14.12.2006 Russia, Moscow. National Congress of Compatriots from the CIS and Russian Refugees from Chechnya.
Photo: Alexander Miridonov
| Other Photos |
 |
|
 |
The CIS Enduring Concept
So many times was the CIS buried that you could easily miss the point when the organization gained a new function. The Commonwealth is the sole forum where the leaders of the post-Soviet states can communicate so that the very fact of communication couldn’t be rendered as their concession to anyone.
To begin with, the specially organized meeting of the Russian and Georgian Presidents gives rise to hopes and becomes a subject of speculation – who was the initiator, who conceded and so on. The visit to the common forum allows you to minimize the scale of the occasion and lower political costs. A similar situation can be seen in the relations between Moscow and Kiev – Yulia Tymoshenko would barely reckon with having talks with Vladimir Putin unless they had met at in the framework of the Council of Chairpersons of the CIS states in Minsk.
The common format will grow in significance, because politics at the post-Soviet space is getting even more complicated. It used to be considered that a “minor” state must make the “right” choice, and everything will go on as desired after it. But the two-dimensional co-ordinates – “for Russia, or for democracy” – doesn’t comply with the diversity of the processes anymore.
Competition for resources and influence has intensified, and it becomes multi-factor, because China has also engaged in it. For all that, now there are objective restrictions on the abilities of Moscow and western capitals concerning the post-Soviet states. For instance, Russia will hardly manage to retain the monopoly on the Eurasian gas – the external pressure has been too high. And Europe, which seeks to expand its presence on the territory of the former Soviet Union, is not ready to admit new countries. At the same time, without the prospects of EU-membership, the set of European Union’s instruments appears too limited.
The situation in the CIS states proper is far from being stable – both in those lands where they are on the authoritarian track, and in those which “opted for freedom.” The merciless inner infightings combine with the philosophy of the external geopolitical rivalry, which ensues unexpected consequences.
Under such circumstances the necessity of dialogue grows. You must coordinate your position with those of your partners or at least keep them informed. It’s quite natural that the Commonwealth summits are attended by all the CIS leaders, whereas a few years ago few of them would come to a forum like this. And the presidents, whatever their attitude towards Russia, don’t regard the absence as a good means of articulating their political stance anymore.
Integration is hardly possible in this part of the globe – it concerns the Russia-oriented way and any other variants. Attempts to set up alternative clubs (GUAM, the Community of Democratic Choice) haven’t brought concrete results. There is a fresh idea – establishing a kind of Eastern European alliance as a compensation to the countries of the region in exchange for the EU’s inability to offer them something more. But as any other project that aims at avoiding a clear-cut decision, this one doesn’t seem to have any prospects, too.
The CIS needn’t fear competition. It won’t be a pattern for a new alliance, and at the same time its concept won’t be abandoned – it would be irrational.
Feodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs magazine
All the Article in Russian as of June 06, 2008
|
|
|
