Revisionist Regionalism of the Russian Federation in Post-Soviet Space
Introduction
Region-building-based approaches have become widespread due to the new vision of the structuring of regional space after the end of the Cold War, and were primarily related to the emergence of supranational regions as an answer to the globalizing world. Regionalism is essentially a project or politically motivated practice. This practice can be caused by different reasons (de-centralization of the world system, regional conflicts, and weakness of the United Nations to keep regional order, economic security and challenges) and led by a concrete actor. “…All the three major dimensions of regional worlds, namely regional institutions, regionalization, and regional order, have been shaped by hegemonic powers, especially American hegemony”[1]. Regionalism becomes an active practice to structure the world led by a regional or global actor driven by economic, security or multi-purpose logics.
Post-Soviet space is not an exception from this region-building process. There are many regional projects that are being carried out in the post-Soviet space now: the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the unstable project of Organization for Democracy and Economic Development (GU(U)AM), the most proficient project – Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the new forms of old ideas of Eurasian Union. Nevertheless, the majority of these organizations, according to many experts, cannot be regarded as examples of efficient integration[2].
Why is it important to study the post-Soviet regionalism? Studying the experience of European integration and its application to the post-Soviet case is not always justified. Post-Soviet regionalism has its own features. Russia plays an important role in the formation of regional area. In recent years, Russia's policy of restructuring regional order has taken more obvious forms. What will be the regional structure of the post-Soviet space and what role does Russia play in its formation? These questionswill be addressed in this paper.
Features of regionalism in the post-Soviet space
Regional institutions in the post-Soviet space look similar to the existing regional groupings in Europe. Nevertheless, regional integration in Eurasia is still marked by the processes of multiplication of the treaties without any demonstration of real effectiveness both in the field of economic and security cooperation. Here we have some new type of regionalism, which is a variant of the non-European regionalism. It has a lot in common with the regional projects of the newly independent states in Asia. In a certain way that regionalism can be called post-colonial regionalism, which is characterized by the fear of losingthe sovereignty of the member countries, the fear of the creating of supranational institutions with automatic obligations, and not wanting to have the dominant force among the participants.
Despite the fact that the countries participating in the regional organizations in the post-Soviet space had a long history of joint co-existence within the same country, it is difficult to define this experience as an example of successful integration. Moreover, according to Mashitz[3], in the last years of the Soviet Union “there was growing hatred [from the part of the Soviet republics] towards the center, which was generated by a sense of injustice that came from Moscow”[4]. It should be noted that the terms ‘center’ and ‘Moscow’ in this context were not associated with the Russian Federation, it was a separate entity of the USSR, which was represented by party leaders (the CPSU Central Committee and the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee), the government, the bureaucracy that was responsible for state planning (allocation of resources), and the Supreme Council (pseudo-parliament). ‘Centre’ had the task of concentrating resources and then re-distributing them; it was responsible for security, for the formation of the ideology of the country. Everything was in the hands of the ruling party elite. At its core, the ‘center’ or the ruling bureaucracy of the USSR can be associated with the term ‘metropolis’. However, in reality, the center was not a single country or territory that ran the other territories. And irritation against the center existed almost in all republics, including Russia. Thus, almost all Soviet republics wanted liberation from dependence on the Centre and Moscow.
Another feature of the post-Soviet regionalism is the unpreparedness of the countries to participate in new forms of regional integration due to the lack of experience of independent existence and to the lack of experience of organizing cooperation on the new independent basis. Newly independent countries, with the exception of the Baltic countries, gained independence, but did not get the experience of individual existence without maintaining links with their counterparts in the Soviet Union. Thus, the first regional integration in the framework of the CIS was the transit mechanism to support national systems and security of the member-countries on the one hand, and to seek and develop new forms of integration between newly independent countries on the new basis on the other hand. Other regional institutes appeared 10 years after the dissolution of the USSR.
The post-Soviet regionalism is marked by the dominance of the practical functions, but not normative, value characteristics. There was no clear understanding what identity core of the Commonwealthis, what shared values and principles of this Organizationare. It is the crucial point. The post-Soviet regionalism was forming in the same space where successful types of regionalism existed (EU, NATO, OSCE, Council of Europe), and participation in these organizations was attractive for many newly independent states in the post-Soviet space. If a great part of former Soviet republics was able and ready to share European values and was ready to fulfill the external conditionality demands of these organizations, why did they need to create independent structures and institutions?
