Reintegration in the post-Soviet space takes place within the framework of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) which was established in 1991. The Charter of the CIS, signed in 1992, consists of several sections: goals and principles; membership; collective security and military-political cooperation; conflict prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes; cooperation in economic, social and legal spheres; Commonwealth bodies, inter-parliamentary cooperation, financial issues.
The member states of the CIS are Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.
The basis of the economic mechanism of the CIS is the Treaty on the Establishment of an Economic Union (September 24, 1993). On its basis, a number of stages were envisaged: the free trade association, the customs union and the common market.
Goals creation of the Commonwealth were:
· Implementation of cooperation in the political, economic, environmental, humanitarian and cultural fields;
· Promoting comprehensive and balanced economic and social development of the Member States within the framework of the common economic space, as well as interstate cooperation and integration;
· Ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the generally recognized principles and norms of international law and OSCE documents;
· Implementation of cooperation between member states in order to ensure international peace and security, take effective measures to reduce armaments and military spending, eliminate nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction, achieve general and complete disarmament;
· Peaceful settlement of disputes and conflicts between Member States.
Currently, the political bodies of the CIS are functioning - the Council of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government (CHP). Functional bodies have been formed, including representatives of the relevant ministries and departments of the states that are members of the Commonwealth. These are the Customs Council, the Railway Transport Council, the Interstate Statistical Committee.
Let us consider in more detail the institutional structure of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Council of Heads of State is the supreme body of the Commonwealth. It considers and makes decisions on the main issues of the activities of the Member States. The council meets twice a year; and at the initiative of any Member State, extraordinary sessions may be convened. The chairmanship of the Council is carried out in turn by the heads of state.
Council of Heads of Government coordinates cooperation between the executive authorities of the Member States in the economic, social and other fields. Meetings of the Council of Heads of Government are held four times a year. Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government are taken by consensus.
Council of Foreign Ministers coordinates the activities of the member states in the field of foreign policy, including their activities in international organizations.
Coordinating Advisory Committee- a permanent executive and coordinating body of the CIS, consisting of permanent plenipotentiaries (two from each state) and the coordinator of the Committee. It develops and submits proposals on cooperation in the political, economic and other fields, promotes the implementation of the economic policies of the member states, deals with the creation of common markets for labor, capital and securities.
Council of Ministers of Defense deals with issues related to the military policy and structure of the armed forces of member states.
economic court ensures the fulfillment of economic obligations within the Commonwealth. Its competence also includes the resolution of disputes arising in the process of fulfilling economic obligations.
Interstate Bank deals with the issues of mutual payments and clearing settlements between the CIS member states.
Human Rights Commission is an advisory body of the CIS that monitors the fulfillment of obligations in the field of human rights assumed by the member states of the Commonwealth.
Interparliamentary Assembly consists of parliamentary delegations and ensures the holding of inter-parliamentary consultations, discussion of issues of cooperation within the framework of the CIS, develops joint proposals regarding the activities of national parliaments.
CIS Executive Secretariat responsible for the organizational and technical support of the work of the CIS bodies. Its functions also include a preliminary analysis of issues submitted for consideration by the heads of state, and legal expertise of draft documents prepared for the main bodies of the CIS.
The activities of the CIS bodies are financed by the member states.
Since the establishment of the Commonwealth, the main efforts of the member states have been focused on developing and deepening cooperation in such areas as foreign policy, security and defense, economic and financial policy, developing common positions and pursuing a common policy.
The CIS countries have great natural and economic potential, which gives them significant competitive advantages and allows them to take their rightful place in the international division of labor. They have 16.3% of the world territory, 5% of population, 25% of natural resources, 10% of industrial production, 12% of scientific and technical potential, 10% of resource-forming goods. Among them are in demand on the world market: oil and natural gas, coal, timber, non-ferrous and rare metals, potash salts and other minerals, as well as fresh water reserves and land suitable for agriculture and construction.
Other competitive resources of the CIS countries are cheap labor and energy resources, which are important potential conditions for economic recovery (10% of the world's electricity is produced here - the fourth largest in the world in terms of its generation).
In a word, the CIS states have the most powerful natural, industrial, scientific and technical potential. According to foreign experts, the potential market capacity of the CIS countries is about 1600 billion dollars, and they determine the achieved level of production in the range of 500 billion dollars. Reasonable use of the entire range of favorable conditions and opportunities opens up real prospects for economic growth for the Commonwealth countries, increasing their share and influence on the development of the world economic system.
At present, within the framework of the CIS, there is a multi-speed economic integration. There are such integration groups as the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the Central Asian Cooperation (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), the Eurasian Economic Community (Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan), the alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova - “GUAM ").
Federal State Educational Institution of Higher vocational education
"Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation"
Voronezh branch of the RAGS)
Department of Regional and International Relations
Final qualifying work
majoring in "Regional Studies"
Integration processes in the post-Soviet space: opportunities for applying European experience
Completed by: Voronkin N.V.
5th year student, group RD 51
Head: Ph.D., Zolotarev D.P.
Voronezh 2010
Introduction
1. Prerequisites for integration in the CIS
1.1 Integration and its types
1.2 Prerequisites for integration in the post-Soviet space
2. Integration processes in the CIS
2.1 Integration in the post-Soviet space
2.2 Socio-cultural integration in the post-Soviet space
3. Results of integration processes in the post-Soviet space
3.1 Results of integration processes
3.2 European experience
Conclusion
List of used sources and literature
Appendix
Introduction
At the present stage of world development, it is impossible to imagine the activity of any economic entity in isolation from the outside world. Today, the well-being of an economic entity depends not so much on internal organization, but on the nature and intensity of its ties with other entities. The solution of foreign economic problems is of paramount importance. World experience shows that the enrichment of subjects occurs through and only through their integration with each other and with the world economy as a whole.
Integration processes in the economic space of our planet are at this stage of a regional nature, so today it seems important to consider the problems within the regional associations themselves. In this paper, integration associations of the former republics of the USSR are considered.
After the collapse of the USSR, cardinal structural transformations took place in the CIS, which entailed serious complications and the wholesale impoverishment of all member countries of the Commonwealth.
The problem of integration processes in the post-Soviet space is still quite acute. There are many problems that have not been resolved since the formation of integration associations. It was extremely interesting for me to find out the reasons that negatively affect the unification processes in the post-Soviet space. It is also very curious to reveal the possibility of using the European experience of integration associations in the CIS.
The problems considered in this paper can be considered sufficiently developed in domestic and foreign scientific literature.
The problems of the formation of a new statehood of the post-Soviet countries, the emergence and development of interstate relations, their entry into the international community, the problems of the formation and functioning of integration associations are increasingly being studied by modern authors. Of particular importance are works that highlight the general theoretical issues of regional integration. Of paramount importance are the works of such well-known integration researchers as N. Shumsky, E. Chistyakov, H. Timmermann, A. Taksanov, N. Abramyan, N. Fedulova. Of great interest from the point of view of studying alternatives to integration processes in the post-Soviet space, the analysis of various models of integration is the study by E. Pivovar "Post-Soviet space: alternatives to integration." Equally important is the work of L. Kosikova "Integration projects of Russia in the post-Soviet space: ideas and practice", in which the author substantiates the need to preserve the common format of the CIS and the importance of the organization reaching a new level. In the article by N. Kaveshnikov “On the possibility of using experience European Union for the economic integration of the CIS countries” proves the fallacy of recklessly following the European experience of integration processes.
The object of this work is the integration processes in the post-Soviet space.
The subject of this work is the integration associations of the former republics of the USSR.
The purpose of the work is to substantiate the importance of integration processes. show the nature of these processes in the CIS, study their causes, show the results and reasons for the failure of integration processes in the post-Soviet space in comparison with the European experience of integration, identify the tasks of the further development of the Commonwealth and ways to solve them.
To achieve this goal, the following main tasks were set:
1. Consider the prerequisites for integration into the CIS.
2. Research integration processes in the CIS.
3. Analyze the results of integration processes in the post-Soviet space in comparison with the European experience of integration.
The material for writing the work was the basic educational literature, the results of practical research by domestic and foreign authors, articles and reviews in specialized periodicals devoted to this topic, reference materials, as well as various Internet resources.
1. Prerequisites for integration in the CIS
1.1 Integration and its types
The most important feature of modernity is the development of integration and disintegration processes, the intensive transition of countries to an open economy. Integration is one of the defining trends in development, generating serious qualitative changes. The spatial organization of the modern world is being transformed: the so-called. institutionalized regions, the interaction of which takes on different forms, up to the introduction of elements of supranationality. Inclusion in the emerging system acquires a strategic character for states that have the appropriate potential to play an important role in world politics and effectively address issues of internal development in the light of the aggravation of the problems of our time, the blurring of the line between domestic and foreign policy as a consequence of globalization.
Integration is an integral part of the political, economic and cultural development of the modern world. At present, most regions are covered by integration processes to one degree or another. The processes of globalization, regionalization, integration are the realities of modern international relations that the new independent states are facing. The assertion that the modern world is a collection of regional integration associations will hardly be considered an exaggeration. The very concept of “integration” comes from the Latin integratio, which can literally be translated as “reunion, replenishment. Taking a place in any integration processes, the participating states have the opportunity to receive significantly more material, intellectual and other resources than they would alone. In economic terms, these are advantages in attracting investments, strengthening industrial zones, stimulating trade, free movement of capital, labor and services. Politically, it means reducing the risk of conflicts, including armed ones.
It is important to bear in mind that the development of an integrated political and economic system is possible only on the basis of purposeful, competent and coordinated efforts of all integrating subjects. There are many reasons for disintegration and subsequent integration, but in most cases these processes are based on economic reasons, as well as the impact external environment- as a rule, the largest and most influential subjects of world politics and economics.
Thus, integration and disintegration must be seen as ways of transforming complex political and socio-economic systems. A vivid example of such transformations is precisely the formation of new independent states as a result of the collapse of the USSR and the process of establishing a mechanism for economic and political integration ties between them.
Integration is usually understood as rapprochement, interpenetration of similar values, the formation on this basis of common spaces: economic, political, social, value. At the same time, political integration implies not only close interaction of similar states and societies that are at similar stages of economic, social, political development, as was the case in Western Europe after World War II, but also the attraction by more developed states of those who have decided on the vector of overcoming its backlog. The engine of integration on both sides - the host and the accomplice - are, first of all, the political and economic elites, who saw the need to go beyond the boundaries of closed local (regional) spaces.
It is necessary to focus on the concept, types and types of integration (global and regional, vertical and horizontal), integration and disintegration as interdependent processes.
Thus, international economic integration (MEI) is an objective, conscious and directed process of rapprochement, mutual adaptation and merging of national economic systems with the potential for self-regulation and self-development. It is based on the economic interest of independent economic entities and the international division of labor.
The starting point for integration is direct international economic (industrial, scientific, technical, technological) ties at the level of primary subjects of economic life, which, developing both in depth and in breadth, ensure the gradual merging of national economies at the basic level. This is inevitably followed by the mutual adaptation of state economic, legal, fiscal, social and other systems, up to a certain merging of management structures.
The main economic goals of integrating countries are usually the desire to increase the efficiency of the functioning of national economies due to a number of factors that arise in the course of the development of regional international socialization of production. In addition, they expect integration to take advantage of the “larger economy”, reduce costs, create a favorable external economic environment, solve trade policy problems, promote economic restructuring and accelerate its growth. At the same time, the prerequisites for economic integration can be: the similarity of the levels of economic development of the integrating countries, the territorial proximity of states, the commonality of economic problems, the need to achieve a quick effect, and, finally, the so-called "domino effect", when countries that are outside the economic bloc, develop worse and therefore begin to strive for inclusion in the block. Most often, there are several goals and prerequisites, and in this case the chances for success of economic integration increase significantly.
When we talk about economic integration, it is important to distinguish between its types and types. Basically, a distinction is made between world economic integration, generated by the processes of globalization, and traditional regional integration, which has been developing in certain institutional forms since the 1950s, or even earlier. However, in reality in modern world there is a kind of “double” integration, a combination of the two above types (levels).
Developing at two levels - global and regional - the integration process is characterized, on the one hand, by the growing internationalization of economic life, and on the other, by the economic convergence of countries on a regional basis. Regional integration, growing on the basis of the internationalization of production and capital, expresses a parallel trend that develops alongside a more global one. It represents, if not a denial of the global nature of the world market, then to a certain extent a rejection of attempts to close it only within the framework of a group of developed leading countries. There is an opinion that it is globalization through the creation of international organizations that is, to a certain extent, a catalyst for integration.
The integration of states is an institutional type of integration. This process involves the interpenetration, merging of national reproductive processes, as a result of which the social, political, institutional structures of the uniting states converge.
Forms or types of regional integration may be different. Among them: free trade area (FTA), customs union (CU), single or common market (OR), economic union (EC), economic and monetary union (EMU). The FTA is a preferential zone within which trade in goods is free from customs and quantitative restrictions. A CU is an agreement between two or more states to eliminate customs duties on trade between them, thus being a form of collective protectionism from third countries; OR - an agreement in which, in addition to the provisions of the Customs Union, freedom of movement of capital and labor is established: EC agreement, under which, in addition to the OR, fiscal and monetary policies are harmonized; The EMU agreement, under which, in addition to the EC, the participating states pursue a unified macroeconomic policy, create supranational governing bodies, etc. Quite often, international economic integration is preceded by preferential trade agreements.
The main results of regional integration are the synchronization of the processes of economic and social development of countries, the convergence of macroeconomic indicators of development, the deepening of the interdependence of economies and the integration of countries, the growth of GDP and labor productivity, the growth of production scales, the reduction of costs, the formation of regional trade markets.
Enterprise level integration (genuine integration) is a private enterprise type of integration. In this case, a distinction is usually made between horizontal integration, which involves the merging of enterprises operating in the same industry in the same industry market (thus, enterprises are trying to resist competition from strong partners), and vertical integration, which is the merger of companies operating in different industries, but interconnected by successive stages of production or circulation. Private corporate integration is expressed in the creation of joint ventures (JV) and the implementation of international, national production and scientific programs.
Political integration is characterized by complex factors, including the specifics of the geopolitical position of countries and their domestic political conditions, etc. Political integration is understood as the process of merging two or more independent (sovereign) units, nation states into a broad community that has interstate and supranational bodies, which part of the sovereign rights and powers is transferred. In such an integration association, the following are manifested: the presence of an institutional system based on the voluntary restriction of the sovereignty of the member states; the formation of common norms and principles governing relations between members of an integration association; introduction of the institution of citizenship of an integration association; formation of a single economic space; the formation of a single cultural, social, humanitarian space.
The process of formalizing a political integration association, its main dimensions is reflected in the concepts of "integration system" and "integration complex". The integration system is formed through a set of institutions and norms common to all basic units of the association (this is the political and institutional aspect of integration); the concept of "integration complex" focuses on the spatial and territorial scales and boundaries of integration, the limits of action general norms and powers of common institutions.
Political integration associations differ in basic principles and methods of functioning. First, on the basis of the principle of dialogue of common supranational bodies; secondly, on the basis of the principle of legal equality of the member states; thirdly, on the basis of the principle of coordination and subordination (coordination involves the coordination of actions and positions of the member states of the association and supranational structures, subordination is characteristic of a higher level and implies the obligations of subjects to bring their behavior in line with established order; fourthly, on the basis of the principle of delimitation of subjects of jurisdiction and powers between supranational and national authorities; fifthly, on the basis of the principle of politicization of the goals of basic units and the transfer of power to supranational structures; sixthly, on the basis of the principle of mutually beneficial decision-making and, finally, seventhly, on the basis of the principle of harmonization of legal norms and relations of integrating subjects.
It is necessary to dwell on one more type of integration processes - cultural integration. The term "cultural integration", which is used most often in American cultural anthropology, has a lot of overlap with the concept of "social integration", which is used mainly in sociology.
Cultural integration is interpreted by researchers in different ways: as consistency between cultural meanings; as a correspondence between cultural norms and the real behavior of culture bearers; as a functional interdependence between various elements of culture (customs, institutions, cultural practices, etc.). All these interpretations were born in the bosom of the functional approach to the study of culture and are inextricably linked with it methodologically.
A slightly different interpretation of cultural anthropology was proposed by R. Benedict in his work "Patterns of Culture" (1934). According to this interpretation, culture usually has some dominant internal principle, or "cultural pattern", which provides a common form of cultural behavior in various spheres of human life. A culture, like an individual, is a more or less consistent pattern of thought and action. In each culture, characteristic tasks arise that are not necessarily characteristic of other types of society. Subordinating their lives to these tasks, the people are increasingly consolidating their experience and diverse types of behavior. From the point of view of R. Benedict, the degree of integration in different cultures may vary: some cultures are characterized by the highest degree of internal integration, in others integration may be minimal.
