Ladies and Gentlemen,
(...) Indeed, this year Russia holds the rotating presidency of the CIS. Apart from the formal responsibilities involved, this year we will focus on particular issues affecting the development of the Commonwealth of Independent States and several other issues. These are major priorities for our foreign policy and internal economic policies.
As you know, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan are setting up a Common Economic Space, and have signed all the necessary agreements to become members of the Customs Union, which has come into force. Therefore, all issues of foreign economic policy and integration are now domestic economic issues, and we thus regard them as both internal economic policy issues and foreign policy issues having to do with integration.
(...) Ladies and Gentlemen, as you know, 2010 was declared the Year of Science and Innovation in the CIS. But a no less and possibly more important issue for this year is honouring veterans on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War. We based our agenda for the Russian presidency on the belief that this event has not only united our countries in the past, but also serves as a reminder of how we struggled together against fascism. It should also strengthen our integration, because it is an immortal, unifying event, one that our young people sometimes forget. Although we have gathered here today to discuss economic matters, our efforts to recognise the heroism of our fathers and grandfathers will be one of the most important issues we discuss at the informal summit to be held in Moscow on May 8. We have prepared many other events for this year in honour of this occasion.
And so, ladies and gentlemen, the Commonwealth of Independent States is a unique international organisation. Unique because it has failed to meet the tasks set for it when it was established, but also because it has nevertheless effectively fulfilled a historically important role, though this role was not set forth in its charter documents. It is also a unique organisation because it has shown us new horizons and new possibilities for development based on the fundamental principles of the CIS.
Allow me to explain. If we ask people why the CIS was set up nearly 20 years ago, the overwhelming majority will tell you that it was set up to ensure a civilised divorce for the former Soviet republics. Few people will remember that it was the Ukrainian President who first described the CIS this way in 1993, and people gradually came to accept it as such. However, the majority of his colleagues did not share that view. In the mid-1990s, they saw the CIS above all as an instrument for civilised integration modelled after the European Union.
There were reasons to think so. The euphoria over sovereignty in the post-Soviet space quickly gave way to a legitimate question: "What do we do now?" Severing traditional economic, manufacturing and cooperative ties was a painful blow for each former Soviet republic, one which aggravated the economic and financial crisis that was already occurring. Many people came to see that the former Soviet states could strengthen their sovereignty and independence only through working together. They had been part of a unified political, economic and spiritual space too long to be able to discard everything overnight.
World events also bore witness to the benefits of unification. In December 1991, when the Soviet Union was falling apart, European leaders announced the establishment of the European Union in Maastricht. Europe confidently set out on the road towards an economic, currency and political union, and it seemed something like that could also be created to take the place of the Soviet Union. There were also proposals for a Eurasian Union. The requisite legal framework for such a union was set forth in the Belavezha Accords, signed in December 1991. Incidentally, every CIS country has ratified those agreements. I bring this up because it allows us to draw important conclusion about the CIS's past. Without these conclusions the CIS or any other regional association set up in the post-Soviet space will have no future.
What are these conclusions? First, it is that the like-minded should unite. A regional association must find a common denominator, and in order to move forward this requires a shared understanding of the ultimate goals and how to achieve them. Therefore, we must now begin a public and political debate to determine the common denominators for the CIS countries, both for today an in the future. Mutual understanding is unlikely without such a debate. The organisers of this forum, in particular Sergei Lebedev, believe that it should spark a public debate in all CIS countries, a debate that should continue through this year and into the next, when we will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the CIS. We need this debate so that people who are not politicians or analysts understand why we set up the CIS and what its future could be, and also to encourage our societies to support integration. The result of these discussions could be that the goals that turn out to be universally acceptable to all members of our organisation become less ambitious and more realistic. Incidentally, the CIS overcame the financial crisis only when its goals became more modest, pragmatic and widely supported.
My recent meetings with CIS leaders when several colleagues and I visited the South Caucasus and Central Asian countries show that we should not expect our organisation to aspire to over-ambitious goals. We will approach ambitious goals, if there are any, only gradually, ensuring that they are realistic.
Second, one form of cooperation is unlikely to suit all. Integration at different speeds is a fact of life, an objective reality. That's why we have the CIS, the CSTO, EurAsEC and the Customs Union, which already exist, as well as the Common Economic Space, which we plan to set up. This multileveled approach is fully in line with international practice.
Third, the most important and also the most painful conclusion in the world of real as opposed to virtual integration is that we should take a more modern view of national sovereignty. Many people believe that integration will undoubtedly lead to countries giving up some of their sovereignty, and that the lack of commitment to do so has lead many promising CIS projects to remain unimplemented.
The agreements signed in 1992 and 1993, above all the treaty establishing the Economic Union, initially stipulated that the CIS would evolve conventionally as a regional integration association. The CIS would therefore start as a free trade zone and then evolve into a customs union, and then into unified economic space defined by four economic freedoms: the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. It would finally culminate in an economic and currency union.
Nevertheless, although the CIS agreements set forth these ultimate goals, they also set forth a contradictory goal: maintaining full sovereignty and avoiding forming supranational bodies. However, even a customs union, let alone an economic or a currency union, entails the transfer of some national powers to a supranational body. When the member countries firmly decided in the mid-1990s that they would not transfer national powers to supranational bodies, they stopped mentioning the ultimate goals of the CIS.
Fourth, integration will evolve as it brings economic benefits, although these benefits may perhaps not be instantaneous. I am confident that consolidating the integration processes is in line with Russia's interests and the interests of other CIS member states. This does not mean integration at any cost, but the sort of integration that encourages market and democratic reform and fosters economic growth, employment and further integration with the international community.
Fifth, integrating post-Soviet republics is not in conflict with our goal of integrating with the global economy. On the contrary, in the globalisation era it is in fact easier for regional alliances to become part of the global economy than standalone countries, even strong and developed ones.
As you know, Russia has recently become more actively involved in several international projects. The Customs Union came into force on January 1, 2010, and a Common Economic Space between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan should be in place by January 1, 2012. We are negotiating for greater cooperation with the European Union and are preparing to assume the presidency of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group in 2012. Negotiations for accession to the WTO and OECD are also in progress.
But as we have said time and time again, this year's presidency of the CIS is without a doubt Russia's most important project. Outside observers might see our efforts here as contradictory, but this is not the case. All the projects I mentioned are in fact different links of the same chain. This is the only way we see it. Above all, we are building a close-knit economic alliance regulated by supranational bodies - the Customs Union and the Common Economic Space between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Moreover, I assume that the common economic space will expand with time, eventually growing into a Eurasian economic union. And I wouldn't rule out a future currency union between these countries either.
While creating a common space, we will focus on harmonising our legislation with European Union legislation. This is very important. This is also logical, because we are planning to move forward, toward a common economic space with the EU, which would involve more than harmonising laws: it would require a gradual removal of barriers to the free movement of goods, services, capital and people. Our ultimate goal is a Europe without barriers and visas, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Unlike the common economic space, the purpose of our rapprochement with the EU is a common space, which would entail coordinating economic policies without creating supranational bodies. Russia plans to increase economic cooperation during its CIS presidency. By simultaneously pursuing these two policies, we could eventually come closer to the idea of a broader economic space, which would encompass the countries of the EU and the CIS. The regulations for this common economic space could form a solid framework for our long-term cooperation.
To put it simply, this economic space could include the CIS and EU member states, uniting countries with different legal systems, some of them as members of groups regulated by supranational bodies. However, the economic legislation of the aforementioned institutions would be unitary applicable throughout this economic space.
But let us not forget the APEC. Russia will take over the APEC presidency in 2012, at which point we will present the model we are currently developing to our Asia-Pacific partners. By pursuing this policy in a dedicated and consistent way, we will eventually be able to build a global economic space. I do not mean imposing regulations or standards globally, but rather cooperation and coordination of many different countries' and economic alliances' activities.