If they did it, how to identify their shared values and norms, how to explain why these countries should be a part of the Commonwealth, what their regional identity is? There was and is a problem of choice for newly independent countries whether to be a part of EU-centered projects or to seek new basis for their own non-European, non-Soviet, non-imperial regionalism. This problem is very similar for all post-Soviet integration projects (the CIS, GU(U)AM, Central Asian Economic Community, the SCO).
Regional construction within the post-Soviet space can also be called ‘parallel’ or ‘competing’ regionalism, as it started at the same time as the reconstruction processes of the EU, integration of new members into the EU.The European Neighborhood Policy and the program of Eastern Partnership, which involved countries participating in the post-Soviet regional development, became a dangerous trend for the post-Soviet regional sustainability. For many participants of the post-Soviet regional construction there was a choice - to support the post-Soviet ties, or to participate in European projects that have a certain appeal.
Thus, regionalism in the post-Soviet space is not the result of long-term economic integration and the formation of intra-regional relations, as it was in Europe. Relationships between former Soviet republics within the Soviet Union cannot be regarded as a positive experience of integration and firm basis for further integration. Thus, in 1990-s the great part of integration projects didn’t have a serious foundation apart from temporary need to solve urgent issues.
Evolution of the post-Soviet regionalism
Integration processes in the post-Soviet space can be divided into four stages. The first three stages were marked by the Russian attempts to find its place in a new regional order. The last period demonstrates new Russian policy towards post-Soviet regional space. A new stage of regional development in the post-Soviet space is characterized by the Russian policies aimed at restructuring territorial space fixed by the Belovezhskaya Agreement of 1991.
The first stage is the period of reorganization of the post-Soviet space (1991-1996). This stage was devoted to the process of seeking a mechanism and instruments to share the common heritage in a peaceful way. Many critical issues were discussed and solved during this period, such as status of Russia in the UN, the future of nuclear weapons, participation of new countries in nonproliferation regimes (NPT, START, etc.). It was the period of severe inner conflicts inside the countries, such as the constitutional conflict between Yeltsin and the main part of people's deputies and members of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation headed by Ruslan Khasbulatov, the beginning of the Chechen conflict. In the CIS there was the process of institution construction and strengthening ties within the CIS, and process of seeking new forms of integration (multi-speed integration).
The second stage was the slowdown in the framework of the CIS, the emergence of alternative projects (1997-2002), such as GUUAM, Central Asian Economic Community. It was the period of the first serious crisis in the CIS and the period of seeking or reviving other forms of regional integration.
The third stage (2002-2008) can be associated with the new Russian-led activity in the post-Soviet space and the emergence of new institutions such as CSTO, Customs Union, and SCO. ‘Color revolutions’ in Ukraine and Georgia led to a cooling of relations within the CIS and to concentration of Russian activity in the new regional organizations (CSTO and SCO). Russia continues to develop other integration projects and to maintain bilateral relations.
The last stage includes the years 2008-2014. This is a period of deepening crisis processes in the post-Soviet space: economic, political, territorial. Regional institutions such as the CSTO and the SCO continue to function but new projects appeared - the alternative projects of the Eurasian Union.
During the period of 1991-2008 many projects were initiated by Russia, but in some way these regional structures don’t coincide with Russian interests. Russian dissatisfaction with participation in regional organizations such as the CIS, CSTO, SCO, Customs Union, is associated with the lack of common understanding of the goals of these organizations[5]; with differently oriented activity of members; with the lack of real effectiveness of the organizations (the case of Kyrgyzstan in 2010); with rivalry within organizations (China and Russia in SCO). In 2008 members of all these organizations formally supported the actions of Russia in the South Ossetia and Abkhazia[6], but didn’t acknowledge the independence of these countries. Many experts now discuss a new wave of integration in the framework of Eurasian Union; meanwhile the crisis situation in Ukraine demonstrates new regional policy led by Russia.
Revisionist regionalism
New Russian policy towards restructuring the post-Soviet space may be associated with the revisionist-type regionalism. A new type of regionalism involves the integration of not only independent states, but also the individual parts and territories of newly independent states in the post-Soviet space. According to its essence, revisionist regionalism implies revision of the Belavezhskaya Agreements signed in December 1991. Agreements of 1991 were aimed not only at dissolution of the Soviet Union and creation of the CIS, but also at frozen numerous territorial disputes that broke out in the late 1980s in the USSR. Moreover, many autonomous regions and regionsthat were part of the Soviet republics in 1990-1991 began to claim their own autonomy outside the USSR, but due to Belavezhskaya Agreements have become an integral part of the new independent states[7]. Russia has begun to defrost conflictsand territorial disputes of the former USSR and revise the agreements of 1990s.
