Economic Relations between Kazakhstan and Russia
Economic Relations between Kazakhstan and Russia
Contents
INTRODUCTION 1
1.
THE RUSSIAN-KAZAKHSTAN RATIOES AT THE PRESENT STAGE
5
1.1
Mutual Trade 8
1.2 Cooperating
in oil gas and power
15
1.3 Cooperating in
sphere of transport and communication
18
2.
CONDITION OF FOREIGN TRADE BOTH DEV’T OF THE JOINT / ENTERPRISES
KAZAKHSAN AND RUSSIA
2.1 Some
aspects of economic interaction Kazakhstan and Russia 22
2.2 The factors of economic
interaction of Kazakhstan and Russia 24
2.3
Engaging the foreign investments
26
2.4 Cooperating in the
field of electric power industry 27
2.5
Cooperating in the field of machine construction industry
28
2.6 Cooperating in the
field of a uranium industry
29
3. involvement in international
organizations, kazakhstan and
russia 31
3.1 The Eurasian Union: Realities and Perspectives
34
4. VITAL PROBLEMS OF THE PRESENT-DAY STATE OF
44 KAZAKHSTANI-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
CONCLUSION
61
LIST OF USED SOURSES
65
INTRODUCTION
The origins of
Kazakhstani-Russian relations lie in hoary antiquity, when Kazakhs and Russians
lived on the vast Eurasian territory and, being neighbors, developed
good-neighborly relations in all the spheres of human activity.
In analyzing the relations between Rus and the Great Steppe, one cannot
fail to mention the work of the greatest specialist in this field, Lev N.
Gumilyov. In his preface to Gumilyov's book, Ancient Rus and the Great Steppe,
Academician Dmitry S. Likhachev wrote this: Rightly taking into account the
links between subsistence economy and the level of prosperity of ancient
societies, and thus their military power, the author also compares historical
events and climactic fluctuations of the steppe zone of Eurasia. In this way he
arrived at a series of clarifications, which enabled him to describe in detail
the historical-geographic backdrop against which various cultural influences
came in conflict with the local forms of the original culture of Eastern
Europe.
It must be noted in any analysis of the emergence of the 15 new,
post-Soviet states on the map of Eurasia that certain specific features marked
the genesis of each of them. The present study focuses on the processes of
sovereignty of Kazakhstan, and the specificity of these processes lies in that
from the very beginning the republic's political leadership did not initiate
centrifugal tendencies, regarding reasonable integration an imperative of the
times and endeavoring to ease as much as possible the destructive consequences
at every stage in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Kazakhstan was the
last former Soviet republic to declare its independence - not out of any strong
gravitation toward the past or peripheral political development let us recall
that Kazakhstan was one of the first to experience, in December 1986, the
repressive power of totalitarianism then already withering away but because it
understood that artificial acceleration of this process is fraught with the
danger of serious upheavals. The history of numerous bloody ethnic, social, and
even interstate conflicts in the post-Soviet space bears striking evidence of
that.
The immediate subject matter of the present study is not just the
isolated process of the sovereignty of one of the post-Soviet countries but the
emergence and development against this background of new interstate relations
of two major republics of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan and Russia. In our
view, it is relations between precisely these two countries that can be seen as
a model for the establishment of equal and mutually advantageous between newly
independent states. This view is borne out by a sufficiently smooth and
planned, though far from problem-free, development of bilateral Kazakhstani-Russian
relations, a meaningful historical tradition of mutual relations, and an
absence of sharp turns or wavering due to subjective or external causes.
Another unifying factor is time—the many centuries of the history of
mutual relations between the peoples of the two countries that have been
neighbors in these great open spaces since the beginning of time. This far from
simple history, full of drama and heroism, these strata of time bound together
by the unremitting toil of numerous generations, unite the two peoples.
The Soviet period in the relations between the two states let us recall
that, according to the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, the constituent republics
of the Soviet Union were declared to be "sovereign Soviet socialist
states" united in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and having the
right to enter into relations with foreign states, conclude treaties and
exchange diplomatic representatives, and - theoretically -secede from the USSR
was marked by the prevalence of the so-called converted forms. The ubiquitous
and all-round dominance of All-Union structures made meaningless all talk of
real interstate relations between Kazakhstan and Russia. Both sides were in
this case the objects of a grandiose social experiment. Although positive
achievements of tills period cannot be discarded either.
The emergence and further development of relations of equal partnership
between new independent states, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian
Federation, became a sort of synthesis of the entire centuries-old history of
Kazakh-Russian relations. Only now can the relations between the two countries
be justifiably described as subject-subject ones. At this stage, both states
solved such problems as defining their status in the system of world politics,
establishing relations with leading world nations, and entering the field of
international law.
The dominant role of Kazakhstani problems has determined the
chronological framework of the investigation.
The overall time frame covers the period from December 1991 the setting
up of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which finally marked the
disintegration of the USSR to the end of 1995.
In the four years, bilateral Kazakhstani - Russian relations went
through a series of significant stages the study of which can adequately
determine the level of mutual relations between the two countries, the scope
and range of integration. We single out three stages in the development of
Kazakhstani-Russian relations:
— Defining the legal interstate relations of the two countries December
1991 - May 1920
— Searching for a model of economic and political cooperation between
the states May 1992 - March 1994
— Expanding and
deepening integration between Kazakhstan and Russia in the economic and other
spheres March 1994 - 1995.
Although some elements of legal contractual relations between Kazakhstan
and Russia may be discovered before December 1991, when attempts to preserve
the Soviet Union were made, it will be more chronologically correct, in our
view, to choose the moment at which the CIS was legally formed and the activity
of the Union structures of authority was discontinued as the starting point of
the study.
We propose that the signing in May 1992 of the treaty of friendship,
cooperation, and mutual assistance between the two countries be singled out as
the concluding moment of the first stage in the relations between Kazakhstan
and Russia and at the same time as the beginning of the new stage. That document
became the foundation for qualitatively new relations in the history of the two
states, opening the first page in the official interstate relations in the new
history of Kazakhstan and Russia. It determined the principles of bilateral
relations in the political, economic, military-strategic, cultural, and spiritual
spheres, lending a colossal impulse to the entire subsequent negotiation
process.
During the search for a model of interstate economic and political
cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia, the principles were developed for
bilateral relations, which were later recorded in the treaty of friendship,
cooperation, and mutual assistance. The first official visit of President
Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan to the Russian Federation in March 1994 marked the
beginning of the third stage in the development of Kazakhstani-Russian
relations - that of expanding and deepening integration between Kazakhstan and
Russia.
This division of the time frame of bilateral
Kazakhstani-Russian relations into periods shows that one of the goals of the
present work is to demonstrate continuous development between Kazakhstan and
Russia in the post-Soviet period.
As the period of political history analyzed here is extremely
close to the present, it cannot be regarded as worked out in detail in Russian
and foreign scientific literature. However, the problems of development of the
new statehood of post-Soviet countries of Kazakhstan in this case, of the birth
and evolution of interstate relations, of their entry into the international
community, are being studied ever more actively.
The crucial period of the disintegration of the USSR and the emergence on
the map of the world of new, independent states was primarily reflected in
scientific periodicals. Special mention should be made of the collective work
The New Treaty of Union: The Search for Solutions.
