CC BY
70Dossymkhan Y.
Eurasian National University, Astana
yenglik8 9 @mail.ru
ANALYSIS OF COOPERATION OF THE EU AND EAEU
Keywords: economic and political integration, European Union, Eurasian Economic Union, international relations, economic and political union, integration projects.
Ключевые слова: экономическая и политическая интеграция, ЕС, ЕАЭС, международные отношения, экономический и политический союз, интеграционные проекты.
Introduction
Integration is becoming the leading trend in the world system development. In the conditions of the modern global world, single countries have less chances for effective participation in world processes, while countries acting together with their partners in the format of general integration projects gain new opportunities to increase their activities' efficiency.
The modern system of international relations is characterized by such features as increasing the significance of the regional level, strengthening the role of the regions, actively creating regional unions or even integration unions, cooperation between regions.
The revitalization of regional processes in the modern world has objective reasons. Firstly, the disappearance of the bipolar system contributed to this. During the Cold War, events at the global level played a key role, such as interaction between the superpowers, which largely determined the situation in various regions, for example in Europe. Now there is an opportunity for more active policies on the part of regional powers.
Secondly, globalization and complex interdependence contribute to the specialization of regions that are more profitable to develop those sectors of the economy they can use their competitive advantages in. As a result, more and more features of the regions appear depending on their role in the global economy, and there is also a growing interest in cooperation with other regions that can supply missing goods and services.
Thirdly, the liberalization of world trade and the interest of the regions in expanding the markets for their products also contribute to the development of interregional relations. Regions seek to strengthen their place in modern international relations, in the world economy, to participate more actively in the globalization process1.
It turns out that strengthening the significance of the regional level is connected with both political and economic reasons, but the greater importance is given to the economic motivation of the regions, their interest in focusing in the most favorable sector using their competitive advantages, and expanding the market for their goods and services. Moreover, economic interests often help solve political problems. In many cases states, as rational actors, are themselves interested in participating in integration projects2. In addition, it is beneficial for regional unions of states to cooperate with other regions either due to geographic proximity or due to economic interdependence.
In recent decades, active implementation of integration projects has been observed worldwide: the European Union and the European Free Trade Association in Europe, the Eurasian Economic Union in the post-Soviet space, the North American Free Trade Area, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Andean Community, the Common Market of South America and the Union of South American Nations in America, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf in Asia, South Arab Maghreb, East African Community, Economic Community of West African States, West African Economic and Monetary Union, Economic Community of Central African States, Community of Sahel-Saharan States, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa on the African continent3.
Of course, many of these projects began to be implemented during the Cold War, but from early 90s they began to develop more actively, as was the case with the process of European integration. Traditionally, integration unions have built relations with third countries on the basis of bilateral agreements, and not within the framework of regional formats. However, even such bilateral ties have the potential to lead to the formation of mega-regions, as in the case of negotiations between the participants in European integration and North American states. The EU negotiations with Canada led to the signing of a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement in 2016. More ambitious plans were associated with the United States. Since 2013 the EU has been negotiating with the United States on the creation of a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Prior to this, other forms of interaction between the European Union and the United States, for example, the Transatlantic Eco-
1 Kosov Y., Toropigin A. Trade Factor in Global and Regional International Relations // Administrating Consulting. 2016. - N 11. -
P. 8-17.
2 Zevin L. Mega-regions in a globalizing economy // World economy and international relations. 2016. - N 8. - P. 26-33.
McCormick J. Understanding the European Union: a concise introduction. 5th ed. - N.Y., 2010. - P. 77-85.
nomic Partnership (since 1998) and the Transatlantic Economic Council (since 2007) were formed. But the creation of a TTIP has ensured a transition to a radically new level of cooperation and the formation of the largest free trade zone in the world, affecting the modern system of international relations. Gradually, integration unions, in addition to contacts with countries, began to establish interregional cooperation, for example, interregional cooperation with Mercosur (since 1999), with which the EU has been negotiating interregional free trade zone with Mercosur since 2000, partnership between the EU and Africa (since 2007), which has defined a long-term development framework of further cooperation between the European Union and Africa1.
