The head of the Belarusian regional branch of the supporters of the “International”, editor in Chief of Russian information and analytical Portal “Empire” Yuri Baranchik. Collage: BakuToday
Report of the Director of the Belarusian regional branch of the supporters of the “International”, editor-in-Chief of information-analytical Portal “Empire” by Yuri Barančika at the Roundtable “the analysis of integration processes in the framework of the Customs Union and the Union State for the year 2011″ (Minsk, January 26, 2012 onwards).
At the outset, let me remind you the most important events in the chronology of the formation of the TC and the EEA.
Decision on the establishment of a Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan was adopted in August 2006, at the informal summit of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC).
Customs Union provides for the establishment of a unified customs territory within which do not apply customs duties and restrictions of economic character, with the exception of special protective, anti-dumping and countervailing measures. In the framework of the Customs Union shall apply the unified customs tariff and other common controls on trade in goods with third countries.
October 6, 2007 in Dushanbe, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, on the basis of the Treaty establishing the Eec from October 10, 2000, signed the Treaty establishing a single customs territory and the establishment of a Customs Union, and adopted a plan of action for its establishment. It was agreed that other Eurasec countries would accede to it as ready. The highest body of the Customs Union, in accordance with the Treaty of October 6, 2007, an intergovernmental Council composed of Heads of State and heads of the three countries.
November 27, 2009, a contract was signed in Minsk on the Customs Code of the Customs Union. Formally, the TC of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan started with January 1, 2010, but de facto talk about full Union and a single customs territory of the three countries became possible after the entry into force of the common customs code, which took place on June 5, 2010, in Astana.
When you create TC country based on the need to eliminate barriers to mutual trade, joint ventures, improve investment attractiveness of the economies of our States, integration of labour markets, capital, services. And it’s yielded tangible results for the second half of 2010. For example, Kazakhstan’s exports to Russia grew by 38 per cent in Belarus-2.5 times, trade turnover between Russia and Belarus increased by approximately 50%.
December 9, 2010, in Moscow by the Presidents of the three countries signed the Declaration on the formation of a unified economic space of the Republic of Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation from January 1, 2012, as well as signed 17 agreements yet.
November 18, 2011, the Presidents of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed a package of documents on integration in the framework of a single economic space: signed: Declaration of the Eurasian Economic integration, the Eurasian Economic Commission, which shall begin its work in January 1, 2012, and the work of the Eurasian Economic Commission. Instruments provide for deeper economic integration of the three States parties to the Customs Union. Let me remind you that in the Declaration of the Eurasian Economic integration is to move from January 1, 2012, the next phase of integration-a single economic space based on the norms and principles of the World Trade Organization and the public at any stage of its formation for accession by other States. The ultimate goal-the creation of a Eurasian Economic Union by 2015.
A single Customs Code provides for a number of provisions, without legal analogy in the customs legislation of the Member States of the Customs Union: introduced the notion of “a unified customs territory the Customs Union”; established uniform conditions Customs transit throughout the Union; abolished customs in mutual trade and, gradually, Customs (border) products originating from the territory of the Member States of the Customs Union and third country products released into free circulation on one single customs territory. The code provides for the mutual recognition of customs payments throughout the territory of the Customs Union. The Ombudsman also introduces economic operator-the person who is granted the right to use special simplifications in customs procedures.
What are the trends?
In the first place, when forming a Eurasian Union, economic integration is political. I recall that in its time-five years ago-it was a lot of controversy about how and what to integrate. Analysis of results of Eurasian integration over the last two years shows that it was the right choice. Decision of the economic and financial issues had shown that political issues in which the TC will take the country closer to the year 2015 are not as too complex.
Secondly, it should be noted that the first steps taken in the 2007-2010 period were much longer duration than the next. This suggests that the first steps were the most difficult in terms of formulating agreed positions. In these years, evolved a new system trust. It was difficult, but each step has already been less stretched. I believe this is a very important sign that the foundations of the relationship is serious, and for many years.
In the third, some experts focused on the West, constantly repeating a threat of loss of national sovereignty of our countries in the implementation of the integration of the Union of the three countries. While still not cited a single example of this kind. While integration into political and economic structures of the EU is somehow considered unambiguous good and no loss of sovereignty it somehow is not, although even if you compare the number of votes that Belarus was in the Parliament of the Soviet Union, and could be in the EU, shows that the second version of the Republic in the European Parliament and close would such an influence, as in our recent Soviet past.
In the fourth, forming EEA contributed to the growth of competition. In this regard, I recall the words of Nursultan Nazarbayev, said another December 9, 2010: “if our economy has no competition, the three of us, where we want to climb in the market? Business people-Yes, and who is not prepared to say that Russian goods will go to Belarus or Kazakhstan all come, and our producers will lose from this. Let them work. If this commodity producer this competition does not pass, what to say? We zakalâem business and say that better production, reduce costs, increase productivity “.
Undoubtedly, this is the correct approach-first we will raise our level of competitiveness of our enterprises on our domestic market in the EEA, and then will fight and on the world market. Another approach we are witnessing the last twenty years, for example, Eastern European countries, and especially the Baltic States. Today, it is clear that the so-called “European integration” was pronounced colonial character and was in the interest of major European corporations and international banks. Today she drowned. Last sunrays vanished under the slogans of the liberalization of foreign trade and the lifting of restrictions on cross-border movement of capital on the markets of Eastern and southern Europe global monopoly bought all more or less cost-effective production and closed potential competitors.
