"Geopolitical Setting"

Has the commonwealth of independent states collapsed?
Dimitri Kemoklidze

Following the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created to preserve linkages between the countries. While for Russia the CIS was the only means to keep a dominant position in the post-Soviet space, most CIS countries considered the CIS no more than an interstate instrument of civilized divorce. This autumn, during the UN Millennium Summit in New York, very important events took place with dire implications for the CIS. The presidents of GUUAM countries began negotiations toward creating a free trade area within these five countries. At the same time, the Customs Union of the CIS was transformed into the Eurasian Economic Union. Do these events spell the collapse of CIS?

BACKGROUND: Only several of the CIS leaders hoped that it would be possible to reintegrate the national economies and thus maintain a single post-soviet economic space. This was to be achieved by the Agreement on Economic Union concluded on September 1993 by eleven of the CIS states. However, this agreement never was implemented. Another proposal from the Russian side was to create the Customs Union of the CIS, which required its member countries to introduce common external tariffs on the level of Russia’s tariff schedule. In 1996, a customs union was created involving only four CIS members, namely Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The governments of Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan rejected the CIS-based customs union because of the predominance of Russia, which would directly or indirectly dictate trade policy conditions. In reality, the Customs Union has only existed on paper.

The Collective Security Treaty signed by nine countries in 1992 was another means for preserving the CIS though Ukraine, Moldova and Turkmenistan have never been members of this collective security pact. In 1999, the Security Treaty expired and several members, namely Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan, decided to end their participation in the collective military cooperation framework because the treaty provided no actual protection of its members security, rather it has more to do with extending Russia’s interests. The rest of the CIS countries, previously members of the collective security treaty, were in favor of prolonging the pact and signed a relevant protocol.

Georgia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan withdrew from the treaty and formed a new military-political-economical-grouping (GUUAM) along with previously neutral Moldova and Ukraine. The presidents stressed cooperation in establishing the Eurasian Trans-Caucasus transportation corridor (TRACECA), in conflict settlement, peacekeeping activities, transportation projects, and integration into the Euro-Atlantic and European structures of security and cooperation. In 1999, Uzbekistan joined the GUUAM. In September 2000 in New York, the presidents agreed on institutionalization of GUUAM and began negotiations toward creating free trade area within these five countries. The following month Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan agreed to set up the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on the basis of the previously established Customs Union.

IMPLICATIONS: The newly established Eurasian Economic Union will be the means for political control over the member countries regarding their economic policies and external relations. This is indirectly written in the documents signed in October 2000. The new decision-making procedure, adopted by the same document, guarantees Russia’s dominate position in the Union. According to the voting formula, Russia will have four votes, Kazakhstan and Belarus, two each, and Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan one vote each. Considering the level of political and economic integration of Russia and Belarus, Russia will have majority (4+2) in the decision-making scheme of Eurasian Economic Union.

Regarding economic integration, the appropriate document has been signed according to which Union member countries will have to negotiate common external tariffs/trade barriers, which will probably create a Russian-led trading bloc. This will complicate bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations with WTO members for Kazakhstan and it will become impossible for Kyrgyzstan to fulfill obligations agreed during the negotiations with WTO members. Kyrgyzstan will be required to choose between Russia and western integration (WTO).

The GUUAM free trade area, since Georgia is already WTO member, will not complicate WTO negotiations for Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan because the free trade area does not require member countries to harmonize external tariffs and thus foreign trade policies. There is no doubt that GUUAM countries will set up a regional organization during the first quarter of 2001 and start negotiations on the creation free trade area among GUUAM countries. The result would be that all import tariffs and other trade barriers will be removed between GUUAM members and each country will continue to retain its own international trade measures vis-а-vis countries outside the free-trade area. Regional free-trade areas are very important in the structure of world trade. With outside countries, trade continues to be governed by bilateral treaties and the WTO/GATT framework. The creation of a regional free-trade area allows a group of states to cooperate in increasing their own wealth without waiting for the rest of world.

CONCLUSIONS: The fact that GUUAM countries have common economic, political and probably military interests strengthens this regional grouping. Among the top priorities will be the political interaction within the framework of integration into Euro-Atlantic and European structures of security and cooperation. This includes the establishment of a special dialogue with NATO on issues of mutual interest, as well as interaction with the United Nations, OSCE and other international organizations. Economic cooperation is of special importance, considering the plans to establish the Europe-South Caucasus-Central Asia transit corridor on the Silk Road in which the GUUAM countries would play an important role. The energy sector is another sphere of cooperation, particularly development of Caspian oil deposits and the construction of multiple pipelines to the international market.

Different political, economic and military interests divide the CIS into a pro-Russian Economic Union and a pro-Western GUUAM. Despite Russian insistence to the contrary, the CIS is characterized by a lack of political cohesion and there are divergent views about the role and status of the CIS among member countries. Russia is still willing to support an integration process that ultimately could lead to the creation of a unified political entity. However, the CIS cannot operate as a real integrative institution, especially after the creation of GUUAM and the Eurasian Economic Union, two regional organizations within the CIS that do not inspire much optimism about the future of the CIS even from a purely economic perspective. The CIS's future will depend on it becoming an important force in the independence and territorial integrity of its member states. This does not seem likely at this time.

AUTHOR BIO: Dimitri Kemoklidze is an expert with the EU-TACIS Project, Georgian-European Policy and Legal Advice Center in Tbilisi. He was recently an IREX Fellow and a Visiting Scholar at George Mason University. Research for this article was supported in part by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, the US Department of State under the Freedom Support Act, and administered by IREX. These organizations are not responsible for the views expressed.

"Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst", January 3, 2001
http://www.cacianalyst.org/Headline_1.htm