The main shortcoming of the concept of "cultural integration" over a long period of time was the consideration of culture as a static and unchanging entity. The awareness of the importance of cultural changes that became almost universal in the 20th century led to a growing awareness of the dynamics of cultural integration. In particular, R. Linton, M.D. Herskovitz and other American anthropologists have focused their attention on the dynamic processes by which a state of internal coherence of cultural elements is achieved and new elements are incorporated into culture. They noted the selectivity of the adoption by culture of the new, the transformation of the form, function, meaning and practical use of elements borrowed from outside, the process of adaptation of traditional elements of culture to borrowings. The concept of "cultural lag" by W. Ogborn emphasizes that the integration of culture does not occur automatically. A change in some elements of culture does not cause immediate adaptation of its other elements to them, and it is precisely the constantly arising inconsistency that is one of the most important factors in internal cultural dynamics.
General factors of integration processes include such factors as geographical (namely, states that have common borders are most susceptible to integration, having common borders and similar geopolitical interests and problems (water factor, interdependence of enterprises and natural resources, a common transport network)), economic ( integration is facilitated by the presence of common features in the economies of states located in the same geographical region), ethnic (integration is facilitated by the similarity of life, culture, traditions, language), environmental (combining the efforts of various states to protect the environment is becoming increasingly important), political (integration facilitates similar political regimes), finally, the factor of defense and security (every year the need for a joint fight against the spread of terrorism, extremism and drug trafficking becomes more and more urgent).
During the New Age, European powers created several empires, which by the time the First World War ended, ruled almost a third (32.3%) of the Earth's population, controlled more than two-fifths (42.9%) of the earth's land and unconditionally dominated the World Ocean.
The inability of the great powers to regulate their differences without resorting to military force, the inability of their elites to see the commonality of their economic and social interests that had already formed by the beginning of the 20th century, led to the tragedy of the world conflicts of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. However, we must not forget that the empires of the Modern Age were politically and strategically integrated "from above", but at the same time internally heterogeneous and multi-level structures based on strength and subordination. The more intense the development of their "lower" floors, the closer the empires came to the point of collapse.
In 1945, 50 states were members of the UN; in 2005 - already 191. Nevertheless, the increase in their number went in parallel with the deepening of the crisis of the traditional nation-state and, accordingly, the Westphalian principle of the primacy of state sovereignty in international relations. Among the newly formed states, the syndrome of falling (or failed) states has become widespread. At the same time, there was an "explosion" of ties at the non-state level. Integration, therefore, manifests itself today at the transnational level. The leading role in it is played not by navies and detachments of conquerors competing to see who will raise their national flag over this or that distant territory first, but by the movement of capital, migration flows and the dissemination of information.
Initially, there are six basic reasons that most often underlie more or less voluntary integration throughout history:
General economic interests;
Related or common ideology, religion, culture;
Close, related or common nationality;
The presence of a common threat (most often an external military threat);
Compulsion (most often external) to integration, artificial pushing of unifying processes;
The presence of common borders, geographical proximity.
However, in most cases there is a combination of several factors. For example, at the base of folding Russian Empire in one way or another, all six of the above reasons lay. Integration presupposes in some cases the need to give up one's own interests for the sake of a common goal, which is higher (and in the long term more profitable) than momentary profit. The "market" thinking of the current post-Soviet elites rejects such an approach. An exception is made only in extreme cases.
The attitude of elites towards integration and disintegration processes deserves special attention. Very often, integration is perceived as a condition for survival and success, but more often than not, disintegration is relied upon, the elites strive to satisfy their ambitions. In any case, it is the will of the elites that often determines the choice of one or another development strategy.
Thus, the elites who consider integration necessary always face a number of challenges. They should influence the mood of groups directly related to the decision-making process. The elites must formulate such a model of rapprochement and an agenda for rapprochement that will ensure their interests, but at the same time still force different elite groups to move towards each other g functions also include the formulation of an attractive common ideological vestment, on the basis of which rapprochement (or removal) is possible. should offer projects of truly mutually beneficial economic cooperation that work towards the idea of integration.
The elites are able to change the information picture in favor of integration processes and influence public sentiments by any available means, thus creating pressure from below. Under certain conditions, elites can develop contacts and stimulate non-governmental activities, involve businesses, individual politicians, individual parties, movements, any dock structures and organizations in integration gaps, find arguments in favor of integration for external centers of influence, promote the emergence of new elites focused on convergence processes. . If the elites are able to cope with such tasks, it can be argued that the states they represent have a strong potential for integration.
Let us now turn to the specifics of integration processes in the post-Soviet space. Immediately after the collapse of the USSR, integration trends began to appear in the former Soviet republics. At the first stage, they manifested themselves in attempts to protect, at least partially, the former single economic space from disintegration processes, especially in areas in which the termination of ties had a particularly adverse effect on the state of the national economy (transport, communications, energy supplies, etc.) . In the future, aspirations for integration on other bases intensified. Russia turned out to be a natural core of integration. This is not accidental - Russia accounts for over three-quarters of the territory of the post-Soviet space, almost half of the population and about two-thirds of GDP. This, as well as a number of other reasons, primarily of a cultural and historical nature, formed the basis of post-Soviet integration.
2. Prerequisites for integration in the post-Soviet space
When studying integration and disintegration processes in the post-Soviet space, it is advisable to clearly define the main components, identify the essence, content and reasons for integration and disintegration as ways of transforming the political and economic space.
When studying the history of the post-Soviet space, it is impossible not to take into account the past of this vast region. The disintegration, that is, the disintegration of a complex political and economic system, leads to the formation within its borders of several new independent formations that previously were subsystem elements. Their independent functioning and development, under certain conditions and the necessary resources, can lead to integration, the formation of an association with qualitatively new systemic features. And vice versa, the slightest change in the conditions for the development of such subjects can lead to their complete disintegration and self-elimination.
The collapse of the USSR - the so-called "question of the century" - was a shock to the economies of all Soviet republics. The Soviet Union was built on the principle of a centralized macroeconomic structure. The establishment of rational economic ties and ensuring their functioning within the framework of a single national economic complex has become the first condition for a relatively successful economic development. The system of economic ties acted as a structural element of the ties that functioned in the economy of the Soviet Union. Economic relations are different from economic relations. The relationship between these concepts is the subject of separate studies. The principle of the priority of all-Union interests over the interests of the Union republics determined practically the entire economic policy. The system of economic relations in the Soviet Union, according to I.V. Fedorov, ensured the "metabolism" in the national economic organism and in this way - its normal functioning.
The level of the economic and geographical division of labor in the USSR was materially expressed, first of all, in the transport infrastructure, the flow of raw materials, finished industrial products and food, the movement of human resources, etc.
The sectoral structure of the economy of the Soviet republics reflected their participation in the all-union territorial division of labor. One of the first attempts to implement the idea of a planned territorial division of the country was the GOELRO plan. - here economic zoning and the tasks of economic development were linked together.
This plan for the development of the economy based on the electrification of the country was based on economic (the region as a specialized territorial part of the national economy with a certain complex of auxiliary and service industries), national (taking into account the historical features of labor, life and culture of the peoples living in a certain territory) and administrative (the unity of economic zoning with territorial-administrative structure) aspects. Since 1928, five-year plans for the development of the country's economy were adopted, and they invariably took into account the territorial aspect of the division of labor. The formation of industry in the national republics was especially active during the period of industrialization. The number of industrial workers grew mainly due to the relocation of personnel and the training of the local population. This was especially evident in the Central Asian republics - Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. It was then that a standard mechanism for creating new enterprises in the republics of the Soviet Union was formed, which, with minor changes, operated throughout the years of the existence of the USSR. Qualified personnel for work at new enterprises came mainly from Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Throughout the entire period of the existence of the USSR, on the one hand, there was an increase in centralization in the conduct of regional policy, and on the other hand, there was a certain adjustment in connection with the growing national and political factors, the formation of new union and autonomous republics.
During the Great Patriotic War, the role of the eastern regions sharply increased. The military economic plan adopted in 1941 (at the end of 1941-1942) for the regions of the Volga region, the Urals, Western Siberia, Kazakhstan and Central Asia provided for the creation of a powerful military-industrial base in the East. This was the next wave of mass transfer after industrialization. industrial enterprises from the center of the country to the east. The rapid introduction of enterprises into operation was due to the fact that the main part of the personnel moved along with the factories. After the war, a significant part of the evacuated workers returned to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, however, the facilities transferred to the east could not be left without qualified personnel serving them, and therefore some of the workers remained on the territory of modern Siberia, Far East, Transcaucasia, Central Asia.
During the war years, the division into 13 economic regions began to be applied (it remained until 1960). In the early 60s. A new zoning system for the country was approved. 10 economic regions were allocated on the territory of the RSFSR. Ukraine was divided into three regions - Donetsk-Pridneprovsky, South-West, South. Other union republics, which in most cases had general specialization farms were combined into the following regions - Central Asian, Transcaucasian and Baltic. Kazakhstan, Belarus and Moldova acted as separate economic regions. All the republics of the Soviet Union developed in a direction dependent on the general vector of economic processes and ties, territorial proximity, the similarity of the tasks being solved, and, in many respects, a common past.
This still determines the significant interdependence of the economies of the CIS countries. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Russian Federation provided 80% of the needs of neighboring republics in energy and raw materials. So, for example, the volume of inter-republican transactions in the total volume of foreign economic transactions (import-export) was: the Baltic States - 81 -83% and 90-92%, Georgia -80 and 93%, Uzbekistan -86 and 85%, Russia -51 and 68%. Ukraine -73 and 85%, Belarus - 79 and 93%, Kazakhstan -84 and 91%. This suggests that the existing economic ties can become the most important basis for integration in the post-Soviet space.
The collapse of the USSR and the emergence of 15 nation-states in its place were the first step towards a complete reformatting of socio-economic ties in the post-Soviet space. The agreement on the creation of the CIS provided that the twelve former Soviet republics included in this association would retain a single economic space. However, this aspiration turned out to be unrealistic. The economic and political situation in each of the new states developed in its own way: economic systems were rapidly losing compatibility, economic reforms were taking place at different rates, and centrifugal forces fueled by national elites were gaining strength. First, the post-Soviet space suffered a currency crisis - the new states replaced the Soviet rubles with their national currencies. Hyperinflation and an unstable economic situation have made regular economic relations (ties) between all countries in the post-Soviet space difficult to implement. The appearance of export-import tariffs and restrictions, radical reform measures only increased disintegration. In addition, the old ties that had been formed within the framework of the Soviet state for 70 years turned out to be unadapted to the new quasi-market conditions. As a result, under the new conditions, cooperation between enterprises from different republics has become unprofitable. Uncompetitive Soviet goods were rapidly losing their consumers. Their place was taken by foreign products. All this caused a multiple reduction in mutual trade.
So, the consequences of the collapse of the USSR and the rupture of economic ties for the production base of the new states are impressive. Immediately after the formation of the CIS, they were faced with the realization that the euphoria of sovereignty had clearly passed, and all the former Soviet republics experienced the bitter experience of separate existence. So, in the opinion of many researchers, the CIS practically did not solve anything and could not solve it. The majority of the population of almost all republics experienced deep disappointment in the results of the fallen independence. The consequences of the collapse of the USSR turned out to be more than severe - a full-scale economic crisis left its mark on the entire transition period, which in most post-Soviet states is still far from over.
In addition to the reduction in mutual trade, the former Soviet republics suffered a problem that largely determined the future fate of the national economies of some of them. We are talking about the mass exodus of the Russian-speaking population from the national republics. The beginning of this process dates back to the middle - the end of the 80s. XX century, when the first ethno-political conflicts shook the Soviet Union - in Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Kazakhstan, etc. The mass exodus began in 1992.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the entry into Russia of representatives of neighboring states increased many times, due to deteriorating socio-economic conditions and local nationalism. As a result, the newly independent states lost a significant part of their qualified personnel. Not only Russians left, but also representatives of other ethnic groups.
No less important is the military component of the existence of the USSR. The system of interaction between the subjects of the military infrastructure of the Union was built on a single political, military, economic, scientific and technical space. The defense power of the USSR and the material resources left in the storage facilities and warehouses of the former republics, now independent states, today can serve as a base that will allow the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States to ensure their functional security. However, the new states failed to avoid a number of contradictions, first when dividing the defense resource, and then interrogating their own military security. With the deepening of geopolitical, regional, domestic problems around the world, the aggravation of economic contradictions and the surge in manifestations of international terrorism, military-technical cooperation (MTC) is becoming an increasingly important component of interstate relations, so cooperation in the military-technical sphere can become another point of attraction and integration in the post-Soviet space.
2. Integration processes in the CIS
2.1 Integration in the post-Soviet space
The development of integration processes in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is a direct reflection of the internal political and socio-economic problems of the member states. The existing differences in the structure of the economy and the degree of its reform, the socio-economic situation, the geopolitical orientation of the Commonwealth states determine the choice and level of their socio-economic and military-political interaction. At present, within the framework of the CIS, for the Newly Independent States (NIS) integration "according to interests" is really acceptable and valid. The fundamental documents of the CIS also contribute to this. They do not endow this international legal association of states as a whole, or its individual executive bodies with supranational powers, do not define effective mechanisms for implementing the decisions made. The form of participation of states in the Commonwealth practically does not impose any obligations on them. Thus, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Council of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS, any member state may declare its disinterest in a particular issue, which is not considered an obstacle to decision-making. This allows each state to choose forms of participation in the Commonwealth and areas of cooperation. Despite the fact that in last years between former Soviet republics bilateral economic relations were established and now prevail, in the post-Soviet space within the framework of the CIS, associations of individual states (alliances, partnerships, alliances) arose: the Union of Belarus and Russia - the "two", the Central Asian Economic Community of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - the "four"; The customs union of Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is the "five", the alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova is the "GUAM".
These "multi-format" and "multi-speed" integration processes reflect the current realities in the post-Soviet states, the interests of the leaders and part of the emerging national-political elite of the post-Soviet states: from the intentions to create a single economic space in the Central Asian "four", the Customs Union - in the "five", to associations of states - in the "two".
Union of Belarus and Russia
On April 2, 1996, the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation signed the Treaty on the Establishment of the Community . The Treaty declared readiness to form a deeply politically and economically integrated Community of Russia and Belarus. In order to create a single economic space, the effective functioning of a common market and the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, it was planned by the end of 1997 to synchronize the stages, timing and depth of ongoing economic reforms, to create a unified legal framework to eliminate interstate barriers and restrictions in the implementation of equal opportunities for free economic activity, complete the creation of a common customs space with a unified management service, and even unify the monetary and budgetary systems to create conditions for the introduction of a common currency. In the social sphere, it was supposed to ensure equal rights for citizens of Belarus and Russia in obtaining education, employment and wages, acquiring property, owning, using and disposing of it. It was also envisaged the introduction of uniform standards of social protection, the equalization of conditions for pensions, the assignment of benefits and benefits to war and labor veterans, the disabled and low-income families. Thus, in the implementation of the proclaimed goals, the Community of Russia and Belarus had to turn into a fundamentally new in world practice interstate association with signs of a confederation.
After the signing of the Treaty, the working bodies of the Community were formed: the Supreme Council, the Executive Committee, the Parliamentary Assembly, the Commission for Scientific and Technical Cooperation.
The Supreme Council of the Community in June 1996 adopted a number of decisions, including: "On the equal rights of citizens to employment, remuneration and the provision of social and labor guarantees", "On the unimpeded exchange of residential premises", "On joint actions to minimize and overcome consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. However, the lack of effective mechanisms for incorporating the decisions of the Community bodies into the legal acts of states, the non-obligation of their implementation by governments, ministries and departments turns these documents, in fact, into declarations of intent. Differences in approaches to the regulation of socio-economic and political processes in the states significantly pushed back not only the established deadlines for achieving, but also called into question the implementation of the declared goals of the Community.
In accordance with Art. 17 of the Treaty, the further development of the Community and its structure was to be determined by referenda. Despite this, on April 2, 1997, the presidents of Russia and Belarus signed the Treaty on the Union of the two countries, and on May 23, 1997, the Charter of the Union, which reflected in more detail the mechanism of the integration processes of the two states. The adoption of these documents does not imply fundamental changes in the state structure of Belarus and Russia. So, in Art. 1 of the Treaty on the Union of Belarus and Russia states that "each member state of the Union retains state sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity.
The bodies of the Union of Belarus and Russia are not entitled to adopt laws of direct action. Their decisions are subject to the same requirements as other international treaties and agreements. The Parliamentary Assembly remained a representative body, the legislative acts of which are advisory in nature.
Despite the fact that the implementation of most of the provisions of the constituent documents of the CIS and the Union of Belarus and Russia objectively requires not only the creation of the necessary conditions, and, consequently, time, on December 25, 1998, the Presidents of Belarus and Russia signed the Declaration on the Further Unity of Belarus and Russia, the Treaty on Equal Rights of Citizens and the Agreement on the Creation of Equal Conditions for Business Entities.
If we proceed from the fact that all these intentions are not politicking of the leaders of the two states, then their implementation is possible only with the incorporation of Belarus into Russia. Such "unity" does not fit into any of the integration schemes of states known so far, nor the norms of international law. The federal nature of the proposed state means for Belarus a complete loss of state independence and inclusion in the Russian state.