Problems of
mutual relations between newly independent states have also become the subjects
of attention of Russian experts and political scientists. The period of
disintegration of the USSR and of the development of Kazakhstan as a sovereign
independent state are at present actively studied by Kazakhstan scientists.
Works have been written on the problem of the emergence of the new statehood,
development of the system of separation of powers, democratization of society,
evolution of party structures and institutions of democracy, and the
construction of a new legal and judicial system. Present State and Works on the
subject of bilateral Kazakhstani-Russian relations from the moment the two
states achieved independence can be divided into several groups. The first and
the most numerous one deal with relations between Kazakhstan and Russia within
the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
In recent years the development of market relations has considerably
boosted interest for economic and trade cooperation between the two
independent states. Mention must be made of a joint work by the staff of the
Russian Institute for Strategic Studies under the title Kazakhstan: Realities
and Perspectives of Independent Development, It should be noted, though, that
this work suffers from an obviously incomplete documentary and factual basis
and a certain superficiality in the analysis of the problem.
The study is based on such sources as legal acts and
interstate Kazakhstani-Russian treaties, agreements, declarations, joint
protocols, and other documents and materials, as well as decrees, decisions,
and resolutions of the organs of state power in Kazakhstan and Russia.
Extremely important sources for the study of the last
five years in the history of Kazakhstan and of Kazakhstani-Russian relations
are the works of President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan: Without the
Right or the Left, The Strategy of the Formation and Development of Kazakhstan
as a Sovereign State, The Strategy of Resource Saving and the Transition to the
Market, The Market and Socioeconomic Development, and especially his new book,
On the Doorstep of the 21st Century, as well as his speeches at various
forums.' Just as important as sources for the present study are the books by
President Yeltsin of Russia: Confessions on a Given Theme, Memoirs of a
President as well as his official speeches, and also the works of other Russian
politicians and public figures, which afford a deeper grasp of the essence of
events happening in the post-Soviet space in the 1990s.
The process of market reform in the republic and the tendencies and
prospects for further reform in the socioeconomic sphere are reflected in
several books by Kazakhstan's Prime Minister A.M.Kazhegeldin: The Socioeconomic
Problems of Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan in Times of Reform,
Kazakhstan in Times of Reform, Problems of State Regulation Under the
Conditions of Socioeconomic Transformation.
The formation of the republic's diplomatic service and problems of its
civilized entry in the world community are studied in the works of K.K.Tokayev,
Kazakhstan's foreign minister.
Intense
legislative processes at all levels in the given period necessitated close
attention to the legal basis of the newly independent states. As far as Kazakhstan
is concerned, that legal basis includes above all the Constitutions of 1993 and
1995, of which the content and the sociopolitical background may be seen as the
quintessence of the given period in the country's history.
The main distinctive feature of the source base of the study is the fact
that most documents of the given period of political history have not yet been
moved to the archives; it was therefore necessary to turn on many occasions to
various central and departmental current archives. The identification and
systematization of many sources, their publication in a collection of
materials devoted to the development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations was in
themselves an important task.
It may thus be said that extensive sources have been used in the
analysis of the above-mentioned problems; their study made it possible to paint
a comprehensive picture of the development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations
against the background of the sovereignty of Kazakhstan in 1991-1995.
1.THE RUSSIAN-KAZAKHSTAN
RATIOES AT THE PRESENT STAGE
In a context of events, which have taken place in region after
September 11, the role of Russia in Central Asia a little has varied, as well
as all has varied geopolitical formulated in region last years.
In these conditions of
one of important external policies of tasks of Kazakhstan is the adjusting of
tactics and strategy in ratios with Russia, which would correspond by modern
geopolitical realities and long-term interests of our country.
Central Asia and Caspian Sea, so-called recently Caspian – Central
Asia region, go into an region of traditional interests of Russia.
In this region it always
had the important national interests, which, however, in different periods were
defined by different circumstances and factors.
The key interests of Russia in this region at the present stage
can be reduced to the following.
Central
Asia has the important value in of a safety of Russia.
The
importance of this region for Russia is stipulated not oil by the factor
implying from desire to save influence on Caspian Sea;
Our region
is of interest for Russia territorial, where its compatriots live. Are those,
on our sight three dominating interest of Russian Federation, dominating,
Caspian – Central Asia region at the present stage. It in this region has also
other interests trade, cosmotron of “Baikonur”, industrial communications etc.
but they now in basic carry not so priority character.
Until recently Russia ensured
above-mentioned interests without the special efforts. All countries of
region in the majority were that or are otherwise dependent on Russian
Federation.But the events, which have occurred after September of the last
year, have brought in serious enough variations to a geopolitical situation in
Central Asia and have affected on common position of forces in region.
One of the
occurred key variations consists that the break in sphere of traditional vital
interests of Russia is watched which today faces to necessity Central Asia of
policy.
As a
whole by 2001 in Central Asia the private tripartite balance between interests
of Russia, China, USA was folded.
The
given balance can figuratively be presented as a triangle, in which upper
corner Russia, in one lower corner - USA, in the friend - China settled down.
These countries have occupied three strategic niches in Caspian – Central Asia
region: military-political, oil and gas, commodity-raw.
The Russian presence at region last years was
ensured, first of all, with strategic military-political component. A peaking
of a problem extremism and the terrorisms in Central Asia, activation Islamic
of driving of Uzbekistan, irreconcilable part of Integrated Tadjik opposition
at immediate support Talib have established in 1999 - 2001 real threat for the
countries of region.
In these
conditions only Russia was considered by the states of region as the real
factor and safety. It is enough to recollect, that these years the contacts
through link DKNB, intensive two-sided ratios in military and
military-engineering sphere were especially made active.
Thus, USA
has occupied oil and gases a niche in our region, and Russia and China by
virtue of economic circumstances could not with it compete in this direction.
In
this geopolitical triangle Russia all the same occupied a little bit dominating
positions. This majoring in many respects was determined strategic
military-political component, which role in the international ratios is
traditionally high.
In
a context of a common global situation Russia forced to be reconciled with a
determination of military basses of USA in region of its traditional interests.
Taking
into account all these circumstances, Russia faces to necessity of the policy
in Central Asia. The further prolongation above-mentioned of the tendencies
will have for it painful enough consequences.
Despite of some variation of a role of Russia in
Central Asia, for Kazakhstan the strategic interests in a ratio of Russia
continue to be saved.
The
necessity of activation of ratios with Russia and holding of constructive
cooperating on much important for Kazakhstan to directions is dictated as well
by that in case of essential weakening of Russia in Central Asia it will be
fraught with negative consequences. The situation in region can become unstable
and badly forecast.
In
the whole traditional interests of Kazakhstan in a ratio of Russia are founded
on four factors having long-time character and diminuendos by such eternal
categories, as geography and history.
First, the
maintenance partner of ratios with Russia is necessary valid intercontinental
of an arrangement of Kazakhstan, for which the exit on the world market is
vital for an economic development. Russia in this respect occupies the
strategically important position; being by the state, on which region pass
vital for us strategy of transport and communication.
Secondly,
Russia is one of the important subjects of the international system, having
significant political weight and rather large military-engineering
opportunities. The Russian factor in many respects determines external policy a
situation around of Kazakhstan, both on regional, and at the international
level.