Logical outcome was the strongest de-industrialization of European periphery-without the ability to offer virtually no competitive products on the European market, the countries of Eastern and southern Europe have become suppliers of cheap labour and markets for European corporations. At the same time have developed chronic budget deficits and a negative foreign trade balance. Excess consumption of the population, razduvavšeesâ for credit resources under talks about joining the “bosom of European civilization”, led to the formation of a prohibitive debt burden on the economy, from 67% in Spain to 155% in Greece. Once dried up the flow of financial assistance from Germany and France, faced with falling exports to the United States, virtually all European periphery was on the verge of bankruptcy (cited by “chaos in the Middle East and Friday 13-Eurozone” http://human-crisis.blogspot.com/2012/01/13.html).
In these circumstances, the us open now your market-means the closure of the majority of large enterprises, financial system world financial capital, reducing the living standards of ordinary citizens, the debt bondage of both enterprises and ordinary people. This is the loss of sovereignty, that is what we are witnessing today an example of a number of EU countries.
These are some common to the three countries WITHIN the EEA of Eurasian integration, we can today. In conclusion, I wish to highlight the results separately Eurasian integration 2010-1011 for Belarus.
The outcome of the economic:
1. entry into the Customs Union would mean for the Republic of a breakthrough, because meant opening up the markets of Russia and Kazakhstan to Belarusian industry, agriculture, services for the long term. This led to the planning horizon. Increase sales leads to an increase in load. Therefore, sooner or later it must have an impact on improving the social quality of life of people. Today the establishment of TC and the EEA has led to a serious increase in download traffic campaigns, increased turnover, not only within the EEA, but also with other world trade and industrial centers.
2. Is the replenishment of working capital. This should entail the competent authorities ‘ policy of investments in modernization, reducing energy intensity, etc.
3. one of the most important challenges is the problem of curbing high inflation, as in 2013, the EEA are beginning to coordinate their policy on this matter and it should be not more than 5% of the country with the lowest inflation. I.e. the mere participation in SES automatically leads to the need for the Belarusian authorities would be in line with the General requirements of the market. This market-based methods for the regulation of the economy.
4. economic integration and the establishment of a common economic space, sooner or later lead to the need to build a common political space. Accordingly, and public organizations, and the party will operate in the countries of the EEA about general grounds. In this regard is the example of Hungary, now that the EU authorities were ostracized for violation of democratic norms in the Constitution. In this respect, political liberalization in Belarus is inevitable. And the main engine of economic and political transformation is the EEA, and in the future-Eurasian Union.
5. of course, high social standards sooner or later will lead to greater liberalization and democratization of public life. But this should happen in an evolutionary manner, because the West has invested enormous resources in loosening of the situation in countries all around the globe, respectively, democratization must take place in the interests of our peoples, rather than Western countries.
The outcome of the political:
Firstly, it should be noted that the final entry in Eurasian integration project at the end of 2010, after a period of four years of foreign policy the Republic unable to throwings finally adopt its foreign policy and economic vector. They became the integration within the Union of the three countries.
However, secondly, the integration of the Eurasian Union sparked bitter campaign of pressure from the United States and the EU, which clearly did not like the fact that someone finally post-Soviet integration has moved from dead space and has become fairly actively pursued. Naturally, this is an informational pressure by using some local social and political forces that are in opposition to the rate of the Belarusian authorities on the integration of the post-Soviet space. Also natural that the pressure and excessive interference in the internal affairs of countries of the West must be combated.
However, in my opinion, should be used more actively at the disposal of the power spectrum of policy instruments, the capacity of parties, public associations. One of the most illustrative examples of such defects is today Belarusian Parliament: it has no single party, while in Russia, the four parties in Parliament, and in Kazakhstan-three. In this respect, it seems to me that the recent announcement by President Alexander Lukashenko’s statement that the country’s political system is in need of reform, is an indication that the top political leadership understands the need for this kind of change, the transition to the use of political work for the most part political, rather than repressive tools and techniques.
Thirdly, despite the fact that the integration not only declared, but also active, we observe that both the authorities and the opposition there is an active group of people, which organizes and carries out any informational reasons and events, to how to level impose negative attitudes as a Eurasian integration, and to those activists that Eurasian integration, not in wordsand in fact its advance. In recent years, under various plausible pretexts of scientific, educational institutions and of bodies of public administration was sacked a number of experts, political scientists, scientists who are most active in promoting the ideas of detachment of post-Soviet integration. This situation requires a discussion, and bug fixes. May not engage people, build integration ideal view of the historical path of Belarus is the history of the host Belarus in Poland or in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
Fourthly, the events of the past year show that the world order increasingly spill over from the parliamentary corridors to city square. And this situation also requires its reflection, because today the Belarusian State does not have the social forces that are able to gather on the square and not give another color revolution scenario unfold. Accordingly, the State is to create such social forces, themselves, without any compulsion from above will defend the choice of the people and its interests. Repressive mechanisms, as shown by the example of the same Syria no longer work. Need policy mechanisms for the settlement of political disputes in society. I.e., our Republic is becoming increasingly apparent trade-off model managed democracy.