At the same time, the provisions on the state sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus form the basis of the Constitution of the country (see preamble, art. 1, 3, 18, 19) . The Law "On the People's Voting (Referendum) in the Byelorussian SSR" of 1991, recognizing the undeniable value of national sovereignty for the future of Belarus, generally prohibits the submission to a referendum of questions "violating the inalienable rights of the people of the Republic of Belarus to sovereign national statehood" (Article 3) . That is why all intentions to "further unify" Belarus and Russia and create a federal state can be regarded as anti-constitutional and illegal actions aimed at the detriment of the national security of the Republic of Belarus.
Even taking into account the fact that for a long time Belarus and Russia were part of one common state, the formation of a mutually beneficial and complementary association of these countries requires not only beautiful political gestures and the appearance of economic reforms. Without the establishment of mutually beneficial trade and economic cooperation, the convergence of reform courses, the unification of legislation, in other words, without the creation of the necessary economic, social, legal conditions, it is premature and unpromising to raise the question of an equal and non-violent unification of the two states.
Economic integration means bringing markets together, not states. Its most important and mandatory prerequisite is the compatibility of economic and legal systems, a certain synchronicity and one-vector nature of economic and political reforms, if any.
The course towards the accelerated creation of the Customs Union of the two states as the first step towards the fulfillment of this task, and not a free trade zone, is a profanation of the objective processes of economic integration of states. Most likely, this is a tribute to the economic fashion, rather than the result of a deep understanding of the essence of the phenomena of these processes, the cause-and-effect relationships that underlie the market economy. The civilized path to the creation of the Customs Union provides for the gradual abolition of tariff and quantitative restrictions in mutual trade, the provision of a free trade regime without hugs and restrictions, and the introduction of an agreed regime of trade with third countries. Then the unification of the customs territories is carried out, the transfer of customs control to the external borders of the union, the formation of a single leadership of the customs authorities. This process is quite lengthy and not easy. It is impossible to hastily announce the creation of the Customs Union and sign the relevant agreements without proper calculations: after all, the unification of the customs legislation of the two countries, including the harmonization of customs duties and excise taxes on a significantly different and therefore difficult to compare range of goods and raw materials, must be phased and must necessarily take into account the possibilities and interests of states, national producers of the most important branches of the national economy. At the same time, there is no need to fence off high customs duties from new technology and technologies, high-performance equipment.
Differences in the economic conditions of business, low solvency of business entities, the duration and disorder of bank settlements, different approaches to conducting monetary, pricing and tax policies, developing common norms and rules in the field of banking also do not allow us to speak not only about the real prospects for the formation of payment union, but even about civilized payment and settlement relations between economic entities of the two states.
The Union State of Russia and Belarus exists in 2010 rather on paper than in real life. Its survival is, in principle, possible, but it is necessary to lay a solid foundation for it - to go through all the “missed” stages of economic integration in sequence.
Customs Union
The association of these states began to form on January 6, 1995 with the signing of the Agreement on the Customs Union between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, as well as the Agreement on the Customs Union between the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan on January 20, 1995. The Kyrgyz Republic acceded to these agreements 29 March 1996 At the same time, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Russian Federation signed an Agreement on deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields. On February 26, 1999, the Republic of Tajikistan joined the agreements on the Customs Union and the said Treaty. In accordance with the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields, joint integration management bodies were established: the Interstate Council, the Integration Committee (a permanent executive body), the Inter-Parliamentary Committee. The Integration Committee was assigned in December 1996 also the functions of the executive body of the Customs Union.
The Treaty of the Five Commonwealth States is yet another attempt to intensify the process of economic integration by creating a single economic space within the framework of those Commonwealth states that today declare their readiness for closer economic cooperation. This document is a long-term basis of relations for the signatory states and is of a framework nature, like most documents of this kind in the Commonwealth. The goals proclaimed in it in the field of economics, social and cultural cooperation are very broad, diverse and require a long time for their implementation.
The formation of a free trade regime (zone) is the first evolutionary stage of economic integration. In interactions with partners in the territory of this zone, states are gradually moving to trade without the application of import duties. There is a gradual rejection of the use of non-tariff regulation measures without exemptions and restrictions in mutual trade. The second stage is the formation of the Customs Union. From the point of view of the movement of goods, this is a trade regime in which no internal restrictions are applied in mutual trade, states use a common customs tariff, a common system of preferences and exemptions from it, common measures of non-tariff regulation, the same system of applying direct and indirect taxes, there is a process of transition to the establishment of a common customs tariff. The next stage, bringing it closer to a common commodity market, is the creation of a single customs space, ensuring the free movement of goods within the boundaries of the common market, pursuing a single customs policy, and ensuring free competition within the customs space.
Adopted within the framework of the Commonwealth, the Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Zone dated April 15, 1994, which provides for the gradual abolition of customs duties, taxes and fees, as well as quantitative restrictions in mutual trade, while maintaining the right for each country to independently and independently determine the trade regime in relation to third countries, could serve as a legal basis for the creation of a free trade zone, the development of trade cooperation between the Commonwealth states in the context of market reform of their economic systems.
However, until now the agreement, even within the framework of individual associations and unions of the Commonwealth states, including the states-participants of the Customs Union Agreement, remains unrealized.
At present, members of the Customs Union practically do not coordinate foreign economic policy and export-import operations in relation to third world countries. The foreign trade, customs, monetary, tax and other types of legislation of the member states remain unified. The problems of coordinated accession of the members of the Customs Union to the World Trade Organization (WTO) remain unresolved. The accession of the state to the WTO, within which more than 90% of world trade is carried out, implies the liberalization of international trade by eliminating non-tariff restrictions on market access while consistently reducing the level of import duties. Therefore, for states with still unsettled market economies, low competitiveness of their own goods and services, this should be a fairly balanced and thoughtful step. The entry of one of the member countries of the Customs Union into the WTO requires a revision of many of the principles of this union and may be detrimental to other partners. In this regard, it was assumed that the negotiations of individual member states of the Customs Union on accession to the WTO would be coordinated and coordinated.
Issues of development of the Customs Union should not be dictated by the temporary conjuncture and political ambition of the leaders of individual states, but should be determined by the socio-economic situation that is developing in the participating states. Practice shows that the approved pace of formation of the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan is completely unrealistic. The economies of these states are not yet ready for the full opening of customs borders in mutual trade and for strict observance of the tariff barrier in relation to external competitors. It is not surprising that its participants unilaterally change the agreed parameters of tariff regulation not only in relation to products from third countries, but also within the Customs Union, and cannot come to agreed principles for levying value added tax.
The transition to the principle of the country of destination when levying value added tax would make it possible to create the same and equal conditions for trade between the countries participating in the Customs Union with the countries of the third world, as well as to apply a more rational system of taxation of foreign trade operations, fixed by European experience. The principle of the country of destination when levying value added tax means taxing imports and complete release from export taxes. Thus, within each country equal conditions of competitiveness for imported and domestic goods would be created and at the same time real prerequisites would be provided for expanding its exports.
Along with the gradual formation of the regulatory framework of the Customs Union, cooperation is developing in solving problems in the social sphere. The governments of the member states of the Customs Union signed agreements on mutual recognition and equivalence of documents on education, academic degrees and titles, on granting equal rights when entering educational institutions. The directions of cooperation in the field of attestation of scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers, creation of equal conditions for the defense of dissertations were determined. It has been established that the movement of foreign and national currencies by citizens of the participating countries across internal borders can now be carried out without any restrictions and declarations. For the goods they carry, in the absence of restrictions on weight, quantity and value, customs payments, taxes and fees are not charged. Simplified procedure for money transfers.
Central Asian cooperation
On February 10, 1994, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic and the Republic of Uzbekistan signed an Agreement on the Creation of a Common Economic Space. On March 26, 1998, the Republic of Tajikistan joined the Agreement. Within the framework of the Treaty, on July 8, 1994, the Interstate Council and its Executive Committee were established, then the Central Asian Development and Cooperation Bank. A program of economic cooperation up to 2000 has been developed, which provides for the creation of interstate consortiums in the field of electric power industry, measures for the rational use of water resources, extraction and processing of mineral resources. The integration projects of the Central Asian states go beyond just the economy. New aspects appear - political, humanitarian, informational and regional security. The Council of Defense Ministers was created. On January 10, 1997, the Treaty of Eternal Friendship was signed between the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Uzbekistan.
The states of Central Asia have much in common in history, culture, language, and religion. There is a joint search for solutions to the problems of regional development. However, the economic integration of these states is hampered by the agrarian-raw material type of their economies. Therefore, the timing of the implementation of the concept of creating a single economic space on the territory of these states will be largely determined by the structural reform of their economies and depend on the level of their socio-economic development.
Alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova (GUAM)
GUAM - regional organization, created in October 1997 by the republics - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (from 1999 to 2005 Uzbekistan was also part of the organization). The name of the organization was formed from the first letters of the names of its member countries. Before Uzbekistan left the organization, it was called GUUAM.
Officially, the creation of GUAM originates from the Communique on cooperation signed by the heads of Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Georgia at a meeting within the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on October 10-11, 1997. In this document, the heads of state declared their readiness to make every effort to develop the economic and political cooperation and spoke in favor of the need for joint measures aimed at integration into the EU structures.On November 24-25, 1997, following the meeting in Baku of a consultative group of representatives of the Foreign Ministries of the four states, a protocol was signed, which officially announced the creation of GUAM. explained by certain political and economic reasons.Firstly, it is the need to combine efforts and coordinate activities in the implementation of projects of the Eurasian and Transcaucasian transport corridors.Secondly, this is an attempt to establish joint economic cooperation.Thirdly, this is the unification of positions in the field of political mutual cooperation both within the OSCE and in relation to NATO, and among themselves. Fourthly, this is cooperation in the fight against separatism and regional conflicts. In the strategic partnership of the states of this alliance, along with geopolitical considerations, the coordination of trade and economic cooperation within the framework of GUAM allows Azerbaijan to find permanent consumers of oil and a convenient route for its export, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova - to gain access to alternative sources of energy resources and become an important link in their transit.
The ideas of preserving the common economic space, embedded in the concept of the Commonwealth, turned out to be unattainable. Most of the integration projects of the Commonwealth were not implemented or were only partially implemented (see Table No. 1).
The failures of integration projects, especially at the initial stage of the existence of the CIS - the “silent death” of a number of established interstate unions and the “sluggish” processes in the current associations are the result of the impact of the disintegration trends existing in the post-Soviet space that accompanied the systemic transformations that took place on the territory of the CIS.
Quite interesting is the periodization of transformational processes in the territory of the CIS proposed by L.S. Kosikova. She proposes to identify three phases of transformation, each of which corresponds to the special nature of relations between Russia and other CIS states.
1st phase - the region of the former USSR as the "near abroad" of Russia;
2nd phase - the CIS region (excluding the Baltics) as a post-Soviet space;
3rd phase - the CIS region as a competitive zone of the world market.
The proposed classification is based primarily on selected qualitative characteristics evaluated by the author in dynamics. But it is curious that certain quantitative parameters of trade and economic relations in the region as a whole and in Russia's relations with the former republics, in particular, correspond to these qualitative characteristics, and the moments of transition from one qualitative phase to another fix spasmodic changes in quantitative parameters.
First phase: The region of the former USSR as Russia's "near abroad" (December 1991-1993-late 1994)
This phase in the development of the region is associated with the rapid transformation of the former Soviet republics that were part of the USSR into new independent states (NIS), 12 of which formed the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
The initial moment of the phase is the dissolution of the USSR and the formation of the CIS (December 1991), and the final moment is the final collapse of the "ruble zone" and the introduction of the national currencies of the CIS countries into circulation. Initially, Russia called the CIS, and most importantly, psychologically perceived it as its "near abroad", which was quite justified in the economic sense.
The "near abroad" is characterized by the beginning of the formation of real, and not declared, sovereignty of 15 new states, some of which united in the CIS, and the three Baltic republics - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - began to be called the Baltic states and from the very beginning declared their intention to move closer with Europe. It was a time of international legal recognition of states, the conclusion of fundamental international treaties and legitimization of the ruling elites. All countries paid great attention to the external and "decorative" signs of sovereignty - the adoption of Constitutions, the approval of coats of arms, anthems, new names of their republics and their capitals, which did not always coincide with the usual names.
Against the backdrop of rapid political sovereignization, economic ties between the former republics developed, as it were, by inertia, in the residual mode of functioning of the unified national economic complex of the USSR. The main cementing element of the entire economic structure of the near abroad was the "ruble zone". The Soviet ruble circulated both in domestic economies and in mutual settlements. Thus, inter-republican ties did not immediately become interstate economic relations. All-Union property also functioned, the division of resources between the new states took place according to the principle "everything that is on my territory belongs to me."
Russia was a recognized leader in the CIS at the initial stage of development both in politics and in the economy. Not a single issue of international importance concerning the newly independent states was resolved without its participation (for example, the issue of sharing and paying off the external debt of the USSR, or the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the territory of Ukraine). The Russian Federation was perceived the international community as the "successor of the USSR". In 1992, the Russian Federation assumed 93.3% of the total debt of the USSR accumulated by that time (more than 80 billion dollars) and paid it steadily.
Trade relations in the "ruble zone" were built in a special way, they differed significantly from those in international practice: there were no customs borders, no export-import taxes in trade, interstate payments were made in rubles. There were even mandatory state deliveries of products from Russia to the CIS countries (state orders in foreign trade). Preferential prices were set for these products, much lower than world prices. Trade statistics of the Russian Federation with the CIS countries in 1992-1993. was conducted not in dollars, but in rubles. Due to the obvious specifics of economic relations between the Russian Federation and other CIS countries, we consider it appropriate to use the term "near abroad" for this period.
The most important contradiction in Russia's interstate relations with the CIS countries in 1992-1994. there was an explosive combination of political sovereignty recently acquired by the republics with the restriction of their economic sovereignty in the monetary sphere. The declared independence of the new states was also shattered by the powerful inertia of production and technological ties formed within the framework of the all-Union (Gosplan) scheme for the development and distribution of productive forces. Fragile and unstable economic unity in the region, drawn into disintegration processes due to liberal market reforms in Russia, was supported almost exclusively by financial donations from our country. At that time, the Russian Federation spent billions of rubles to maintain mutual trade and to operate the "ruble zone" in the context of the growing political sovereignty of the former republics. However, this unity harbored unfounded illusions about the possibility of a quick "reintegration" of the CIS countries into some kind of new Union. In the fundamental documents of the CIS of the period 1992-1993. the concept of a “single economic space” was contained, and the prospects for the development of the Commonwealth itself were seen by its founders as an economic union and a new federation of independent states.
In practice, since the end of 1993, Russia's relations with its CIS neighbors have been developing more in the spirit of the forecast made by Z. Brzezinski ("The CIS is a mechanism for a civilized divorce"). The new national elites set a course to break away from Russia, and Russian leaders in those years also considered the CIS as a “burden” that hindered the rapid implementation of liberal-type market reforms, at the start of which Russia outperformed its neighbors. In August 1993, the Russian Federation introduced a new Russian ruble into circulation, abandoning the further use of Soviet rubles in domestic circulation and in settlements with partners in the CIS. The collapse of the ruble zone prompted the introduction of national currencies into circulation in all independent states. But in 1994 there was still a hypothetical possibility of creating a common currency area in the CIS based on the new Russian ruble. Such projects were actively discussed, six CIS countries were ready to join the single currency zone with Russia, but potential participants in the “new ruble zone” failed to agree. The claims of the partners seemed unfounded to the Russian side, and the Russian government did not take this step, guided by short-term financial considerations, and by no means a long-term integration strategy. As a result, the new currencies of the CIS countries were initially “pegged” not to the Russian ruble, but to the dollar.
The transition to the use of national currencies created additional difficulties in trade and mutual settlements, caused the problem of non-payments, and new customs barriers began to appear. All this finally turned the "residual" inter-republican relations in the CIS space into interstate economic relations, with all the ensuing consequences. The disorganization of regional trade and settlements in the CIS reached its peak in 1994. During 1992-1994. Russia's trade turnover with its CIS partners decreased by almost 5.7 times, amounting to $24.4 billion in 1994 (against $210 billion in 1991). The share of the CIS in Russia's trade turnover fell from 54.6% to 24%. The volumes of mutual deliveries have sharply decreased in almost all major commodity groups. Particularly painful was the forced reduction by many CIS countries of Russian energy imports, as well as the reduction in mutual deliveries of cooperative products as a result of a sharp rise in prices. As we predicted, this shock was not quickly overcome. The slow restoration of economic ties between Russia and the CIS countries was carried out after 1994 on new terms of exchange - at world prices (or prices close to them), with settlements in dollars, national currencies and barter.
Economic model of relations between new independent states across the CIS at the initial stage of its existence, it reproduced the model of central-periphery relations within the framework of the former Soviet Union. In conditions of rapid political disintegration, such a model of foreign economic relations between the Russian Federation and the CIS countries could not be stable and long-term, especially without financial support from the Center - Russia. As a result, it was “exploded” at the moment of the collapse of the ruble zone, after which uncontrollable disintegration processes began in the economy.
Second phase: The CIS region as a "post-Soviet space" (from the end of 1994 until about 2001-2004)
During this period, the “near abroad” was transformed by most parameters into the “post-Soviet space”. This means that the CIS countries, located in the environment of Russia from a special, semi-dependent zone of its economic influence, gradually became full-fledged foreign economic partners in relation to it. Trade and other economic ties between the former republics began to build up starting from 1994/1995. mainly as interstate. Russia was able to convert technical loans to balance the trade turnover into state debts to the CIS countries and demanded their repayment, and in some cases agreed to restructuring.
The region as a post-Soviet space is Russia plus its outer "ring" of the CIS countries. In this space, Russia was still the "center" of economic relations, which mainly closed the economic ties of other countries. In the post-Soviet phase of the transformation of the region of the former USSR, two periods are clearly distinguished: 1994-1998. (before default) and 1999-2000. (post-default). And starting from the second half of 2001 and until 2004.2005. there has been a clear transition to a different qualitative state of development of all CIS countries (see below - the third phase). The second phase of development is generally characterized by an emphasis on economic transformation and the intensification of market reforms, although the process of strengthening political sovereignty was still ongoing.
The most pressing issue for the entire region was macroeconomic stabilization. In 1994-1997. The CIS countries solved the problems of overcoming hyperinflation, achieving the stability of the national currencies introduced into circulation, stabilizing production in the main industries, and solving the crisis of non-payments. In other words, after the collapse of the unified national economic complex of the USSR, it was necessary to urgently “patch holes” and adapt the “fragments” of this complex to the conditions of sovereign existence.
The initial goals of macroeconomic stabilization were achieved in different countries The CIS by about 1996-1998, in Russia - earlier, by the end of 1995. This had a positive effect on mutual trade: the volume of foreign trade turnover of the Russian Federation - the CIS in 1997 exceeded 30 billion dollars (an increase compared to 1994 by 25.7%). But the period of revival of production and mutual trade was short-lived.
The financial crisis that began in Russia has spread to the entire post-Soviet region. The default and sharp devaluation of the Russian ruble in August 1998, followed by the disruption of trade and monetary and financial relations in the CIS, led to a new deepening of disintegration processes. After August 1998, the economic ties of all the CIS countries without exception with Russia noticeably weakened. The default demonstrated that the economies of the newly independent states had not yet become truly independent by the second half of the 1990s, they remained closely tied to the largest Russian economy, which, during a deep crisis, “pulled” all the other members of the Commonwealth with it. The economic situation in 1999 was extremely difficult, comparable only to the period 1992-1993. The Commonwealth countries again faced the task of macroeconomic stabilization and strengthening of financial stability. They had to be solved urgently, relying mainly on own resources and external borrowing.
After the default, there was a new significant decrease in the mutual trade turnover in the region, to about 19 billion dollars (1999). Only by 2000 managed to overcome the consequences of the Russian crisis, and economic growth in most CIS countries contributed to an increase in mutual trade up to 25.4 billion dollars. But in subsequent years, it was not possible to consolidate the positive dynamics of trade turnover due to the sharply accelerated reorientation of trade of the CIS countries to non-regional markets. In 2001-2002 the volume of trade between Russia and the Commonwealth countries amounted to 25.6-25.8 billion dollars.
The widespread devaluation of national currencies in 1999, combined with measures of state support for domestic producers, had a positive effect on the revival of industries working for the domestic market, contributed to a decrease in the level of import dependence, and made it possible to save foreign exchange reserves. After 2000, post-Soviet countries experienced a surge in activity in the area of adoption of special, short-term anti-import programs. In general, this served as a favorable impetus for the development of small and medium-sized businesses, because. the former pressure of cheap imports on domestic markets has significantly decreased. However, since 2003, the importance of the factors that stimulated the development of import-substituting industries began to gradually fade. According to the most common assessment of experts, by that time in the CIS region, the resources of extensive, “recovery growth” (E. Gaidar) were almost exhausted.
At the turn of 2003/2004. The CIS countries felt the urgent need to change the reform paradigm. The task arose of moving from short-term macroeconomic stabilization programs and from focusing on import substitution to a new industrial policy, to deeper structural reforms. The policy of modernization based on innovation, the achievement of sustainable economic growth on this basis should replace the existing policy of extensive growth.
The course of economic transformations, their dynamics clearly showed that the influence of the Soviet "economic legacy" in general, and in particular the outdated production and technological component, remains very significant. It holds back economic growth in the CIS. We need a breakthrough into the new economy of the post-industrial world. And this task is relevant for all countries of the post-Soviet region without exception.
As the political and economic independence of the newly independent states strengthened, in the period we are considering (1994-2004), Russia's political influence in the CIS gradually weakened. This happened against the backdrop of two waves of economic disintegration. The first one, caused by the collapse of the ruble zone, contributed to the fact that approximately since the mid-1990s, the influence of external factors on processes in the CIS has increased. The importance of international financial organizations in this region of the world grew - the IMF, IBRD, lending to the governments of the CIS countries and allocating tranches for the stabilization of national currencies. At the same time, loans from the West have always been of a conditional nature, which has become an important factor influencing the political elites of the recipient countries and their choice of the direction of reforming their economies. Following Western loans, the penetration of Western investments into the region increased. The policy of the United States, the "midwife of GUAM", aimed at splitting the Commonwealth through the formation of a sub-regional grouping of states seeking to break away from Russia, has intensified. In contrast, Russia created its own "pro-Russian" unions, first bilateral - with Belarus (1996), and then a multilateral Customs Union with Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
The second wave of disintegration, generated by the financial crisis in the Commonwealth, stimulated the foreign economic reorientation of the economic ties of the CIS countries to non-regional markets. The desire of partners to further distance themselves from Russia, primarily in the economy, has intensified. It was caused by the awareness of external threats, and the desire to strengthen their national security, understood, first of all, as independence from Russia in strategically important sectors - in energy, the transit of energy resources, in the food complex, etc.
In the late 1990s, the CIS space ceased to be a post-Soviet region in relation to Russia; a region where Russia, although weakened by reforms, dominated, and this fact was recognized by the world community. This was led to: the intensification of the processes of economic disintegration; foreign economic and foreign policy reorientation of the Commonwealth countries in the logic of the ongoing process of their sovereignization; active penetration of Western finance and Western companies into the CIS; as well as miscalculations in the Russian policy of "multi-speed" integration, which stimulated internal differentiation in the CIS.
Approximately from the middle of 2001, a shift began towards the transformation of the CIS region from the post-Soviet space into the space of international competition. This trend was reinforced in the period 2002-2004. such foreign policy successes of the West as the deployment of American military bases on the territory of a number of Central Asian countries and the expansion of the European Union and NATO to the borders of the CIS. These are milestones for the post-Soviet period, marking the end of the era of Russia's dominance in the CIS. After 2004, the post-Soviet space entered the third phase of its transformation, which is now being experienced by all the countries of the region.
The transition from the stage of political sovereignization of the CIS countries to the stage of strengthening the economic sovereignty and national security of the newly independent states gives rise to disintegration tendencies already at a new stage of development. They lead to interstate delimitation, to a certain extent to the "enclosure" of national economies: many countries are pursuing a conscious and purposeful policy of weakening economic dependence on Russia. Russia itself does not lag behind in this, actively creating anti-import production facilities on its territory as a challenge to the threat of destabilizing ties with its closest partners. And since it is Russia that is still the core of the post-Soviet structure of economic ties in the CIS region, the trends in economic sovereignization have a negative impact on mutual trade as an indicator of integration. Therefore, despite economic growth in the region, mutual trade is increasingly curtailed, and the share of the CIS in Russia's trade continues to fall, amounting to just over 14% of the total.
So, as a result of the implemented and ongoing reforms, the CIS region has turned from the "near abroad" of Russia, as it was at the very beginning of the 90s, as well as from the recent "post-Soviet space" into the arena of the most acute international competition in military-strategic, geopolitical and economic spheres. Russia's partners in the CIS are fully established new independent states, recognized by the international community, with an open market economy involved in the processes of global competition. As a result of the past 15 years only five CIS countries have been able to reach the level of real GDP recorded in 1990, or even exceed it. These are Belarus, Armenia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan. At the same time, the rest of the CIS states - Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Ukraine are still very far from reaching the pre-crisis level of their economic development.
As the post-Soviet transition period comes to an end, Russia's mutual relations with the CIS countries begin to rebuild. There has been a departure from the "center-periphery" model, which is expressed in Russia's refusal of financial preferences for partners. In turn, the partners of the Russian Federation are also building their external relations in a new coordinate system, taking into account the vector of globalization. Therefore, the Russian vector in the foreign relations of all the former republics is shrinking.
As a result of disintegration tendencies, caused by both objective reasons and subjective miscalculations in the Russian policy of “multi-speed” integration, the CIS space appears today as a complexly structured region, with an unstable internal organization, highly susceptible to external influences (see Table No. 2.) .
At the same time, the dominant trend in the development of the post-Soviet region continues to be the "delimitation" of the newly independent states and the fragmentation of the once common economic space. The main "watershed" in the CIS now runs along the line of attraction of the Commonwealth states, either to the "pro-Russian" groups, the EurAsEC/CSTO, or to the GUAM group, whose members aspire to the EU and NATO (Moldova - with reservations). The multi-vector foreign policy of the CIS countries and the increased geopolitical competition between Russia, the US, the EU and China for influence in this region determine the extreme instability of the current intra-regional configurations. And, therefore, we can expect a “reformatting” of the CIS space in the medium term under the influence of internal and external political changes.
We cannot rule out new developments in the composition of the EurAsEC members (Armenia could join the union as a full member), as well as in GUAM (from which Moldova could leave). It seems quite probable and quite logical that Ukraine withdraw from the quadripartite agreement on the formation of the CES, since it will actually be transformed into a new Customs Union of “three” (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan).
The fate of the Union State of Russia with Belarus (SGRB) as an independent grouping within the CIS is not entirely clear yet. Recall that the SCRB does not have the official status of an international organization. Meanwhile, the membership of the Russian Federation and Belarus in the SGRB intersects with the simultaneous participation of these countries in the CSTO, the EurAsEC and the Common Economic Space (CU since 2010). Therefore, it can be assumed that if Belarus finally refuses to create a monetary union with Russia on the terms it proposes (based on the Russian ruble and with one emission center - in the Russian Federation), then the question will arise of abandoning the idea of creating a Union State and returning to the form of an interstate union Russia and Belarus. This, in turn, will contribute to the process of merging the Russian-Belarusian union with the EurAsEC. In the event of a sharp change in the internal political situation in Belarus, it can leave both the SSRB and the CES/CU members, and join in one form or another the unions of Eastern European states - the "neighbors" of the European Union.
It seems that the basis of regional integration (both political and economic) in the post-Soviet space in the near future will remain the EurAsEC. Experts called the main problem of this association the aggravation of internal contradictions in it due to the entry of Uzbekistan into its composition (since 2005), as well as due to the deterioration of Russian-Belarusian relations. The prospects for the formation of a customs union within the framework of the entire EurAsEC have been postponed indefinitely. A more realistic option is to create an integrated "core" within the EurAsEC - in the form of a Customs Union from among the three countries most ready for this - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. However, Uzbekistan's suspension of membership in the organization may change the situation.
The prospect of recreating once again the Central Asian Union of States, the idea of which is now being actively promoted by Kazakhstan, which claims to be a regional leader, looks real.
The sphere of influence of Russia in the region, compared with the period of the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States, has sharply narrowed, which has made it extremely difficult to pursue an integration policy. The dividing line of space today runs between the two main groups of post-Soviet states:
Group 1 - these are the CIS countries, gravitating toward a common Eurasian system of security and cooperation with Russia (CSTO/EurAsEC bloc);
2nd group - CIS member countries gravitating towards the Euro-Atlantic security system (NATO) and European cooperation (EU), which have already actively engaged in interaction with NATO and the EU within the framework of special joint programs and action plans (member states of the GUAM / SVD associations ).
Fragmentation of the Commonwealth space can lead to the final rejection of the CIS structure as such and to its replacement by structures of regional unions with international legal status.
Already at the turn of 2004/2005. the problem has escalated, what to do with the CIS as an international organization: dissolve or renew? A number of countries at the beginning of 2005 raised the issue of dissolving the organization, considering the CIS to be a “civilized divorce mechanism” that had carried out this moment their functions. After two years of work on the CIS reform project, the “group of wise men” proposed a set of solutions, but did not close the question of the future of the CIS-12 organization and areas of cooperation in this multilateral format. The prepared Concept of reforming the Commonwealth was presented at the CIS summit in Dushanbe (October 4-5, 2007). But five out of 12 countries did not support it.
There is an urgent need for new ideas for the Commonwealth, attractive to most countries of the post-Soviet region, on the basis of which this organization was able to consolidate this geopolitical space. In the event that the new CIS does not take place, Russia will lose the status of a regional power, and its international authority will noticeably fall.
This, however, is entirely avoidable. Despite the decline in its influence in the region, Russia is still able to become the center of integration processes in the Commonwealth. This is determined by the continuing importance of Russia as the center of trade gravity in the post-Soviet space. The study by Vlad Ivanenko shows that Russia's attraction is significantly weaker compared to the leaders of world trade, but its economic mass is quite sufficient to attract the Eurasian states. The closest trade ties are with Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan, which have firmly entered its orbit, trade gravitation towards Russia is partly experienced by Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. These Central Asian states, in turn, are local centers of "gravity" for their small neighbors, respectively, Uzbekistan - for Kyrgyzstan, and Turkmenistan - for Tajikistan. Ukraine also has an independent gravitational force: being attracted to Russia, it serves as a gravitational pole for Moldova. Thus, a chain is being formed that unites these post-Soviet countries into a potential Eurasian trade and economic union.
Thus, in the CIS, there are objective conditions for the sphere of Russian influence through trade and cooperation to expand beyond the EurAsEC, including Ukraine, Moldova and Turkmenistan, which are currently outside the Russian integration group for political reasons.
2.2 Socio-cultural integration in the post-Soviet space
Often, integration processes in the post-Soviet space are understood only in a political or economic sense. For example, it is said that there is successful integration between Russia and Belarus, since the presidents of the two states signed another agreement and decided to make (in a certain perspective) a single state, there is no such integration between Russia and the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia). The thesis regarding political declarative integration as a decisive factor in real social and economic development is so trivial that it is accepted without reflection. For a correct consideration of the situation with the integration processes in the post-Soviet space, a number of aspects should be highlighted.
The first is declarations and reality. The process of integrating the space of the Russian socio-cultural system (SCS) is of a synergistic nature. This is an objective process that began centuries ago and continues to this day. There is no reason to speak about its termination or a fundamental change in functioning in the present. The disappearance of the USSR - probably the most controlled state in the world, the inexplicability of this process, speaks of the synergy of the processes of territorial development.
The second is the types of integration. Basic for its understanding is the concept of socio-cultural system. In a broad sense, 8 sociocultural systems have been studied. The Russian SCS is one of many. For centuries, the process of formation of its territory has been going on, assimilation processes associated with the population have been going on. Forms of statehood are changing, but this in no way means an interruption in the process of socio-cultural development of territories. It is possible to define the following types of integration of space within the framework of the Russian SCS - socio-cultural, political, economic, cultural. Each of them has a large number of manifestations. They are determined both by specific features of development and by the patterns of functioning of sociocultural systems.
Third, the theoretical foundations for expert consideration of integration in the post-Soviet space. Sociocultural space is a complex object in which many subjects of research are determined. Each of them can be considered from different theoretical and methodological positions. In a large number of works claiming to be a radical solution of the problem, not a word is said about the initial foundations of the reasoning.
In addition, being not only scientists “torn off from real life” or politicians involved in practice, but also representatives of a certain socio-cultural formation, it is customary to proceed from its standards and interests. Emphasize the term "interests". They may or may not be realized, but they are always there. Sociocultural foundations, as a rule, are not recognized.
The fourth is an a priori understanding of integration, ignoring the diversity of manifestations of this process. Integration in the post-Soviet space should not be understood as an exclusively positive process associated with the successful solution of various kinds of problems. Within the framework of the socio-cultural space, the depressiveness of the districts plays an important role. Migration processes are very important in the SCS space. The depressed area gives a powerful migration flow. Taking into account the fact that a relatively small number of people live in the space of the Russian SCS, migration flows should be intense and variable. They are regulated by the synergy of the evolution of the Russian SCS. There are many specific examples of "destructive integration" in the post-Soviet space. Political relations between Russia and Ukraine are not as successful as relations between Russia and Belarus. There is no attempt to create a single state. There are active and serious opponents of integration on both sides. Potentially, relations between the two states can seriously deteriorate, for a historically short time. The spoiled relations between the two states of the post-Soviet space are more strongly reflected in Ukraine. The result is the depression of Ukraine. The most visible expression of its depression is the steady migration flows of "labour force" to the Russian Federation. The depression of one part of the post-Soviet space generates stable labor flows to another, relatively prosperous part of the SCS space. There is a level gradient, and there is a corresponding flow.
It is important to understand in principle that the phenomenon of integration in the post-Soviet space has numerous, and not only positive, political manifestations. The issue requires detailed and realistic research.
Sociocultural and linguistic problems of integration
The processes of revival of the ethno-national principle in the cultures of the Commonwealth countries, although they had a beneficial effect on a number of areas public life, however, revealed a number of painful problems. National prosperity in the modern world is unthinkable without the active mastery of the latest social technologies for the formation of progressive economic structures. But they can be thoroughly comprehended only with a full introduction to culture, living spiritual, moral, intellectual values and traditions within which they are formed.
For the last centuries, Russian culture has served for Ukrainians, Belarusians, as well as for representatives of other nations and nationalities inhabiting the USSR, a real guide to world social experience and scientific and technological achievements of mankind. Our history clearly shows that the synthesis of cultural principles can multiply the culture of each nation.
A special place in the full familiarization with culture, spiritual, moral, intellectual values and traditions belongs to the language. The thesis about the Russian language as the basis of integration has already been expressed at the highest political level in a number of Commonwealth countries. But at the same time, it is necessary to remove the language problem in the CIS from the sphere of political squabbles and political technological manipulations and seriously look at the Russian language as a powerful factor in stimulating the cultural development of the peoples of all Commonwealth countries, introducing them to advanced social and scientific and technical experience.
The Russian language has been and continues to be one of the world's languages. According to estimates, the Russian language in terms of the number of people who speak it (500 million people, including more than 300 million abroad) ranks third in the world after Chinese (over 1 billion) and English (750 million). It is the official or working language in most authoritative international organizations (UN, IAEA, UNESCO, WHO, etc.).
At the end of the last century in the field of the functioning of the Russian language as a world language in a number of countries and regions, for various reasons, alarming trends emerged.
The Russian language found itself in the most difficult situation in the post-Soviet space. On the one hand, due to historical inertia, it still plays the role of a language of interethnic communication there. The Russian language in a number of CIS countries continues to be used in business circles, financial and banking systems, and in some government agencies. The majority of the population of these countries (about 70%) is still quite fluent in it.
On the other hand, the situation may change dramatically in a generation, as the process of destruction of the Russian-speaking space is underway (it has recently slowed down, but has not been stopped), the consequences of which are beginning to be felt today.
As a result of the introduction of the language of the titular nations as the only state language, the Russian language is gradually being squeezed out of socio-political and economic life, the field of culture, and the media. Reduced opportunities for education on it. Less attention is paid to the study of the Russian language in general education and professional educational institutions in which teaching is conducted in the languages of the titular nations.
The problem of giving the Russian language a special status in the CIS and Baltic countries has acquired particular relevance and importance. This is a key factor in maintaining its position.
This issue has been fully resolved in Belarus, where, along with Belarusian, Russian has the status of a state language.
It is constitutionally formalized to give the Russian language the status of an official language in Kyrgyzstan. The Russian language is declared obligatory in state authorities and local self-government.
In Kazakhstan, in accordance with the Constitution, the state language is Kazakh. Legislatively, the status of the Russian language was raised in 1995. It can "officially be used on a par with Kazakh in state organizations and self-government bodies."
In the Republic of Moldova, the Constitution defines the right to the functioning and development of the Russian language (Article 13, paragraph 2) and is regulated by the Law on the Functioning of Languages on the Territory of the Republic of Moldova, adopted in 1994. The law guarantees "the right of citizens to pre-school, general secondary, secondary technical and higher education in Russian and to use it in relations with the authorities." There is a discussion in the country on the issue of giving the Russian language the status of the state language in the legislative order.
In accordance with the Constitution of Tajikistan, the state language is Tajik, Russian is the language of interethnic communication. The status of the Russian language in Azerbaijan is not regulated by law. In Armenia, Georgia and Uzbekistan, the Russian language is given the role of the language of the national minority.
In Ukraine, the status of the state language is constitutionally fixed only for Ukrainian. A number of regions of Ukraine submitted to the Verkhovna Rada a proposal to adopt the Law on Amendments to the Constitution of the country regarding giving the Russian language the status of a second state or official language.
Another alarming trend in the functioning of the Russian language in the post-Soviet space is the dismantling of the education system in Russian, which has been carried out in recent years with varying degrees of intensity. This is illustrated by the following facts. In Ukraine, where half of the population considers Russian to be their native language, the number of Russian schools has almost halved since independence. In Turkmenistan, all Russian-Turkmen schools have been converted into Turkmen ones, the faculties of Russian philology at the Turkmen State University and pedagogical schools have been closed.
At the same time, it should be noted that in most CIS member states there is a desire to restore educational ties with Russia, solve the problems of mutual recognition of documents on education, and open branches of Russian universities with teaching in Russian. Within the framework of the Commonwealth, steps are being taken to form a single (common) educational space. A number of relevant agreements have already been signed on this score.
3. Results of integration processes in the post-Soviet space
3.1 Results of integration processes. Possible options for the development of the CIS
The possibilities, methods and prospects for the socio-economic problems of these countries, and partly the potential of the world economy, largely depend on how economic relations develop between the CIS countries, on what the conditions for their entry into the world economy will be. Therefore, the closest attention deserves the study of the development trends of the CIS, explicit and hidden, restraining and stimulating factors, intentions and their implementation, priorities and contradictions.
During the existence of the CIS, its participants have created an excellent regulatory and legal framework. Some documents are aimed at making fuller use of the economic potential of the Commonwealth countries. However, most of the treaties and agreements are partially or even completely not implemented. Mandatory legal procedures are not observed, without which the signed documents do not have international legal force and are not implemented. This concerns, first of all, the ratification by national parliaments and the approval by governments of concluded treaties and agreements. The process of ratification and approval drags on for many months, and even years. But even after all the necessary domestic procedures have been completed and treaties and agreements have entered into force, it often does not come to their practical implementation, since countries do not fulfill their obligations.
The dramatic nature of the current situation lies in the fact that the CIS turned out to be largely an artificial form state structure without its own concept, clear functions, with an ill-conceived mechanism of interaction between the participating countries. Almost all the treaties and agreements signed over the 9 years of the existence of the CIS are of a declarative, and at best recommendatory nature.
An intractable contradiction has arisen between the sovereignty of the republics and the acute need for close economic and humanitarian ties between them, a contradiction between the need for one degree or another of reintegration and the lack of the necessary mechanisms capable of linking the interests of countries.
The policy towards the CIS of individual states, primarily Russia, the adopted documents, in particular, the plan for the development of integration initiated by it, testify to attempts to integrate within the CIS all aspects of state activity by education in the future united state on the example of what is happening in the European Union.
Depending on how the states of the former USSR build their relations with Russia, several groups of states can be distinguished in the CIS. The states that in the short and medium term are critically dependent on external assistance, primarily Russian, include Armenia, Belarus and Tajikistan. The second group is formed by Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova and Ukraine, which are also significantly dependent on cooperation with Russia, but are distinguished by a large balance of foreign economic relations. The third group of states whose economic dependence on ties with Russia is noticeably weaker and continues to decline, includes Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, the latter is a special case, since this country does not need the Russian market, but is completely dependent on the export system of gas pipelines passing through Russian territory .
In reality, as can be seen, the CIS has now turned into a number of sub-regional political alliances and economic groupings. The formation of Russia-oriented groupings of the Union of Belarus and the Russian Federation, the Community of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, as well as the Central Asian (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan), Eastern European (Ukraine, Moldova) without the participation of Russia is to a greater extent forced actions of the authorities, than natural consequences
Effective integration in the CIS can and should be carried out gradually, stage by stage, simultaneously with the strengthening of market principles and the leveling of conditions. economic activity in each of the CIS countries on the basis of an agreed concept for overcoming the general economic crisis.
Genuine reintegration is possible only on a voluntary basis, as objective conditions mature. The economic, social and political goals that the CIS states are pursuing today are often different, sometimes contradictory, stemming from the prevailing understanding of national interests and, last but not least, from the interests of certain elite groups.
The reintegration of the former Soviet republics under market conditions and the establishment of a new economic imperative should be based on the following principles:
n ensuring the spiritual and moral unity of peoples while maintaining the maximum sovereignty, political independence and national identity of each state;
n ensuring the unity of the civil legal, informational and cultural space;
n voluntariness of participation in integration processes and complete equality of the CIS member states;
n reliance on one's own potential and internal national resources, exclusion of dependency in the economic and social spheres;
n mutual benefit, mutual assistance and cooperation in the economy, including the creation of joint financial and industrial groups, transnational economic associations, a single internal payment and settlement system;
n the pooling of national resources for the implementation of joint economic and scientific and technical programs that are beyond the strength of individual countries;
n unhindered movement of labor and capital;
n development of guarantees of mutual support for compatriots;
n flexibility in the formation of supranational structures, excluding pressure on the CIS countries or the dominant role of one of them;
n objective conditionality, coordinated direction, legal compatibility of reforms carried out in each country;
n phased, multi-tiered and multi-speed nature of reintegration, the inadmissibility of its artificial formation;
n the absolute unacceptability of the ideologization of integration projects.
The political realities in the post-Soviet space are so varied, diverse and contrasting that it is difficult, if not impossible, to propose any concept, model or scheme of reintegration that suits everyone.
Russia's foreign policy in the near abroad should be reoriented from the desire to strengthen the dependence of all the republics on the center inherited from the USSR to a realistic and pragmatic policy of cooperation, strengthening the sovereignty of new states.
Each newly independent state has its own model political system and integration, their level of understanding of democracy and economic freedoms, their own path to the market and entry into global community. It is required to find a mechanism for interstate interaction, primarily in economic policy. Otherwise, the gap between sovereign countries will increase, which is fraught with unpredictable geopolitical consequences.
It is obvious that the immediate task is to restore the vitally necessary destroyed interstate ties in the economic sphere in order to overcome the crisis and economic stabilization. these ties are one of the most important factors in increasing the efficiency and well-being of the people. Various scenarios and options for economic and political integration may follow. There are no ready recipes. But today, some ways of the future arrangement of the Commonwealth are visible:
1) economic development in interaction with other CIS countries, mainly on a bilateral basis. This approach is most clearly followed by Turkmenistan, which has not signed the Treaty on Economic Union, but at the same time is actively developing bilateral relations. For example, the Strategic Agreement of the Russian Federation on the principles of trade and economic cooperation until the year 2000 has been concluded and is being successfully implemented. Ukraine and Azerbaijan are more inclined towards this option;
2) creation of regional integration blocs within the CIS. This primarily concerns the three (national) Central Asian states - Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which have adopted and are implementing a number of important sub-integration agreements;
3) deep integration of a fundamentally new type on a market basis, taking into account the balance of interests of large and small states. This is the core of the CIS consisting of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.
Which of these options turns out to be more feasible depends on the extent to which considerations of economic expediency prevail. The optimal combination of these directions in various configurations of economic integration while strengthening political independence and preserving the ethical uniqueness of the new sovereign states is the only reasonable and civilized formula for the future post-Soviet space.
Despite the divergence in national legislative systems and different levels of economies and political guidelines, integration resources remain, there are opportunities for their solution and deepening. The multi-speed development of states is by no means an insurmountable obstacle to their close interaction, since the field of integration processes and the choice of instruments are very wide.
Life has shown the senselessness of associations without regard to regional, national, economic and social specificity each member of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the proposal to reorganize the CIS Executive Secretariat into a kind of body of the Council of Heads of State is being discussed more and more substantively, with the intention of leaving it to deal with mainly political issues of the Commonwealth. The economic problems are to be assigned to the IEC (Interstate Economic Committee), making it an instrument of the Council of Heads of Government and endowing it with greater powers than it is now.
The aggravated socio-economic situation in all the Commonwealth countries, the threat of further downward slide, paradoxically, have their positive side. This makes us think about abandoning politicized priorities, pushing us to take steps, to search for more effective forms of cooperation.
Recently, a number of CIS member states and the European Union have expanded their interaction by developing and raising the level of political dialogue, economic, cultural and other ties. An important role in this was played by bilateral agreements on partnership and cooperation between Russia, Ukraine, other Commonwealth countries and the European Union, as well as the activities of joint intergovernmental and interparliamentary institutions. A new positive step in this direction is the EU decision of April 27, 1998 on recognizing the market status of Russian enterprises exporting products to the EU countries, excluding Russia from the list of countries with the so-called state trade and introducing appropriate changes to the EU anti-dumping regulation. Next in line are similar measures with respect to other Commonwealth countries.
3.2 European experience
From the very beginning, integration in the post-Soviet space took place with an eye on the European Union. It was on the basis of the EU experience that a phased integration strategy was formulated, enshrined in the Treaty on Economic Union of 1993. Until recently, analogues of structures and mechanisms that have proven themselves in Europe have been created in the CIS. Thus, the Treaty on the Establishment of a Union State of 1999 largely repeats the provisions of the treaties on the European Community and the European Union. However, attempts to use the experience of the EU to integrate the post-Soviet space are often limited to mechanical copying of Western technologies.
The integration of national economies develops only when a fairly high level of economic development (integration maturity) is reached. Up to this point, any activity of governments on interstate integration is doomed to failure, since it is not needed by economic operators. So, let's try to find out whether the economies of the CIS countries have reached integration maturity.
The simplest indicator of the degree of integration of the national economies of the region is the intensity of intraregional trade. In the EU, its share is 60% of total foreign trade, in NAFTA - about 50%, in the CIS, ASEAN and MERCOSUR - about 20%, and in a number of "quasi-integration" associations of underdeveloped countries it does not even reach 5%. Obviously, the degree of integration of national economies is determined by the structure of GDP and trade. Countries that export agricultural products, raw materials and energy resources are objectively competitors in the world market, and their commodity flows are oriented towards developed industrial countries. On the contrary, the overwhelming share of mutual trade between industrial countries is made up of machines, mechanisms and other finished products (in the EU in 1995 - 74.7%). Moreover, commodity flows between underdeveloped countries do not entail the integration of national economies - the exchange of coconuts for bananas, and oil for consumer goods is not integration, since it does not give rise to structural interdependence.
The intra-regional trade turnover of the CIS countries is small in volume. Moreover, during the 1990s its volume steadily decreased (from 18.3% of GDP in 1990 to 2.4% in 1999), and its commodity structure worsened. National reproduction processes are becoming less and less interconnected, and the national economies themselves are becoming more and more isolated from each other. Finished products are being washed out of mutual trade, and the share of fuel, metals and other raw materials is increasing. So, from 1990 to 1997. share of cars and Vehicle fell from 32% to 18% (in the EU - 43.8%), and light industry products - from 15% to 3.7%. The heaviness of the structure of trade reduces the complementarity of the economies of the CIS countries, weakens their interest in each other and often makes them rivals in foreign markets.
The primitivization of the foreign trade of the CIS countries is based on deep structural problems, which are expressed, in particular, in the insufficient level of technical and economic development. In terms of the share of the manufacturing industry, the sectoral structure of most CIS countries is inferior to countries not only in Western Europe, but also in Latin America and East Asia, and in some cases is comparable to African countries. Moreover, over the past decade, the sectoral structure of the economy of most CIS countries has degraded.
It should be noted that only trade in finished products can develop into international production cooperation, lead to the development of trade in individual parts and components, and stimulate the integration of national economies. In today's world, trade in parts and components is growing at a staggering pace: $42.5 billion in 1985, $72.4 billion in 1990, $142.7 billion in 1995. The vast majority of these trade flows lies between the developed countries and connects them with the closest industrial ties. The low and steadily falling share of finished products in the trade turnover of the CIS countries does not make it possible to start this process.
Finally, the removal of certain stages of the production process abroad gives rise to another channel for the integration of national economies - the export of productive capital. The flows of foreign investments and other capital investments complement trade and production ties between countries with strong bonds of joint ownership of the means of production. A growing share of international trade flows is now intracorporate in nature, which makes them especially resilient. It is obvious that in the CIS countries these processes are in their infancy.
An additional factor in the disintegration of the CIS economic space is the progressive diversification of national economic models. Only market economies are capable of mutually beneficial and stable integration. The stability of the integration of market economies is ensured precisely by their construction from below, due to mutually beneficial ties between economic operators. By analogy with democracy, we can talk about grassroots integration. The integration of non-market economies is artificial and inherently unstable. And integration between market and non-market economies is impossible in principle - "you cannot harness a horse and a quivering doe into one cart." The close similarity of economic mechanisms is one of the most important prerequisites for the integration of national economies.
At present, in a number of CIS countries (Russia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Kazakhstan) the transition to a market economy is proceeding more or less intensively, some (Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan) are delaying reforms, while Belarus, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan frankly prefer non-market way of economic development. The growing divergence of economic models in the CIS countries makes all attempts at interstate integration unrealistic.
Finally, an important prerequisite for interstate integration is the comparability of the level of development of national economies. A significant gap in the level of development weakens the interest of producers from more developed countries in the market of less developed countries; reduces the possibility of intra-industry cooperation; stimulates protectionist tendencies in less developed countries. If, however, interstate integration between countries of different levels of development is nevertheless carried out, it inevitably leads to a slowdown in growth rates in more developed countries. In the least developed country of the EU - Greece - GDP per capita is 56% of the level of the most developed Denmark. In the CIS, only in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan this indicator is more than 50% of the Russian indicator. I would like to believe that sooner or later, in all CIS countries, the absolute per capita income will begin to increase. However, since in the least developed countries of the CIS - in Central Asia and partly in the Transcaucasus - the birth rate is significantly higher than in Russia, Ukraine and even in Kazakhstan, the disproportions will inevitably grow.