Thirdly, Russia is the major economic partner
Republic of Kazakhstan. It not only imports different production and techniques
to Kazakhstan, but also is the market of selling of Kazakhstan production.
About 70 % of Kazakhstan industrial potential is involved on economy.
In - fourth, both states are combined with a historical
generality, spiritual and cultural links. In region of Russia the man is Kazakh
Diasporas including 740 thousand. In Kazakhstan Russian are second on number
ethnic group, making about 30 percents of the population of the country.
In this context the Russian direction of exterior policy of
Kazakhstan remains to one of priority and strategic.
As a whole at the present stage in the Russian-Kazakhstan ratios
the following most priority and perspective directions of cooperating are
meant:
• Mutual
trade.
•
Interaction in oil and gas and power sphere.
•
Cooperating in sphere of transport and communications.
•
Cooperating in sphere of safety.
1.1
Mutual Trade.
The interests of both countries are
answered with magnifying of mutual trade. Russian Federation traditionally
occupies the first place among the basic trade partners of Kazakhstan both on
export, and on import. Trade turn over in 2001 from Russian Federation has made
4 639,3 million of US dollars (Diagrama1,2).
It is necessary to mark, that last years the growth of a share of
Russian Federation in import and reduction in export is watched. The specific
gravity of Russia in total amount of the Kazakhstan export is sequentially
reduced (from 44,5 % in 1994 up to 20,2 % in 2001) and is augmented in import
(from 36,3 % per 1994 up to 45,4 % per 2001). Within several last years of
Kazakhstan has negative trade balance with Russian Federation.
Basic trade partners, in import, 1994-2001 (%)
|
1994
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
•Russian
Federation
|
36,3
|
54,8
|
45,8
|
39,4
|
36,7
|
48,7
|
45,4
|
• China
|
2
|
0,8
|
1,1
|
1,2
|
2,2
|
3
|
2,8
|
Poland
|
0,7
|
1
|
1
|
1,1
|
1,7
|
1,2
|
0,9
|
•Uzbekistan
|
7,8
|
2,1
|
1,5
|
2,2
|
2,4
|
1,5
|
1,3
|
•Kyrgystan
|
2,9
|
2,1
|
1,5
|
1,2
|
0,7
|
0.6
|
0,4
|
•
Tajikistan
|
0,5
|
0,4
|
0,1
|
0,1
|
0,1
|
0,1
|
0
|
The Diagrama1
Basic
trade partners, in export, 1994-2001 (%)
|
1994
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
•Russian
Federation
|
44.5
|
42
|
35,2
|
29.6
|
19,8
|
19,5
|
20,2
|
• China
|
4,6
|
7,8
|
6,8
|
7
|
8,5
|
7,3
|
7,1
|
Poland
|
1,7
|
0,4
|
0,4
|
0,8
|
1,4
|
0,8
|
1.5
|
•Uzbekistan
|
4
|
3,4
|
2,3
|
2,2
|
1,2
|
1,5
|
1.4
|
•Kyrgystan
|
1,9
|
1,9
|
1
|
1,2
|
1,1
|
0.6
|
1
|
•
Tajikistan
|
03
|
1
|
0.8
|
0.8
|
08
|
0.6
|
0,6
|
The Diagrama2
Considering structure of export and import on groups of the
commodity spectrum, it is possible to select the following characteristic
features.
Export. Structure of export Republic of Kazakhstan in Russian
Federation for the last few years has varied the separate commodity groups have
occupied a leading position.
Now on
four commodity groups (glow iris3) (fuel mineral, oil and petroleum; products
of inorganic chemistry; grain bread and ores) are necessary about 80 % of the
Kazakhstan export in Russia, whereas in 1994 on the pointed groups it was
necessary 53,3 %. In 2001 as contrasted to 2000 the separate outbound
delivering tended to lowering, so, for example, the specific gravity of export
of a grain was reduced from 12 % up to 6 %; the export of products of inorganic
chemistry was reduced from 14 % up to 13 %. Certainly, on lowering of export in
Russia renders influence a variance between the in-house prices and prices of
outbound delivering.
At the same time it is necessary to mark, that the reduction of
export has taken place not on all basic groups of the commodity spectrum. The
specific gravity of export of ore has increased from 8 % up to 10 % and export
of fuel from 46 % up to 47 %.
Import of republic of Kazakhstan goes into first five of the
countries of the basic trade partners of Russia in import. The specific gravity
of import of Russia has increased in total amount of the Kazakhstan import from
36,7 % per 1999 up to 45,4 % per 2001. There were insignificant variations in
groups of imported commodity production. So, the volumes of import were reduced
Diagram 3
Diagram
4
Transport,
accordingly, from 15 % in 2000 up to 11 % in 2001, alongside with it the
magnifying of import on such commodity groups is marked: fuel mineral (from 17
% up to 21 %), chemical production (from 14 % up to 16 %), black metals and
work pieces from them (from 11 % up to 13 %) (Diagrama4).
The
analysis of export and import displays, that in structure of import as against
export there is no predominance of separate commodity groups, it more diversification,
at the same time grows a specific gravity of articles of food, products of
processing ready articles.
From 89 regions of Russian Federation 72 have trade
- economic links with Republic of Kazakhstan. Depending on volume trade turn
over with Kazakhstan these regions Russia can divide into a series of groups.
The active participants of the foreign trade activity with Kazakhstan are first
three groups of regions of Russia (table 1).
As a whole
on 16 regions of Russian Federation from 72 it is necessary 80 % exterior trade
turn over of Russia with Kazakhstan. The high activity pointed 16 regions is
stipulated by more developed structure of their industrial manufacture with
predominance of fuel-raw, petrochemical and machine-building specializations.
Feature of transport -geographical interregional
links of regions of Russia with Kazakhstan is the directedness mutual goods
traffic primarily with Ural, Western and East Siberia, and also with Moscow and
Moscow region.
Basic groups of the trade
partners of Kazakhstan in Russia
Group
|
Annual
commodity circulation
|
Regions
|
A share in
common commodity circulation
|
I
|
From 200,0
up to 500,0 mln of dollars
|
Moscow,
Chelyabinsk, Ekaterenburg, Orenburg and Tyumen region
|
0,465
|
II
|
From 100,1
up to 200,0 mln of dollars
|
Omsk,
Irkutsk, Kemerovo, Moscow region. Altay region and Novosibirsk region
|
0,22
|
III
|
From 50,1
up to 100 mln of dollars
|
Kurgan
region, Republic of Bashkortostan, Republic of Hakasya, Krasnoyarsk region
and Samara region
|
0,115
|
IV
|
From 20,1
up to 50,0 mln of dollars
|
Perm, Tomsk
region, Republic of Tatarstan, Nizhniy- Novgorod, Belgorod, Volgograd,
Saratov, Rostov, Vladimir, Tula region and. St.-Petersburg
|
0,095
|
V
|
Up to 20
mln dollars
|
Others 45
regions of Russian Federation
|
0,105
|
The
important place in the Russia -Kazakhstan links occupies frontier cooperating,
on which share it is necessary 71,5 % from common commodity circulation. Most
actively explicate trade -economic links with frontier regions of Kazakhstan
Omsk, Orenburg, Astrakhan, Chelyabinsk, Novosibirsk region and Altay region.
From regions of Russia the ready roll stock of black metals, pipe steel,
petroleum, electric motors, automobiles, forest products, coal, footwear,
fabrics and other goods is taken out. In export of many frontier subjects of
Federation significant volume is necessary on production of a petrochemical
industry (Volgograd, Omsk, Samara region, Altay region - more than 70 %).
In the
Russia -Kazakhstan frontier region more 300 share enterprises, among which such
large interstate join, as “Kazroshim”, “Koksohim”, automobile complex on basis
Ural - for and Kustanay diesel factory operate.
The
essential propagation in trade with Kazakhstan was received with barter
operations (57 %). So, Orsk meat factory the combine sends in Kazakhstan in
basic production of the manufacture and receives in exchange raw material for
manufacture of this production - living cattle and meat. The joint-stock
company “Nosta” receives from Kazakhstan immovable coal and delivers metals.
The
significant experience of mutual economic cooperating with frontier regions of
Kazakhstan accumulated in the Orenburg region, and also Pavlodar region of
Kazakhstan with frontier regions of Russia. Now 18 % of the Orenburg export and
more than 40 % of import have on Kazakhstan.
By the largest foreign trade
partner of Republic Bashkortostan, Altay and Krasnoyarsk edges, Kemerovo,
Irkutsk, Omsk, Orenburg, Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions is the Pavlodar
region.
As
a whole before Kazakhstan in mutual trade with Russia there is a series of
perspective tasks, which decision will influence definitely a common economic
situation in the country.
One of the
important tasks is the variation trade balance of Kazakhstan from Russian
Federation from negative in positive. Besides the gradual variation of
structure commodity circulation in favorable for Republic of Kazakhstan a
direction is desirable.
Radiating
from interests of two states, it is expedient in the nearest perspective to
consider a complex of measures on hardening links of frontier regions. The
necessity of creation of legal fundamentals of a development of frontier
regions does not call doubts. On our sight, it is necessary to speed up
development of the defining laws. Among them Laws About state support of a socio
economic development of frontier territories Republic of Kazakhstan, About free
economic regions, About frontier trade. It is necessary also to speed up
ratification four sided of the Agreement on basic principles of frontier
cooperating of the states - the participants of the Contract about a deepening
of integration in economic and humanitarian regions from March 29, 1996.
Obvious
presence of potential and mutually advantageous opportunities of Russia and
Kazakhstan also is by way of use of the optimum shapes of specialization,
density of the industrial and financial capital, use of effective financial
instruments, architecture of optimum commodity, financial and transport
streams. In this connection special urgency in a development Kazakhstan –
Russia of links was got with problems of a synchronization of legislative and
normative basis of the countries. It would be expedient to realize step-by-step
transition to collection of the VAT on destination in Kazakhstan – Russia to
trade, having begun it(him) from machines, equipment, vehicles.
Not less
important the coordinated marketing strategy of Kazakhstan and Russia in the
international markets is represented, where the saving and hardening of common
positions is quite possible. The priority direction represents perfecting the
organizational shapes of activity Kazakhstan and Russian suppliers in the world
markets. Them can become cartel of the agreement.
One of the
important instruments of hardening of two-way communications could become
creation of conditions for expansion of contacts between the enterprises,
creation of the share enterprises. On official dates (2000) in republic 220
share Russia -Kazakhstan enterprises and 88 enterprises with the 100--percent
Russian capital actively work. The majority JV in republic, including
Russia-Kazakhstan JV, has trade –intermediary directedness. However as against
other states Russia- Kazakhstan JV of an industrial directedness envelop
considerably wider spectrum of spheres of activity - from production and
processing of natural operational life up to production of a high scale of
processing that in a defined measure confirms an overall performance Russia-
Kazakhstan JV. At the same time Russia –Kazakhstan JV for the present do not
play that role, which they could play in a development of trade -economic
cooperating. Therefore in this direction the active support is expedient on the
part of state structures.
1.2
Cooperating in oil gas and power sphere.
The given
direction of cooperating between two countries by us is one of perspective. The
structure of the Kazakhstan export of oil on the countries in 2001 is
characterized by lowering of a share of delivering in the countries of CIS (17
%) and expansion of geography of export of oil in the countries of foreign
countries (83 %) (Diagrama5).
The
indexes of export of petroleum in 2001 essentially have varied as contrasted to
2000. Alongside with export of Kazakhstan realizes import of petroleum. And 98
% of all imported volumes of petroleum are necessary on Russian Federation.
The
lowering of the excise rates on imported petrol with 80 up to 31 EURO per ton
in 2001 and falling recently of world prices per oil promoted magnifying of
delivering of the Russian oil for in-house processing. The export of petroleum
to the countries of CIS became more attractive for Russia, than the delivering
of oil on the world market, as, for example, in Kazakhstan of the price on the
same aspects of petroleum is much higher Russian.
Kazakhstan
more than on 50 % depends on Russia in a ratio of delivering of crude oil on
refinery factory in Shimkentand Pavlodar receive west Siberian oil on the
algorithm manifold from Omsk. Pavlodar refinery factory on 100 % depends from
west Siberian of oil. Shimkent usually works on 75 % on west Siberian and on 25
% on raw material Kumkol of a deposit. Today dependence from of west Siberian
oil “Orgsintez” is reduced half at the expense of use of the Aktyubinsk oil,
transport by a railway transportation from west of Kazakhstan. Because of
lowering production of oil on west Siberian deposits, fadeout of payments and
mutual debts the question of security by oil Pavlodar and Shimkent refinery
factory more than once acquired critical character, and the capacity factor of
powers of these enterprises frequently lowered below 0,5.
Its
technological dependence on Russia falls into basic problems Pavlodar refinery
factory: the production cycle of the enterprise is calculated for consumption
west Siberian of oil with the low contents of sulfur and paraffin. The
perspectives flagship of the Kazakhstan oil processing is complicated with its
neighborhood with the Russian factories - competitors:
Omsk, Ufa,
Volgograd refinery factory by the enterprises being vertically - integrated,
they have stable access to crude oil, besides on reduced prices, which the
necessities of northern Kazakhstan in petroleum could at desire completely
satisfy.
Structure of export of the Kazakhstan oil, 2001
Diagram 5
In oil and
gas of branch the cooperating explicates also through link of share development
of the Kazakhstan deposits. Russia in the projects on natural resources users
in region of Republic of Kazakhstan, as it is possible to see from the
Diagrama6, occupies the fourth place and makes 6 %. The Russian investments in
a mineral-raw complex (MSK) of Kazakhstan have made in 2000 32,2 million of
dollars, including in investigation hydrocarbon of raw material (UVS) 3,5 mln
of dollars, in production of hard minerals (TPI) - 28,7 mln of dollars.
Two
Russian investors “Bashnevt” and OJSC “Lukoil” submit the investments in UVS.
In oil branch of Kazakhstan the company “Lukoil” is submitted in such large
projects, Tengiz and Karachiganak Besides “Lukoil” is ready to expand the
presence at Kazakhstan, messages not only development of ready deposits, but
also prospecting operations.
The large
interest in relation to Kazakhstan is expressed with the large oil Russian
company “Yokus” which has received a section for developments in Russia and
region of Kazakhstan.
Structure of the direct foreign
investments in Kazakhstan,2000 Diagram 6
In sphere
TPI of Kazakhstan the Russian investors are submitted by such large companies,
as the Russian Academy of Science of European Economic Community (83,9 %), OJSC
“Magnitogorsk” metallurgical combine (10,6 %) and NPK “Investor” (3,8 %).
The
Kazakhstan enterprises also show interest to the Russian projects. So,
“Kazakhoil” (“Kazmunaigas”) negotiates for share developments in Tomsk region,
on a deposit “Komsomolsk” in the Astrakhan region. At Kazakhstan oilman there
are intentions to develop deposits in the Arkhangelsk region.
Since
2000 the electric power system of Kazakhstan works in a parallel condition from
European Economic Community of Russia and grid system of the countries of
Central Asia.
The
parallel operation of electric power systems considerably has boosted quality
of electrical power and reliability of electro supply of consumers of
Kazakhstan, Central Asia and Russian Federation, and also has allowed operatively
to realize surplus of electricity both transit of electrical power and powers,
it is more rational to use power powers of electrical stations. The electric
power system of Kazakhstan and Russian Academy of Science European Economic
Comminity of Russia is called secure each other in case of crashes.
In the
whole cooperating of Kazakhstan and Russia in fuel and energy sphere has
noticeable perspectives.
Rather
perspective the project of transfer of a direct current Ekibastuz - Tambov by
voltage 1 500 sq is. This project opens an opportunity of transport of the
electric power of the Siberian power stations and Ekibastuz heater in central
regions of Russia and in the countries of Europe.
With the purposes of security of a mutually acceptable uniform tax
condition of trade in the electric power, utilities equipment it is expedient
to realize transition of the countries at collection of indirect taxes on a
principle the countries of assignment. In this connection for a heightening of
efficiency of a parallel operation of electric power systems the simplification
of customs procedures is important at migration of electrical power through the
customs boundary.
The major
factor of a development of the power market is the deepening of cooperating in
the field of scientific researches and developments of advanced techniques in
manufacture of power, electro technical equipment. Now all aspects of equipment
are made for power stations in Russia, (Leningrad metal factory, Belenergomash,
Uralenergomash, Siberenergomash). With disintegration of Union economic links
between the manufacturers and consumers of a utilities equipment considerably
have worsened, that is negatively reflected in availability index of product of
power complexes of the country. On this question it is expedient except of
concrete measures at a level of Government.
1.3
Cooperating in sphere of transport and communications.
Cooperating
in sphere of transport and communications one of the most perspective regions
of a development of two-sided ratios between Kazakhstan and Russia. Both states
in a context of a development of transport cooperating have the friend for the
friend a strategic value, as, apart from a wide national transport web, occupy
defining a geographical position.
Kazakhstan
and Russia are closely coupled by the transport communications. In this
connection of Kazakhstan is sensitive reacts to any variations under the
tariffs for freight traffic on region of Russia.
One of key here of questions - transportation of
oil and gas through region of Russia. In aggregate transportation of the
Caspian oil and in the whole oil is one of the major sides of the Russia
-Kazakhstan cooperating. First of all this magnifying of a channel capacity of
an oil pipeline Atyrau – Samara up to 15 millions tons of oil per one year. The
intimation into service CPC ensures export of the Kazakhstan oil on a long-term
perspective.
In a period with 1995 and till 1999 Russia gave
Kazakhstan such quota, which did not allow the Kazakhstan exporters to involve
the algorithm manifold Atyrau – Samara on an apparent watts its annual channel
capacity in 10,5 mln of tons of oil. And only in 1999 the algorithm manifold
was loaded almost on 100 %. The agreement on magnifying of a quota at transit
of oil in long-distance foreign countries at first up to 5 mln of tons
(December 23, 1998) was signed, and then (February 25, 1999) up to 7,5 mln of
tons (the quota in short-range foreign countries has remained former - 3,5 mln
of tons). This decision initiated occurrence of the project of reconstruction
and modernizing of the algorithm manifold Atyrau – Samara for magnifying of a
channel capacity at first up to 12 mln of tons, then - up to 15 mln of tons.
This
project, designed transport companies of both countries - Russian “Transoil”
and Kazakhstan “Kazakhoil”, is favorable to both sides. For “Transoil” the
transportation of the Kazakhstan oil on the algorithm manifolds that for
complete use of their powers does not suffice 20 mln tons, brings additional
profit.
The
first stage of reconstruction of the algorithm manifold Atyrau - Samara- its
channel capacity now is realized is lifted up to 12 mln of tons. Due to this
the arrangement with Russia about magnifying of a transit quota in 2000 also
was reached.
For
Kazakhstan the magnifying of a channel capacity of the algorithm manifold
Atyrau – Samara and export of oil through Russia opens the
perspective market of selling, what Europe is. On a system of oil pipelines
"«Friendship" the Kazakhstan oil can act in Germanium, Poland, Hungary,
Slovenia, Czechia and Slovakia, where there is a stable demand for oil. Under
the forecasts of the experts, by 2010 Central and East Europe will import about
80 mln of tons of oil to one year. Now more than half of volumes of imported
oil in this region make delivering of the countries of CIS, primarily - from
Russia (51 %). Having expanded outbound opportunities in this direction,
Kazakhstan can become one of the largest suppliers of raw material in the
European countries.
By share
efforts of Kazakhstan and Russia is put into operation Caspian Pipeline
Consortium (CPC). The common extent of the algorithm manifold makes 1 580 km,
primal channel capacity 28 mln ton / year. Thus for reaching a maximum channel
capacity 67 mln of tons of oil per one year (from them 45 mln ton - for
Kazakhstan oil supplier) it is necessary only to augment opportunities of pump
stations, that is recognized schedule to carry out in four stages. There is a
construction of the algorithm manifold up to Atyrau, which will connect Karachiganak
with CPC and will allow originally pumping up to 7 mln of tons of oil, and in
future - up to 11 mln of tons.
During
nearest of forty years CPC will be a stable source of the incomes for the
shareholders, and also Russia and Kazakhstan. According to accounts, for a
period of maintenance of the algorithm manifold in federal and regional budgets
of Russia will arrive approximately 23,3 billion of US dollars as deductions
and profit, of Kazakhstan will receive approximately 8,2 billion of dollars.
The
development of transport cooperating with Russian Federation is most actual for
Kazakhstan’s for today within the framework of architecture of regional and
transcontinental transit.
Regional
transit. Russian Federation is one of the basic countries of shaping and
assignment of transit weights; on its share it is necessary about 26 % of
shaping and 20 % of assignment of weights from total amount of all transit
transportations.
Transcontinental
transit. In the whole transit streams in directions Southeast and East Asia
Europe are evaluated approximately in 330 - 400 billion of dollars. Thus up to
20 % of these streams can pass through region of Russia and Kazakhstan.
Taking into account in the
whole size commodity circulation, iron roads of the Eurasian continent and
primarily Kazakhstan and Russia have real potential for partial stylus
orientations transcontinental good traffic with sea on railway routes.
For Kazakhstan in this direction of activity has a
primary value a development of transportations on Northern corridor Trans Asian
of a railway turnpike on a route “China - Kazakhstan - Russia – Byelorussia
Poland - Germany. Now Kazakhstan together with Russia Europe - Asia and back
carries on active operation on shaping this terrestrial transport corridor by
the message.
