POST-SOVIET INTEGRATION THROUGH THE PRISM OF POLITICAL TRANSFORMATION IN THE NEWLY INDEPENDENT STATES
Abstract
The integration processes in the republics that acquired their sovereignty after the collapse of the Soviet Union naturally became one of the main elements in the widespread transformation process going on in the geographical expanse now known as post-Soviet. This is turning regional integration into one of the most urgent problems in the study of the new processes and phenomena occurring in this region.
Indeed, if integration is to be successful, we will be dealing with an essentially new type of unification, that is, reintegration. If it fails, the united expanse will continue to disintegrate, whereby completely.
At the current stage, it is still impossible to draw foregone conclusions and make predictions about either the first or the second scenario. Both integration and disintegration processes are going on at the same time with different degrees of intensity in the so-called newly independent states (NIS).Of particular interest is the Central Asian region, where the local, post-Soviet, and international factors influencing the political transformation of the NIS and, consequently, the nature of their partic ipation in the integration processes are concentrated. In turn, interpretation of the vitally important question for the NIS—what does sovereignty mean for them?—depends on this. However, this question is pertinent and just as significant for all the NIS in the post-Soviet expanse. So it is extremely important to study their political transformation and the effect this process is having on the fate of NIS integration. Ultimately, political transformation affects the nature of the integration processes and vice versa—the integration processes are influencing the nature of political transformation in the NIS.
From the very beginning of the era of independence, political science studies of the NIS invariably concentrated on the idea of post-Soviet reintegration. Many experts have studied the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which arose in place of the disintegrated U.S.S.R. Almost all the former Soviet logical centers in the West have switched to CIS topics.
On the other hand, today, in the era of globalization, the phenomenon of regional integration unions is a graphic trend in international relations. There are many relevant examples: the EU, ASEAN, NAFTA, MERCOSUR, the UAE, and others. The NIS of the post-Soviet expanse face the same historical challenge, meaning “is integration to be or not to be?” This does not simply entail a review of interrelations, it is also a question of the place and destiny of these states in the globalizing world order.
Downloads
References
See: G.Gleason, “Uzbekistan: from Statehood to Nationhood?” in: Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States, ed. by I. Bremer, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, p. 335.
See: Ibid., p. 334.
B.S. Erasov, “Sotsiokul’turnye i geopoliticheskie printsipy evraziystva,” Polis, No. 5, 2001.
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
D. Nazarbaeva, “Spetsifika i perspektivy politicheskogo razvitiia Kazakhstana,” Bulletin, No. 3, 2003. Interna-tional Institute of Contemporary Politics, on the IICP site at [http://iimp.kz/index.php?action=show&art_id=150&from=5],17 February, 2006.
See: F. Tolipov, “Central Asia is a Region of Five Stans. Dispute with Kazakh Eurasianists,” Central Asia and the Caucasus, No. 2 (38), 2006.
D. Furman, “Dolgiy protsess raspada rossiiskoi imperii,” in: Tsentral’naia Azia i Iuzhniy Kavkaz. Nasushchnye problemy, ed. by B. Rumer, East Point, Almaty, 2006, p. 56.
Ibid., p. 96.
J. Eyvazov, «Geopolitical Lessons of the Post-Soviet Caucasus: Forward to Globalization or Back to Classical Eurasian Geopolitics?” The Caucasus & Globalization, Vol. 1 (1), 2006, p. 36.
See: P. Dunai and Z. Liakhovskiy, “Organizatsii i vzaimootnosheniia v evro-atlanticheskoi sisteme,” SIPRI Annual-2004.
Ye. Gaidar, “Imperskaia missiia v Azii—vazhneishiy element natsional’noi samoidentifikatsii Rossii,” available at [www.centrasia.org], 15 June, 2006. (Source—Vedomosti.)
See: Interview with the Al Jazeera Arabic satellite television network, 12 February, 2007. (Source—InoSMI.)
A. Palkin, “SNG oboydetsia bez Ukrainy i Gruzii,” available at [www.centrasia.org]. (Source—Utro.Ru, 10 May,2006.)
V. Snapkovskiy, “Vneshniaia politika Respubliki Belarus’: pervye itogi pervogo desiatiletia,” Belorusskiy Zhur-nal mezhdunarodnogo prava i mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii, No. 4, 2000, available at [http://lib.ixbt.by/belarus/
xbt_readme.php?subaction=showfull&id=1096041141&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4&].
See: V. Zharkov, “Posle SNG. Postsovetskoe prostranstvo: konets istorii,” Prognosis.Ru, 15 January, 2007.
See: A. Zhelenin, “Moldaviia integriruetsia s Evropoi, a ne c Rumyniey,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, 16 April, 2007.
Kontseptsiia vneshnei politiki Respubliki Moldova, available at [http://www.profitclub.md/consulting/readit/inter-activ/2002_04/30_02.html].
See: A. Iunusov, “Azerbaidzhan: integratsiia v evropeiskie struktury v svete vnutripoliticheskoi situatsii,” in: Iuzh-nyy Kavkaz kak chast’ Bol’shoi Evropy, Spektr Strategic Analysis Center, Erevan, 2005, pp. 90-100.
See: “Azerbaidzhan beriot kurs na integratsiiu v NATO,” 19 March, 2007. (Source—[www.eurasianet.org].)
See: S. Sarkisian, “Vliianie nekotorykh aspektov novoi geopoliticheskoi situatsii na Armeniiu,” in: Iuzhnyy Kavkaz kak chast’ Bol’shoi Evropy, p. 101.
T. Torosian, “Evropeiskaia integratsiia—iskliuchitelnyy shans dlia resheniia problem Iuzhnogo Kavkaza,” in: Iuzh-nyy Kavkaz kak chast’ Bol’shoi Evropy, p. 10.
For more detail, see: M. Malek, “Primenenie teoriy ‘provalivshikhsia gosudarstv’ na Iuzhnom Kavkaze v kontek-ste evropeiskogo proekta.” in: Iuzhnyy Kavkaz kak chast’ Bol’shoi Evropy, pp. 50-59.
See: Sh. Pichkhadze, “Gruziia posle noiabria 2003 goda: dostizheniia i tendentsii,” in: Iuzhnyy Kavkaz kak chast’
ol’shoi Evropy, pp. 79-89.
A. Rondeli, “Russia and Georgia: Relations are Still Tense,” The Caucasus & Globalization, Vol. 1 (1), 2006,p. 69.
Ibidem.
A. Palkin, op. cit.
See: S. Cohen, “The Breakup of the Soviet Union Ended Russia’s March to Democracy,” The Guardian, 13 De-cember, 2006.
M. Gorbachev, Perestroika i novoe myshlenie dlia nashey strany i dlia vsego mira, Political Literature Publishers,Moscow, 1988, p. 118.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2007 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
