Tweet
THE EURASIAN UNION
by Morgan Griffith-David
The New Federalist.eu
http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/The-Eurasian-Union,04566
Oct 27 2011
Putin has put the world on edge with his recent announcement of
his hope for a Eurasian Union, based on our own European Union,
which would include the post-Soviet Republics still not part of the
EU. This sets Moscow in direct competition with Brussels, economically,
politically and in gaining new members.
With his likely re-ascendency to the Presidency, is this something
to worry Europe?
Ideologically, we should support this move. Federalism, wherever it
is found, is a good concept, and a Eurasian Union could be strong
partners, economically, politically, and in the eventual move towards
global federal union. The region did indeed inherit "an infrastructure,
specialised production facilities, and a common linguistic, scientific
and cultural space" from the Soviet era. If they can capitalise on
that in the interests of the federal spirit, then good luck Putin!
But we cannot delude ourselves - Putin is not interested in
federalism. This is an issue of power politics. Of course, there
is some level of political grandstanding, Putin wanting to position
himself in a position of power before returning to the Presidency,
but assuming that this is a serious proposal, and as it is a staple
facet of Russian foreign policy, should it worry Europe?
Let's look at Putin's prospective partners
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan already have a customs union, formed
last year. In January, this will allow the free movement of goods,
services and capital across a single market of 165 million people. The
Common Economic Space (CES) is a historic move for this area. These
are obvious candidates for a Eurasian Union.
But the CES is so limited - first we need to realise who may even join
the CES, before joining something like a Eurasian Union. Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan have both faced higher tariffs when trading with Russia
and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan has officially applied to join the CES,
and Tajikistan is apparently considering membership. Most analysts
don't except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to join. However, all of
these states are members of the Eurasian Economic Community, a minor
version of a CES. This could be enhanced without too major problems.
The partnership opportunities in Central Asia are limited, but these
are not countries naturally pulled by both poles, Moscow and Brussels.
Geographically, they will always drift closer to Russia. If we want
to see the effect of the Eurasian Union on the EU, we should look
closer to home.
Georgia will not join. On-going disputes over Abkhazia and South
Ossetia poison relations between Tbilisi and Moscow. Mikheil
Saakashvili responded to Putin's article in Izvestiya calling it the
wildest idea yet of the Russian nationalists.
Moldova has distinctly said that it is not interested in a Eurasian
Union. Prime Minister Vlad Filat has said that "though its geography,
history and culture" Moldovans were very interested in European
integration.
Armenia is closer to Moscow than Azerbaijan and may join, receiving
support as it does from Russia over the Nagorno-Karabakh divide, but
Azerbaijan could also be tempted, provided Russia and Turkey guarantee
the territorial unity of Azerbaijan and demand Armenia withdraw from
"occupied territories", according to Azerbaijani MP Aydyn Mirzazade.
Top of Form Bottom of Form
Ukraine is obviously the prize in Putin's eye. Such a large and
relatively affluent state, and a close EU ally, would be an asset
in the new Eurasian Union. Coming at the time of the trail of Ms
Tymoshenko, will we see a Ukraine shifting further into Russian hands?
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is considered more
Russia-friendly than his pro-EU predecessors, it is true. Putting Ms
Tymoshenko on trial has found great criticism in Brussels, viewed
as it is as a form of disposing of political opponents. Relations
between Kiyv and Brussels are strained.
But despite this, Ukraine would still find its best home with Europe,
not Eurasia. It is the Eastern Partnership country closest to any
political or trade deals with the EU. It has previously rejected
similar offers from Putin. Yanukovych has previously complained that
the Kremlin was attempting to coerce Ukraine into joining the CES with
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and has said he refused to yield to
pressure. He is also still seeking EU membership. And don't forget -
the trial of Ms Tymoshenko is about her close ties to Russia, finding
her guilty of misusing the office of Prime Minister in negotiating
a January 2009 gas deal between the Ukraine and Russia, costing the
country an estimated loss of $200million.
