Force of Attraction: The "Eurasian Magnet" Draws New Partners from Palestine to Mexico

June 11, 2016 - 

Anna Garde, PolitRussia - 

Translated by J. Arnoldski

The Eurasian Economic Union, although a fairly young integration association, is rapidly developing. In just the past year and a half of its existence, the project has literally transformed into a center of Eurasian gravity. On January 1st, 2015, the treaty on the established of the EAEU entered into force and on as soon as May 29th an agreement on establishing a free trade zone with Vietnam was signed. With each passing day, the number of countries announcing their desire to cooperate with the union is growing. Negotiations on establishing free trade zones are already underway with Egypt, Thailand, and Iran. Pakistan, India, China, and Singapore have also expressed their interest in the project. More and more countries are being added to this number. 

Israel: rapprochement despite close ties with the US

Despite special relations with the United States and declarations that Russia will never replace such, relations between various countries and the EAEU are developing at an exponential rate.

A few days ago, negotiations on the establishment of a free trade zone between the EAEU and Israel were begun. It all started with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s routine visit to Moscow where he demonstrated his interest in the project. Last fall at a press conference, the ministry of immigrant absorption and strategic planning of Israel, Ze’ev Elkin, stated Israel's readiness to create a free trade zone with the EAEU. On this note, he stressed that such an agreement was planned to be concluded in the shorter possible time. 

The frequent meetings of Netanyahu, the Israeli President Rivlin, and Putin are generally consistent with the statements of Israeli authorities. Abstract thoughts on the expansion of economic cooperation between the two countries have gradually moved into the sphere of concrete negotiations. And this is all thanks to the EAEU.

Following his meeting with his Israeli colleague Russian President Vladimir Putin remarked:

“I’m sure that the creation of a free trade zone between the EAEU and Israel would give impetus to the development of business relations. Recently, in Astana, I discussed this with colleagues of the EAEU and substantive negotiations on this matter are to be launched in this year.”

Putin also noted that Israeli agricultural producers will expand their share on the Russian market in the near future. Experts predict a possible rise in trade between Israel and the EAEU countries of 6-8%. Although these margins might not be so huge for Russia, the country nevertheless gains the opportunity to increase investments and improve the transfer of Israeli technology. First and foremost, we are dealing with agricultural technology, the pharmaceutical industry, and the aircraft industry. 

Israel is where Palestine is

Following negotiations between Israel and Russia came the turn of Palestinian partners. On June 8th, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Sergey Lavrov, stated following negotiations with his Palestinian colleague Riad al-Maliki that Palestine is also interested in the integration project. On this, Putin said:

“Among the promising spheres we discussed today was the possibility of establishing relations and cooperation between Palestine and the EAEU. Our Palestinian friends have expressed their interest and we will support them in this.”

One zone for two

Incentives for expanding the EAEU have arisen not only outside but also within the organization itself. At the meeting of the heads of the CIS states in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Prime Minister Sooronbay Jeenbekov proposed to consider the introduction of a full-scale free trade regime between the CIS and EAEU. In his words, this would help strengthen trade and economic relations between the CIS and EAEU countries. 

Experts, however, are skeptical about such statements. As the first deputy director of the “Eurasians - New Wave” Foundation and expert on Kyrgyzstan, Denis Berdakov, has noted, this is most likely a populist statement since there will be no real results from such a merger. 

The analyst emphasizes: “The CIS and EAEU are different-paced and different-oriented integrations. The CIS is more of a cultural-educational character and allows the post-Soviet space to be linked in one way or another. But the EAEU is to a larger extent an economic integration aimed at the creation of a customs space.”

In addition, it is difficult to explain Jeenbekov’s statement given that the CIS space already has a free trade zone. 

Nevertheless, the unification of these projects could become an impulse for the expansion of ties in the EAEU as well as with countries outside of the organization which desire to improve the quality standards of their products. In addition, according to the expert, without an expansion of the union’s ties with countries outside of the CIS and Central Asia, the EAEU is doomed insofar as its market capacities' further development and technologization are already insufficient. 

Across countries and continents

The CIS is not the first integration association which has striven to work closely with the EAEU. In May 2015, negotiations began between the leaders of Russia and China on the conjugation of the Eurasian Economic Union and the “Silk Road Economic Belt.”