The first step was the participation of Russia in the conflict between Georgia on the one hand, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the other in 2008. As a result, two new states appeared on the map of the region, they have gradually been integrated into a variety of Russian projects. The second phase began in late 2013. The internal political crisis in Ukraine, which led to political and economic instability, allowed Russia to reach its strategic objective – to integrate the Crimea and Simferopol.
Probably there is no single concept justifying the revisionist policy of regionalism. The Russian leadership is acting tactically, using different ideological options. The new intensified policy of Russia in the region is based on the following concerns: fears and worries about the 25 million Russian-speaking population remaining outside Russia[8]; concerns about the ethnocentric position undertaken by the newly independent states, which violates the rights of Russian and other ethnic groups[9]; the weakness of the governments of independent states that are influenced by the West. Fear of the color revolutions and NATO's eastward expansion has become an important occasion to strengthen Russia's policy in the region.
Thus, today we are witnessing a new vector of regional development in Eurasia, which is initiated by Russia. Russia takes an active part in a new regional formation. What will be the form of regional development? Time will tell. However, new forms of regional integration impact the whole dynamics of regional development in the post-Soviet space.
Conclusion
Today we are witnessing a new phase of regional restructuring in the post-Soviet space. In parallel, there are processes of constructing classical models of regional organizations and new forms of regionalism driven by Russia.
Russia's position and understanding of its role in the region are clearly defined. Russia considers the post-Soviet space as its sphere of important and strategic interests. Undoubtedly, the concept of collecting land and helping the Russian-speaking population outside Russia became the driving force of modern integration processes. Russia acted as a guarantor of security for small nations in the conflict with Georgia in 2008. This role will determine the possible participation of Russia in the future situations of conflict in the post-Soviet space. Russia launched restructuring of the territory in the center of Eurasia, clearly demonstrating its neighbors and the West the new conditions and rules of interaction in the post-Soviet space.Such Russian policy could cause some resistance on the part of the post-Soviet countries, or vice versa, revive a policy of appeasement of Russia.Ukrainian crisis became a test for Russia's policy in the region.
[1]Acharia, A. (2009), “Regional words in a post-hegemonic era”, Cahiers de SPIRIT/ SPIRIT Working Papers, June 2009, p.4.
[2]See: Kubicek, P. (2009), “The Commonwealth of Independent States: an example of failed regionalism?”, Review of International Studies, No. 35, pp. 237-256; Gower, R.St. C. (2014), “The Rise and Fall of Russian Treaty Activism in the Post-Soviet Space”, Public Policy Research Paper, No. 2, pp. 1-36.
[3]Mashitz, V. - Chairman of the State Committee for Economic Cooperation with the countries – participants of the CIS (1991), former president of the Interstate Bank (MB) CIS (1995-1999)
[4]Mashits, V. (2013), “We were like the bourgeois specialists in the civil war” [Myi byili kak burzhuaznyie spetsialistyi v grazhdanskuyu voynu], Gaidar revolution. History of reforms 90s firsthand [Revolyutsiya Gaydara. Istoriya reform 90-h iz pervyih ruk], Alpina Publisher, Moscow, p. 238.
[5]In 2004 after Putin’s speech (July 19, 2004) the CIS was named “a suitcase without a handle, which is hard to bear, and it is a pity to throw it away” [Tretyakov, V. (2004), “Why do we need the Commonwealth? CIS as a continuation of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire” [Zachem nam Sodruzhestvo? SNG kak prodolzhenie Sovetskogo Soyuza i Rossiyskoy imperii], Central Asia, 31.08.2004, available at: http://www.centrasia.ru/ newsA.php?st=1093934580.
[6]See: Press conference following the meeting of CSTO Collective Security Council. September 5, 2008, 19:35 The Kremlin, Moscow. Available at: http://kremlin.ru/transcripts/1309
[7]In December 1991, during the negotiation process to establish the CIS, M. Gorbachev made a proposal to create a Commonwealth of the European and Asian countries. It should be noted that the proposals of a new union treaty had one very important feature. It was supposed to be a union of not just the 15 republics, but a union of 35 new federal subjects. Thus, under the new Union treaty the autonomous territories were to be equal to the status of the union republics. Thus, the new Union was to have a completely new configuration, and perhaps could have undermined) the authority of the new elites in the Union republics.
[8]Interview with German television channels ARD and ZDF. May 5, 2005, 22:43. Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/transcripts/22948
[9] See Statement on Georgia; Statement by the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev. August 26, 2008, 15:00. Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/transcripts/1222.
