Connect with us

Central Asia

EAEU at 5: A long way to full integration?

Published

on

The year 2019 will the mark the five-year anniversary of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and 25 years since the idea of Eurasian integration was first pitched in 1994 by Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. On May 29, Kazakhstan’s current President Kassym-Zhomat Tokayev was meeting in the capital Nur-Sultan with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on the fringes of an anniversary meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council.

Notably, the Commission on Cooperation between the upper house of the Russian parliament, the Federation Council, and the Kazakh Senate, has been working for more than seven years now.

“[The Commission] handles issues of cross-border cooperation, issues that can be effectively addressed by our MPs,” Oleg Tsepkin, a member of the Federation Council’s Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State Building, and of the Commission on Cooperation between the Federation Council and the Kazakh Senate, said during a Moscow – Nur-Sultan television linkup discussing “EAEU interaction and Russian-Kazakh relations.”

According to Oleg Tsepkin, during a May 24 Commission meeting in Almaty, Kazakhstan, Russian and Kazakh senators discussed measures of digitalizing oversight and supervisory  activities, exchanged views and expertise, and reviewed the youth policy of Kazakhstan and Russia.

“There are many things being done in Kazakhstan that we could emulate, including digitalization of official oversight and supervision work,” Oleg Tsepkin noted.

When describing the situation current existing within the EAEU, Murat Laumulin, chief researcher at the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies, pointed to numerous hurdles hampering trade between member-countries, above all in border areas. He added that, as evident from the EU experience, the main problems still lie ahead, especially when it comes to the issue of a single currency. He emphasized, however, that within the EAEU economic issues prevail over politics.

“This is something all members of this integration association fully agree on,” Laumulin noted.

Echoing the expert’s opinion, Alexander Gusev, director of the Institute of Strategic Planning and Forecasting, and senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Sociology, said that the EAEU’s focus now is more on regulatory and economic issues, rather than political ones.

“The political component will obviously prevail in the future, since the EAEU was created with an eye to the future and the full integration of the post-Soviet states. Full-scale integration is still way off though,” Alexander Gusev emphasized. He believes that the Union is absolutely capable of  solving the problems it is facing today, despite what is going in the post-Soviet countries and tensions with the West, especially the sanctions pressure on Russia and Belarus. Alexander Gusev also said that at their upcoming summit, the EAEU leaders are going to sign a number of agreements with non-member states.

“Some of these agreements will be discussed and are most likely to be inked as part of the Union developing ties with China, the United States and the EU member-states,” Alexander Gusev noted.

Zhumabek Sarabekov, an expert with the Institute of World Economy and Politics under the Foundation of the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, believes that as the phase of the rapid integration of the post-Soviet countries is almost over now, there is a growing need for improving the quality of integration institutions, which calls for complex and compromise solutions. Still, all EAEU members have a vested, strategic interest in promoting the process of Eurasian integration.

 Zhumabek Sarabekov underscored the need for intensifying work to facilitate the member-countries’ access to the common market.

“The EAEU countries tend to better protect their domestic markets, with each member widely applying non-tariff restrictions,” the expert emphasized. According to EEC statistics, at the end of March 2019, there were 71 hurdles existing in the EAEU single market, 11 up from just two years ago. All this meaning that each country is trying to protect its producers and its domestic market. According to Zhumabek Sarabekov, Russia is high on the list of EAEU countries with the greatest number of barriers erected on the way of mutual trade.

The expert singled out industrial cooperation as another thing that deserves serious attention.

“One of the objectives pursued by the EAEU is the creation of common production chains, which will eventually help unlock the industrial potential of each member of the Union. However, the rate of cooperation in the real sector remains pretty slow,” Zhumabek Sarabekov added.

The situation is exacerbated by bilateral contradictions between EAEU members, including Russia and Belarus, which often dominate the EAEU agenda.

Zhumabek Sarabekov underscored the need for a further expansion of the EAEU, both institutional (creation of common markets, a single currency) and geographic. However, this process should not be rushed.

“As we have seen, the inclusion of still unprepared new members into the EAEU has led to numerous problems. We should have in mind just how the new entrants are economically ready for this,” he added.  

According to Yelena Kuzmina, who heads the sector of Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine at the Center for Post-Soviet Studies of the Yevgeny Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy of Sciences, with the primary effect of the countries’ entry into the EAEU almost exhausted now, the situation calls for greater integration within the Union.

“The EAEU provides great opportunities for its member-countries in economic production, trade, and, to a degree, in transit, which significantly contribute to their economic potential. What worries Russia the most, however, is the variety of administrative, non-tariff restrictions,” Yelena Kuzmina noted.

When discussing the priority areas of cooperation within the EAEU, experts mention the digitization of the economy, the reduction of trade barriers, raising the quality of trade relations, the labeling of goods, as well as introducing changes to the EAEU Treaty and the customs code agreement. Energy regulation, above all in the area of nuclear power generation, is a big priority for the Union. According to Alexander Gusev, Russia has offered to build a nuclear power plant in Kazakhstan, which by 2030 will start experiencing serious shortages of energy. He added that Kazakhstan is one of the world’s three leading producers and processors of uranium with an annual production of 24,000 tons. There are six joint Russian-Kazakh uranium extraction and enrichment companies currently operating on the territory of this former Soviet republic.

“The volume of enriched uranium [Russia] is getting from Kazakhstan is large enough to keep our nuclear reactors running,” Alexander Gusev concluded.

From our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Central Asia

Greater Eurasia: New Great Game formulate abundant possibilities for Central Asia

Debadatta Mishra

Published

on

The title “New Great Game” became the most conversed topic in the contemporary realm of global politics. The heart of the Eurasian continent, the Central Asian region, already witnessed a colonial battle between Russian and Britain. The position of Geopolitical status more fueled up the conflict. The Great Game furnished an unpleasant impact on the entire Central Asian region; it grasps by the Russian empire. Russia’s century-long predominance over the Central Asia region concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. However, it nevertheless has a massive impact over the countries of Central Asian states Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Following centuries, they were preceding reappeared different New Grete Game, where the foremost global power countries have engaged. The internal scenario of central Asian states is struggling over hegemonic power. Subsequently, the central Asian nations are well equipped with natural resources like oil, gas like Kazakhstan’s largest uranium producer, that attracts all major countries to penetrate in Central Asia.

The New Great Game impacted both as constraint and opportunity in Central Asia. The central Asian states are adopted the multi-vector approach to the foreign policy due to landlocked country. So, the developed countries are offered various development schemes in the region. Currently, three major powers are Russia, US and China compete with each other to become a prominent player in Central Asia. Every nation is looking for their interest through the region. Nowadays, Washington mostly engaged in the New Great Game, after the US entered in Afghanistan, and it required Central Asian states cooperation to expand the authority of NATO in Eurasian land. Although, following the attack on 9/11, the US mostly keep eyes on terrorism activities and central Asian states are becoming significant for security purpose. Moscow always indeed to the presence in Central Asian internal politics and seems to maintain its status quo. Russia always considered the Central Asian states as his campaign, with the significant military, economic and political influence. Moscow consistently rated Central Asian nations as “soft underbelly”. Russian culture, music, food highly incorporated with Central Asian states, but Moscow seems fallen the economic competition with Beijing. China is somewhat successful in pushing Russian influence in Central Asia.

China expands its control over in the pecuniary sector, Dragon becoming larger trade partner and investor in that region. China’s visionary project ‘Belt and Road initiative’ and China’s strategy to influence and grow its economic power over the Eurasian continent required Central Asian states linear involvement. China shared more than 3000 k.m of the direct border with CA, this is an opportunity for China to enhance its strength and became more dominant rather than other countries. Central Asia is a crucial component in the Geopolitical puzzle. The abundant of natural resource in CA is the primary purpose behind for more intense of New Great Game. The Caspian Sea contains a large amount of natural resource. The superpower countries followed up the pathway of the dependency model, and they create opportunity with precisely inside their acquisition. The new Great Game change the notion of Geopolitics on a broader level. China is steadily expanding its influence over the Eurasian mainland with hegemonic expansion over the south china sea. There is an appearance of another cold war (economic domain) between China and the US; both countries headed for intense competition for global supremacy. That’s why central Asia states played an essential function to determine immense superiority over the Eurasian landmass. All these countries participated in New Great Game implemented the soft power and made an effort to pull Central Asian nations through proffering opportunities. The central Asian States compensated relishes the possibility, although faced reluctance from significant players.  The potential development of the Central Asian Region endures the growth of the Eurasian continent.

Continue Reading

Central Asia

Territorial Disputes in Central Asia: Myths and Reality

Yuriy Kulintsev

Published

on

One of the focal points of any state foreign policy is the issue of territorial disputes, irrespective of its geographical size, economic opportunities or geopolitical ambitions. At the same time, in the modern world, the scenario of the use of force as a possible option for China to resolve territorial disputes in Central Asia is hardly probable. None of the parties, including neighboring countries, are interested in intensifying territorial claims and initiating a real conflict. Despite the apparent advantages, a guaranteed response from the international community jeopardizes all benefits for the potential aggressor (for example, Beijing) from possible territorial acquisitions. In addition, the system of control and monitoring has been formed in the region with the direct participation of Russia. The guarantors of the system are, in particular, the SCO and the CSTO; the latter one has a sufficiently deterrent effect on the capacity of regional players to demonstrate invasive intentions.

Meanwhile, the international community developed a civilized way to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic means such as long-term leasing of land, the creation of joint jurisdictions, etc. China has experience of transferring territories, for example, the 99-year lease of Hong Kong by the United Kingdom or the recognition of Macao as “Chinese territory under Portuguese administration” followed by the signing of the joint Declaration on the question of Macao. Since China became a successful economic power, Beijing has preferred to resolve territorial disputes through diplomatic instruments, rather than from a position of strength.

It should be pointed out that implementing its Belt and Road Initiative, China has never presented it as a charity project. Moreover, the initial goal was the development of the Central and Western regions of China. All foreign countries participating in the initiative expressed their desire to join it on the terms of mutually beneficial development. By accepting China’s offers and agreeing to its loans and investment projects, any of the countries had the opportunity to assess the risks and not participate in them, or to make a choice and develop their own economy on the terms of other financial institutions, such as Western ones. In this case, China acts in the Central Asian region like most major powers interested in strengthening their positions and promoting their political, economic and humanitarian agenda.

Possible allegations of Beijing concluding economic contracts on bonded terms should also be addressed to officials of the “affected” countries who agreed to these proposals from the Chinese side. At the same time, if it appears that one of the parties has not acted in its national interests, this is more a problem of the internal state structure of a particular country and its attitude to the work of its own officials, and to a much lesser extent – a claim to the development of bilateral relations with China.

It is also necessary to distinguish the official position of the state from the statements of individuals who often act in their own interests. For example, an article with the title “Why Kazakhstan seeks to return to China,” which is given as an example in the publication “Land leases and territorial claims of China in Central Asia and the South Caucasus,” was written by an anonymous blogger with just over 80 thousand subscribers (insignificant number according to the Chinese standards). An analysis of how the news was spread geographically by international media, as well as the contents of official statements, confirms the opinion of experts-sinologists that it was an attempt to gain popularity and “collect likes,” and has nothing in common with the official position of Beijing.

Another example of using the foreign policy agenda in the internal political struggle is the statement of the leader of the opposition party of Tajikistan, R. Zoirov, who accused China of moving the borderline 20 kilometers deeper into the territory of Tajikistan.

On the eve of the presidential elections in 2013, Tajikistan’s opposition once again tried to “accuse authorities of surrendering land to China” in the framework of the 2002 border demarcation agreement. China claimed 28 thousand square kilometers of Tajikistan’s territory, but as a result of the negotiations, it received just over 1 thousand square kilometers of high-altitude land unsuitable for life, without proven volumes of large deposits. The results of negotiations can be evaluated in different ways, but each country has the right to seek convenient forms of dispute resolution and debt repayment. In addition, this agreement was ratified by the government of Tajikistan only in 2011. The official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan described the statement of the opposition as a provocation, due to the fact that the author acts in his own interest. Later, it was revealed that Zoirov’s statement refers to 2011 and was “made two years ago and published just now.” According to R. Zoirov, he determined the distance to the border based on the statements of local residents. The official authorities of Tajikistan, China, Russia and other regional powers ignored information about China’s occupation of Tajikistan’s territory as unreliable.

Recognizing the high public sensitivity of transferring land from one state to repay credit obligations to another, it is necessary to proceed from the analysis of the contents of specific international agreements, the motives for signing them by current authorities, and the national interests of the parties involved. Otherwise, one is likely to discover a distorted interpretation of key events in line with the populist rhetoric of an unknown blogger or to be the recipient of information propaganda carried out by major powers competing for regional influence.

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Central Asia

From Central Asia to the Black Sea

Emil Avdaliani

Published

on

(Source: mift.uz)

In early June, China unveiled a new transportation corridor when a rail cargo of 230 tons of electrical appliances worth some $2,6 million arrived in the Uzbek capital of Tashkent. Though distant from the South Caucasus, the development nevertheless has a direct impact on the geopolitics of the South Caucasus energy and transport corridor.

For centuries, Central Asia has been notorious for the lack of connectivity. Highways, railroads and pipelines were solely directed northwards towards Russian heartland. Geography also constrained the development of alternatives, but the problem is that other routes were also purposefully neglected during the Soviet times. Therefore, nowadays breaking these geographical boundaries equals to decreasing Russian influence in Central Asia.

Indeed, over the past 30 years, crucial changes have taken place where newly developed east-west transport links (from China to Central Asia, then South Caucasus) allow the region to be more integrated with the outside world. The primary motivator for this is China. The country strives to involve itself into the region’s economics and politics and, specifically, build ties with arguably the region’s most important geopolitical player – Uzbekistan. Beijing has already taken several important steps. For instance, China has become Uzbekistan’s top economic partner through growing trade and direct investment. Take the most recent example, Beijing-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will lend $100 million to Uzbekistan to help deal with the coronavirus pandemic and future public health disasters.

The new China-Uzbekistan corridor is some 295 km shorter and cuts five days off the standard 15 days-corridor which goes through Kazakhstan and Russia to reach Europe. As different forecasts indicate, the Kazakhstan-Russia corridor could lose some 10-15% of Chinese freight per year to the new China-Uzbekistan route – a significant number considering the massive amount of goods that move between between Europe and China.

What is crucial here is that the only viable route to ship freight to Europe from Uzbekistan is across the Caspian to Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Black Sea. Another possibility would be sending goods via the Turkmenistan and Afghanistan, then Iran and Turkey. However general insecurity along this route makes the Caspian option more promising.

These infrastructure changes in distant Central Asia as well as steady growth of shipments from China will further boost the fragile South Caucasus transport and energy corridor, which struggles to compete with enormous trade routes which go through Russia and elsewhere.

What makes the Caspian routes more interesting is the progress made in port development in Azerbaijan and Georgia. The ports of Baku and a small city of Alat have notably improved their infrastructure over the past several years. Located to the south of Baku, Alat is particularly promising as an estimated transshipment of the new port complex is potentially up to 25 million tons of cargo and 1 million TEU per year.

Similar trends of improving infrastructure take place along the rest of the South Caucasus corridor. In March, the Georgian government granted the APM Terminals a permit to start the expansion of Potin port. Essentially the project, which will add more than 1000 local jobs, involves the construction of a separate new deep-water multifunctional port (officially still a part of Poti port).

The project consists of two major phases: first stage of $250 million will take nearly 2-2,5 years to complete and will involve the development of a 1 700-meter-long breakwater and a quay with a depth of 13.5 meters. A 400-meter-long multifunctional quay for processing dry bulk cargo and further 150 000 TEUs will be added; the second stage envisages a 300-meter-long container quay. If all goes as planned, 1 million TEU yearly container capacity could be expected. What is more important for the infrastructure of the eastern Black Sea region and the geopolitics of transcontinental transshipment, the expanded Poti port would have the capacity to receive Panamax vessels.

Expansion of Poti will have regional implications. The port already enjoys the role of the largest gateway in the country and a major outlet for Azerbaijan’s and Armenia’s trade with Europe. For instance, liquids, passenger ferries, dry bulk and container traffic go through Poti. Moreover, Poti port also serves as an alternative route for exporting wheat from Central Asia to the Black Sea and elsewhere.

As the work on the Poti expansion speeds up similar developments are taking place in Batumi. In 2019 Wondernet Express, Trammo and the government of Georgia announced plans to build a new terminal with total investment cap of 17,5 million euros. More importantly, the new facility will store up to 60 000 tons of mineral fertilizers coming from Central Asia through Azerbaijan.

From a wider geopolitical perspective, both port expansions enjoy US government support as American business interests are deeply intertwined. PACE terminals, a company which operates in the port of Poti for almost 30 years, is partially owned by a US-based company. This connection raises a possible longer-term vision of Poti’s and Batumi’s development as gateways not only for Georgia, but generally for the South Caucasus and Central Asia.

Overall, these connectivity trends will reinvigorate Trans-Caspian shipping. Moreover, though considered by many as unrealistic, the dormant Trans-Caspian Pipeline (TCP), could gain traction. There is more to the story. I have mentioned the US support for the Georgian ports. Europe and Turkey share an identical position. All parties are interested in breaking Russia’s grip on gas export routes from Central Asia. Support for the east-west corridor across the South Caucasus has been present since the break-up of the Soviet Union, but rarely there have been such promising trends as there are now: steadily increasing China-Europe shipping; Chinese Belt and Road Initiative’s expansion into Central Asia; gradually improving rail-road and ports infrastructure in Georgia and Azerbaijan.

On a negative side, much still remains to be done. For instance, in Kyrgyzstan, through which the new China-Uzbekistan route goes, Chinese cargo has to be shipped by road which complicates shipment operations. Nearly the entire 400 km of the Kyrgyz section of the railway still needs to be built. So far, no solution is in sight as difficult mountainous landscape and Russian opposition complicate the issue. But the overall picture, nevertheless, is clear. Central Asia is gradually opening up, shipment across the Caspian increases and the expansion of the Georgian ports takes place creating a line of connectivity.

Author’s note: first published in Caucasuswatch

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending