The skepticism about the EEU grows, how likely is that in Sochi, the leaders will be able to reverse the negative situation? About this Kaktakto talked to the Deputy Director of the Russian Center for strategic estimations and forecasts, Igor Pankratenko.
— What prospects of development of the EEU can identify leaders?
— The agenda is already determined. According to official sources, "will discuss the creation of a single market of goods and services, the development of trade and investment relations, strengthen industrial and technological cooperation". And, in addition, the heads of state "will pay the summit's attention, energy, digital economy, medicine and environment". Expected approval prepared by the Eurasian Commission's draft regulation on the status of observer state, which needs to Moldova. And, of course, the great interest of the press will attract a bilateral meeting of the heads of state and the negotiations between Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan. In fact, on may 14 in Sochi will be a big "party" politicians and officials, media event, far enough from the real issues of the EEU. And even more, it is highly unlikely that it will put forward some "breakthrough" initiatives, the implementation of which will allow to solve internal problems and to bring the Union to a new level. Under which we need to understand not increase the number of members and observers, and qualitative changes that make the EEU a real player in the global economy. This frankly bad. Prospects it is possible to identify the most light, but as they are commensurate with economic realities is a big and sensitive issue.
— Problems in the EEU is becoming more. Does this organization not turns whether the EEU in the bureaucratic structure without real content?
— Yes, such tendency exists. Furthermore, often virtual and media content in the activities of the EEU much more than the actual positive effect for the economies. Of course, difficulties and crisis phenomena can be attributed to "childhood diseases integration," that was too short time to feel the positive shifts that too many questions remain unresolved. And this, in part, true. More than that — can you give examples of some progress and not much to sin thus against the truth, because some where and what they really are. As for the argument that "since the creation of this organization of economy of the participating countries are in deep crisis", it is possible to refer to adverse conditions in world markets, the price of oil and a dozen factors, which do not be — EAEC rest of the world something successful economic will certainly be shown. In the end, the fans of the EAEC will lead you and it is really a killer argument — the international integration of continuously evolving regional and global integration enterprises — a world trend. The problem is that the basis of the world integration trend are specific economic or cross-border logistics projects, interests and business plans of producers, entrepreneurs, corporations. In the case of EAEC based on its origin lay policy. That is not the most reliable Foundation for integration, especially if one of its main initiators, Moscow, begins to pursue a very unbalanced foreign policy, and even amid serious problems in their own economy.
— The Eurasian economic Union gave still something positive?
— The main thing to say is the growth of trade within the EEU, the national output of goods to the markets of other member countries of the Union, the elimination of some administrative barriers, and of relief in regulating labor migration. Initial positive effects from the creation of the Customs Union and the Eurasian economic Union has practically exhausted its potential. And now there comes a time when the situation will determine not they, but those same structural problems that have arisen with the establishment of the Union and remain unresolved to the present time — from the purely technical, like questions of technical regulation, sanitary and veterinary measures, to the lack of a unified position in policy and product specialization.
— Started various movements in Armenia about the possibility of withdrawal from the Union, how is it really?
— I understand, of course, a bloodless change of government, mass rallies, noble departure of the former leadership and other excitement — all this creates such a beautiful picture that I would like to discuss. But the real politics and economy of the EEU, all this is very remote. Anywhere they from the Union in the next at least a couple of years — longer-term forecasts to be problematic — it will not work, whatever is not saying. And they know it. And so all these movements represent nothing more than an attempt easy blackmail, stimulate us, so we left.
— It is known that the skepticism towards the Union in Belarus grows, should we expect another sharp criticism of the EEU from Lukashenka?
You know, Alexander G. can be treated, of course, different. But he's one of the very few politicians who are genuinely and deeply concerned about the further fate of the EEU. And his criticism is directed not at the idea itself, and the attempts of deformation, diluting, burocracia attempts equal partnership to replace a situation in which someone in the Alliance "more equal than others". And to worry when this criticism is sound, and if it will stop. This will mean that Minsk had completely lost interest in the EEU. As for the sharpness of the statements of the Belarusian President. No leader of the post-Soviet space, the Russian media from the "Kremlin pool" did not like this, not afraid of the word harassment as Lukashenko. Nothing, not disdaining, and in what does not refusing.
— What coping mechanisms crisis EAEC exist?
— It is, in fact, need not lead to some "outstanding issues". The problem lies elsewhere. And it concerns strategy. No matter what is said, but today, member States of the EAEU considered a single economic space only from the standpoint of additional export opportunities for their economies. As a consequence, the development of relations with China or EU countries for them, in the end, more priority. When existing within the EAEU approaches he has no prospects, and the degeneration into a sort of bureaucratic structure, occasionally conducting some events like nature, is inevitable. While the EEU countries will not proceed to the development of common industrial projects, will not be achieved agreement about the specialization of member countries in the industrial sector, which is not tired to repeat Nursultan Nazarbayev, while competition will not be balanced by complementarity, there would be General programmes of development of transport infrastructure, to talk about the prospects of the EEU does not make sense.
- 09-09-2018Le Monde (France): We come to the point where globalization is too expensive
- 02-05-2018Technology: 35-forecasts to 2018
- 22-03-2018"Digital state": how they have evolved
- 08-03-2018Welcome to the new world: a map of the opposing blocks of the XXI century
- 17-02-2018Priority projects of mankind
- 04-07-2012Russia cooking oil blockade and the collapse of the scenario of the 80-ies
- 23-12-2012The Vedic understanding of state policy
- 22-11-2013In the archives of the "world government"
- 08-01-2014Of a mega-Church and their communication strategies
- 08-11-2012The main threat to peace or a recipe for success