PUTIN OFFERS NEW PARADIGM OF COOPERATION
RIA Novosti, Russia
May 08, 2005
MOSCOW, May 8 (Tatiana Stanovaya, leading expert of the Center for
Political Technologies, specially for RIA Novosti) – The informal
CIS summit, which took place today, preceded the official events
devoted to the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the victory
over fascism. This fact is far from being accidental: Russia is,
therefore, stressing the priority of the CIS as the USSR heritage and
this event acquires a specific meaning in the context of the jubilee
of the Great Victory.
The further fate of the CIS is a very acute issue, which tops today’s
agenda. For the first time since 1998-1999, the CIS is experiencing a
crisis. The leaders of Ukraine, Georgia and now already Moldova are
openly speaking about the CIS as a structure of the past (although
in his today’s interview with Mayak radio station President of
Moldova Vladimir Voronin spoke about the CIS’ yet incompletely used
possibilities, he more perceived the Commonwealth as a sort of a
discussion club).
The issue of the expediency of keeping the CIS was already raised
in 1999 due to the August 1998 financial crisis. The economies of
the former Soviet republics closely linked with Russia started to
experience all the negative consequences of the weakening of the
Russian financial and economic system. Russian investors started
quickly losing their positions in the markets of the CIS countries
thinking about how to survive at least. Russia as a dominating creditor
was getting less attractive. It was also in 1999 that the future
of the Collective Security Treaty Organization became uncertain:
Uzbekistan, Georgia and Azerbaijan withdrew from it (today the
Collective Security Treaty Organization includes Russia, Belarus
and Armenia, and also three Central Asian republics – Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). It was precisely in 1999 that a new
structure, GUUAM (the abbreviation consisting of the first letters
of five member states: Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and
Moldova) was created as a western-oriented alternative to the CIS.
Russia tried at that time to coordinate the efforts of the CIS
member states not so much in the economic sphere as in the sphere of
foreign policy to keep the Commonwealth alive. Russia attempted to
make the CIS a sort of an umbrella to protect the CIS foreign policy
interests amid the NATO expansion to the East. The election of new
President of Russia Vladimir Putin in 2000 helped Russia to increase
its geopolitical attractiveness. The period of 2000-2002 proved to be
a period of stagnation for the CIS. This stagnation was overcome in
2003 with the emergence of the project of the common economic space
for four states (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan).
Russia’s attempts to accelerate the CIS integration processes in
2003 met with the understanding of the CIS member states: this was
prompted by the emerging weaknesses of the ruling regimes in the
CIS countries. The CIS as a structure for a dialog, in which Russia
objectively played a central role, was considered as an additional
resource for CIS ruling regimes to strengthen their internal
political positions. In 2003, it was the CIS summit, at which the
future President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, was presented with the
direct support of his candidature by Russia. The same year, the CIS’
leadership was passed over to Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma who
initiated constitutional reform in the country in the preparation for
the 2004 presidential elections. Russia soon secured Ukraine’s refusal
to join NATO: the relevant clause was excluded from the country’s
military doctrine (it is true, though, that this clause was restored
after Viktor Yushchenko was elected the President of Ukraine). CIS
observers play a key role in making elections in the CIS countries
legitimate. Simultaneously, there is increasing rivalry between the
CIS institutions and European organizations, in particular, the OSCE,
in assessing the results of electoral processes. Today the CIS member
states are actively discussing the ways of the reformation of the OSCE
whose decisions played quite a role in recognizing “color revolutions”
in the post-Soviet space.
The re-orientation of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova to the West after
the presidential elections in those countries and the revival of
GUUAM (Tashkent recently announced its intention to withdraw from that
organization) as an alternative to the CIS have put the Commonwealth on
the brink of a new crisis. The Commonwealth of Independent States as an
organization for the settlement of conflicts and integration is facing
strong competition from the West. The CIS political problem today
is that the geopolitical vectors of the CIS member states are being
polarized. Those countries, which fear color revolutions (Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan and Armenia) are turning towards Russia. Moldova, Georgia
and Ukraine, on the contrary, are embodying the disintegration
vector inside the CIS. President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili
predicts a third wave of color revolutions while Ukraine also speaks,
although to a lesser degree, about the export of revolutions to the
CIS countries. Against this background, the support of the informal
role of the CIS as a resource to keep the ruling regimes may prove
to be fatal for the Commonwealth.
That is why, the topical issue today is to look for a new CIS
formula. This formula can be based on stronger security, the struggle
against terrorism and better efficiency of the CIS sectoral structures,
and also on cooperation in the humanitarian field: a respective
declaration was adopted today at the summit, which was attended by
all the heads of the CIS states, except the Presidents of Georgia and
Azerbaijan. The task of countering the threats of Nazism, terrorism
and extremism pronounced by President Vladimir Putin in his opening
speech is becoming a new ideological basis capable of shifting the
emphasis from confrontation to integration trends. The contours of
a new CIS paradigm based on the principles of security and humanism
are thus emerging.