Leonid Ivashov: Eurasian Union: problems, prospects
During the 20 years of existence of the “new Russia”, among the international problems, the most acute issues are the state of relations between the post-Soviet countries. The interweaving of the destinies of the people of the once united state, two hundred peoples who created a unique civilization, continue to worry almost all segments of the population of the post-Soviet world. And this is not only nostalgia for material well-being, but something more profound. In my opinion, this feeling was strongly expressed by one ancient author, when he said: "... for complete happiness of a person it is necessary to have a glorious fatherland." And no matter how they try to blacken the Soviet past, the feeling of greatness and glory in the common fate of the peoples of the USSR is preserved. Therefore, the desire to unite is manifested, and therefore the “historians” of the new states invent “glorious pages” in stories their peoples, and the Russian history, the role of the Russian people are trying to belittle and cross out.
So, for example, in the history books of the CIS states, written in the beginning of the 90 for the money of Soros, Russia and the Russian people are exposed only as aggressors, occupiers, colonizers. The exceptions are partly Belarus and Armenia, where our common historical fate is described relatively objectively. But it is not possible to erase the historical memory of nations, to divide the borders of a single cultural, historical and spiritual space. People of different ages continue to live in it. In all election campaigns, presidential and parliamentary, and not only in Russia, the integration of the CIS countries stands apart as a priority. So, on the eve of the presidential election 2006, Yeltsin announced the creation of a Union State of Russia and Belarus, signed a decree in September 1995, which determined the deep integration of the post-Soviet space as the main international priority of Russian policy. True, neither the first nor the second did not take place. The reasons are different, but one thing is clear: political decisions require deep scientific study, the adoption of an appropriate concept, process modeling, planning. Unfortunately, most of the ideas put forward do not receive a corresponding development and remain political slogans of the moment. Take the same Union State. To this day, no one knows what it is. There is no theory of the question, there is no precedent in world practice (some kind of union state is Bosnia and Herzegovina, but this formation is temporary and forced, without prospects), there is no draft, there is only a declaration of intent. The question arises: what do we build and build at all? I would like to hope that this time V. Putin’s ideas on the creation of the Eurasian Union will acquire real outlines and will be embodied both in the form of a scientific theory and in political practice. Because it is the call of the times, the answer to the challenge of the modern world.
One of the manifestations of the globalization of the human community was the formation of geopolitical actors that shape world processes. These subjects often assume the functions of states, and in a number of respects they lose their subjectivity in politics, in the economy, and in social relations. Transnational communities that have challenged states have already entered the world arena. This subject of world politics today is the most powerful: 45 thousands of TNCs, more than 1 thousands of transnational banks, 16 international financial centers, their own staff structures in the form of the IMF, the World Bank, their own printing press - the Fed. For coercion dissenters there are NATO, US intelligence agencies. It is this monster that forms the world processes. He made a revolutionary revolution in the economy: money broke away from production, became not only a means of payment, but also a commodity, and the meaning of life. As a response, global and regional associations based on cultural and historical grounds are formed. Among the latter - Greater China, Europe, India, actively integrating Latin America, next in line is the Islamic world.
Three geopolitical centers today determine mainly world processes, leading a tough struggle and at the same time forming global fields of tension. This is North America, Europe, China. They have potentials that distinguish them as world leaders: independent economic spaces with the number of own consumers of at least 400 million, GDP equal to at least 20 trillion. dollars, own world currency; armed forces capable of acting in any region of the world, in the oceans, in space; geopolitical doctrine and global strategy; own development strategy. Russia belongs to the second tier of world players, and recognize its status as a world-class power only because of its nuclear potential combined with its spatial position, natural resources and succession to the geopolitical grandeur of the USSR. However, all this is a past legacy; the new Russia does not create a new geopolitical potential. The increase in the number of billionaires, limousines and corruption is, alas, from another, by no means geopolitical, opera. If the current Russian Federation does not change its trajectory of "development", then already in the next couple of decades we will slip into the third echelon, in the number of raw and not fully developed countries. Although we will have dozens of ballistic missiles. Looking back at the Soviet project, we notice that it is the prototype of the current geopolitical centers of the world. Therefore, A.G. Lukashenko, after reading the article by V.V. Putin in “Izvestia” about the Eurasian Union, and called “the collapse of the Soviet Union the deepest, tragic mistake of the twentieth century” (VV Putin himself earlier spoke of the collapse of the USSR as a “geopolitical catastrophe”).