All of the above negative factors are especially intense at the initial stage of interstate integration, when the economic benefits from it are hardly noticeable to public opinion. That is why, in addition to promises of future benefits, a socially significant idea should be present on the banner of interstate integration. In Western Europe, such an idea was the desire to avoid the continuation of the "series of terrible nationalist wars" and "recreate the European family." Schuman's Declaration, which marks the beginning of the history of European integration, begins with the words: "The cause of protecting peace throughout the world requires efforts that are directly proportional to the danger that threatens it." The choice of the coal mining and steel industries for the start of integration was due precisely to the fact that "as a result of the unification of production, the impossibility of a war between France and Germany will become completely obvious, and moreover, materially impossible."
Today in the CIS there is no idea that can stimulate interstate integration; its appearance in the foreseeable future is unlikely. The widespread thesis about the desire of the peoples of the post-Soviet space for reintegration is nothing more than a myth. Speaking about the desire for the reintegration of the "united family of peoples", people sublimate their nostalgic feelings about a stable life and about a "great power". In addition, the population of the less developed countries of the CIS associates with reintegration the hope for material assistance from neighboring countries. What percentage of Russians among those who support the creation of the Union of Russia and Belarus will answer positively the question: “Are you ready for the deterioration of your personal well-being in order to help the fraternal people of Belarus?”? But in addition to Belarus in the CIS there are states with a much lower level of economic development and with a much larger number of inhabitants.
The most important prerequisite for interstate integration is the political maturity of the participating states, above all, a developed pluralistic democracy. First, an advanced democracy creates mechanisms that push the government to open up the economy and provide a counterbalance to protectionist tendencies. Only in a democratic society are consumers, who welcome increased competition, able to lobby for their interests, since they are voters; and only in a developed democratic society, the influence of consumers on power structures can become comparable to the influence of producers.
Secondly, only a state with a developed pluralistic democracy is a reliable and predictable partner. No one will carry out real integration measures with a state in which social tension reigns, periodically resulting in military coups or wars. But even an internally stable state cannot be a quality partner for interstate integration if it has an undeveloped civil society. Only under conditions of active participation of all groups of the population is it possible to find a balance of interests and thereby guarantee the effectiveness of decisions made within the framework of an integration grouping. It is no coincidence that a whole network of lobbying structures has formed around the EU bodies - more than 3 thousand permanent representative offices of TNCs, trade unions, non-profit associations, businessmen's unions and other NGOs. Defending their group interests, they help national and supranational structures to find a balance of interests and thus ensure the stability of the EU, the effectiveness of its activities and political consensus.
It makes no sense to dwell in detail on the analysis of the degree of development of democracy in the CIS countries. Even in those states where political reforms are most successful, democracy can be described as "managed" or "facade". Let us especially note that both democratic institutions and legal consciousness are developing extremely slowly; in these matters, time should not be measured in years, but in generations. Let us give just a few examples of how the CIS states fulfill their integration obligations. In 1998, after the depreciation of the ruble, Kazakhstan, in violation of the Customs Union agreement, without any consultations, introduced a 200% duty on all Russian foodstuffs. Kyrgyzstan, contrary to the obligation within the framework of the Customs Union to adhere to a common position in negotiations with the WTO, joined this organization in 1998, which made it impossible to introduce a single customs tariff. For many years, Belarus has not transferred to Russia the duties collected on the Belarusian section of the single customs border. Unfortunately, the CIS countries have not yet reached the political and legal maturity necessary for interstate integration.
In general, it is clear that the CIS countries do not meet the conditions necessary for integration along the lines of the European Union. They have not reached the economic threshold of integration maturity; they have not yet formed the institutions of pluralistic democracy that are key for interstate integration; their societies and elites did not formulate a widely shared idea that could initiate integration processes. In such conditions, no matter how carefully copying the institutions and mechanisms that have developed in the EU will not give any effect. The economic and political realities of the post-Soviet space are so strongly opposed to the European integration technologies introduced that the inefficiency of the latter is obvious. Despite many agreements, the economies of the CIS countries diverge further and further, interdependence is decreasing, and fragmentation is increasing. In the foreseeable future, integration of the CIS along the lines of the European Union seems highly unlikely. This, however, does not mean that the economic integration of the CIS cannot proceed in any other form. Perhaps a more adequate model would be NAFTA and the Pan-American Free Trade Area that is being built on its basis.
Conclusion
No matter how diverse and contradictory the world space is, each state should strive to integrate with it. Globalization and redistribution of resources at the supranational level are becoming the only true way for the further development of mankind in the context of exponential population growth on the planet.
The study of the practical, statistical material presented in this work made it possible to following conclusions:
The main target reason for the integration process is the growth of the qualitative level of organization of the components of the objects of exchange between the subjects of integration, the acceleration of this exchange.
By the time of the collapse of the USSR, the republics were exchanging highly industrialized products. The structure of production in all republics was dominated by resource processing industries.
The collapse of the USSR led to the rupture of economic ties between the republics, as a result of which the resource-processing industries were objectively unable to produce the previous volumes of their products. The more highly industrialized products were produced by the resource-processing industries, the greater the decline in production they suffered. As a result of this recession, the efficiency of the resource-processing industries decreased due to the reduction of economies of scale. This led to an increase in prices for products of resource processing industries, which exceeded world prices for similar products from foreign manufacturers.
At the same time, the collapse of the USSR led to the reorientation of industrial capacities from resource-processing to resource-producing industries.
The first five or six years after the collapse of the USSR are characterized by a deep disintegration process throughout the post-Soviet space. After 1996-1997, there has been some revival in the economic life of the Commonwealth. There is a regionalization of its economic space.
There were associations of the Union of Belarus and Russia, the Customs Union, which later grew into the Eurasian Economic Community, the Central Asian Economic Community, the union of Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Uzbekistan and Moldova.
In each association, integration processes of varying intensity are observed, which do not allow us to unequivocally state the futility of their further development. However, rather intensive integration processes of the SBR and the EurAsEC have clearly emerged. CAEC and GUUAM, according to some experts, are economic empty flowers.
In general, it is clear that the CIS countries do not meet the conditions necessary for integration along the lines of the European Union. They have not reached the economic threshold of integration maturity; they have not yet formed the institutions of pluralistic democracy that are key for interstate integration; their societies and elites did not formulate a widely shared idea that could initiate integration processes. In such conditions, no matter how carefully copying the institutions and mechanisms that have developed in the EU will not give any effect. The economic and political realities of the post-Soviet space are so strongly opposed to the European integration technologies introduced that the inefficiency of the latter is obvious. Despite many agreements, the economies of the CIS countries diverge further and further, interdependence is decreasing, and fragmentation is increasing. In the foreseeable future, integration of the CIS along the lines of the European Union seems highly unlikely. This, however, does not mean that the economic integration of the CIS cannot proceed in any other form.
List of used sources and literature.
1. Andrianov A. Problems and prospects of Russia's accession to the WTO // Marketing. 2004. No. 2. -S. 98.
2. Astapov K. Formation of a single economic space of the CIS countries // World economy and international relationships. 2005. No. 1. -S. 289.
3. Akhmedov A. Accession to the WTO and the labor market. - Moscow, 2004. -С 67.
4. Ayatskov D. There is no alternative for integration // Interstate Economic Committee of the Economic Union. News bulletin. - M. - January 2004. -S. 23.
5. Belousov R. The Russian economy in the foreseeable future.//The Economist 2007, No. 7, S. 89.
6. Borodin P. Inhibition of integration pays well. // Russian Federation today. - No. 8. 2005. -p.132.
7. Vardomskogo LB Post-Soviet countries and the financial crisis in Russia. Ed., Parts 1 and 2, M., Epicon JSC, 2000 -S. 67
8. Glazyev S.Yu. Development of the Russian economy in the context of global technological shifts / Scientific report. M.: NIR, 2007.
9. Golichenko O.G. National innovation system of Russia: state and ways of development. M.: Nauka, 2006.; -WITH. 69.
10. R.S. Grinberg, L.S. Kosikova. Russia in the CIS: the search for a new model of economic interaction. 2004. #"#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""> Shumsky N. Economic Integration of the Commonwealth States: Opportunities and Prospects// Economic Issues. - 2003. - N6.
The term “integration” is now familiar in world politics. Integration is an objective process of deepening diverse ties throughout the planet, achieving a qualitatively new level of interaction, integrity and interdependence in the economy, finance, politics, science and culture. Integration is based on objective processes. The problem of integration development in the post-Soviet space is especially relevant.
On December 8, 1991, a document was signed on the denunciation of the 1922 treaty, which stated: “... We, the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, as the founding states of the USSR Union, which signed the Union Treaty of 1922, state that the USSR Union as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist…”. On the same day, a decision was made to create the Commonwealth of Independent States. As a result, on December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, the leaders of 11 of the 15 former Soviet republics signed the Protocol to the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS and the Alma-Ata Declaration confirming it, which became the continuation and completion of attempts to create a new union treaty.
Before proceeding to the analysis of the integration of states in the space of the former Soviet Union, it is worth raising the question of the relevance of the term "post-Soviet space". The term "post-Soviet space" was introduced by Professor A. Prazauskas in the article "CIS as a post-colonial space" .
The term "post-Soviet" defines the geographical area of the states that were part of the former Soviet Union, with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A number of experts believe that this definition does not reflect reality. State systems, levels of development of the economy and society, local problems are too different to list all post-Soviet countries in one group. The countries that gained independence as a result of the collapse of the USSR today are connected, first of all, by a common past, as well as a stage of economic and political transformation.
The very concept of "space" also indicates the presence of some significant commonality, and the post-Soviet space is becoming more and more heterogeneous over time. Given the historical past of certain countries and the differentiation of development, they can be called a post-Soviet conglomerate. However, today, in relation to integration processes in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the term “post-Soviet space” is still more often used.
The historian A. V. Vlasov saw something new in the content of the post-Soviet space. According to the researcher, this was his liberation from "rudiments still remaining from the Soviet era." The post-Soviet space as a whole and the former republics of the USSR "became part of the global world system", and in the new format of post-Soviet relations, new "players" that had not previously manifested themselves in this region acquired an active role.
A. I. Suzdaltsev believes that the post-Soviet space will remain an arena of competition for energy communications and deposits, strategically advantageous territories and bridgeheads, liquid production assets, and one of the few regions where there is a constant flow of Russian investment. Accordingly, both the problem of their protection and competition with Western and Chinese capital will grow. Opposition to the activities of Russian companies will grow, the competition for the traditional market for the domestic manufacturing industry, including mechanical engineering, will intensify. Even now, there are no states left in the post-Soviet space whose foreign economic relations would be dominated by Russia.
Western politicians and political scientists consider the frequent presence of the term "post-Soviet space" far-fetched. Former British Foreign Secretary D. Miliband denied the existence of such a term. “Ukraine, Georgia and others are not “post-Soviet space”. These are independent sovereign countries with their own right of territorial integrity. It's time for Russia to stop thinking of itself as a relic of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists, the post-Soviet space no longer exists. Exist new map Eastern Europe, with new borders, and this map must be protected in the interests of overall stability and security. I am sure that it is in Russian interests to come to terms with the existence of new borders, and not to mourn the bygone Soviet past. It is in the past, and, frankly, that’s where it belongs.” As we can see, there are no unambiguous assessments of the term “post-Soviet space.
The post-Soviet states are usually divided into five groups, most often according to the geographical factor. The first group includes Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova or Eastern European countries. Being between Europe and Russia somewhat limits their economic and social sovereignty.
The second group "Central Asia" - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. The political elite of these states is faced with problems, each of which is capable of jeopardizing the existence of any of them. The most serious is the Islamic influence and the intensification of the struggle for control over energy exports. A new factor here is the expansion of China's political, economic and demographic opportunities.
The third group is "Transcaucasia" - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, a zone of political instability. The United States and Russia have the maximum influence on the policy of these countries, on which the prospect of a full-scale war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as Georgia's conflicts with the former autonomies, depend.
The fourth group is formed by the Baltic States - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
Russia is seen as a separate group due to its dominant role in the region.
Throughout the period that has come after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new independent states on its territory, disputes and discussions about possible directions of integration and optimal models of interstate associations in the post-Soviet space do not stop.
An analysis of the situation shows that after the signing of the Bialowieza agreements, the former Soviet republics failed to develop an optimal integration model. Various multilateral agreements were signed, summits were held, coordination structures were formed, but it was not possible to fully achieve mutually beneficial relations.
As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet republics were given the opportunity to pursue their independent and independent domestic and foreign policies. But, it should be noted that the first positive results from gaining independence were quickly replaced by a general structural crisis that engulfed the economy, political and social spheres. The collapse of the USSR violated the single mechanism that had developed over the years. The problems that existed at that time among the states were not resolved in connection with the new situation, but only aggravated.
The difficulties of the transition period have shown the need to restore the former political, socio-economic and cultural ties that were destroyed as a result of the collapse of the USSR.
The following factors influenced the process of integration unification of the former Soviet republics and today:
· Long-term coexistence, traditions of joint activity.
· A high degree of ethnic mixing throughout the post-Soviet space.
· The unity of the economic and technological space, which has reached a high degree of specialization and cooperation.
· Uniting sentiments in the mass consciousness of the peoples of the post-Soviet republics.
· The impossibility of solving a number of internal problems without a coordinated approach, even by the forces of one of the largest states. These include: ensuring territorial integrity and security, protecting borders and stabilizing the situation in conflict areas; ensuring environmental safety; maintaining the potential of technological ties that have been accumulated over decades, meeting the interests of the countries of the former USSR in the near and long term; preservation of a single cultural and educational space.
Difficulties in solving external problems by the post-Soviet republics, namely: the difficulties of entering the world market alone and real opportunities to create their own market, new interregional, economic and political unions that allow them to act on the world market as an equal partner in order to protect their own interests from any kind of economic, military, political, financial and informational expansion.
Of course, economic factors should be singled out as the most significant, compelling reasons for joining integration.
It can be stated that all of the above and many other factors showed the leaders of the post-Soviet republics that it was impossible to break the former closest ties so completely and suddenly.
On the territory of the former USSR, integration has become one of the trends in the development of economic and political processes and has acquired peculiar features and characteristics:
· The systemic socio-economic crisis in the post-Soviet states in the context of the formation of their state sovereignty and the democratization of public life, the transition to an open market economy, and the transformation of socio-economic relations;
· Significant differences in the level of industrial development of the post-Soviet states, the degree of market reform of the economy;
· Binding to one state, which largely determines the course of integration processes in the post-Soviet space. In this case, Russia is such a state;
· Presence of more attractive centers of gravity outside the Commonwealth. Many countries have begun to seek more intensive partnerships with the US, the EU, Turkey and other influential world actors;
· Unsettled interstate and interethnic armed conflicts in the Commonwealth. . Previously, conflicts arose between Azerbaijan and Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh), in Georgia (Abkhazia), Moldova (Transnistria). Today, Ukraine is the most important epicenter.
It is impossible not to take into account the fact that countries that used to be part of a single state - the USSR and had the closest ties within this state are entering into integration. This suggests that the integration processes that unfolded in the mid-1990s, in fact, integrate countries that were previously interconnected; integration does not build new contacts, ties, but restores the old ones, destroyed by the process of sovereignization in the late 80s - early 90s of the twentieth century. This feature has a positive feature, since the integration process should theoretically be easier and faster than, for example, in Europe, where parties that have no experience of integration are integrating.
The difference in the pace and depth of integration between countries should be emphasized. As an example, the degree of integration of Russia and Belarus, and now Kazakhstan together with them, is currently very high. At the same time, the involvement of Ukraine, Moldova and, to a greater extent, Central Asia in the integration processes remains rather low. This is despite the fact that almost all of them stood at the origins of post-Soviet integration, i.e. hinder the unification with the "core" (Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan) largely for political reasons, and, as a rule, are not inclined to give up part of their ambitions for the sake of the common good. .
It is impossible not to notice that when summing up the results of the development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space, new partnerships between the former Soviet republics developed in a very contradictory and in some cases extremely painful way. It is known that the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred spontaneously and, moreover, by no means amicably. This could not but lead to the aggravation of many old and the emergence of new conflict situations in relations between the newly formed independent states.
The starting point for integration in the post-Soviet space was the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. At the initial stage of its activity, the CIS was a mechanism that made it possible to weaken the disintegration processes, mitigate the negative consequences of the collapse of the USSR, and preserve the system of economic, cultural and historical ties.
In the basic documents of the CIS, an application was made for high-level integration, but the Commonwealth charter does not impose duties on the states in achieving the ultimate goal, but only fixes the willingness to cooperate.