I feel that Ukraine is still moving towards the European sphere,
and ties with Moscow will remain close, but merely pragmatic. Ukraine
still hopes to find itself in Europe, not Eurasia.
So, those are the candidates. Essentially it would be the Eastern
Partnership+Central Asia. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and
Uzbekistan are all prospective candidates, and yet only those already
tied into the Russian sphere, or who are incredibly close such as
Kyrgyzstan seem interested. But let us not forget, this is just on the
economic level of CES at the moment. What about a true political union?
Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's 71-year old President, and former
communist party leader, is obviously drawn to the idea. In fact,
he first proposed the idea during a speech in 1994 in Moscow.
However, there is large resistance in Kazakhstan to further union with
Russia. Bolat Abilov, co-chairman of the Social Democratic party Azat
has said "Russian companies and small business enterprises are stronger
than outs. Kazakhstan cannot compete." When the opposition claims
"It was a mistake to hurry into the customs union... Russia dictated
the terms and Nazarbayev did not protect Kazakhstan's interests"
it is hard to see that under any other government could further
integration be pursued.
Sergey Alekashenko, a former deputy head of Russia's Central Bank
has warned that the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan "would have
to wave goodbye to power" if a Eurasian union developed into the
political sphere.
This is the core difference between the European and Eurasian Unions.
In Europe, there is a large Germany, doubtless the major economic
power - but it can be politically counterbalanced by alliances of
other states, France and Britain, France and Italy and Spain, the
Eastern states under Poland... there are many other strong states
that can counterbalance the largest economic power.
This could never happen with Kazakhstan or Belarus, or even states
such as Ukraine. No state could politically, economically, or military
counterbalance Russia.
Nazarbyev would never relinquish full control of his country. Even
Lukashenko, Belarus' dictator, and Putin's closest ally, would never
relinquish control over his personal fiefdom.
Russia would end up completely and utterly dominating the smaller
ex-Soviet republics if they moved towards political union in any form.
While the CES may expand, to include states such as Kyrgyzstan,
I strongly doubt that political union will ever take place.
Do not forget that there IS already some level of economic, political
and military union between many of the states we've discussed.
In military terms, the Collective Security Treaty Organization seems
impressive - and yet did nothing to prevent the overthrow of President
Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan in 2010 following riots. This is one of its own
member states, and the alliance did nothing. Politically, there is
little union - what states, out of the candidates we've listed, have
recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia, apart from Russia? Not one. The
Commonwealth of Independent States is little more than symbolic.
Economically, the Eurasian Economic Community has guaranteed free
movement of people in much of the area since 2000 - there may be
scope for this side of things to be enhanced. But I severely doubt
that political union is likely, possible, or desirable for any state
outside Russia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cautionary note.
While states pinned between Russia and the EU's eastern borders may
not be instinctively willing to come back under Moscow's hegemony,
Brussels (or rather, Paris and Berlin) may force them back there.
While the Eastern partnership, the initiative from Poland and Sweden,
is deepening ties with Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia
and Azerbaijan, if they feel that this is a polite way of declining
them ultimate membership... they very well may take the hint.
Moldova's opposition Communist Party has praised the idea of a
Eurasian Union. Communist leader Vladimir Voronin said that joining
an Eastern bloc would not only get them cheaper natural gas, but that
joining was preferable "to waiting to join an EU that does not want"
to accept Moldova in its own community.
While, at this moment, most states refuse political union with Russia,
if we do not draw away Eastern Partnership states, and eventually
the Central Asian republics, from the economic hegemony of Moscow,
we could lose them politically and military as well. This would
not be beneficial for those states, now lost in the new Russian
sphere. Nor would it be good for Europe to have a newly-resurgent
Russian neo-Empire on its borders. We must show true commitment to
our neighbours - even, perhaps, to Russia herself - if we are not to
see a divided continent once more.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
by Morgan Griffith-David
The New Federalist.eu
http://www.thenewfederalist.eu/The-Eurasian-Union,04566
Oct 27 2011
Putin has put the world on edge with his recent announcement of
his hope for a Eurasian Union, based on our own European Union,
which would include the post-Soviet Republics still not part of the
EU. This sets Moscow in direct competition with Brussels, economically,
politically and in gaining new members.
