Happy New Year, CIS!

Probably, no document of international law has caused as much controversy and strife in the post-Soviet space as the Belovezhskaya Agreement, which formally laid the first stone in the foundation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It is known that by that time referendums had been held in ten republics of the USSR, as a result of which the overwhelming majority of citizens were in favor of maintaining a single state. Thus, the six leaders who gathered in the Belarusian Viskuli made a decision for the leadership of the remaining seven republics, as well as for the population of the territories they headed, who did not at all share their determination. Imperial-minded speakers still appeal to this fact.

Without a doubt, seventeen years ago there, in Belarus, we observed the final chord of the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” And the attempt to form the CIS for the participants in the Belovezhskaya meeting was dictated by nothing more than the desire to leave at least some form in place of a great power, which, however, does not have any special content. However, for the sake of fairness, it is worth noting: this was precisely the completion of the processes already launched by the Baltic states, Moldova and Georgia - processes that at the end of 1991 could only be reversed by force. And the authorities of Russia and other larger republics of the USSR, who were in a deep political crisis, were, of course, not ready for this. We have to admit that already on December 16, with the proclamation of state independence of Kazakhstan, the USSR became geopolitical nonsense - a state without territory and population.

The birthday of the CIS as a serious international organization can and should be considered December 21, when eight more former republics joined the Commonwealth. Thus, understanding and accepting the negative assessment of the “Belovezhskaya step”, it is worth recognizing that the emerging sovereign states, thanks to the CIS, had somewhere to go. After analyzing the “parade of sovereignties,” a conclusion naturally arises: many decisions on independence were made under the threat of annexation of the territory of the republics in favor of third countries. In the case of Moldova, for example, it was Romania, and in Azerbaijan Turkey was ready to have its say.

The main function of the CIS was and remains the preservation of political and economic cooperation between countries that were once part of a single state and connected by strong economic ties. It is also necessary to note the initial general pro-Russian orientation of the CIS countries, which did not include the Baltic countries that were striving to join Europe and from which Georgia is now seeking to leave. As an “external cocoon” that allowed new states to grow stronger, the Commonwealth has exhausted itself. It could perform this function today for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which suffer not only from the consequences of a long-term military conflict, but also from significant flaws in the legal and political structure.

However, the initial mission of the CIS, which was not declaratively a supranational entity, was to preserve many elements of the former union state. But during the first years, this mission failed - the ruble zone collapsed, and the attempt to create a unified army failed.

At the same time, it is the CIS that can be considered the source from which other interstate associations originate, starting with the Union State of Belarus and Russia and ending with the most politically promising SCO and EurAsEC. Today, thanks to the light hand of Vladimir Putin, many believe that these organizations have already outgrown their progenitor in importance. In March 2005, after the Russian leadership was unable to resist the “orange revolutions” in the former republics and in the midst of the power crisis in Kyrgyzstan, Vladimir Putin spoke quite categorically about the CIS: “Someone expected some special achievements from the CIS in economics, politics or in the military sphere. But this did not happen, because it could not have happened. The goals were programmed the same, but in reality the process after the collapse of the USSR took place differently."

A question that has been discussed for several years: “In what capacity should the CIS be left in the international political space or should it be liquidated as unnecessary?” – remains open to this day. On the one hand, the inevitable “erosion” of this international formation, which is largely transitional, in the process of sovereignization of post-Soviet states, and on the other hand, there is a clear need to organize a powerful international structure on its basis. This need, as was repeatedly emphasized during meetings of the CIS governing bodies this year, is primarily of an economic nature. The economic system of an independent state is being formed more slowly than the political one, and in order to jointly overcome the consequences of the global economic crisis, the united efforts of all countries that form the Commonwealth today are necessary.

It is this logic of action that forms the basis for the formation of the CIS Development Strategy until 2020. First of all, these are plans to strengthen the unified system of transport and communications, to establish contacts between entrepreneurs, and to improve interaction in the financial and fuel and energy sectors. Another global challenge that is relevant for all states united by the Commonwealth is the growth of terrorist activity and drug mafia activity. Of course, all these issues can and should be resolved on the basis of associations that “grew up” from the CIS, which were mentioned above, but to deprive them of their roots today is at least stupid.

The potential efficiency of the CIS is also demonstrated by the attention shown to this association by the governments of countries that were never part of the USSR. And we are talking here not only about Mongolia, which is a permanent observer within the association. A pleasant, but untimely initiative was the desire to enter the CIS, voiced by Yugoslavia and the Serbian Krajina. But today, with the strengthening of Russia’s role in the international arena, the CIS can already be considered as a tool for exporting sovereign democracy to those states that are in a difficult situation, a kind of “safe haven” of new sovereign democracies.

A sign of the beginning of such processes can be considered the active interest of the Afghan leadership in working together within the Commonwealth. The Afghan delegation has already taken part in three meetings of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly. Afghanistan's participation in IPA meetings is of great importance for Russia and the CIS countries. There has already been talk about the possibility of this state joining the Commonwealth. It is clear that as a result of this, the zone of instability in the region will disappear, and the emergence of a direct border between the CIS countries and Pakistan, India, and China will add influence to the leaders of the Commonwealth in this region.

As a matter of fact, similar areas of interaction were proposed by the President of Russia and the participants of the Organization of Solidarity of Peoples of Asia and Africa. These initiatives have found support, however, without loyal allies in the Asian region, among whom our long-time partners in the CIS are primarily thought of, the initiatives will be difficult to implement. In contrast to the American “War on Terrorism” project, the implementation of which, as we know from the history of Afghanistan, only leads to the facilitation of drug trafficking and dangerous political instability in the region, Russia is ready to act as a guarantor of the security and sovereignty of states. Today we are actively promoting a comprehensive program of support for the so-called third world countries, which, following the results of the global economic crisis, may well become “world number one.” The long-term international policy strategy of Russia and its partners today combines real and effective assistance in the fight against terrorists and international criminals, with economic cooperation aimed at strengthening the sovereignty and self-sufficiency of economies and financial systems.

However, today one can observe serious competition for leadership in the post-Soviet space from other poles of the new world. Such, for example, as the European Union. The fact is that at the last summit of leaders of 27 European countries, a long-term Eastern Partnership program was approved, aimed at closer involvement of six former Soviet republics into the European orbit: Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan and even Belarus, subject to its democratization. With them, the EU wants to create an economic alliance similar to what is happening with Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein. And this includes a free trade zone and the easing or abolition of the visa regime.

The project is based on the idea of ​​​​representatives of Sweden and Poland, proposed to EU colleagues back in the first half of the year, but then met by the majority without much enthusiasm. Today, the need to intensify work in this direction is recognized by everyone. The head of the European Commission, Barroso, does not hide that the reason for this change in vectors was the August events in the Caucasus and, we read between the lines of official European documents, the strengthening of Russia’s influence in the region as a result of the resolution of this crisis. The official launch of the Eastern Partnership is scheduled for April 2009. The Czech Republic, which will preside over the EU at this time, will organize a meeting of the heads of state and government of the Union countries with the leaders of future partners. The information about these plans specifically stipulates that there is no room for Russia in the meeting format.

So, a lot really depends on the effectiveness of how the member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States can breathe life into the cooperation program, which is being developed today by a “combined team” of experts. For Russia's partners in the CIS, the first thing that is important is a decent recovery of national economies from the global crisis. For Russia - the growth of the country’s position in the international arena and the opportunity to use the infrastructure developed over the decades of the common Soviet past for good. Paradoxically, the crisis today is becoming a unique chance not only to intensify unification processes in the CIS, but also to create a single market: a zone of free movement of goods, people and capital, as well as a unified security system. But they talked about all this seventeen years ago.