As a whole
in transport-communication sphere before Kazakhstan the following tasks stand:
• Saving conditions for
transit of the Kazakhstan power resources through region of Russia, maintenance
at a necessary level of quotas on transit of oil for Kazakhstan.
• Scheduled magnifying of a
channel capacity CPC.
• Decision of accumulating
questions between the Ministry of means of communication of Russian Federation
and CJSC of “Kazakhstan Temir Joli” on railroad rates and other questions.
• Creation of the share
enterprises in transport branch.
• Realization share
transport - communication of the projects on active use of transit potential of
Kazakhstan and Russia.
2.
ABOUT A CONDITION OF FOREIGN TRADE BOTH DEV’T OF THE JOINT /
ENTERPRISES KAZAKHSAN AND RUSSIA
Indexes of foreign trade of
RK with RF, 1995-2001
|
1995
|
1996
|
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
Commodity
circulation mln of US dollars
|
4 265,5
|
4 809,0
|
4 257.2
|
3 323.2
|
2489,2
|
4227,6
|
4 639,3
|
In % to the
appropriate period of the previous year
|
|
112,7
|
88,5
|
78,1
|
74,8
|
169,8
|
109,7
|
Export, mln
of US dollars
|
2 365,8
|
2484,4
|
2 287,8
|
1 611,4
|
1 138,6
|
1 769,1
|
1 748,4
|
In % to the
appropriate period of the previous year
|
|
105
|
92,1
|
70,4
|
70,7
|
155,4
|
98,8
|
Import, mln
of US dollars
|
1 899.7
|
2 324,6
|
1 969,4
|
1 711,8
|
1 350,6
|
2458,5
|
2 890,9
|
In % to the
appropriate period of the previous year
|
|
122,4
|
84,7
|
86,9
|
78,9
|
182
|
117,6 i
|
Balance,
mln of US dollars
|
466,1
|
159,8
|
318,4
|
-100,4
|
-212
|
-689,4
|
-1 142,5
|
Specific
gravity of Russia in total amount of export from Kazakhstan, in %
|
45,1
|
42
|
35,2
|
29,6
|
19,8
|
19,4
|
20,2
|
Specific
gravity of Russia in total amount of import in Kazakhstan, in %
|
49,9
|
54,8
|
45,8
|
39,4
|
36,7
|
48,7
|
45,4
|
Russian
Federation of the valid historically folded processes of an economic
development is the basic trade partner of Kazakhstan and basic consumer of
Kazakhstan production. The specific gravity of Russian Federation in volume of
export in the countries of CIS annually makes not less than 91-93 %.
In
1997 the reorientation on a development of the foreign trade links with the
countries of long-distance foreign countries began. In this connection a
-percent ratio in volumes of export between the countries of Commonwealth
essentially has varied. In 1997 there was cutting volumes of foreign trade
between Russia and Kazakhstan, per consequent years this tendency continued to
be magnified. On many goods occupying a powerful share in export of Kazakhstan
production in Russia, there was a significant lowering of standard items.
In
2000 there was an essential heightening of volumes of export with all countries
- basic trade partners from among Commonwealth. The foreign trade turnover of
Kazakhstan with Russia in 2000 has approximated to a level of 1997. The export
has increased as contrasted to 1999 in 1,5 times, the import has increased by
82 %. In 2001 as contrasted to 2000 of delivering in Russian Federation
practically have remained at a former level (reduction by 1 %).
The share
of Russia in total amount of export in 2001 has made 20,2 % (in 2000 -19,4 %).
The
greatest specific gravity in structure of export in Russian Federation occupy:
Mineral
products - 47,1 of % in 2001 (46,8 % in 2000): coal - 91 % of export coal from
Kazakhstan, oil and gaseous condensate - 12 %, ores and concentrates iron,
chrome, zinc -10,3 % (7,9 %); products of inorganic chemistry junction,
inorganic and organic precious and rarely of metals of radioactive elements and
isotopes 13 % (13,5 %): an oxide and hydracids of aluminum - 90 % of all
outbound delivering; ferrous metals - 8,2 % (6,3 %).
In import
from Russian Federation predominate: mineral products, machines and equipment.
In 2001 basic paper of import was: purchase of
mineral fuel, oil and petroleum - 21,4 % (more than 77 % from common import of
fuel, from them coke, diesel fuel, lubricant oils, electric power;the machines
and equipment - 16,3 %, metallurgical production -14,5 %, vehicles -13 %,
production chemical and industries, coupled to it,-12 %, plastic and work piece
from it -4 % were imported.
On October
1 2001 in Republic of Kazakhstan 740 share and foreign enterprises created with
participation of Russia (including 466 share and 274 foreign enterprises) with
the authorized capital - 22,7 billion tenge operated. The share of the foreign
founder in the authorized capital has made 1,3 billion tenge, or 5,94 %. From
them 121 enterprises manufactured production, 72 - realized deliverings on
export, 182 - had import receipts and 456 realized delivering on a home market.
In 2000 in republic 461 enterprises, in 1999 - 325 operated.
The
enterprises created together with the Russian partners, realize the following
aspects of activity: production of crude oil, mounting of the process
equipment, construction of civil engineering buildings, manufacture of the
electric power both electro distributive and monitoring equipment,
pharmaceutical products, copper, woolen and synthetic fabrics, flour,
processing and conservator of production, rendering of different aspects of
services and researches, maintenance and repair of automobiles, activity in the
field of a wireless and television.
2.1
Some aspects of economic interaction Kazakhstan and Russia
For adjustment and intensive development of mutually advantageous
two-sided ratios within the framework of CIS Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian
Federation have necessary objective premises. Russia and Kazakhstan make a
basis of huge Eurasian region, in which historically there were steady
geopolitical, economic, ethnic and cultural links of two countries and peoples.
In many vital spheres the national interests of two countries are close or
coincide, both countries hold on to course on saving of common defensive,
humanitarian and information space and the stability and prosperity of two
countries, further democratic of a society and success of market
transformations are equally interested in hardening safety.
The interaction of Kazakhstan with Russia is a priority in
external policy, external economic and military-strategic course of republic. A
complex of the reasons conditions and factors having not tactical, but basic
essence and long-time character stipulates it.
Today
common balance of mutual relation between Kazakhstan and Russia has positive
character, as consider each other as the strategic partners and it establishes
the important premise for their mutual cooperating in the field of policy,
economy, science, engineering and other spheres.
Kazakhstan-Russian
economic partnership belongs to the most advanced regions of two-sided ratios
between two states, as for this purpose both countries have premises for
rapprochement. It in many respects defines character, both mutual relation, and
other economic links, folding in the European direction, of Kazakhstan.
On today there are favorable and unfavorable
factors inherent in Kazakhstan on a path to economic cooperating to Russia.
Alongside with the favorable
factors of a development of two-sided economic ratioes exist as well unfavorable
or constraining moment. The overcoming of economic barriers by means of
restoring cooperation links will allow introducing the operations in frameworks
EAEU (Euro-Asian Economic Union).
