CIS SPLIT AT MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
By Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
April 25 2006

The meeting of ministers of foreign affairs of the Commonwealth of
Independent States member countries, held on April 21 in Moscow,
exposed a profound split in the organization. Ukraine, Moldova,
Georgia, and Azerbaijan formed a common front on issues of shared
concern, opposing Russian policies directed against their interests.

The four countries are members of the GUAM group, though they did
not act in that capacity at the conference.

The Ukrainian delegation, led by Minister of Foreign Affairs Borys
Tarasyuk, led this group of independent-minded countries in the debate
on most economic and political issues of concern to them.

Russia, with the support of loyalist or neutralist countries
whose interests are not involved in those issues, rejected the four
countries’ initiatives with a high-handedness that can only exacerbate
the differences at upcoming high-level CIS meetings.

Georgia and Moldova submitted separately prepared statements about
Russia’s ban on imports of their wines and other agricultural
products on the Russian market. Describing the ban as politically
motivated, abusive, and unwarranted, the statements underscored the
“massive economic damage” inflicted on the two countries. Georgia
and Moldova regard the ban as an “unfriendly action” by the Russian
government, are asking the Russian government for explanations, and
are challenging the Russian agencies involved — mainly the Consumer
Protection Inspectorate — to show cause for this action. The Ukrainian
delegation lodged its own complaint about recent Russian restrictions
on the import of a wide range of Ukrainian agricultural products on
the Russian market.

Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov handled those
grievances at the concluding press briefing with a dismissive reference
to “some kind of declarations” made during the conference.

He warned by Georgia and Moldova against “politicizing” the issue,
as this “will not facilitate a solution.” Russia takes the position
that the issue should be discussed at the level of technical agencies.

Thus, Moscow seeks to evade political responsibility for a measure
undoubtedly ordered by high political authorities. Georgia, Moldova,
and Ukraine intend to raise the issue again at the upcoming CIS
meetings of prime ministers (May 25) and of the heads of state
shortly thereafter.

The Russian side also blocked Ukraine’s proposal to discuss the
creation of a CIS Free Trade Zone at the conference. The proposal,
nominally endorsed by Russia as well, is almost a decade old and
no member country seriously expects Russia to actually implement
it. In Ukraine, however, the proposal has become topical again
in connection with the Russia-planned Single Economic Space
(Russia-Belarus-Kazakhstan, with Ukraine invited to become a member).

Some groups in Ukraine (not only within the Party of Regions) want the
country to join the Single Economic Space in one form or another — a
move that would compromise Ukraine’s European aspirations. On the other
hand, Ukrainian proponents of integration with the European Union cite
the proposal for a CIS Free Trade Zone as potentially advantageous to
Ukraine as well as compatible with the country’s progress toward the
EU. However, Ukrainian attempts to discuss the free-trade proposal
with Moscow shatter against the resistance of Russian protectionist
interests. Thus, the Moscow conference strengthened the view that the
CIS is, at best, useless to member countries generally and, at worst,
actually detrimental to their interests.

A proposal to discuss the “frozen conflicts” at the conference was
also blocked by the Russian side. Ukraine took the lead in submitting
this proposal with the support of Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.

The obstruction by Moscow and its allies will strengthen the case for
internationalization of the existing “peacekeeping” and negotiating
frameworks on Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia, as well as
underscoring the value of American efforts to settle the Karabakh
conflict.

Ukraine asked the conference to prepare a proposal for the upcoming
CIS summit to express its attitude to the 1930-33 famine and genocide
in Ukraine (the Holodomor). However, the Russian side orchestrated
a procedural move that eliminated the proposal from the agenda.

Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan voted with Russia
against the proposal. Armenia, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan
abstained. Moldova, Georgia, and Azerbaijan voted with Ukraine.

According to Lavrov at the concluding briefing, discussion of the
Holodomor would have “politicized” a historical issue. Lavrov argued
— as Russian Ambassador Viktor Chernomyrdin also did in Kyiv — that
Russians and other Soviet citizens suffered equally in Soviet times
and it would therefore be inappropriate to single out any people in
this regard.

This argument is heard regularly from Moscow about the Baltic
states as well: “It was a common pain in the Soviet Union.” Such an
argument constitutes the ultimate expression of a social culture
of collectivism. It also overlooks, first, the fact that Moscow
organized the famine and deportations in Ukraine, the Baltic states and
elsewhere; and, second, that the Kremlin today is actively discouraging
the attempts to come to terms with Soviet Russia’s own totalitarian
recent history. While refusing to assess the actions of the Soviet
regime, Russia at the same time claims prerogatives as the legal
successor of the USSR.

The Moscow conference was to have discussed a CIS Executive Committee
report on implementing decisions on CIS reform, adopted by the
heads of state at the August 2005 summit in Astana. A corresponding
Russian proposal envisaged setting up a high-level group on “measures
to enhance the effectiveness of the CIS.” Neither initiative was
mentioned after the conference. In his conclusions, Tarasyuk was
scathing about the CIS: “not a normal international organization,”
“unresponsive to situations that are most sensitive to member states,”
“useless,” and “has no future.”

(Interfax, Itar-Tass, Moldpres, Imedi TV, April 21, 22)