With his likely re-ascendency to the Presidency, is this something
to worry Europe?
Ideologically, we should support this move. Federalism, wherever it
is found, is a good concept, and a Eurasian Union could be strong
partners, economically, politically, and in the eventual move towards
global federal union. The region did indeed inherit "an infrastructure,
specialised production facilities, and a common linguistic, scientific
and cultural space" from the Soviet era. If they can capitalise on
that in the interests of the federal spirit, then good luck Putin!
But we cannot delude ourselves - Putin is not interested in
federalism. This is an issue of power politics. Of course, there
is some level of political grandstanding, Putin wanting to position
himself in a position of power before returning to the Presidency,
but assuming that this is a serious proposal, and as it is a staple
facet of Russian foreign policy, should it worry Europe?
Let's look at Putin's prospective partners
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan already have a customs union, formed
last year. In January, this will allow the free movement of goods,
services and capital across a single market of 165 million people. The
Common Economic Space (CES) is a historic move for this area. These
are obvious candidates for a Eurasian Union.
But the CES is so limited - first we need to realise who may even join
the CES, before joining something like a Eurasian Union. Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan have both faced higher tariffs when trading with Russia
and Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan has officially applied to join the CES,
and Tajikistan is apparently considering membership. Most analysts
don't except Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan to join. However, all of
these states are members of the Eurasian Economic Community, a minor
version of a CES. This could be enhanced without too major problems.
The partnership opportunities in Central Asia are limited, but these
are not countries naturally pulled by both poles, Moscow and Brussels.
Geographically, they will always drift closer to Russia. If we want
to see the effect of the Eurasian Union on the EU, we should look
closer to home.
Georgia will not join. On-going disputes over Abkhazia and South
Ossetia poison relations between Tbilisi and Moscow. Mikheil
Saakashvili responded to Putin's article in Izvestiya calling it the
wildest idea yet of the Russian nationalists.
Moldova has distinctly said that it is not interested in a Eurasian
Union. Prime Minister Vlad Filat has said that "though its geography,
history and culture" Moldovans were very interested in European
integration.
Armenia is closer to Moscow than Azerbaijan and may join, receiving
support as it does from Russia over the Nagorno-Karabakh divide, but
Azerbaijan could also be tempted, provided Russia and Turkey guarantee
the territorial unity of Azerbaijan and demand Armenia withdraw from
"occupied territories", according to Azerbaijani MP Aydyn Mirzazade.
Top of Form Bottom of Form
Ukraine is obviously the prize in Putin's eye. Such a large and
relatively affluent state, and a close EU ally, would be an asset
in the new Eurasian Union. Coming at the time of the trail of Ms
Tymoshenko, will we see a Ukraine shifting further into Russian hands?
Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is considered more
Russia-friendly than his pro-EU predecessors, it is true. Putting Ms
Tymoshenko on trial has found great criticism in Brussels, viewed
as it is as a form of disposing of political opponents. Relations
between Kiyv and Brussels are strained.
But despite this, Ukraine would still find its best home with Europe,
not Eurasia. It is the Eastern Partnership country closest to any
political or trade deals with the EU. It has previously rejected
similar offers from Putin. Yanukovych has previously complained that
the Kremlin was attempting to coerce Ukraine into joining the CES with
Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and has said he refused to yield to
pressure. He is also still seeking EU membership. And don't forget -
the trial of Ms Tymoshenko is about her close ties to Russia, finding
her guilty of misusing the office of Prime Minister in negotiating
a January 2009 gas deal between the Ukraine and Russia, costing the
country an estimated loss of $200million.
