MOSCOW URGED TO PROMOTE ‘PASSIVE EUTHANASIA’ OF THE CIS
Paul Goble
Georgiandaily
August 21, 2009
Vienna – Instead of seeking to "cure" the problems that beset the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), difficulties that have been
highlighted and exacerbated by Georgia’s exit, one Russian analyst
says, Moscow should acknowledge the need for and promote "the passive
euthanasia" of that organization of post-Soviet states.
In a comment in today’s "Nezavisimaya Gazeta," Stanislav Minin says
that Russians are now "observing the crisis and slow destruction of two
post-Soviet structures," physical ones like hydro-electric dams which
must be rebuilt and political-economic ones like the CIS that should
be allowed to pass away ().
Un fortunately, he continues, the Russian government and Russian society
to a certain extent misunderstand what the CIS is about. "They conceive
the Commonwealth as a format which strengthens Moscow’s position"
in the region, whereas "in fact, the CIS is a format which has been
called upon to soften the gradual rupture of these ties."
And because many in Moscow do not recognize this, Russia often
takes actions which needlessly offend the countries around its
borders whenever the former imperial center sees "even the slightest
manifestation of independence by Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan
or Kazakhstan.
In some respects, Minin suggests, Moscow’s position with regard to
these countries resembles that of a mother who wants to continue to
play the role she had when her son was young but who is now "20, 30
or 40 years old" rather than encouraging, as "a wise parent" does,
precisely the independence of her offspring.
Russia has been able to continue to play "the role of mother
thanks to the post-Soviet economic arrangements," and "by analogy,
precisely the customary social-economic arrangements in part become
a psychological obstacle for a young person who is leading his
father’s house. However," Minin says, "taking that step is all the
same necessary."
Consequently, the "Nezavisimaya gazeta" writer suggests, there are only
two possible outcomes: "either [the CIS] will break apart or the member
countries will remain" in the position of dependent children." The
first of these, Minin insists, is "better," especially for Russia
"which needs to acquire a new post-Soviet and even post-imperial
identity."
The reasons the CIS was created "in the form in which it was
arranged at the start of the 1990s is completely understandable," he
continues. But what is "not understandable is why 20 or 30 years after
the disintegration of the USSR should be preserved a structure-relict,
created in order to gradually reduce to zero the very common interest
which called it into existence."
"The CIS can continue to exist," Minin admits, "as a largely formal
organization, like the British Commonwealth and thereby serve as
balm for the soul of nostalgic citizens." But he notes these people
"are becoming ever fewer," an irreversible trend that, along with
Georgia’s decision, may force Moscow to face up to the need to
dismantle this organization.
When Georgia, the last country to join the CIS, became the first to
leave it finally and completely this week, many in Moscow sought to
put the best face on this, arguing that the Commonwealth is going to
be better off without Tbilisi whose participation in the grouping of
states had been pro forma for some time ().
But because of the way Georgia left, carefully following the rules
laid down in that organization’s charter, and because Tbilisi has made
clear that its departure does not mean a complete break with all the
accords it has with the CIS or with CIS members, other governments
concluded that leaving it was not a radical step, even if they do
not plan to take that step soon.
In the wake of the Georgian move, President Viktor Yushchenko of
Ukraine announced that he will not take part in CIS meetings in the
future, thus reducing the importance of a structure which in recent
years has often been described as "a club of presidents" rather than
an effective regional grouping ().
Meanwhile, the new anti-communist majority in the Moldovan parliament
announced that it would hold a referendum on the possibility of
Moldova seeking membership in NATO, a step that would likely presage
Chisinau’s exit from the CIS and increase the importance of GUAM
().
But perhaps the clearest indication that the CIS may soon
dissolve or at least be reduced to the kind of formality Minin
said might allow it to continue came from the comments of analysts
in Armenia, a country that because of its geopolitical position
has remained closer to Moscow and the CIS than perhaps any other
().
These experts suggested, in the words of Kavkaz-uzel.ru, that "the
departure of Georgia from the CIS is a strong shock to that structure,
and the August 2008 war increased the possibility for the formal legal
withdrawal of several countries from the Commonwealth of Independent
States."
Stepan Grigoryan, the head of Yerevan’s Analytic Center on
Globalization and Regional Cooperation, said that the war increased
concerns among many CIS government heads who saw what methods Russia
might use" and who thus became even more concerned about making
arrangements to defend the sovereignty of their countries David
Petrosyan, a commentator for the Noyan Tapan news agency, added that
the CIS "is a relatively ineffective structure," although he pointed
out that Armenia, as "a small country," needs to be cautious in taking
any radical steps including leaving the Moscow-led grouping of states.
Ruben Megrabyan of the Armenian Center of Political and International
Research suggested that Armenia "today" is "not in a position to
follow the example of Georgia and leave the CIS." But he pointed out
that the Commonwealth, intended to provide for "a civilized divorce"
of the former Soviet republics, no longer is a "working structure."
Instead, he said, the CIS "operates today by inertia, without
giving anything to anyone." As a result, he said, it is "a structure
without content and without meaning," hardly an endorsement of an
organization so many have invested so much in, especially since he
like the other Armenian experts said that Tbilisi’s exit would not
change Georgian-Armenian relations.
www.ng.ru/columnist/2009-08-21/100_sng.html
www.centrasia.ru/news.php
www.annews.ru/news/detail.php
www.politcom.ru/8687.html
www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/158258