#19 - JRL 9115 - JRL Home
RIA Novosti
April 8, 2005
THE FUTURE OF THE CIS
Boris Shmelyov, director of the Center of Political Studies, for RIA Novosti

President Vladimir Putin was quoted by many media sources as saying that "the CIS is a form of civilized divorce between former Soviet republics, rather than a form of integration." This statement largely reflects principal changes in the Russian leaders' vision of the processes taking place in the post-Soviet space. Russian authorities seem to be getting rid of long-standing illusions, with intentions of forming a realistic policy in the region.

Since the establishment of the CIS in December 1991, Russia has consistently proposed numerous initiatives seeking close economic, military and political interaction of former Soviet republics. However, it has been unable to unite lands around Moscow, while the CIS has failed to become a military, political and economic union or a confederation of states.

The CIS today is a conglomerate of several regional associations and countries whose interests diverge more than coincide. Russia is losing its dominating position in this conglomerate and is no longer the sole center of economic and geo-political gravitation. The post-Soviet space has become a place of a fierce struggle between the U.S., the EU and China for re-division of the spheres of influence. The results of the centuries-long efforts made by the Russian state to expand their borders at the expense of the blood and sweat of many Russian generations are being devalued while Russia's influence in this space is shrinking like shagreen skin.

Disintegration processes have been typical of the CIS, especially in the past several years. First of all, they manifested themselves in the reduction of the scope of mutual interaction in favor of new, extra-regional markets and the intensification of mutual competition in regional markets resulting in trade wars and anti-dumping proceedings. Also, almost all CIS states adopted energy independence programs. In recent years, the political interests of Russia and some CIS states have been seen to contradict each other ever more frequently, prompting the aggravation of inter-state relations.

So, what are the reasons for the profound systemic crisis, which the Commonwealth of Independent States is experiencing, and are there any chances of overcoming it? There are many reasons for that.

The creation of an economic, military and political union in the form of the CIS was unrealistic from the outset as the newly independent states lacked the main condition required for that: a state with a well-established statehood and the political elite capable of formulating national interests and realizing them. The practice of the development of the state system in the CIS shows that national, rather than democratic, states are being formed. This practice generates internal tension; in most cases these states are not homogeneous ethnically.

In their political self-determination, national minorities are drawn to their historical motherland. The borders between the newly independent states are not substantiated historically and harbor the danger of territorial claims and inter-state conflicts, thus generating mutual suspicion and mistrust. Therefore, the very basis of a military and political union, i.e. mutual trust, is also lacking.

Economic integration can successfully develop only in the conditions of developed property relations. However, this is precisely what the CIS lacks. The privatization of former state assets in many CIS states is far from over. Basically, state property is being transferred into the hands of various clans close to authorities. Economic integration cannot proceed on the basis of criminal and bureaucratic capital.

The Soviet Union united peoples with different civilization guidelines. It was possible to overcome these civilization differences in a united state with a tight system of centralized governance and total state control over all the spheresof society's life. After the disintegration of the USSR, when the hoops holding together various peoples as a single whole for several decades broke down, the newly independent states immediately demonstrated differences in the vectors of civilization gravitation. World practice does not know any instances of the integration of states belonging to various civilizations. The example of the EU is illustrative in this case: for many years the European Union stubbornly rejected Turkey's membership application. Even today, Turkey's prospects in the EU are quite uncertain. It is also possible to list other causes that kept the intended model for formalizing the post-Soviet space unrealized. A lot of time will be needed to remove them. The transitional period will be lengthy.

Was the CIS a mistake and does it have any future? The CIS did play a positive, historic role. The Commonwealth helped the former Soviet republics to avoid the Yugoslavian disintegration path. The Commonwealth does have a future because the leaders of the newly independent states need it as an institution of consultations, the exchange of opinions, coordination of viewpoints, the discussion of problems affecting their common interests; in short, as a sort of a political forum. However, if it is destined to die, then let it die at the hands of someone else rather than at the hands of Russia, least of all interested in its demise.

At the same time, Russia must have no illusions that the Commonwealth can be reformed. These efforts are doomed. A new geo-political project should be created that would be attractive for newly independent states and simultaneously competitive as compared to the project of the EU, which is gradually expanding into post-Soviet territory.

However, this is a project of the distant future and Russia will most likely be unable to offer it soon. Hardly anyone else, except Russia, would be able to do so. Until then, Russia should build its relations with the CIS countries on the same principles, which it applies to its relations with non-CIS states. Any sentiments about the common past must be removed from Russia's policy in post-Soviet territory.

Russia needs to be sensitive to the need for mutually advantageous bilateral relations. The existing sub-regional integration projects are unlikely to be successfully implemented. It is more expedient to develop economic relations on the basis of world market prices and this practice could contribute to the transparency of such relations. Otherwise, Russia may find itself in a situation experienced by the USSR after the liquidation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, when despite the enormous amount of aid it gave fraternal socialist countries, it turned out to be in debt to them.

The political elite's attitude in many CIS counties to Russia is openly hostile or unfriendly at best, and Russia will have to come to terms with that. Although it may seem strange at first glance, Russian cooperation with the Baltics is the most advantageous for it economically. |Cooperation in this area is free of any ideological motives. Politics and economics in these relations are maximally divided. Russia can use this model in relations with the CIS countries. The assertions that Russians or Russian-speaking people living there will suffer in this case can be refuted only by an effective policy stimulating their movement to Russia. Those of them who want to live and work in Russia should have the opportunity. This measure also meets the interests of Russia, considering the demographic situation unfolding in the country. In this respect, Israel's experience should be taken into account.

Today it is obvious that Russia can no longer control post-Soviet territory. It has neither the financial resources, nor the political will to do so. To keep its influence in the region, it should team up with the United States, the EU and China to solve the numerous problems the region faces. A policy of confrontation with them holds no prospects because it will only weaken Russia.