertain – the heads of states and governments would periodically (one-two times a year) hold official meetings, make decisions (not obligatory for implementation), while some member states would still refuse to sign documents.
3. Optimistic – the CIS states eventually achieve free trade area level, integrate their economies, reform the CIS organs and activate them. This is the path for formation of a real international integration organisation”.
(Isingarin, 2001, p.71)
If we follow Isingarin’s scenarios, at present the CIS is at the “uncertain” level. It may be stated that it is now up to the member states to leave behind all the misunderstanding, disappointment, distrust and gather together, work out a common “vision” and follow the plan that will be drawn together and take into account the opinions of every member. Only then, will the countries be able to achieve the “optimistic” level and thereby fulfil the CIS’s initial development plan.
In general, various statements and forecasts have been made and will be made throughout the existence of the CIS. However, Shumskyi (2003) believes that currently the level of integration of the Commonwealth states corresponds to their level of socio- economic development, reform of market economy and democratisation of social relations. Informant 3 (personal communication, February 25, 2008) states that the model chosen and followed by the CIS states is “best possible” – meaning that with such a large number of states there cannot be anything more expected.
The CIS still remains as the first integration organisation in the post-Soviet space. Even though the performance of the CIS cannot satisfy any of its member states, it has had a role to accomplish. This role has been underlined throughout this chapter. The main words in its defence are that the Commonwealth as an organization, was able to provide harmless disintegration and to build traditional, equal relations between the former “brother states”.
In this chapter the economic situation in the CIS member states has been discussed. The economic and political aspects of changes in the CIS states after the USSR disintegration have been discussed. States’ economic performance has been examined and significant changes in macroeconomic indicators have been noted. They negatively influenced states’ production sphere and as a result, their trade patterns substantially deteriorated. Over-reliance of a number of CIS states on raw materials in their exports
structure led to low rates of diversification of their economies. The chapter has concluded with a discussion of CIS’s future perspectives that differs significantly, ranging from pessimistic to optimistic. In the next chapter, regional associations, created on the CIS territory, will be discussed.
CHAPTER
SIX REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS IN THE POST-
SOVIET TERRITORY
6.1
Overview
This chapter will present a discussion of the regional economic integration associations created on the CIS territory. The choice of direction in the foreign policy of the CIS member states will be highlighted. It will then focus on a description of the economic and political situation in the four regional associations. Pre-conditions that existed for integration and the reasons that urged their member states to join will be examined. The regional associations’ similarities, interests, as well as difference of opinions on matters regarding economic integration will be discussed.