Sixth, being part of the Common Economic Space would also guarantee that each country's national identity is preserved, as extra-regional forces often affect every CIS state in one form or another. Every CIS state can pursue integration with the international community separately, but some of them, depending on their size, might have to make additional effort to preserve their national identity.
Seventh, when everything is quiet in supranational groups, it means that nothing is going on. Any significant attempts to find mutually acceptable solutions to sensitive issues or balance pros and cons inevitably lead to heated discussions and arguments. This only proves that an organisation is addressing serious issues, that the partners are honest with each other and responsible with regard to the decisions they are making, and that they mean to implement these decisions rather than shelve them once a document is signed.
The European Union is constantly evolving, successfully resolving conflicts as they arise. Meanwhile, Customs Union members are also engaged in debate. Their discussions are open and can be followed, and the discussions within the group may be even more heated than those with other partners. This is the case because here they have to handle bigger issues that affect nearly all aspects of national policy. I am confident that the CIS is also ready for more intensive work, including serious discussions about its future.
Considering the aforementioned approaches, Russia will advance new initiatives in the CIS. It is a well-established tradition to criticise the commonwealth for its excessive bureaucracy, large number of supranational bodies and the ineffectiveness of its decisions. All these criticisms are valid.
But nevertheless, the CIS is also valuable in many ways. The format has proved fitting for the post-Soviet states, as evidenced by one member's withdrawal from the commonwealth. Georgia asked to continue to be subject to 79 agreements signed by the CIS countries, because pulling out would have destroyed the very system for its traditional relations with its partners overnight. Taking into consideration the interests of their citizens, other CIS members agreed to preserve these agreements. Nevertheless, the CIS does need to be reformed.
I believe we are well prepared to move forward today, to modernise the fundamentals of our work together. During my recent travels and meetings with CIS leaders, they have told me without exception that they are willing to work together more closely and that they see the CIS in a positive light. However, there are too few specific and transparent initiatives that would be attractive for our partners and could be implemented in real time. The idea of integration cannot appeal exclusively to the future. It must bring tangible dividends to this generation as well. Therefore, we expect to make significant progress this year.
Russia's presidency will focus on lending fresh momentum to economic processes in the post-Soviet countries through a series of very specific initiatives aimed at resolving the most pressing problems in a multilateral format.
Here are our specific proposals: First, expediting work to draft an agreement for a multifaceted trade zone for CIS countries, with the goal of completing this work by the end of 2010. This kind of zone does not yet exist, and what does exist has a great number of exceptions and functions on the basis of bilateral agreements. The new agreement would regulate all essential trade policy issues through the CIS and in accordance with international regulations. The agreement is meant to replace several statutes and agreements, considerably simplifying the administration of regional commerce. The agreement would allow third-party countries to join, thus facilitating the formation of a greater Eurasian zone of cooperation.
Our second initiative is both economic and political. It concerns regulating labour migration. This is an extremely important issue for Russia. Migrant workers from the CIS have made great contributions to the development of our country, but this is a very expensive issue for us. Therefore, we are extremely interested in further regulating migration, improving the professional qualifications of workers and resolving their social problems in a civilised manner. Today, labour migration is the lifeblood of the post-Soviet states and theirpeoples.
Our third set of initiatives has to do with the energy sector. Here I have highlighted the most important tasks for 2010:
- Predicting the production and consumption of energy resources by CIS member states through 2020 and beyond on the basis of their registers of existing balance reserves
- Improving the system of technical regulation in the power sector
- Drafting proposals for updating the November 25, 1998 agreement providing for the parallel operation of power systems in CIS member states
- Monitoring, analysing and drafting proposals for coordinating national long-term plans for the development of the power industry.
All of this will become the basis for long-term relations, without which any progress in this field is impossible.
One of our priorities will be taking steps to improve energy efficiency throughout the post-Soviet space. It is common knowledge that most of the CIS economies are extremely energy intensive, and this is a serious barrier for our international competitiveness. I propose that we consolidate our approaches for developing energy-efficient economies in an agreement that would harmonise CIS energy efficiency policy.
