CIS STATES – WHO ARE THE LEADERS?

“Rest assured all countries want to build their own identities and they will be far from their Soviet past. Whether they match the western expectations or have to do so, is another matter.”

- Erlan Idrissov, Kazakhstan’s Ambassador to the United States

 Kazakhstan’s Ambassador to the US, Erlan Idrissov, chaired this gathering and set the stage for discussion as follows: “The eyes of the world are turned on this region.  More and more people in the world are trying to understand our part of the world, where we come from and where we are heading. Based on the geopolitics of the space, the enormous resources, we hear more and more informed debate on the region these days.”

 He quoted former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who wrote in the foreword to “The Kazakhstan Way,” Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev’s recent book, “How far does the character of the leader shape the event? How far does the event affect the leader?”

 His co-chair, Martha Olcott Brill then posed an opening discussion question. Brill, a leading western expert on Central Asia at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, asked Kazakh Foreign Affairs Minister Marat Tazhin what he sees from his position.

 “It is our position that the CIS has two sides, one looking at the future the other at the past,” he replied. “History has shown that the transition to the CIS was an optimal form for the dissolution of the USSR. If you look at Yugoslavia, there was horrendous bloodshed. The dissolution of the USSR did not lead to such bloodletting because the leaders of the CIS had the foresight to handle the transition.

 While expectations for CIS countries to form anything like the European Union would be naive, there are several top issues that need to be addressed, Tazhin said. First is dealing with migration by establishing common rules for handling the millions of people who move amongst the various countries. Next is the need for an updated, integrated transportation network exemplified by improved rail and communications links.

 Thirdly, science and education must be a priority for the CIS. He reported that there was agreement in a recent meeting with EU leaders that this is something to be undertaken jointly. “To do it just for the CIS would be ineffective,” he added.

 Additional priorities are addressing the interests of large ethnic groups that spill across boundaries, and to do so without violent clashes. And, lastly, he said there is a critical need to join forces in reaching new heights in the fight against trans-border drug traffic and crime.

 Speaking from her position as  political analyst and advisor to the chief editor of  the Russian magazine “Political class,” Bermet Akayeva, said most of the CIS countries are still at the beginning of strengthening their institutions and governments. She then provided a comprehensive review as follows:

 “There is a class of smaller countries that do not have resources, such as Kyrgyzstan. Also, take a look at Moldova, which has an established political system that is not likely to change in terms of its public governance systems. It is moving toward western standards. The Trans-Dnestrian problem is still there but I do not see a major effect from that.

 “Kyrgyzstan is a country looking for the right structure – but it is being looked at with optimism despite many changes. In the past year they amended the constitution three times.

 “Armenia – a special country -- will likely continue as it is; in Azerbaijan, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem will not settle rapidly; clashes between elites continue;

 “Turkmenistan has gone through a difficult time, but while they have some stability now, it is hard to say they have developed the final model for the country. There is controlled stability in Azerbaijan, Tajikistan and a few others in this category. I think they will move in the direction Kazakhstan has, finding a way of sustainable development.

 “Uzbekistan, a great neighbor -- it can become the second Vietnam in this region, but there are still stability and security issues which are damaging economic development.

 “As to the leaders of democratic development, I am optimistic about the Ukraine; the elites are trying to compromise. Georgia is going through what many of the CIS countries like Kyrgyzstan went through in the 1990s. The situation is quite unstable. It is still hard to identify a trend.

 “The Russian and Kazakhstan republics are the leaders which are ensuring proper economic and social stability. If they continue the active creation of institutions, there is a great future for them”

 Yuri Shevtsov, Director of the Center of European Integration in Belarus, said that in his country the most relevant issue is its relationship with the West. “We have plans to build seven major plants in Venezuela, it is as if we are building a second Belarus there. That course is developing very fast.

 “We are participating in globalization, but it has unexpected results. We also expect a multi-billion dollar investment from the Persian Gulf. There are people making decisions who are not in Belarus. What is the effect?”

 Mikhail Gusman, the  Deputy Director General of ITAR-TASS news agency took issue with the session’s focus. “This topic is designed to divide the countries of the CIS between groups doing well and those not doing well. I lived with the model of the USSR – anyone could tell you administration and culture was totally different in different regions, say Tajikistan or Estonia --In some place clans, in others, families. These differences are still there.”

 From the floor, a participant joined in asking why the topic was “a group portrait of the CIS,” adding that each independent state has its own way of development, politically, economically and democratically.

 Yet another questioner noted that the CIS was a diverse group, asking “How do you get countries like Tajikistan or Uzbekistan to give up their national interest for group interests?”

 This question was fielded by the Kazakh Foreign Minister, Marat Tazhin. “An example is in the priority creation of a free trade zone. The president of Tajikistan in fact said at a recent meeting this is an important matter. For it to happen, however, three principles must be in place:

1. It must be voluntary

2. Pure pragmatism must apply -- what will be gained?

3. It needs support not just from the leaders but from the societies.

 “There are many practical applied issues,” he continued. “There is no need to dramatize the differences when it comes to integration of CIS – differences exist in nature.”

 When it comes to the future of the CIS, he went on, it will not be a kind of EU; geographic factors will demand a different scenario. Also this is not a matter of us being friends against someone else.

 “Take, for instance, railroad gauge,” Tazhin said. “This is an issue that requires a political decision which has many consequences. But we are not looking at a role for a secretariat making absolute decisions for all. Sometime we put the carriage before the horse and look at political things when we should be looking at the practical first.”

 “What unites these countries is that they are emerging,” said Ambassador Idrissov.  “The central word is ‘stability.’ Some in the West do ask if there is an equation between democracy and stability. I reply: Rest assured all countries want to build there own identities and they will be far from their Soviet past. Whether they match the western expectations or have to do so, is another matter.”

 Co-chairman of the session Martha Brill added the view that “no one’s choice on development should impinge on neighbors. This is an international challenge when one’s internal stability depends on the neighbors. I expect to hear more of other organizations coming into play, such as the OSCE.’

 In conclusion, she said “These are all states in transition. It is natural that they go through this in their own way. The questions of shared past and new futures will continue to be redefined. As with any country, these countries will continue to transition.”