I feel that Ukraine is still moving towards the European sphere,
and ties with Moscow will remain close, but merely pragmatic. Ukraine
still hopes to find itself in Europe, not Eurasia.
So, those are the candidates. Essentially it would be the Eastern
Partnership+Central Asia. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and
Uzbekistan are all prospective candidates, and yet only those already
tied into the Russian sphere, or who are incredibly close such as
Kyrgyzstan seem interested. But let us not forget, this is just on the
economic level of CES at the moment. What about a true political union?
Nursultan Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan's 71-year old President, and former
communist party leader, is obviously drawn to the idea. In fact,
he first proposed the idea during a speech in 1994 in Moscow.
However, there is large resistance in Kazakhstan to further union with
Russia. Bolat Abilov, co-chairman of the Social Democratic party Azat
has said "Russian companies and small business enterprises are stronger
than outs. Kazakhstan cannot compete." When the opposition claims
"It was a mistake to hurry into the customs union... Russia dictated
the terms and Nazarbayev did not protect Kazakhstan's interests"
it is hard to see that under any other government could further
integration be pursued.
Sergey Alekashenko, a former deputy head of Russia's Central Bank
has warned that the leaders of Belarus and Kazakhstan "would have
to wave goodbye to power" if a Eurasian union developed into the
political sphere.
This is the core difference between the European and Eurasian Unions.
In Europe, there is a large Germany, doubtless the major economic
power - but it can be politically counterbalanced by alliances of
other states, France and Britain, France and Italy and Spain, the
Eastern states under Poland... there are many other strong states
that can counterbalance the largest economic power.
This could never happen with Kazakhstan or Belarus, or even states
such as Ukraine. No state could politically, economically, or military
counterbalance Russia.
Nazarbyev would never relinquish full control of his country. Even
Lukashenko, Belarus' dictator, and Putin's closest ally, would never
relinquish control over his personal fiefdom.
Russia would end up completely and utterly dominating the smaller
ex-Soviet republics if they moved towards political union in any form.
While the CES may expand, to include states such as Kyrgyzstan,
I strongly doubt that political union will ever take place.
Do not forget that there IS already some level of economic, political
and military union between many of the states we've discussed.
In military terms, the Collective Security Treaty Organization seems
impressive - and yet did nothing to prevent the overthrow of President
Bakiyev in Kyrgyzstan in 2010 following riots. This is one of its own
member states, and the alliance did nothing. Politically, there is
little union - what states, out of the candidates we've listed, have
recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia, apart from Russia? Not one. The
Commonwealth of Independent States is little more than symbolic.
Economically, the Eurasian Economic Community has guaranteed free
movement of people in much of the area since 2000 - there may be
scope for this side of things to be enhanced. But I severely doubt
that political union is likely, possible, or desirable for any state
outside Russia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A cautionary note.
While states pinned between Russia and the EU's eastern borders may
not be instinctively willing to come back under Moscow's hegemony,
Brussels (or rather, Paris and Berlin) may force them back there.
While the Eastern partnership, the initiative from Poland and Sweden,
is deepening ties with Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia
and Azerbaijan, if they feel that this is a polite way of declining
them ultimate membership... they very well may take the hint.
Moldova's opposition Communist Party has praised the idea of a
Eurasian Union. Communist leader Vladimir Voronin said that joining
an Eastern bloc would not only get them cheaper natural gas, but that
joining was preferable "to waiting to join an EU that does not want"
to accept Moldova in its own community.
While, at this moment, most states refuse political union with Russia,
if we do not draw away Eastern Partnership states, and eventually
the Central Asian republics, from the economic hegemony of Moscow,
we could lose them politically and military as well. This would
not be beneficial for those states, now lost in the new Russian
sphere. Nor would it be good for Europe to have a newly-resurgent
Russian neo-Empire on its borders. We must show true commitment to
our neighbours - even, perhaps, to Russia herself - if we are not to
see a divided continent once more.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress