Kazinform, Kazakhstan
March 15 2005
Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister: CIS is extremely sick
Astana. March 15. KAZINFORM. `CIS needs serious reformation or it
will ruin,’ people say in Kazakhstan. The unified economic area is a
promising idea, and many post-Soviet countries will have to fight to
enter it.
Events in Georgia and Ukraine changed the situation across former
USSR. The movement of goals by some member countries raised a query
about the existence of regional organizations. Official Kazakhstan
that always initiated integration processes throughout post-Soviet
territory feels definitely disappointed about the quality of activity
of such establishments (like the Commonwealth of independent states).
Thanks to Kazakhstan’s administration there were founded CIS,
EuroAsEC, UEA (Unified Economic Area), Collective security treaty,
and Shanghai cooperation organization.
During the CIS summit in Astana Nursultan Nazarbayev, one of its
founders, severely criticized the Commonwealth’s activity and offered
reformation ways.
The Kazakhstan Foreign Minister Kassymzhomart Tokayev shares official
Kazakhstan’s outlooks about CIS and UEA, and its ties with
neighboring countries.
UEA’s destiny:
– How the new Ukrainian authority’s plans of entering European Union
may affect the establishment of the Unified Economic Area (UEA) and
CIS’s destiny?
– I consider it’s nothing at all serious. Any state has a right to
choose its own way. If the official Ukraine suggests membership in
UEA contradicts country’s concerns then we have to take it. The
unified economic area was initiated as the economic structure – the
common market for goods, services and capital. The idea sounded
promising. By now four countries had done well and proceeded to agree
documents, with a part of them signed at the level of heads of
governments. There was no political project to unite huge markets of
Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
In any case, we should wait until Ukrainian administration makes
final decision. They need time to study all documents signed in the
course of talks, and documents which government and legislative
agency were to debate, as far as I understood President Victor
Yushchenko and his minister Boris Tarassyuk’s statements. The idea of
UEA will not lose its significance even if Ukraine is out of the
process. Kazakhstan will uphold UEA and continue bilateral relations
with Russia and Ukraine. Our interests dictate this approach as
Kazakhstan has overheated economy and excess of finance required to
invest.
Russia and Kazakhstan have common borders, economic attraction and
penetration. The same is with Ukraine. V. Yushchenko stated Russia
would be Ukraine’s ever strategic partner. It is not a simple
sentence, this is to admit Russia’s potential, to recognize existing
realias. To any extent but every country depends on Russia, being
frank. Russia is a core of the post-Soviet area. Besides, Russia is a
permanent member of UN Security Council. We are extremely interested
in Russia to develop successfully, democratically. It is not
propaganda, not a diplomatic flirting. It is a bottom-line approach.
– May the idea fail if Ukraine rejects the UEA establishment? Or the
Unified economic area is possible for opportunities of the three
powers?
– It’s not over yet. Who knows, Ukraine will probably get interested
in the project and join UEA. Documents signed within the new
establishment read no restriction to enter some other unions or
associations. I think that Ukraine will have interest in working with
Kazakhstan and Russia though has always been inclined to EU. Recently
the State Secretary of Ukraine Alexander Zinchenko has visited Astana
to hand over his President’s message to Nursultan Nazarbayev. The
point of the document is that Ukraine is very much interested in
further cooperation with Kazakhstan.
– Do you think Ukraine has a reasonable chance to enter EU?
– Ukraine has chance to, if wishes. And if there is a wish, there are
necessary reforms conducted. One should admit that on a series of
parameters the Ukraine economics has not been reformed as seriously
as Kazakhstan and Russia ones. Kiev has much to do to bring its own
legislation to correspondence with European standards. Ukraine has to
come to terms with the EU as membership binds. By the way, within the
framework of UEA also it has to tighten laws up to a market standard.
– What terms do you mean?
– Firstly Ukraine has to sacrifice own interests. May be, it has to
shut some enterprises down. E.g. to get an access to EU Lithuania
faced to liquidate electric power station that had played a notable
role in the economy. Bulgaria is suffering the same, the point in
Kozloduy atomic power station. There are too many things to
sacrifice. It is not an occasion that so many high level headshakers
have appeared. The President of Czech Republic Vaclav Claus, who has
lately visited Kazakhstan, became a tough Euro-skeptic, though nobody
doubts his adherence to the market. There is no fire without smoke
– What happens if only Russia and Kazakhstan out of current UEA
participants stay alone in the process?
– I think anyway it will be UEA as far as too many papers have been
elaborated already there. However, none intends to exclude Belarus
from the Unified economic area’s design, though its economic
structure differs from ones of Russia and Kazakhstan. I believe UEA
will become the perspective establishment in due time because the
initial purpose is to unify the four countries, then to enqueue other
states which have to follow requirements to join UEA. This is the
right way. It is like the European Union, as building a union with
the required reforms. It is impossible to build a market with closed
borders, unreformed economy and bad ties with neighboring countries.
– What do you say about the statement by the Foreign Minister of
Ukraine Boris Tarassyuk that Ukraine has to enter NATO in 2007 before
joining EU? How does it rub off on the treaty and the integration
process?
– It’s up to Ukraine. I think it will not affect relationships
between Kazakhstan and Ukraine. It may rub off on Ukraine’s
membership in CIS and UEA, in my opinion. Though we should remember
Ukraine is not the CIS Collective Security Treaty member state.
Besides, having not signed the Charter Ukraine is just an associate
member of the Commonwealth. It’s high time to think over the CIS’s
future
Don’t make a laughing-stock of CIS
– The President of Kazakhstan during September top summit in Astana
proposed CIS reforming, and the President of Russia upheld this idea.
Later deputy foreign ministers met in Moscow to discuss reformation
process outlooks. Can you tell about the results?
– It was a work meeting with disappointing results, to put it baldly.
There is Ukraine and some other countries that take the Security
Council foundation with a grain of salt. Russia offered to make
unified humane and cultural area within the CIS; however this idea
was received skeptically as well. Generally, all countries cautiously
refer to the CIS reforming process, exclusive of Kazakhstan and
Russia, to some extent. Kazakhstan hails the idea as CIS is going. It
is turning into the very expensive club of presidents and ministers.
I have participated almost all summits and might say they are being
bureaucratized more and more. At a recent Yalta meeting the audience
debated terminology of the free economic zone. How to name it – `free
market’ or `unified market’. It took an hour and a half. During the
break I went to next room. There was a table Stalin, Roosevelt and
Churchill had worked at. The three were accompanied by a few experts
and ministers. It was wartime but they managed to agree and share the
bossdom, without crowds of advisors. When I came back I saw 1 300
persons sitting and yawning. CIS is turning into incapable and
inefficient structure.
– What does the opposition say about CIS reforming?
– There are two points of view. One, no need to reform the CIS
otherwise it will ruin. There will be no consensus between countries
then. Second, Kazakhstan is for reforming. It is not a fellowship if
there are countries conflicting with each other like Armenia and
Azerbaijan, if the tension grows like between Georgia, Moldova and
Russia, if there are thousand of documents signed but ineffective.
The idea of the free economic zone is being debated for years but
none knows how to do it as economies differ too much. Turkmenistan is
not a CIS country member; it signs no documents, and has a neutral
status. Don’t make a laughing stock of the CIS.
There is one more point of view by Russia stressing the construction
of unified humane and cultural area. This idea is also resisted. We
have time before August summit in Tatarstan to make some agreement.
We have to continue consultations and debates otherwise CIS will
encounter big crisis.
Kazakhstan and Russia
-What do you say about the mutual penetration of Russian and
Kazakhstani capital. Parliament suggests the advent of Russian money
is non grata for the national business?
-Incompetent and unversed people say that. If Russian capital is
invested in a Kazakhstani enterprise it has to pay taxes and improve
management. By the way, I am really disappointed that the joint
venture on the basis of Ekibastuz hydroelectric power station I
started when I was a Prime-Minister is uncompleted yet. To my mind,
it might have been a huge investment by Russia in Kazakhstan’s energy
system. It is required as Kazakhstan has old power debts it could
regulate by own means. Unfortunately, the present Kazakhstan remains
unknown for the people of Russia, both for the ordinary public and
high-ranked officials. This kind of arrogance does not play in favor
of Kazakhstan-Russian cooperation.
– Many in Russia worry about Russian language in Kazakhstan.
– This is an intricate point. The President and people suggest
Russian language is a treasure not to be lost. It is the language of
intra-national communication. Besides, it is the official language of
UNO. On the other hand, we have to raise Kazakh language as the state
one. I see no contradiction. Why not Kazakhstan be a bilingual
country. One knows Kazakh, he (she) has access to Turkic languages. I
think that people should speak and write both languages, Russian and
Kazakh on a par.
No reasons for revolution
-Lately you have become number one figure in Kazakhstan. Opposition
mass-media name you Nursultan Nazarbayev’s probable successor
-I sicken at everything that happens in Russia is put on Kazakhstan.
It proves Kazakhstan is a satellite, though considered sovereign
country for a decade. Russia experienced wonder by handing power to
the unknown person. Somebody decided the same script is good for
Kazakhstan, having not considered that President Nazarbayev is
sound-minded whereas Yeltsin was sick, and had a zero rating.
-Many in Russia worry about the possible Georgia and Ukraine events
in Kazakhstan.
-Georgia and Ukraine events can not happen in Kazakhstan. The
population of Georgia lived in poverty; they could not stand
Shevardnadze’s ruling anymore. Prime-Minister Zhvania died of
gas-heater.
There was a set of different factors in Ukraine. Economy has started
boosting, especially in Kiev. Then it happened to choose the shady
heir. We shared opinions with the President of Kazakhstan when Victor
Yushchenko came in Astana, he was the prime-minister then. Nazarbayev
was positive about him. He said to Kuchma and Putin: he is an
advanced man, understands economics and politics both. But Victor
Yushchenko was discredited and fell into opposition.
Everyone was let down in the end. When they say Kuchma’s epoch is not
over yet I feel funny. His epoch ended disgracefully as soon as EU
envoys landed Ukraine.
-Is it possible to hold `an orange revolution’ with the
PR-technologies in Astana?
-It was a big mistake to withdraw Kiev. The position of the capital
is very important. In Kazakhstan Almaty’s position is very
significant together with Astana’s. If Nursultan Nazarbayev completes
his policy – de-monopolizes mega-holdings, gives a spur to small and
medium business development, tightens corruption and red-tape- no
revolution will have chance. It’s up to authorities to control the
situation.
-The historic division into West and South-East parts played role in
Ukraine. Do you think the same is possible in Kazakhstan, the
counteraction between the agrarian South and industrial North-East.
-No. The Government should place production forces, human resources,
establish clusters, educational centers, fight poverty.
-During last year parliamentary elections the opposition had major
support in the South.
-It points miscalculations in power structures. It is a good lesson
to remember. In terms of Kazakhstan, we have to enlarge authorities
of local legislative power, to let it elect akims- heads of regional
administration.
-Does it mean indirect elections?
-Yes, indirect elections. I think it is a good decision.
-What about opposition’s dialogue with the power?
-Unfortunately, there is no dialogue yet. There was a good chance to
start talks within the National Commission on Democracy and Civil
Society, but opposition refused to take part in. It’s a pity because
we have smart opposition as current opposition members worked in
power structures for a long while.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress