foir_3880

FOI-R--3880--SE
dominate new integration formats. The Russian political leadership has also
carefully avoided setting itself such a task.
ECONOMIC INTEGRATION
The basis of the integration processes is the participating states’ economic
interests. Evaluating the integration of security and social/human issues is
challenging. Financial and economic figures provide a much better indication of
the success of integration. The countries concerned therefore use them to
evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of participating in various integration
projects. Russia is also interested in the economic efficiency of integration
projects. Only Russia can offer economic attraction potential for new members
such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Ukraine. Some figures for 2012 seem to
support optimism. GDP growth in the Customs Union’s members was 3.5 per
cent and their mutual trade grew by 8.7 per cent, higher than the growth in
foreign trade in general, which was 3.2 per cent (Eurasian Economic
Commission, 2013b). Trade within the CU increased 1.3 per cent in the first
quarter of 2013 in comparison to the first quarter of 2012 (without taking into
account oil and gas products) (Eurasian Economic Commission, 2013a).
Despite Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan having not yet joined the CU, they are quite
well integrated with the CU countries. Much of the working population in these
republics already work in Russia and Kazakhstan and are, in a sense, integrated
into a common professional and cultural space. Many even hold a second
citizenship.
Despite the generally positive image of CU integration between Russia, Belarus
and Kazakhstan, there are signs of problems with the swiftly emerging new
economic realities in certain industries and for some groups. The new customs
rules have brought unexpected costs to which the authorities are turning a blind
eye. First, World Trade Organization (WTO) and CU rules do not seem to be
fully compatible. Kyrgyzstan may have to pay compensation to WTO states to
settle a conflict between the provisions of the CU and those of the WTO
(KNews, 2013). The image of the CU is also suffering. There are allegations that
the CU has led to higher prices in Kazakhstan and that some entrepreneurs have
even gone bankrupt. National authorities have, at least temporarily, lost control
over cross-border financial flows. Opposition parties in some republics have
made CU membership a target for criticism. Finally, serious pressure has been
put on the Central Asian republics by external players, starting with then US
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying that the US will try to prevent ‘re-
Sovietisation’ of the post-Soviet space (Radio Free Europe, 2012).
Inspired by the Customs Union’s initial success, its architects want to widen
integration, both regarding members and regarding themes (Laktionova, 2013).
CU members are expected to coordinate their respective activities with the
98