Today, on the basis of the CIS, there are various, more promising associations, where cooperation is carried out on specific issues with clearly defined tasks. The most integrated community in the post-Soviet space is the Union State of Belarus and Russia. Organization of the collective security- The CSTO is an instrument of cooperation in the field of defense. Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM, created by Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. The Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was a peculiar form of economic integration. The Customs Union and the Common Economic Space are stages in the formation of the EurAsEC. On their basis, another economic association, the Eurasian Economic Union, was created this year. It is assumed that Eurasian Union in the future it will serve as the center of more effective integration processes.
The creation of a large number of integration formations on the territory of the former Soviet Union is explained by the fact that in the post-Soviet space, the most effective forms of integration are still being “groped for” by joint efforts.
The situation that has developed today on the world stage shows that the former Soviet republics have not been able to develop an optimal integration model. The hopes of supporters of the preservation of the unity of the former peoples of the USSR in the CIS did not come true either.
The incompleteness of economic reforms, the lack of harmonization of the economic interests of partner countries, the level of national identity, territorial disputes with neighboring countries, as well as the huge impact on the part of external players - all this affects the relations of the former Soviet republics, leading them to disintegration.
In many ways, the process of integration of the post-Soviet space today is greatly influenced by the situation that has developed in Ukraine. The former Soviet republics were faced with the choice of which bloc they would join: led by the US and the EU, or Russia. The West is making every effort to weaken Russia's influence in the post-Soviet region, actively using the Ukrainian vector. The situation became especially aggravated after the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation.
Drawing a conclusion from the consideration of the above problems, we can say that at the current stage it is unlikely that a cohesive integration association will be created as part of all the former Soviet states, but in general, the prospects for integration of the post-Soviet space are colossal. Great hopes are pinned on the Eurasian Economic Union.
Therefore, the future of the former Soviet countries largely depends on whether they follow the path of disintegration by joining more priority centers, or whether a joint, viable, effectively operating structure will be formed, which will be based on the common interests and civilized relations of all its members, in full adequate to the challenges of the modern world.
In the post-Soviet space, economic integration is associated with significant contradictions and difficulties. Many of the political decisions made on various aspects of integration in the CIS could not, due to objective reasons, stimulate integration processes. The contribution of the CIS to streamlining the demarcation of the former Soviet republics and preventing deep geopolitical upheavals during the collapse of the USSR cannot be underestimated. However, due to serious differences in the levels of development of economies, methods of managing them, the pace and forms of the transition from a planned to a market economy and the action of a number of other factors, including the different geopolitical and foreign economic orientation of the countries of the former USSR, their fear of dependence on Russia, bureaucracy and nationalism, Since the middle of the last decade, economic integration in the post-Soviet space has taken on a multi-format and multi-speed nature, which has been reflected in the creation within the CIS of several integration groups that are more limited in terms of the number of participants and the depth of interaction.
At present, the CIS is a regional organization, the prospects for its evolution towards an integration association are assessed in the dissertation rather as unfavorable. The paper notes that within the framework of the Commonwealth there is a tendency to separate the Asian and European blocks of the CIS along with increased interaction between the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus, which calls into question the preservation of the integrity of this organization in the long term.
Integration initiatives in the region are being undertaken within the framework of more local formations of the post-Soviet states. Thus, a significantly narrower association than the CIS is the Eurasian Economic Community, established in 2000 - the EurAsEC (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), which is still at the initial stage of integration. The desire of the political elites of the member countries of the Community to speed up the transition to a higher level of integration interaction within the framework of the EurAsEC is manifested in the declaration of the creation by the end of 2007 of the customs union by three members of the Community (Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus).
The creation in 1999 of the Union State of Russia and Belarus (SURB) was aimed at deepening the division of labor and cooperation ties between these countries in various sectors of the national economy, the abolition of customs barriers, the convergence of national legislation in the field of regulating the activities of economic entities, etc. In some areas of cooperation, in particular, in the field of development of cooperation ties, liberalization of trade regimes, certain positive results have been achieved. Unfortunately, in the field of trade interaction, countries often apply exemptions from the free trade regime, and the introduction of a common customs tariff is not coordinated. The agreements on the unification of energy and transport systems have been seriously tested in connection with the situation in the sphere of Russian gas supplies to Belarus and its transportation to the EU countries through its territory. The transition to a single currency, planned since 2005, was not implemented, in particular, due to the unresolved issues of a single emission center and the degree of independence of the central banks of both states in conducting monetary policy.
The economic integration of the two countries is largely hampered by the unresolved conceptual issues of building the Union State. Russia and Belarus have not yet reached an agreement on the issue of a unification model. The adoption of the Constitutional Act, originally scheduled for 2003, is constantly being postponed due to serious disagreements between the partner countries. The main reason for disagreement is the unwillingness of countries to give up their sovereignty in favor of the Union State, without which real integration in the highest, most developed forms is impossible. Further integration of the SRB towards an economic and monetary union is also hampered by varying degrees of maturity of market economies and democratic institutions of civil society in the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus.
An important condition for the development of integration cooperation between Russia and Belarus is a balanced, pragmatic approach to interaction between the two states, based on taking into account the real possibilities and national interests of both countries. The balance of national interests can be achieved only in the process of progressive development of the integration of the two economies on the basis of market principles. Therefore, it seems inappropriate to artificially force the integration process.
A new stage in the search for effective mutually beneficial integration forms and harmonization of relations between the Commonwealth countries was the signing by Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine of an agreement on the formation of a single economic space (CES) for the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor. The legal registration of this agreement took place at the end of 2003.
There are real prerequisites for the integration of the Quartet economies: these countries account for the overwhelming majority of the economic potential of the countries of the post-Soviet space (with Russia's share being 82% of total GDP, 78% of industrial output, 79% of investment in fixed capital); 80% of foreign trade turnover in the CIS; a common huge Eurasian massif connected by a single transport system; predominantly Slavic population; convenient access to foreign markets; common historical and cultural heritage and many other common features and advantages that create real prerequisites for effective economic integration.
However, the priority of the European Union in the integration policy of Ukraine significantly slows down the process of implementing the project for the formation of the CES-4. A serious factor hindering the development of economic relations between Russia and Ukraine is the inconsistency in terms and conditions of accession of each of them to the WTO. Ukraine demonstrates its interest in creating a free trade zone and its fundamental unwillingness to participate in the formation of a customs union in the Common Economic Space. Political instability in Ukraine is also an obstacle to the implementation of this integration project.
The dissertation also notes that the post-Soviet space is becoming a zone of the most intense international competition for spheres of influence, where Russia does not act as an undisputed leader, but, along with the United States, the EU, China, is only one of the political centers of power and economic players, and far from being the most influential. An analysis of the current state and trends in the evolution of integration groupings in the post-Soviet space shows that its configuration
determined by the confrontation of both centripetal and centrifugal forces.
Forms of alternative integration.
Integration processes in the CIS countries.
Formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The formation of relations between the Russian Federation and the CIS countries.
Lecture 7. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE
The result was the signing on December 21, 1991 of the Alma-Ata Declaration, which set out the goals and principles of the CIS. It consolidated the provision that the interaction of the organization's participants "will be carried out on the principle of equality through coordinating institutions, formed on a parity basis and operating in the manner determined by agreements between the members of the Commonwealth, which is neither a state nor a supranational entity." The unified command of the military-strategic forces and unified control over nuclear weapons, the respect of the parties to the desire to achieve the status of a nuclear-free and (or) neutral state, the commitment to cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space was recorded. The organizational stage ended in 1993, when on January 22, in Minsk, the “Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States”, the founding document of the organization, was adopted. According to the current Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States founding states organizations are those states that, by the time the Charter was adopted, signed and ratified the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS of December 8, 1991 and the Protocol to this Agreement of December 21, 1991. Member States The Commonwealth is those founding states that have assumed the obligations arising from the Charter, within 1 year after its adoption by the Council of Heads of State.
To join the organization, a potential member must share the goals and principles of the CIS, accepting the obligations contained in the Charter, and also obtain the consent of all member states. In addition, the Charter provides for categories associate members(these are the states participating in certain types activities of the organization, on the terms determined by the associate membership agreement) and observers(these are states whose representatives may attend meetings of Commonwealth bodies by decision of the Council of Heads of State). The current Charter regulates the procedure for the withdrawal of a member state from the Commonwealth. To do this, the Member State must notify in writing the depositary of the Constitution 12 months prior to withdrawal. At the same time, the state is obliged to fully fulfill the obligations that arose during the period of participation in the Charter. The CIS is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members, therefore all member states are independent subjects of international law. The Commonwealth is not a state and does not have supranational powers. The main goals of the organization are: cooperation in the political, economic, environmental, humanitarian, cultural and other fields; comprehensive development of the member states within the framework of the common economic space, interstate cooperation and integration; ensuring human rights and freedoms; cooperation in ensuring international peace and security, achieving general and complete disarmament; mutual legal assistance; peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts between the states of the organization.
The areas of joint activity of the Member States include: ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms; coordination of foreign policy activities; cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space, customs policy; cooperation in the development of transport and communications systems; health and environmental protection; issues of social and migration policy; combating organized crime; cooperation in the field of defense policy and protection of external borders.
Russia declared itself the successor of the USSR, which was recognized by almost all other states. The rest of the post-Soviet states (with the exception of the Baltic states) became the legal successors of the USSR (in particular, the obligations of the USSR under international treaties) and the corresponding union republics.
Under these conditions, there was no other way out than strengthening the CIS. In 1992, more than 250 documents regulating relations within the Commonwealth were adopted. At the same time, the Collective Security Treaty was signed by 6 countries out of 11 (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan).
But with the beginning of economic reforms in Russia, the Commonwealth experienced its first serious crisis in 1992. The export of Russian oil has halved (while to other countries it has increased by a third). The exit of the CIS countries from the ruble zone has begun.
By the summer of 1992, individual subjects of the Federation were increasingly proposing to transform it into a confederation. During 1992, financial subsidies continued to the republics that headed for secession, despite the refusal to pay taxes to the federal budget.
The first serious step towards the preservation of the unity of Russia was the Federal Treaty, which included three similar agreements on the delimitation of powers between the federal government bodies and bodies of subjects of the Federation of all three types (republics, territories, regions, autonomous regions and districts, the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg). Work on this treaty began in 1990, but progressed very slowly. Nevertheless, in 1992, the Federal Treaty was signed between the subjects of the Federation (89 subjects). With some subjects, agreements were later signed on special conditions that expand their rights, this began with Tatarstan.
After the August events of 1991, diplomatic recognition of Russia began. The head of Bulgaria Zh. Zhelev arrived for negotiations with the Russian president. At the end of the same year, the first official visit of B.N. Yeltsin abroad - in Germany. The countries of the European Community announced the recognition of Russia's sovereignty and the transfer to it of the rights and obligations of the former USSR. In 1993-1994 agreements on partnership and cooperation between the EU states and the Russian Federation were concluded. The Russian government has joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program. The country was included in the International Monetary Fund. She managed to negotiate with the largest banks in the West to defer payments for the debts of the former USSR. In 1996, Russia joined the Council of Europe, which dealt with issues of culture, human rights, and environmental protection. The European states supported Russia's actions aimed at its integration into the world economy.
The role of foreign trade in the development of the Russian economy has noticeably increased. The destruction of economic ties between the republics of the former USSR and the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance caused a reorientation of foreign economic relations. After a long break, Russia was granted the most favored nation treatment in trade with the United States. The states of the Middle East and Latin America were permanent economic partners. As in previous years, in developing countries, with the participation of Russia, thermal and hydroelectric power stations were built (for example, in Afghanistan and Vietnam). In Pakistan, Egypt and Syria, metallurgical enterprises and agricultural facilities were built.
Trade contacts have been preserved between Russia and the countries of the former CMEA, through whose territory gas and oil pipelines to Western Europe ran. The energy carriers exported through them were also sold to these states. Medicines, foodstuffs and chemical goods were the reciprocal items of trade. The share of Eastern European countries in the total volume of Russian trade decreased by 1994 to 10%.
The development of relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States took important place in government foreign policy. In 1993, the CIS included, in addition to Russia, eleven more states. At first, negotiations on issues related to the division of the property of the former USSR occupied a central place in relations between them. Borders were established with those of the countries that introduced national currencies. Agreements were signed that determined the conditions for the transportation of Russian goods through their territory abroad. The collapse of the USSR destroyed traditional economic ties with the former republics. In 1992-1995 falling trade with the CIS countries. Russia continued to supply them with fuel and energy resources, primarily oil and gas. The structure of import receipts was dominated by consumer goods and foodstuffs. One of the obstacles to the development of trade relations was the financial indebtedness of Russia from the Commonwealth states that had formed in previous years. In the mid-1990s, its size exceeded 6 billion dollars. The Russian government sought to maintain integration ties between the former republics within the framework of the CIS. It was on his initiative that Interstate Committee Commonwealth countries with the center of residence in Moscow. Between six states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.) a collective security treaty was concluded, the charter of the CIS was developed and approved. At the same time, the Commonwealth of Nations was not a single formalized organization.
Interstate relations between Russia and the former republics of the USSR were not easy. There were sharp disputes with Ukraine over the division of the Black Sea Fleet and possession of the Crimean peninsula. Conflicts with the governments of the Baltic states were caused by discrimination against the Russian-speaking population living there and the unresolved nature of some territorial issues. The economic and strategic interests of Russia in Tajikistan and Moldova were the reasons for its participation in armed clashes in these regions. Relations between the Russian Federation and Belarus developed most constructively.
After the formation of new sovereign states, which took a course towards the formation of an open market economy, the entire post-Soviet space turned out to be subject to a deep economic transformation. The following general directions can be singled out in the methods and goals of economic reforms.
1. Privatization and resolution of property and other issues civil rights, creating a competitive environment.
2. Agrarian reform - shifting the center of gravity of agricultural production to non-state and farm enterprises, changing the form of ownership in collective farms and state farms, their disaggregation and refinement of the production profile.
3. Reducing the scope state regulation in sectors of the economy and sectors of activity of economic entities. This is primarily the liberalization of prices, wages, foreign economic and other activities. Structural restructuring of the real sector of the economy, carried out in order to increase its efficiency, increase production volumes, improve the quality and competitiveness of products, cull inefficient production units, convert the defense industry, and reduce the shortage of goods.
4. Creation of banking and insurance systems, investment institutions and stock markets. Ensuring the convertibility of national currencies. Creation of a commodity distribution network in both wholesale and retail trade.
In the course of the reforms, the following were created and provided: a mechanism for bankruptcy and antimonopoly regulation; measures for social protection and regulation of unemployment; anti-inflationary measures; measures to strengthen the national currency; ways and means of integration economic development.
By 1997, the process of formation of the national monetary systems of the Commonwealth countries was completed. In 1994, practically in all Commonwealth countries there was a depreciation of national currencies against the Russian ruble. During 1995, there was a steady upward trend in national currencies against the Russian ruble in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova. By the end of 1996, the upward trend in the exchange rates of national currencies against the Russian ruble continued in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Moldova; the exchange rates of Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine increased. There have been significant changes in the structure of financial resources.
In most Commonwealth countries, the share of resources accumulated in the state budget has decreased, and the share of funds held by economic entities and the population has increased. In all CIS countries, the functions and structure of state budgets have changed significantly. In the composition of state budget revenues in most countries, tax revenues became the main source, which in 1991 accounted for 0.1-0.25 of the total budget revenues, and in 1995 they amounted to about 0.58 parts. The bulk of tax revenue comes from VAT, income tax, income tax and excises. In Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine, since 1993, there has been a trend towards some reduction in the share of taxes in state budget revenues.
Attracting foreign direct investment in the CIS countries occurred with varying degrees of intensity. In 1996, their share in the total investment amounted to 0.68 in Kyrgyzstan, 0.58 in Azerbaijan, 0.42 in Armenia, 0.29 in Georgia, 0.16 in Uzbekistan, and 0.13 in Kazakhstan. At the same time, these indicators are insignificant in Belarus - 0.07, Moldova - 0.06, Russia - 0.02, Ukraine - 0.007. The desire to reduce investment risks prompted the US government to extend government programs to stimulate and protect national capital to US companies operating in the CIS countries.
In the process of carrying out agrarian reforms, the formation of new organizational and legal forms of ownership of agricultural producers continues. The number of collective farms and state farms has been significantly reduced. Most of these farms have been transformed into joint-stock companies, partnerships, associations, and cooperatives. By the beginning of 1997, 786,000 peasant farms were registered in the CIS with an average plot of 45,000 m2. functions and protectionist support for agriculture. All this, combined with the rupture of traditional ties, led to an intensification of the agrarian crisis, a decline in production, and an increase in social tension in the countryside.
An important element in the formation of a common labor market in the CIS countries is labor migration. During the period 1991-1995, the population of Russia increased by 2 million people due to migration from the CIS and Baltic countries. Such a significant number of refugees and internally displaced persons increases the tension on the labor market, especially if we take into account their concentration in certain regions of Russia, and requires large expenditures for the construction of housing and social facilities. Migration processes in the CIS countries represent one of the most complex socio-demographic problems. Therefore, the Commonwealth countries are working to conclude bilateral and multilateral agreements aimed at regulating migration processes.
There is a noticeable decrease in the number of students arriving to study from one CIS country to another. So, if in 1994 58,700 students from neighboring countries studied at Russian universities, then in 1996 - only 32,500.