2.2 The factors of
economic interaction of Kazakhstan and Russia
Favorable
a) Presence in Kazakhstan of
large mineral operational lives.
b) Transit potential and
favorable geopolitical position of Kazakhstan at the center of the Eurasian
continent: on a crossroads of trade and transport paths from Europe in Asia:
through China on Far East ports, Pacific Ocean of the state; through Iran and
Turkey in the Mediterranean pool.
c) Determination of
Kazakhstan and Russia as basic trade partners on export and import.
d) Retention of Kazakhstan in
the majority large international architectures UN, Architecture of Economic
Cooperating, Economic union Central Asian of the countries (together with
Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) and Central-Asian Bank of Cooperating and
Development (CABCD); Great five Republic of Kazakhstan in frameworks of CIS
(Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan).
e) The large region with the
common boundary (more than 6.000 kms) with Russia, that has for two countries a
serious value in matter of hardening of their national and collective safety.
f) The residing in republic of the large ethnic interlayer of the
European origin (Russian, Ukraine, Germany) is one of the factors of
rapprochement of Kazakhstan with the European civilization and culture.
Unfavorable
a) A close arrangement of
Kazakhstan to the inconsistent states Central Asian of region.
b) Support by Kazakhstan of
multifactor policy in a ratio of transportation of the Caspian oil.
c) The boundaries Central
Asian of the states from a point of view of international law properly not
democratic of Republic of Kazakhstan; Kazakhstan has appeared as a matter of
fact cut off from Western Europe
d)
Increase of ecological crisis, that weakens its positions in region and world,
narrows down opportunities of fast industrial growth.
e) Absence in Kazakhstan of a
direct exit to World Ocean, exterior warm seas, that hampers links with the
largest centers of a modern civilization.
f) Support by the countries of
trade wars (introduction of limitation on import of the goods, policy of an
ascertaining dumping in relation to the exported goods, raw interdependence of
the countries etc.).
In the
beginning 1990s. It seemed, that the revived democratic states within the
framework of their new statuses would be and further dynamically to explicate
the ratios, filling their contents, adequate to a new position. However it has
not taken place and in basic for past years of two-way communications were
characterized defined inertia.
As
displays the analysis, the policy of Russia in a ratio of the states of
Commonwealth for flowing out five years did not differ by a sequence.
There
was a natural process of comprehension of key national-state interests attended
by searching for new, as it seemed, more perspective partners.
Certainly,
the today's level of economic integration does not answer necessities national
economic of Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation. Available on it is
necessary to evaluate the today facts of economic interaction between two
countries as insufficient and requiring in serious adjusting. The priority of a
development of the Kazakhstan-Russian economic links is possible to support
with existing numerous perspective directions of a development, it:
·
Trade-economic
cooperating of Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation;
- Frontier cooperating
Republic Of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation;
- Development of
industrial-cooperation links in machine-building and chemical complexes,
by means of creation of share financial and industrial groups;
- Cooperating and
development fuel and energy of complexes of Russia and Kazakhstan;
- Cooperating in sphere
of transport;
·
Cooperating of
Kazakhstan and Russia in mastering vehicle launching of Baikonur;
- Cooperating in
mastering natural riches of the Caspian sea;
- Scientific -
technological cooperating;
- Cooperating in the
market of agricultural production.
The
historically folded trade ratios of the countries of the Eurasian region,
including Russia and Kazakhstan from times “Silk road” - allow to hope for
success in a development of economic cooperating in modern conditions.
At the same time it is necessary to mark the common
tendencies, natural for the new independent countries. The orientation to the
market of long-distance foreign countries makes production of raw in branches
of the countries rarely for them raw refined in branches, as last valid by
considerably lower, than world, efficiency of the manufacture can not acquire
production first on world or close to world prices. Stronger links with the
world market of branches of the states of Commonwealth inevitably preclude with
their demand for production domestic resource refinery of branches by virtue of
its non-competitiveness in the world market. It inevitably reduces different
branches to of an economic development resource producers and resource refinery
of branches in the countries of CIS.
2.3 Engaging the foreign
investments
The
participation of the foreign capital promotes the decision of the following
tasks:
- Heightening of efficiency of
an export potential, overcoming of its raw directedness and development import
substitute of manufactures;
- Heightening of a scientific
and technical level of production with the help new scientific of techniques,
methods of management and selling of production;
- Magnifying of tax receipts
in the state budget;
- Assistance to a development
backward and depressive of regions and creation of new workstations in national
economy;
- Use of modern industrial and
administrative experience through tutoring and retraining of the staff.
It is
necessary to mark, that the cooperating of Kazakhstan and Russia can explicate
in different regions of economy. For power engineering and mineral operational
life’s priority directions are: the opportunity of an effective shared use of
mineral operational life’s, introduction new and development of available
processing manufactures oriented on export to long-distance foreign countries,
creation of a reliable system energy supply, development of the transport
communications, which development is stipulated by presence of investment
operational life’s.
Figure 1. Structure of the direct foreign investments in
Kazakhstan in 2000
In
structure of the direct foreign investments in Kazakhstan the share of Russian
Federation makes 5 %. In spite of the fact that the Russian economy requires
not less to investment means, the enclosure of the investments serves the
factor of interest by Kazakhstan. The interests of Russia consist, first of
all, in natural operational life (oil, coal, ore etc.), mastering and
development.
2.4
Cooperating in the field of electric power industry
As other step which has strengthened a positions of
power branch, it is possible to name creation on the basis of bankrupt CJSC
“Ekibastuz Energy Center”, half of which shares the European Economic Community
of Russia on account of cancellation of duties of Kazakhstan for the electric
power was transferred to the Russian partners from the Russian Academy of
Science.
Since 2000
the integrated power Grid of Kazakhstan works in a parallel condition from
European Economic Community of Russia and grid system of the countries of
Central Asia.
The
parallel operation of electric power systems has allowed considerably to boost
quality of electrical power and reliability of electro supply of consumers of
Kazakhstan, Central Asia and Russian Federation, operatively to realize flow
both transit of electrical power and powers, it is more rational to use power
powers of electrical stations. The electric power system of Kazakhstan and
Russian Academy of Science European Economic Community of Russia is called
secure each other in case of crashes. It will ensure with the electric power
not only Republic Of Kazakhstan, but also Southern Ural.
With
the purposes of a heightening of efficiency of a parallel operation the
measures on simplification of customs procedures are studied at migration of
electrical power through the customs boundary.
The
operation coal extraction of the enterprises is stabilized. In 2002 the
production 78 mln of tons coal is forecast, from which more than 25 mln of tons
will be exported.
2.5 Cooperating in the
field of machine construction industry
The lowering of manufacture in machine construction industry and
metalworking is called by aggravation of a financial condition of basic
consumers of machine-building production, significant rise in price of import
furnishing work pieces.
The
cooperating of Russia and Kazakhstan in machine construction industry is
possible at the expense of a shared use of available industrial potential for
issue of competitive production. On basis Kentau excavator factory assembly
manufacture of dredges together with joint-stock company Tver excavator a
factory and joint-stock company Sarex. On Pavlodar tractor together with
joint-stock company the “Altay” motor factory. Barnaul and Sibzavod (Omsk) it
is planned to adjust manufacture of new tractors, and the enterprises
agricultural machinary of Kazakhstan together with Rostelmash can master
assembly manufacture a grain and of combines.
Besides in
machine building branch the creation JV on manufacture of diesel drives
(planned on the basis of joint-stock company the “Kustanay” diesel factory and
joint-stock company “Hurrah Laz”) and Transnational of financial and industrial
group “Electropribor”.