According to Putin, the linking of the EAEU and “Silk Road” projects means reaching a new level of partnership and essentially implies a common economic space on the continent.

But more than that, the EAEU is not planning to limit itself to the continent. In October 2015, the union established ties with two Latin American partners and memorandums were signed with Chile and Peru. In December, it became known that there are plans for the signing of a similar agreement with Mexico. 

The force of attraction of the EAEU

Of course, it is to early to talk about the distant future of the EAEU as it is has only recently come into existence. 1.5 years of integration is a kind of funny measurement. Nonetheless, the organization has already managed to display its strength.

Over the past year and a half, the EAEU has become one of the most successful integration projects in the post-Soviet space. In this time, the union has advanced a long way in the sphere of taxation. The main policy objective at the current stage is avoiding double taxation and preventing tax evasion on income and capital. Thanks to this policy goal, the participating countries have already introduced changes to the legislation on the income of entities. They have put forth equal taxation on income for work in any country of the EAEU. 

Of course, experts have noted many problems on the path of integration. Among them are included the lack of enthusiasm of individual participants, an uncertainty of priorities, the choice between the EAEU and EU, the dominance of political interests in the framework of economic integration, and the underdeveloped demand for investment services. Nevertheless, these factors are not always critical.

This point of view has been supported by the Chairwoman of the Federation Council, Valentina Matvienko:

“The EAEU is a bit more than a year old. But in this short term, five states with different levels of economic development were able to effectively cooperate in one integration association without withdrawals. Time is needed.”

Indeed, time will tell. In an evaluation of the union, moreover, one has to take into account the crisis phenomena in the world economy which have also affected the integration of the EAEU. Nevertheless, the interest of new countries and other integration groups from the most distant continents clearly suggests that the union has good prospects. 

     Follow us on Facebook!                                                  
                                                 

       Follow us on Twitter!
                             

             Donate!

European-Eurasian Integration Can Not Be Stopped, It Can Only Be Slowed Down

Expansion of the Customs Union of EurAsEC: Green - Customs Union; Red - canditates for CS; Yellow - potential candidates for CS

Rostislav Ishchenko for RIA Novosti

23 years after the liquidation of USSR and the establishment of CIS on December 8, 1991, we can conclude that the Commonwealth of Independent States - is now, in fact, a defunct project, says Rostislav Ishchenko.

Of course, politicians and diplomats will continue to talk about the huge potential of the Commonwealth, listing achievements, documents, agreements, treaties, summits and long-term plans. These are the rules. Rarely do the circumstances arrange in such a way that a much discussed, approved and adopted for implementation international project ends with the words: "This is it, the project is closed".

Usually, it happens quietly. This is how the Nabucco gas pipeline quietly perished. Quietly died the GUAM organization. It seems that the same fate awaits the CIS. It was not necessary to announce the decision, but to simply stop gathering at the summits. But then you have to maintain and finance the staff of the Commonwealth, but for what?

The technique worked. Immediately after the announcement of the creation of Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the elimination of useless Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was announced. A political Eurasian Union (EAU) will be created, and suddenly a Union state of Russia and Belarus becomes unnecessary (in any case, Alexander Lukashenko did not rule out such a possibility).

In fact, today the CIS looks like a memorial to post-Soviet integration, which most of the time was more like disintegration. If this structure was effective, it would not be necessary to develop the concept of multirate integration and a creation of the EurAsEC, Customs Union, EEU and even the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) on its basis.

The CIS at its creation was considered by optimists as a confederate state formation designed to consolidate the majority of former USSR republics under the new circumstances. Until August 1993 the United Armed Forces of the CIS still existed.

Theoretically, events could go in that direction, but only in theory. As practice and experience showed, disintegration capacity was not exhausted in 1991, and one cannot force his way against historical trends. Russia struggled with centrifugal tendencies for a decade. Only at the beginning of 2000's the situation at the core state of CIS has stabilized.

From 2004-2005 centripetal tendencies in Russian politics began to accumulate, and since 2010 they absolutely dominate not only in domestic politics but also in foreign.

Its own separatist movement threatened Kazakhstan. In Central Asia interrepublic territorial disputes overlapping with domestic standoff of certain ethnic groups and regional economic interests, has created a zone of permanent instability which produced several civil conflicts and carried a threat of inter-state armed conflicts, which were miraculously avoided.