The project of the Eurasian Union is highly relevant, it may have a prospect, however there is a number of “buts”. First, the geopolitical centers of the world — the USA, China, and Europe — are struggling for control over the Eurasian space, for its resources, infrastructure, and markets. Plus, the leaders of the three branches of the Islamic world, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, are “fighting” for influence over Central Asia. Plus, the elites of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are not inclined to share national sovereignty, or rather their power. Kyrgyzstan is committed as a WTO member. Tajikistan will not be able to enter the common customs and economic space due to the “isolation” from Russia and Kazakhstan. Etc. etc. In the Caucasus, only Armenia can show interest in V. Putin’s proposal, but it has no common borders either with Russia or with other future participants. Now about Ukraine. The elite "Square" and a significant part of its population want to live in Europe, but not in Asia. And Russia itself is by no means an attractive example, especially the Russian hinterland, and oil and gas are the subject of envy, but nothing more. Moreover, Europe holds a “carrot” before Ukraine’s nose of a possible EU membership.
So, the real contenders for joining the future union remain Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan. Nevertheless, the Eurasian Union must be built. However, do not focus only on the economy. The economic success of the Chinese, Hindus, Brazilians, and earlier the Japanese were preceded by the return of these peoples to national values, combining cultural and historical traditions with the results of progress in technology. The main merit of Deng Xiaoping was the return of the Chinese to Confucianism, to the "Book of Changes", to the origins of Chinese civilization. The symbol of the Celestial Empire is again the national (geopolitical) idea of the Chinese of the whole world. The successes of the Chinese are manifested not only in the economy, but above all in education, culture, science, and the social sphere. During the reform period, the physical growth of the average Chinese increased by 11, see. This is the result of personality development, aspirations for the future. So, in the project of the Eurasian Union, the economy should be a means of the integrated development of man and society, and not an end in itself. The liberal economic model, the western values of life contradict the values of the Russian (Soviet) civilization, the juices of which absorbed all the indigenous peoples of Russia and the USSR. This was written back in the nineteenth - early twentieth centuries. outstanding Russian thinkers.
I am convinced that the first successes of the Eurasian Union will push the rest of the Commonwealth countries to search for ways to join it. However, the potential of the union, even if most of the members of the CIS join it, will not be sufficient to compete successfully with China, Europe, the USA and the transnational financial monster. It is necessary to create the beginnings of a new world, to unite all those who disagree with the new world order. The contours of such a union are read: the SCO, BRICS, ASEAN, and others. The Eurasian Union must act together with Russia as a whole. Plus, proceed to the formation of an independent geopolitical center (for a start, an economic space). And again, we need a deeply scientific theoretical basis and an elaborate strategy.
There is one more serious problem on the way to the Eurasian Union. This is bureaucracy. Over the years after the collapse of the USSR, a completely different layer of managers formed from the Soviet one. A Soviet official had a strong sense of responsibility for the assigned area of work. Responsibility is administrative, party, public, criminal. Even a reprimand, administrative, and, moreover, a party one, slowed down his career and urged executiveness. Today, cadres of officials are staffed far from professional merit; they go to positions not for any state or socially significant accomplishments, but more often for well-being, both their own and the one who pushed you to this position. The ruling party in Russia is also not a CPSU, not even the Gorbachev period ... Nevertheless, the Eurasian Union is vital for all the peoples of the CIS, therefore, it’s necessary to start building it immediately. The recent agreement of the CIS heads of government on the creation of a free trade zone is a practical step in this direction. However, even here the process may encounter bureaucratic reefs - officials will “milk” business structures, hampering the implementation of presidential and governmental decisions. We need a system of protection and support of business projects both from the states and by creating by the business itself a structure of its own protection and support, a kind of emergency ministry for business. This could be initiated by Delovaya Rossiya, taking for example the patented theoretical developments of A.R. Petrosyan "Agency of Equal Opportunities" or some other. And again, without a theory can not do. And finally, another argument in favor of the union. The Soviet leaders had such a thesis: if the enemy criticizes, then we are on the right path. V.Putin's proposal caused a slight panic and harsh criticism in the West. They started talking, and with concern, about the revival of the USSR. I am far from the thought that in the era of crisis, Western politicians are terribly worried about our well-being: they are worried, first of all, about their own interests, which, in general, is correct. So, the Eurasian Union is in the interests of the peoples of the Commonwealth. Within its framework, a common (or contiguous) foreign policy position, the practice of jointly upholding economic interests and a collective security system can and should be formed. It is infinitely easier for the West to deal with each of the post-Soviet states individually, and precisely because our states need to unite ...
Information