It would seem that the development of interregional cooperation is a pronounced tendency of modern international relations, but circumstances do not always occur favorably for such projects. Most often we are talking about political forces defending the interests of a particular state or region, perceiving interregional projects as a threat to national/regional interests, producers, traditions. Indeed, interregional projects along with certain benefits suffer some losses, if usually competitive producers win, state-subsidized producers who are unable to withstand competition within the framework of interregional trading space often lose.
Methodology
The main purpose of this article is to study European and Eurasian integration based on the EU and the EAEU. The author tried to make an analysis of formation of the EU and the EAEU, the strengths and weaknesses of these integration unions, the main differences and shared fields, and what problems these unions face in cooperation and if successful mutually beneficial cooperation is possible. In addition, the author provides an evaluation of these projects' future development.
The objectives of this article define the research methodology, which consists of the following elements:
- applying a historical method by studying various materials;
- analysis of information on the official websites of the EU and the EAEU;
- conducting a comparative study of differences and similarities of two projects;
- analysis of the current state and evaluation of the development prospects of the relationship between the EU and the
EAEU.
Results of Research
European countries were among the first to join the integration processes, creating the most successful integration structure - the European Union. The history of the European Union began in 1951 with the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which consisted of six countries (Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, France and Germany). All tariff and quantity restrictions on trade of these goods within the countries were removed. On March 25, 1957 the Treaty of Rome was signed, which established the European Economic Community (EEC) on the basis of the ECSC and the European Atomic Energy Community. In 1967 the three European communities (the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community) united in the European Community. The Schengen Agreement on the free movement of goods, capital and citizens was signed on June 14, 1985. The treaty provides the abolition of customs barriers within the European Union while tightening control at the EU external borders (entered into force on March 26, 1995)2.
On February 7, 1992 in Maastricht (the Netherlands) an agreement was signed on the creation of the European Union (entered into force on November 1, 1993). The treaty concluded the issues of previous years in settling the monetary and political systems of European states.
In order to achieve the highest form of economic integration between the EU states, the euro was created - the single currency of the EU. In non-cash form in the territory of the EU Member States the euro was introduced from January 1, 1999, and cash banknotes - from January 1, 2002. The euro replaced the ECU - the currency unit of the European Community, which was a basket of currencies of all EU member states.
If we look at the situation in the European region, the EU initially built relations with specific countries of this region, drawing on the experience of interaction with third countries that had already been established, offering trade and economic agreements, partnership and cooperation agreements or union agreements. Gradually, the EU began to develop a diversified approach in relation to various regions. The Eurasian region was partially affected by the Northern Dimension, and then became an object for the European Neighborhood Policy and the Eastern Partnership. But these EU regional programs are defined within the European Union, based on EU decision-making procedures. As a result, they are criticized for the fact that they do not take into account the differences between the countries of the neighboring regions and do not reflect the interests of partners, focusing more on European interests. Most likely, the format of interregional cooperation would be more beneficial for the countries of the Eurasian region, since they were more able to defend their interests, and this applies to both the European/Western direction and the Asian/Eastern direction. We can refer to the opinion of the Eurasian Economic Commission board member T. Valovaya: "We believe that this (creating large partnerships - Ed.) is a completely normal trend", "EAEU...
1 Zaslavskaya N. Problems of interaction between the EAEU and the EU // Administrating consulting. 2017. - N 11. - P. 33-39.
2 Kaiser V., Varsoriv A. European Union history. 2010. - P. 85-89.
needs to have balanced partnerships: western with the EU, and eastern with China and other countries of the Asia-Pacific Region"1.
The countries of the post-Soviet space have an objective need to create a union of interested countries equal in status to the European integration. A Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) emerged, which was based on the European integration model. During the first official visit to Russia in March 29, 1994, at Lomonosov Moscow State University, the President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev for the first time came up with the idea of forming a Eurasian Union of States. For a long time Eurasian space has been a platform for fruitful cultural, social, economic and political cooperation, presence of deep traditions, as well as many years of historical experience is obvious2.
At the heart of Eurasian integration lies the idea of building a multipolar world, with which the geopolitical project - the Eurasian Economic Union is being aligned. In fact, the modern multipolar world is a system of global regions, which means "the formation of regional centers of economic, political, cultural and civilizational nature".
The Eurasian Economic Union is an international integration economic union, the creation agreement of which was signed on May 29, 2014 and came into force on January 1, 2015. It united Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
Turning directly to the analysis of the main stages of the development of integration processes in the Eurasian region, we emphasize that Eurasian integration began in completely different conditions from European integration, which was reflected in a number of features of its development process. If in most regions of the world integration processes are preceded by a certain convergence of states, partnership, cooperation, and integration grows out of the convergence processes of countries, the Eurasian integration began with the disintegration of the world's largest state. This explains the fact that phasing integration processes in the Eurasian region have their own nature.
This is one of the principal differences between the EAEU project and the EU: in the state of a bipolar world, European integration was primarily of an economic nature, starting with the sectoral interaction of several countries. Unlike European, Eurasian integration is aimed not only at the economy, but also, to a large extent, at politics: given the US interest in the Eurasian region, as well as the expansion of American influence to the east, Russia as the main actor in the Eurasian region needs the maximum number of allies to compete and ensure both economic and military security in the region. In this regard, the economic benefit of the inclusion of the rest of the former Soviet republics in the Eurasian integration project can be set to the background, and strengthening of geopolitical positions comes to the fore.
In the realities of the post-Soviet space, the search for a mutually acceptable model of interaction was an extremely difficult task, since the countries of the Eurasian region, firstly, are oriented towards different development directions. Secondly, they have different integration potential, expressed in the level of economic development and readiness for interstate interaction. Attention should be paid to the fact that this problem was also relevant for European integration, since each participant had his own views on the goals and forms of the implementation of the integration interaction.
In the European Union, two forms of integration development differing in their principle were formed. The first form is expansion implied the involvement of new participants in the process of European integration. The second form is deepening. It assumed the enhanced development of ties between the already existing participants of integration. Let me consider each of them in more detail. As noted above, with the expansion of European integration, special attention was paid to increasing the number of participants. This form meant a complication of the structure of the European Union and a slowdown of the integration process itself, since each new participant is a new look at integration, pursuing its own goals and its own benefits. The slowdown in integration was also due to the need to adapt the new participant in accordance with the already established EU standards and rules. On the other hand, new participants are new players in the common internal market of the European Union, of interest, firstly, for the development of the economy of the EU itself, and secondly, for export-oriented countries as potential buyers3.
The deepening of integration, on the contrary, implies the accented development of already existing ties through more detailed mutual integration. This process involves the unification of legislation and the empowerment of supranational bodies with a large number of powers at the expense of a proportional reduction of the sovereignty of participants. The process of the development of European integration has revealed a complex of difficulties faced by states that differ in the level of development in an attempt to move toward a common goal at a single pace. In a situation where a participant of integration, due to internal reasons and existing circumstances, cannot take part in the integration process, a mechanism of so-called "flexible integration" was introduced in the European Union. It provides a different degree of involvement of each of the participants. This mechanism has acquired a whole conceptual framework, including various forms of interaction, to some extent reflecting the essence of "flexible integration": avant-garde (avant-garde), solid core (core Europe), participation by choice (a la carte), different speed integration (multi - speed). The concept of "flexible integration" was originally envisaged by the fundamental treaties of the European Union (ibid.)
It allowed the EU states to develop the areas that were most relevant for them at that time. It can be assumed that this interaction format was a kind of "experiment", where countries united in groups and acted in accordance with the goals of the European Union, but with the addition of a number of features enshrined in the treaty. As an example of such an "experiment" and the implementation of the concept of flexible integration, we can mention the Schengen Agreement, which was originally
1 RIA News. ECE: the trans-Pacific partnership opens up new opportunities for the EAEU. - https://ria.ru/economy/20151201/ 1333541346
2 Dragneva R.; Wolczuk K. Eurasian Economic Integration Law, Policy and Politics. 2013. - P. 64-73.
3 Lagutina M. EU and EEU: Problems and Prospects of the Cooperation in the Current Geopolitical Conditions // Administrating Consulting. 2015. - N 11. - P. 124-136.
based on five states, currently including 26 states. It should be noted that the borrowing of such a mechanism of integration from the West was a vital measure to ensure the subsequent development of Eurasian integration1.
