Paradoxes of Eurasian integration

Over the years of independence, Kazakhstan has initiated and participated in the creation of a number of international organizations, but none of them, perhaps, has caused such contradictory assessments as the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). The idea was originally proposed by Nursultan Nazarbayev in May 1994. Two years later, an Agreement was signed between Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Russia on deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields (Tajikistan then later joined the alliance of the four). An Integration Committee was created, headed by the First Deputy Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Nigmatzhan Isingarin. The next stage in October 2000 was the signing of an agreement on the establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community, which included Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan (in 2006-2008 – it also included Uzbekistan). The first General Secretary of the EEU was the representative of Russia, General Grigory Rapota, and in October 2007 he was replaced by the Kazakh diplomat, mayor of the North Kazakhstan region, Tair Mansurov. At the same time, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia signed an agreement on the creation of a single customs territory and the formation of the Customs Union. In May 2014, the same countries signed an agreement on the Eurasian Economic Union, and in 2015 Armenia and Kyrgyzstan joined in.

What is the meaning of Eurasian integration and why does Kazakhstan need it? First, it is foolish to deny that the economies of the post-Soviet states, even after 30 years of independence, are quite closely linked, at least geographically. Removing unnecessary barriers in itself provides opportunities for the development of border and interstate economic cooperation. Secondly, reasonable forms of regional economic integration make it possible to develop normal forms of political cooperation between our states. Thirdly, the issue of not only the admission of goods and labor from the EEU country to the territory of Kazakhstan is being resolved, but also of Kazakhstani goods and specialists to the markets of the union countries. There is a rather strange opinion that Eurasian integration is needed only by Russia in order to fill up neighboring markets (including Kazakhstan) with «its low-quality goods.» But within the EEU, there is no compulsion to purchase certain products. The buyer chooses the price / quality based on the choice, and given the frequent devaluation of the national currency in recent years, the products from other countries, for example from Western Europe, are becoming not very affordable for the average Kazakhstani consumer. A similar question arises with domestic goods, where for provision of production the state periodically launches programs for diversification and import substitution. Unfortunately, the quality and effectiveness of these programs constantly invites criticism, which leads to the fact that the dependence of the domestic market on imported goods does not decrease, and oil, gas, metals and grain still dominate in the export structure. As in the case of exchange rate policy, the issue of the quality of economic programs should not be addressed to the partners in the EEU, but to its own government and the National Bank. There is also an opinion that the potential production of high-quality goods, which should be created according to domestic state development programs, should be oriented not to the markets of Russia or Central Asia, but to the American or Western European markets. This opinion, of course, is wonderful, but first, it seems, you need to learn how to produce these products, and then — learn how to compete in the markets of neighboring countries.

Of course, if one could choose one’s neighbors, many Kazakhstanis would have preferred to border with the United States, Japan, France or someone else, but historically it turned out that our country found itself between Russia, China and Central Asia. It seems that it is hardly possible to change this objective reality. The history is not based on ‘maybe’s’, and the history of Kazakhstan is closely related to its neighbors.

In recent decades, public opinion, historical science and journalism have been dominated by the idea that Kazakhstan was a victim of the colonial policy of Russia and the Soviet Union, which directly or indirectly begins to influence modern Kazakh-Russian relations. Here, in addition to a one-sided assessment, there is also the traditional pulling out of several centuries from the history of relations between the Slavic and Turkic peoples. The latter, as is known from history, arose in Altai and successively crushed the Chinese and Central Asian states, after which they began campaigns of conquest to the West, demolishing many states along the way. Ancient Russia, which was already in difficult relations with its neighbors, the Kipchaks, in the 13th century became part of the Mongol Empire. As far as is known, the generals of Genghis Khan did not bother with the plebiscite or other norms of international law. Russia, in humanitarian terms, of course, suffered from the «Mongol-Tatar yoke», but in terms of historical, political, they only won. The people got the form of statehood, which eventually made them the superpower we know today.

I remember that Count Uvarov, Minister of Education of the Russian Empire, author of the formula «Orthodoxy. Autocracy. Nationality» came from the Murza Minchak Kosayevich who had migrated to the Russian service. And the Minister of War and the creator of military settlements, Count Arakcheev, was the ancestor of the baptized Tatar Arakchey Yevstafiev ...

The Moscow duchy grew stronger and moved to the East, crushing the same fragments of the Golden Horde which itself has been a part of. How was it in the movie? «Kazan was taken, Astrakhan was taken.» Then the Nogai Horde, the Siberian and Crimean Khanates fell.

Interestingly, the Mongols went to the West, aiming not at Russia, but at Western Europe. Russia fell into the empire along the way. In addition to small battles at Kalka and on the Sit River, almost all battles of the period of the Mongol conquest were reduced to the siege and storming of the cities. The Kazakh Khanate similarly fell into the Russian Empire: the latter went to the East, with the goal of conquering the Central Asian states and, in the future, India, rather than the Kazakh Khanate, which — voluntarily and compulsorily — became part of the empire. History has not recorded any mass resistance, let alone any «general battle». And as in the case of the Mongol conquest of Russia, and the Russian expansion into the Central Asia, the losing side received from the victorious one much more than it could have had if the imperial army passed by. The absence of the natural boundaries between the Slavic and Turkic worlds in Eurasia naturally determined the fact that they periodically found themselves within the boundaries of one state.

The Eurasian idea, with which professional historians often argue, is broader than a list of mutual claims; it is rather a cultural and political phenomenon. And the value of Eurasian integration lies in the fact that we are talking about a new civilized union based on a common mentality and historical destiny. Russia would not have become a superpower if it had not gone through the Mongol conquest. Kazakhstan would have not become a developed agro-industrial state, if there were no Soviet modernization. Today, objectively speaking, there are no prerequisites for the creation of a single state, but the Eurasian project is a continuation of the natural course of history. Here it is necessary to note the persistence of Nursultan Nazarbayev, who was the first of the Eurasian politicians to understand the meaning of history.

Daniyar Ashimbaev, political scientist, leading researcher for the

Institute of Security and Cooperation

in Central Asia

По сообщению сайта Редакция портала