The Yalta summit of prime ministers again discussed CIS reform

The Ukrainian government delegation at the summit of CIS heads of government, held in Yalta on October 8, signed 17 of the 22 documents discussed. It is too early to speak about the fruitfulness of the documents signed. However, the very fact that a large number of items was discussed at the meeting already inspires optimism. This would be the case if we were sure that the signing of these many documents is not the manifestation of international hysteria, the harbinger of the early collapse of the CIS. True, the participants were much more optimistic and occasionally threw out lofty words about the radiant future of cooperation between the member states. But so far, the agenda carries the same issues of reforming the CIS, something nobody seems to believe in any more. This is why no concrete decisions are being made. All the previous summits of presidents and premiers mostly resulted in many fine words about the future.

This time, Interfax reports, the Ukrainian delegation signed a clause on the CIS Executive Committee, the CIS Economic Council, and on a mechanism for implementing the decisions of the CIS Council of Heads of States and the Council of Heads of Governments. It is surprising, however, that these documents were only signed in the eighth year of this organization's existence. Obviously, the Commonwealth really existed only on paper without these two latter documents. I would like to give best wishes to the newly-formed committee and council. I only wish they will not become a source of new nomenklatura sinecures and further bureaucratization.

The premiers signed a number of international treaties, including an agreement on the procedure of customs clearance and control for goods transported across the CIS member states. A few documents signed concerned the CIS economic and social development, as well as joint efforts against crime and terrorism. The premiers also discussed the establishment of a free trade area. As Yuri Yarov, CIS Executive Secretary, said at the final press conference, the agreement on a CIS free trade area dated April 15, 1994 and the attached protocol of April 2, 1999, have been ratified only by the Parliaments of Tajikistan, Ukraine, and the lower chamber of the Belarusian Parliament. Mr. Yarov expressed hope that a free trade area may soon be established in the near term among these three countries. At the same time, the premiers did not neglect to stress their own national interests during the summit. Russian head of government Vladimir Putin said Russia would be guided by “its own national interests, as are other CIS states” in deciding on the free trade area. However, other CIS members do not believe in these “interests,” considering that, by refusing to decide, Moscow is simply trying to slow down the process.

COMMENT

Under the present conditions, the CIS is doomed to merely exist without doing anything, thinks Serhiy PYROZHKOV, director of the Institute of Ukrainian-Russian Relations. One of the main reasons is that the conceptual foundations, by which the CIS member states could be guided even a few years ago, can now be considered erroneous. Russia is in fact unable to play the role of an integrator: its problems only frighten away other partners. This resulted in the member states trying themselves to launch initiatives to develop “horizontal” cooperation, for example, between Ukraine, the countries of Central Asia, and Moldova. Russia is carrying out this process in the shape of union with Belarus. However, one should never assume that the establishment of economic organizations is a counterweight to Russia or the CIS. The same applies to GUUAM. Could Ukraine take up the role of the main integrator? Hardly, for this would require a stable economy. We also lack the political strength. In any case, Ukraine should proceed from its own national interests.