The use in the Eurasian region of the model of multi-level, multi-speed integration has become a way to overcome the integration crisis. The use of this model assumes the existence of common interests among states, which lead to an increase in the intensity of interaction in certain areas. The variety of forms of interaction allows the member states to establish closer cooperation without prejudice to the interests of other CIS participants.
Thus, states are not subject to any obligations, which allows everyone to independently choose areas of cooperation in accordance with their capabilities. Integration processes that are forming on a multilevel principle reflect the prevailing realities in the post-Soviet states. When adopting the model, it was assumed that the leading group of countries would carry out economic and then political integration at an accelerated pace, thereby creating a "hotbed", a basis for integration, and then as political and economic ties strengthened, the rest of the states would join according to their capacities.
In the author's opinion, the use of this model was an important step towards overcoming a crisis situation and, due to a complex of reasons, the concept of multi-level integration was the best option at that time. Having eliminated a number of shortcomings, the countries-participants of integration could begin to develop more progressively and effectively. It should be noted once again that the problem of the low efficiency of the CIS is caused not only by shortcomings in the structure and mechanisms of the functioning of the Commonwealth, but also by a whole complex of factors that hinder and slow down the integration process. This point is the main manifestation of the multi-level and multi-format integration model, which is fundamentally different from the integration format that has developed in the European Union.
It is known that the factor hindering the development of integration in the Eurasian region is the difference in economic interests. The lack of full consistency leads to the need of making a significant number of amendments to the agreements and contracts concluded, which, firstly, negatively affects the speed of integration development, and secondly, reduces the efficiency of the integration association.
It should be noted that relations between the EU and the EAEU are not easy. Many experts recognize the areas for mutually beneficial cooperation, primarily in trade and investment. For the EAEU countries, the European Union is the main trading partner (with a total trade volume of over $ 148 billion), for the European Union the Eurasian Economic Union is the third trading partner. Russia and Kazakhstan are actively investing in the EU countries. In addition, the population of the EAEU member countries positively perceive the EU and welcomes the cooperation potential with the EU.
Despite this, there are issues that prevent the parties to agree. Let me consider what exact problems I am going to talk about. They can be divided into several groups. The first group includes institutional problems. First of all, we are talking about the difficulty of making decisions by each regional project within the framework of existing procedures. In the EAEU, decisions in the main institutions, including the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission, the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council and the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council, are adopted by consensus. In the European Union, issues related to cooperation with third countries or regional blocs should be resolved in the European Council and the Council of the EU on the basis of unanimity. The existing procedures, which determine the principles of decision-making, when it is necessary to ensure consensus or unanimity, are intergovernmental in nature and in fact empower each state participating in the union to block the agreement. Institutional problems are most acute in the European Union, since now 28 states are participating in it. Some of these states are not interested in cooperation with the EAEU, and some are skeptical about the Eurasian integration project itself, considering it an attempt to re-establish the Soviet Union. As a result, it is difficult for the European Union to come to a common opinion. Institutional problems include misunderstanding by the EU of which official or institution should be negotiated in the EAEU. The Europeans believe that the Eurasian project is developing mainly due to the support of Russia, therefore main negotiations should most likely be conducted not with colleagues from the EAEU institutions, but with the Russian leadership.
Finally, one more institutional problem is the non-participation of Belarus in the WTO, which complicates the coordination of trade issues. It is true, Belarus began negotiations on accession to the WTO in 2016. In another group, you can combine problems of a political nature. These include differences between Russia and the EU countries, both in the situation directly in the Eurasian region (in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Ukraine), and in the situation outside the region (in Syria). It seems that political and economic issues can be divided if we are guided by common interests, make all decisions pragmatically and, without paying attention to political differences, facilitate trade relations2.
However, as relations between Russia and the European Union show from 2014, it was not possible to escape from political problems. They led to mutual sanctions and extremely negative economic consequences for both parties. Another group of problems hindering the development of EU-EAEU relations is related to the influence of elites on integration projects. It must be said that in each case there are specific features that depend on the interests and values of the political elite in each region. Elites well represent their own interests, but often do not understand the interests of other elites and underestimate the existing contradictions. The most serious differences are related to value differences. But it is precisely the values that influence the interpretation of events, the perception of international actors and the narrative that the elites are beginning to broadcast.
Often, it is precisely values that prevent elites from making rational decisions, acting on the basis of mutually beneficial interests, and ultimately cooperating in the economic field, not paying attention to political problems. Accordingly, the differences between the elites and the lack of mutual understanding negatively affect the potential opportunity for regional un-
1 Nugent N. The government and politics of the European Union. 5th ed. - N.Y., 2010. - P. 302-308.
2 Glittova Ya., Kosov Yu. Comparative institutional and political analysis of European and Eurasian integration // Administrating consulting. 2016. - N 11. - P. 27-40.
ions to move to more active interaction. Separately, geopolitical problems should be highlighted. First, we are talking about traditional geopolitical priorities. For the European Union, the most favorable is the interaction with the countries of North and Latin America, these are the regions with which the EU develops its trade relations in the first place, with which the attempts to create inter-regional formats are implemented.
Secondly, it is necessary to take into account the importance of external actors: the United States and China. The United States actively intervenes in events in the European and Eurasian regions, influencing and lobbying its interests. The PRC also seeks to protect its interests in Europe and in the post-Soviet space, intensifies bilateral cooperation with the countries of the Eurasian region, participates in the SCO, promotes the "New Silk Road". It turns out that the potential cooperation of the EU and the EAEU is still losing geopolitical competition with other projects. The next group of issues that complicate the interaction between the EU and the EAEU include conceptual differences. Of course, in the European and in the Eurasian region, attempts have been repeatedly made to conceptualize the prospects for the development of relations between the regions, but it was difficult for the parties to agree on both the concepts themselves and their content. The first concept - a common European home was supported by both the Soviet leader (M.S. Gorbachev) and the leader of a Western European country (F. Mitterrand). But then conceptual differences began to occur between the EU and the Russian Federation. The European Union proposes the concept of Greater Europe, but then on its basis forms the European Neighborhood Policy, which becomes the main instrument of the EU policy towards its neighbors in the east and south. This policy is considered as the initiative of the European Union, and the countries of the Eurasian region are perceived as objects of EU policy. Russia, on the contrary, interpreted Greater Europe as a space from Lisbon to Vladivostok with the possibility of implementing common economic and other projects. President of Belarus A.G. Lukashenko put forward the idea of "integration of integrations", which is based on the need for cooperation between integration projects to solve common problems.
The Minister of the Eurasian Economic Commission, T. Valovaya, supports the idea of the Trans-Eurasian partnership, considering that the EAEU needs to "interact with Europe and with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region - this is building two tracks of the same process"1.
Finally, it is necessary to take into account the problems that arise between the EU and the EAEU when discussing specific aspects of cooperation, first of all, possible ways of converging quality standards. There are several options for approximation of legislation: by mutual concessions, the use of standards mainly either by the EU or the EAEU, based on common international standards, for example, standards set by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The advantage of this option is the fact that all EU and EAEU countries are participating in ISO and UNECE.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be stated that in the relations between the EU and the EAEU dominance of political aspects over economic ones could be observed. At the first glance European and Eurasian regions are economically interested in cooperation, because economically they successfully complete each other. However, two integration projects cannot yet find a basis for cooperation. Political and conceptual differences, competing geopolitical priorities, differing values and visions of possible interaction hinder the cooperation development. If we manage to overcome the existing differences, then both regions will be able to benefit. This will allow the EU and the EAEU to more actively defend their positions in the global economy of the 21st century.
The initial plan of the Eurasian project of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus envisaged the creation of a free trade zone between the EAEU and the EU as "a united Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok". However, despite the relevance of discussions on the prospects for cooperation of the European and Eurasian Unions, it is quite clear that after the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 and the subsequent sanctions of the West towards Russia that led the Russian-European dialogue to a deep crisis, cooperation on the same basis will be difficult for a long time. Nevertheless, most likely in the long term, relations between the EU and the EAEU will still be established, most likely within the framework of the project to recreate the Great Silk Road in the space of modern Eurasia.
Obviously, the creation of the European Union, as we see it now, took more than 60 years and therefore the Eurasian Union needs time.
1 Glittova Ya., Kosov Yu. Comparative institutional and political analysis of European and Eurasian integration // Administrating consulting. 2016. - N 11. - P. 27-40.