Legislative acts in the field of education are intertwined with laws on languages adopted in almost all countries of the Commonwealth. The declaration of the language of the titular nation as the only state language, the introduction of a mandatory examination for knowledge of the state language, the translation of office work into this language, the narrowing of the scope of higher education in Russian objectively created difficulties for a significant part of the population of non-titular nationality living in these countries, including Russian speakers. As a result, many independent states managed to separate themselves so much that difficulties arose with the academic mobility of applicants and students, the equivalence of documents on education, and the study of courses of students' choice. Therefore, the formation of a common educational space will be the most important condition for the implementation of positive integration processes in the CIS.
The significant fundamental and technological reserves available to the Commonwealth states, highly qualified personnel, and a unique scientific and production base remain largely unclaimed and continue to degrade. The prospect that the Commonwealth states will soon face the problem of their inability to meet the needs of the economies of their countries with the help of their national scientific, technical and engineering potentials is becoming more and more real. This will inevitably increase the tendency to solve internal problems through mass purchases of equipment and technology in third countries, which will put them in long-term technological dependence on external sources, which, ultimately, is fraught with undermining national security, increasing unemployment and lowering the standard of living of the population.
With the collapse of the USSR, the geopolitical and geo-economic position of the Commonwealth countries changed. The ratio of internal and external factors of economic development has changed. Has undergone significant changes and the nature of economic relations. The liberalization of foreign economic activity has opened the way to the foreign market for most enterprises and business structures. Their interests began to act as a decisive factor, largely determining the export-import operations of the Commonwealth states. The greater openness of domestic markets for goods and capital of far-abroad countries led to their saturation with imported products, which led to the decisive influence of world market conditions on prices and production structure in the CIS countries. As a result, many goods produced in the Commonwealth states turned out to be uncompetitive, which caused a reduction in their production and, as a result, significant structural changes in the economy. The development of industries whose products are in demand in the markets of countries outside the CIS has become characteristic.
As a result active development of these processes, there was a reorientation of the economic ties of the Commonwealth states. In the early 1990s, trade with the current Commonwealth countries reached 0.21 of their total GDP, while in the countries of the European Community this figure was only 0.14. In 1996, trade between the CIS countries amounted to only 0.06 of the total GDP. In 1993, in the total volume of export operations of the CIS countries, the share of these countries themselves was 0.315 parts, in imports - 0.435. In the export-import operations of the EU countries, the share of exports to the EU countries was 0.617 parts, the share of imports was 0.611. That is, the trend of economic ties, manifested in the CIS, contradicts the world experience of integration.
In almost all CIS countries, the growth rate of trade turnover outside the Commonwealth exceeds the growth rate of trade turnover within the CIS. The exceptions are Belarus and Tajikistan, whose foreign trade is characterized by a steady trend of strengthening trade relations with the CIS countries.
The directions of reorientation of economic relations within the Commonwealth and structural transformations in the foreign trade relations of the CIS countries have led to the regionalization of trade relations and disintegration processes in the Commonwealth as a whole.
In the structure of imports of the CIS countries, there is an orientation towards current consumer needs. The main place in the import of the CIS countries is occupied by food, agricultural raw materials, products light industry, Appliances.
Formation of alternative integration options in the CIS countries. The CIS as a supranational entity has too few "points of contact" between its members. As a result of this, the regionalization of the economic space of the CIS took place and could not fail to take place. The process of regionalization has received organizational formalization. The following integration groups were formed: The Union State of Belarus and Russia (SBR). Customs Union (CU). Central Asian Economic Community (CAEC). Unification of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova (GUUAM). Triple Economic Union (TES). Several organizations with more specific common goals and problems have been formed in the CIS space:
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. The task of the CSTO is to coordinate and unite efforts in the fight against international terrorism and extremism, trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Thanks to this organization, created on October 7, 2002, Russia maintains its military presence in Central Asia.
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC)- Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. In 2000, on the basis of the CU, it was established by its members. This is an international economic organization endowed with functions related to the formation of common external customs borders of its member states (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), the development of a common foreign economic policy, tariffs, prices and other components of the functioning of the common market. Priority areas of activity are increasing trade between the participating countries, integration in the financial sector, unification of customs and tax laws. Moldova and Ukraine have the status of observers.
Central Asian cooperation(CAC, originally CAEC) - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia (since 2004). The creation of the community was caused by the inability of the CIS to form an effective political and economic bloc. The Central Asian Economic Cooperation Organization (CAEC) was the first regional economic cooperation organization of the countries of Central Asia. The agreement on the establishment of the CAC organization was signed by the heads of state on February 28, 2002 in Almaty. However, the CAEC failed to create a free trade zone, and due to the low efficiency of its work, the organization was liquidated, and the CAC was created on its basis. The agreement on the establishment of the CAC organization was signed by the heads of state on February 28, 2002 in Almaty. The stated goals are interaction in the political, economic, scientific, technical, environmental, cultural and humanitarian spheres, providing mutual support in preventing a threat to the independence and sovereignty, territorial integrity of the CACO member states, pursuing a coordinated policy in the field of border and customs control, implementing agreed efforts in the phased formation of a single economic space. On October 18, 2004, Russia joined the CAC. On October 6, 2005, at the CACO summit, it was decided, in connection with the upcoming entry of Uzbekistan into the EurAsEC, to prepare documents for the creation of a united organization of the CAC-EurAsEC - that is, in fact, it was decided to abolish the CAC.
Shanghai Organization cooperation(SCO) - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China. The organization was founded in 2001 on the basis of the predecessor organization, which was called the Shanghai Five, and has existed since 1996. The tasks of the organization are mainly related to security issues.
Common Economic Space (SES)- Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine. An agreement on the prospect of creating a Common Economic Space, in which there will be no customs barriers, and tariffs and taxes will be uniform, was reached on February 23, 2003, but the creation was postponed until 2005. Due to the lack of interest of Ukraine in the CES, the project is currently suspended, and most integration tasks are developing within the framework of the EurAsEC.
Union State of Russia and Belarus (SBR). This is a political project of the union of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus with a single political, economic, military, customs, currency, legal, humanitarian, cultural space organized in stages. The agreement on the creation of the Union of Belarus and Russia was signed on April 2, 1997 on the basis of the Community of Belarus and Russia, created earlier (April 2, 1996) to unite the humanitarian, economic and military space. On December 25, 1998, a number of agreements were signed that allowed for closer integration in the political, economic and social sphere, which strengthened the Union. Since January 26, 2000 official name Union - the Union State. It is assumed that the current confederal Union should become a soft federation in the future. A member state of the United Nations may become a member of the Union, which shares the goals and principles of the Union and assumes the obligations stipulated by the Treaty on the Union of Belarus and Russia of April 2, 1997 and the Charter of the Union. Accession to the Union is carried out with the consent of the member states of the Union. When a new state joins the Union, the issue of changing the name of the Union is considered.
In all these organizations, Russia actually acts as a leading force (only in the SCO does it share this role with China).
On December 2, 2005, the creation of the Commonwealth of Democratic Choice (CDC) was announced, which included Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Macedonia, Slovenia and Georgia. The initiators of the creation of the Community were Viktor Yushchenko and Mikhail Saakashvili. The declaration on the creation of the community notes: "the participants will support the development of democratic processes and the creation of democratic institutions, exchange experiences in strengthening democracy and respect for human rights, and coordinate efforts to support new and emerging democratic societies."
Customs Union (CU). The agreement on the creation of a single customs territory and the formation of a customs union was signed in Dushanbe on October 6, 2007. On November 28, 2009, the meeting of D. A. Medvedev, A. G. Lukashenko and N. A. Nazarbayev in Minsk marked the activation of work on the creation of a single customs space on the territory of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan from January 1, 2010. During this period, a number of important international agreements on the Customs Union were ratified. In total, in 2009, about 40 international agreements were adopted at the level of heads of state and government, which formed the basis of the Customs Union. After receiving official confirmation from Belarus in June 2010, the customs union was launched in a trilateral format by the entry into force of the Customs Code of the three countries. From July 1, 2010, the new Customs Code began to be applied in relations between Russia and Kazakhstan, and from July 6, 2010 - in relations between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. By July 2010, the formation of a single customs territory was completed. In July 2010, the customs union came into effect.
Organization for Democracy and Economic Development - GUAM- a regional organization established in 1999 (the charter of the organization was signed in 2001, the charter - in 2006) by the republics - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (from 1999 to 2005 the organization also included Uzbekistan). The name of the organization was formed from the first letters of the names of its member countries. Before Uzbekistan left the organization, it was called GUAM. The idea of creating an informal association of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova was approved by the presidents of these countries during a meeting in Strasbourg on October 10, 1997. The main goals of the creation of GUAM: cooperation in the political sphere; combating ethnic intolerance, separatism, religious extremism and terrorism; peacekeeping activities; development of the transport corridor Europe - the Caucasus - Asia; integration into European structures and cooperation with NATO within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program. The goals of GUAM were confirmed in a special Declaration signed on April 24, 1999 in Washington by the presidents of the five countries, which became the first official document of this association (the "Washington Declaration"). characteristic feature GUAM initially began to focus on European and international structures. The initiators of the union acted outside the framework of the CIS. At the same time, opinions were expressed that the immediate goal of the union was to weaken the economic, primarily energy, dependence of its member states on Russia and the development of energy transit along the Asia (Caspian) - Caucasus - Europe route, bypassing the territory of Russia. The political reasons given were the desire to resist Russia's intentions to revise the flank restrictions of conventional armed forces in Europe and fears that this could legitimize the presence of Russian armed contingents in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, regardless of their consent. The political orientation of GUAM became even more noticeable after Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the CIS Collective Security Treaty in 1999. In general, the Russian media tend to describe GUAM as an anti-Russian bloc, or "organization of orange nations" with the United States behind it ( Yazkova A. GUAM Summit: Planned Goals and Opportunities for their Implementation // European Security: Events, Assessments, Forecasts. - Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005. - V. 16. - S. 10-13.)
TPP includes Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan. In February 1995, as supreme body TPP was formed by the Interstate Council. Its competence includes solving key issues of economic integration of the three states. The Central Asian Bank for Cooperation and Development was established in 1994 to provide financial support for the activities of the TPP. Its authorized capital is $9 million and is formed by equal share contributions from the founding states.
There are currently two parallel collective military structures within the CIS. One of them is the Council of CIS Defense Ministers, established in 1992 to develop a unified military policy. Under it, there is a permanent secretariat and the Headquarters for the Coordination of Military Cooperation of the CIS (SHKVS). The second is the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Within the framework of the CSTO, collective rapid deployment forces have been created as part of several battalions of mobile troops, a helicopter squadron, army aviation. In 2002-2004 cooperation in the military field developed mainly within the framework of the CSTO.
Reasons for the decrease in the intensity of integration processes in the CIS countries. Among the main factors that led to a qualitative decline in the level of Russian influence in the CIS countries, it seems important to us to name:
1. The rise of new leaders in the post-Soviet space. The 2000s became a period of activation of international structures alternative to the CIS, primarily GUAM and the Organization for Democratic Choice, which are grouped around Ukraine. After the Orange Revolution of 2004, Ukraine became the center of political gravity in the post-Soviet space, alternative to Russia and supported by the West. Today, it has firmly outlined its interests in Transnistria (Viktor Yushchenko's road map, the blockade of the unrecognized Transnistrian Moldavian Republic in 2005-2006) and in the South Caucasus (Borjomi Declaration, signed jointly with the President of Georgia, claims to the role of a peacekeeper in the zone of Georgian Abkhazian conflict and in Nagorno-Karabakh). It is Ukraine that more and more clearly begins to claim the role of the main mediator between the CIS states and Europe. The second alternative center to Moscow has become our "key Eurasian partner" - Kazakhstan. At present, this state is increasingly asserting itself as the main reformer of the Commonwealth. Kazakhstan rapidly and very effectively participates in the development of Central Asia and the South Caucasus, acts as an initiator of integration processes, both at the regional level and on the scale of the entire CIS. It is the leadership of Kazakhstan that persistently pursues the idea of tougher discipline in the ranks of the CIS and responsibility for joint decisions. Gradually, integration institutions cease to be a Russian tool.
2. Increasing the activity of non-regional players. In the 1990s Russian dominance in the CIS was almost officially recognized by American and European diplomacy. Later, however, the US and the EU rethought the post-Soviet space as a sphere of their direct interests, which manifested itself, in particular, in the direct US military presence in Central Asia, in the EU policy to diversify energy delivery routes in the Caspian region, in a wave of pro-Western velvet revolutions, in the process of systematic expansion of NATO and the EU.
3.Crisis of instruments of Russian influence in the CIS. Among the main factors of this crisis, the shortage and/or lack of demand for qualified diplomats and experts who are able to provide Russian politics in the post-Soviet regions at a high quality level; lack of a full-fledged policy of support for compatriots and Russian-centric humanitarian initiatives; rejection of dialogue with the opposition and independent civil structures, focusing exclusively on contacts with the first persons and "parties of power" of neighboring countries. This last feature is not only technical, but partly ideological, reflecting Moscow's commitment to the values of "stabilization" of power and the nomenklatura solidarity of top officials. Today, such scenarios are being implemented in relations with Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and, to a lesser extent, with Armenia, Azerbaijan and unrecognized states. The Kremlin does not work with the second and third echelons of power in these states, which means that it deprives itself of insurance against a sudden change in top leadership and loses promising allies among the supporters of modernization and political change.
4. Wear and tear of the "nostalgic resource". From its very first steps in the post-Soviet space, Moscow actually relied on the Soviet margin of safety in relations with the newly independent states. Maintaining the status quo has become the main goal of Russian strategy. For some time, Moscow could justify its special importance in the post-Soviet space as an intermediary between the world's largest centers of power and the newly independent states. However, this role quickly exhausted itself due to the reasons already mentioned (the activation of the US and the EU, the transformation of individual post-Soviet states into regional centers of power).
5. The priority of global integration over regional, professed by the Russian ruling elite. The common economic space of Russia and its allies could be viable as a project similar and alternative to pan-European integration. However, it was precisely in this capacity that it was not adopted and formulated. Moscow, at all stages of its relations, both with Europe and with its neighbors in the CIS, directly and indirectly emphasizes that it considers post-Soviet integration solely as an addition to the integration process in " greater Europe”(In 2004, in parallel with the declarations on the creation of the CES, Russia adopted the so-called concept of “road maps” for the creation of four common spaces between Russia and the European Union). Similar priorities were identified in the negotiation process on accession to the WTO. Neither "integration" with the EU, nor the process of joining the WTO were crowned with success by themselves, but quite successfully torpedoed the post-Soviet integration project.
6. Failure of the energy pressure strategy. The reaction to the obvious "flight" of the neighboring countries from Russia was the policy of raw material selfishness, which was sometimes sought to be presented in the guise of "energy imperialism", which is only partly true. The only "expansionist" goal pursued by the gas conflicts with the CIS countries was the establishment by Gazprom of control over the gas transportation systems of these countries. And in the main directions this goal was not achieved. The main transit countries through which Russian gas reaches consumers are Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia. At the heart of the reaction of these countries to the pressure of "Gazprom" is the desire to eliminate dependence on Russian gas as soon as possible. Every country does it different ways. Georgia and Ukraine - by building new gas pipelines and transporting gas from Turkey, the Caucasus and Iran. Belarus - by diversifying the fuel balance. All three countries oppose Gazprom's control over the gas transmission system. At the same time, the possibility of joint control over the GTS was most severely rejected by Ukraine, whose position on this issue is the most important. As for the political side of the issue, here the result of energy pressure is not zero, but negative. It's in equally concerns not only Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, but also "friendly" Armenia and Belarus. The increase in the price of Russian gas supplies to Armenia, which took place in early 2006, has already significantly strengthened the Western vector of Armenian foreign policy. Russian raw material selfishness in relations with Minsk finally buried the idea of the Russian-Belarusian Union. For the first time in more than 12 years of his tenure in power, in early 2007 Alexander Lukashenko praised the West and harshly criticized Russian policy.
7. Unattractiveness of the internal development model of the Russian Federation (nomenclature and raw materials project) for neighboring countries.
In general, it can be noted that at present, effective economic, political, social integration in the post-Soviet space is less intensive due to the lack of genuine interest in it of the CIS countries. The CIS was founded not as a confederation, but as an international (interstate) organization, which is characterized by weak integration and the absence of real power in the coordinating supranational bodies. Membership in this organization was rejected by the Baltic republics, as well as Georgia (it joined the CIS only in October 1993 and announced its withdrawal from the CIS after the war in South Ossetia in the summer of 2008). However, according to most experts, the unifying idea within the CIS has not completely exhausted itself. The crisis is experienced not by the Commonwealth as such, but by the approach that prevailed during the 1990s to organize economic interaction between the participating countries. The new integration model should take into account the decisive role of not only economic, but also other structures in the development of economic relations within the CIS. At the same time, the economic policy of states, the institutional and legal aspects of cooperation should change significantly. They are designed to contribute primarily to the creation of the necessary conditions for the successful interaction of economic entities.