Our fourth set of proposals is designated to improve infrastructure and cooperation. In the financial sector, we believe it is necessary to draft and approve a plan to create a payment and settlement system based on CIS national currencies, taking advantage of the capabilities of the CIS intergovernmental bank.
As far as transport concerns, we will have to work with our CIS partners to gradually liberalise air transport in CIS airspace by removing quotas on flight frequency, restrictions on destinations in both the CIS and elsewhere and restrictions on the number of designated airline companies, all in accordance with the initiative of the Russian Transport Ministry. We will also have to work to liberalise transit air travel to develop the transit potential of CIS member states. We also have it on our agenda to implement agreements coordinating development of international transport corridors that pass through CIS member states, including formation of a coordinating committee for CIS transport corridors.
Another group of proposals is organisational. It is high time we stopped measuring the effectiveness of the CIS by the number of agreements signed. As they say, less is more. We must draft agreements responsibly and carefully, signing only those that satisfy all parties without reservations or exceptions. Everyone I spoke with during my trips as a national coordinator around the CIS talked about this. I don't see anything wrong with not coming to a consensus on some projects. This means that these will have to be implemented through other, more narrow platforms, such as EurAsEC, CSTO or the customs union. The CIS should only implement those initiatives that are shared by all, without reservations or exceptions.
We hope to make considerable progress in reaching the strategic goal of providing food security and an efficiently functioning agricultural market in the CIS. In order to do this, we need to finish developing a concept for improving food security for CIS member states. We need to start signing agreements for individual sectors of the food market. We are most interested in an agreement on the grain market, all the more so since the term of the main guidelines for creating and operating a CIS grain market in the period until 2010 is coming to a close. Remember that the CIS produces 12% of the world's grain and 30% of wheat exports.
In conjunction with the grain agreement, I believe that we should increase our cooperation not only in resolving regional issues, but also more actively engaging and cooperating in the global market. After all, CIS states are key players that influence prices and conditions on the global market for raw materials and semi-finished products. I am not calling for cartel agreements, but greater cooperation and action coordination surely wouldn't hurt. There are a number of areas of activity in which more time is needed to achieve results. Here we propose that we not force things along, but strive to reach specific agreements and concrete benefits. We are already trying out new approaches for developing cooperation in some key sectors this year, and we will acquire the necessary experience. The results will serve as the foundations for progress in 2011 and allow us to celebrate the 20th year anniversary of the CIS in a dignified manner at the end of 2011. The Commonwealth has finally reached maturity and must take full responsibility for its future and the future of its citizens.
An important factor in the development of the Commonwealth should be the development of CIS member states' permanent exhibits at the All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow. We have been discussing this issue for several years. The Russian government adopted a final resolution this year, and CIS member states will be able to lease their own national pavilions in the long term for a symbolic price. This will give CIS states markedly different opportunities to invest in their pavilions and equip them with new infrastructure for visitation by the public.
We would like to make the initiatives proposed by Russia within the context of multilateral partnership the subject of broad public debate. This is the value of events such as today's forum. To sum everything up, all CIS projects are important, but as we see it, we must focus: on basic economic cooperation by creating a free trade zone; on infrastructure projects in the transport and energy sectors since they are essential for the basic infrastructure elements of any economic system; on migration processes, in other words, civilised treatment of migrant workers from CIS countries. We should not think that only Russia is interested in this, because the processes are so dynamic that there are not only migrant workers coming to Russia from the CIS and vice versa, but we are also seeing this migration among other CIS states. And, finally, on establishing a cultural and educational space and cooperating in science and innovation.
And last, I would like to conclude with the following. In our conversations with the heads of governments of countries that we visited, we were told pretty much the same thing - these states are ready to go as far as Russia is ready to lead the way and take them in CIS integration and the development of CIS institutions.
I can tell you that the government of the Russian Federation is unified on this issue and the Russian president's directive is quite definite: we are ready to set goals as ambitious as our internal political climate will allow and work with you to realise these aspirations.
Thank you for your attention!