In the Caucasus military coups were followed by civil wars, and civil wars - by conflicts between countries. There were two full-scale wars with participation (on opposite sides) of CIS member states: the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the war of 08.08.08.

Moldova broke apart after a civil war, practically losing Transnistria. In Ukraine the civil war is raging as we speak, Crimea has gone to Russia, Donbass is almost lost. Which other regions will be lost, and what will be left of Ukraine - no one knows.

This amorphous formation, members of which have various status (Ukraine is the co-founder of the CIS, but has not signed the Charter; the Charter hasn't been signed by Turkmenistan, and Ukraine and Russia have not ratified the Protocol to the Agreement on creation of the CIS from December 21st, 1991) and have no consensus about each other's boundaries - is the Commonwealth of Independent States.

After the war of 08.08.08. Georgia formally withdrew from the CIS, but have maintained its participation in almost all the agreements reached in its framework. It's as if Belgium withdrew from the EU, but would remain a member of Schengen, the Euro zone, etc. In turn, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, and occasionally other countries partially ratified various CIS documents, considering some of their rules acceptable, and others - not.

It is clear that an international organization cannot exist under such conditions. And it does not. For example, Ukraine is in no hurry to leave the CIS, although, it shouts at every turn that it has been invaded by Russia, precisely because the formal fact of exit, besides short-term PR aimed at the domestic audience, will provide nothing, at the time when there may be problems with many agreements formally bound to CIS, favorable for Ukraine. And a lack of single procedure does not guarantee Kiev, that it will be able to pull off the trick that worked for Georgia - to withdraw from the CIS.

In general, the situation has changed so much that the integration projects of Russia ceased to focus on the post-Soviet space and are focused on the entire Eurasia (EEU and EAU) and even on the whole world (BRICS). It is clear that the Eurasian integration projects are much more clearly defined, although the obstructionist position of the EU against its own interests (including not even development, but survival), not willing to leave the custody of the US, calls for adjustments, forcing to shift priorities to Asia and the Middle East.

However, in 2014 BRICS have demonstrated the ability for unified political (refusal to participate in the American pressure on Russia and indirect support of Moscow) and financial-economical (the decision on the establishment of the BRICS Bank and the beginning of the transition to national currencies in international settlements) actions.

In fact, the task of reintegration of the post-Soviet space, not fulfilled by the CIS is now solved at a different level. This space is just a part of a much larger Eurasian integration project. The hand stretched out by Russia over the heads of ambitious post-Soviet formations to China, Iran, Turkey, India is moving these countries beyond the established brackets, turning from limitrophes playing between civilizational projects on their frontier positions into an inner Eurasian formation which cannot exist without the participation outside of the Eurasian integration project.

Meanwhile Russia (because of the mentioned EU position) only failed in overcoming the frontier position of Ukraine, which is one of the main causes of the ongoing civil war. If Europe agreed to the compromise proposed in March by Russia, when the continuation of the political and economic merger between the EU and the CU (EEU) would be exchanged for the preservation of a unified federalized neutral Ukraine, -  and the problem of Kiev would be solved as well as the problem of Central Asia as a result of the Russian-Chinese military-political and financial-economic integration. Inside a dynamically integrating European-Eurasian Union, Ukraine would simply lose the space for maneuver, and its elites would loose the ability to speculate with geopolitical choices. There would be only one choice.

However, despite the increase in confrontational rhetoric the point of no return has not been passed in Russia's and EU relationship, even though it is already very close. The most important thing is that regardless of the position of the European Union, the Eurasian integration cannot be stopped, it is only possible to slow down its Western direction.

However, neither the US can further support the financial and economic basis of the European Union nor the European economy is able to provide sufficient resource base to maintain unity.

Thus, the only question is whether the EU will join the Eurasian project at once and entirely, or gradually and in parts. The first would be preferable.

As for the CIS, since the moment when the face off between Moscow and Brussels for Ukraine has transformed into a face off between Washington and Moscow for the EU, the CIS as a political mechanism finally outlived its usefulness. Now it's only a sinecure for the apparatus providing periodic summits of presidents and prime ministers to discuss a priori impossible, or already resolved in the framework of other integration projects, questions.

Today CIS - is only an image for the media, a manger for a small number of bureaucrats and a cause for "expert opinions".

Translated by Kristina Rus for FortRuss.blogspot.com