2.6 Cooperating in the field of a uranium industry
Annually Kazakhstan extracts and sells about 3 % (1,5 thousand
tons) from it Whole World of production. Production of the National company
“Êàçàòîìïðîì” consumes Russia, USA, Western Europe, Southern Korea and other
countries.
The
company “Êàçàòîìïðîì” combines investigation, production and manufacture of
uranium, and also accompanying rarely of elements. Into its structure go into:
joint-stock company “Volkovgoelogy” one of highly professional in all CIS of
the geological enterprises, joint-stock company “Stepgeology”. Three ore
management “Central”, “Steppe”, “Sixth”.
The basic
manufacturer of uranium fuel in Kazakhstan - Ulbinski a metal works. This
versatile enterprise specializing on issue rarely metal and super conducting
production, and also special material, used in an atomic industry, electron
technology, instrument making, space engineering. The raw material - enriched
uranium - is made in Kazakhstan or is delivered from Siberia, on Ulba make of
it tablets and deliver them on the Russian factories, where make ready heat
distributor of assembly for atomic power plants. Ulbinski the metal works
occupies the important place in a nuclear-fuel cycle of Russia and Kazakhstan.
In the
near past the nuclear -fuel complex of Russia and Kazakhstan made a single
unit. To tear this line-up was it does not pay Russians, Kazakhstan.
Last years
the Kazakhstan raw material in basic went on export, and the fuel tablets on
Ulbinski factory were manufactured from the Russian raw material. Besides is
acute there was a problem solvency. Russia paid for services by the consumer
goods. An exit from the folded situation became the offer of the Kazakhstan
side to the partners from Russian "«fuel element" of start-up of a
new uranium line-up. As a result of the enterprise deliver each other necessary
components, in particular from Kazakhstan in Russia - fuel tablets. The
financial accounts between the countries are made at the end of a line-up in
accordance with sale of products higher remake in the exterior market.
Within the
framework of this cooperating, with the purposes of an ascertaining of the
greater confidence the National company “Kazatomprom”, releases the gold share,
which is transferred and gives it the right to superimpose the veto on such
decisions of Kazakhstan,
As, for
example, refusal to work in one nuclear-fuel cycle to not produce fuel tablets
for Russian Atomic Electric Station or other irrational variations in the
strategy and tactics of behavior in the market. In turn, Russia has given us
assurances of a reliability and long term of the orders. It concerns uranium,
but also tantalum raw material, beryllium etc. Durability of strategic
interests of the sides by the plans on interchanging the shares Ulbinski
factory on the similar shares of the enterprises of a nuclear -fuel cycle of
Russia.
In
October, 2000 the long-term contract for manufacture CJSC Ulbinski factory of
dusts of uranium and fuel tablets for AES with their further annual delivering
in Russian Federation up to 200 ò of a dust and 300 ò of tablets, on a period
till 2005 inclusively is made.
Besides the arrangement on
creation of the share enterprise on production of uranium on deposits “Zarechni
and “Budenovski” in Southern Kazakhstan is reached.
Considering
problems of integration of Russia and Kazakhstan, it is possible to conclude,
that the activation of economic links between the countries directly depends on
the decision of legal, political, economic and ecological problems precluding
their more effective activity. The opportunities by wider attract in a
long-term perspective appreciably depend on those political courses, which will
be selected by both countries. According to our reckoning, the creation of the
common market of Kazakhstan and Russia will allow to support steady solvency
demand for production of real sectors of economy of the countries on the basis
of the long-term target and selective contracts.
Thus, the
necessity of effective economic interaction between the countries stipulates
necessity of the further decision of existing problems and uses of every
possible redundancy of premises of rise of manufacture.
3. involvement in international organizations,
kazakhstan and russia
For anybody not a secret, that creation and the
operation of regional systems of safety in Central Asia was called by the
following basic reasons:
First,
inability of the states becoming in plants of aggressive plans of the
international terrorist architectures, appearing under Islamic by the slogans
and using financial support international extremism of architectures to give
them effective defense;
Secondly, double standards of the conducting
countries of West, including USA, Great Britain, in a ratio of operations of a
series of terrorist architectures considered by them as battle groups national
fight for freedom of driving. By characteristic development of double standards
was, for example, the refusal of the American authorities to satisfy the
request Ministry of Foreign Affairs Peoples Republic Of China about output
gripped in captivities in Afghanistan of hits - citizens of Peoples Republic of
China Uygur of a nationality. A motivation: the Washington does not consider
Driving for independence East Turkestan as terrorist architecture;
Thirdly, the anti Soviet moods, cultivated in West
by decades, in a defined measure were transformed in anti Russian, especially
to first half 90 years. Therefore warnings of Russia, states of Central Asia,
closely face with operations of the international terrorist gangs in Chechnya,
in Batken, about real consequences of their activity were not heard.
It
would be possible to explain creation of military-aerial basses of USA in
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tadjikistan, Uzbekistan still by war against a condition
taliban. But there is a question, why these basses began to be established as a
matter of fact after completion of an active military phase of rout taliban of
a condition. Moreover, arranging of basses air force of USA not only in
Afghanistan, but also in Kyrgyzstan, and also Tajikistan bordering with China,
on defined reflections. In particular, involuntarily there is an idea: whether
can these basses hypothetically and in a defined situation to be used as basis
of a dual purpose - not only against hits in Afghanistan, but also against
China or even against Russia.
After
September 11 and especially after an overthrow reactionary taliban of a
condition in Afghanistan and ascertaining of the American military presence in
Central Asia basic; in essence there is a consideration of an opportunity of
cooperating of these architectures from USA, for, without the account of policy
of Russia, China and USA and understanding of principles of a guard by these
states of the national interests, it is impossible to explain a situation in
sphere of a safety in region.
Whether
such script of a development of events in next China is necessary to Kazakhstan
and other countries of region.
Uniquely -
is not present. The consequences of disorder USSR, as is known, have done without
in tens thousand life and millions refugees.
The
important element of regional cooperating is the effective military-engineering
cooperating between the countries by the members DKNB. Today any country of
Central Asia is not capable in the nearest perspective to refuse from former
Soviet, so, present Russian weapon and military engineering. Hence, the key
role of Russia in this direction will be saved.
The
important element of regional cooperating is the effective military-engineering
cooperating between the countries - members DKNB Today any
country of Central Asia is not capable in the nearest perspective to refuse
from former Soviet, so, presents Russian weapon and military engineering.
Hence, the key role of Russia in this direction will be saved. Though other
points of view take place also:
a) In
opinion of the Uzbek experts, principal reason of an exit of Tashkent from DKNB
was ostensibly refusal of the Russian side to sell to Uzbekistan necessary arms
and military engineering, when the country has exposed to attacks of gangs of
the international terrorists.
In these conditions of
Uzbekistan forced to convert to active cooperating from USA;
b) In mass
- media the hearings, on the one hand, are persistently spreader that Russia
ostensibly is not interested in maintenance vehicle launching of Baikonur,
recognizing schedule to transfer all rocket start-ups on vehicle launching or
to realize start-ups from tropics, and with another - that vehicle launching of
Baikonur to Kazakhstan anything, except for harm, does not bring.
Tragedy of
September 11 and military action, which has followed behind it, of USA in
Afghanistan by a radical image, have changed a situation in our region. In this
connection experts of Kazakhstan Contract, being the member, of collective
safety, expected, that the states the members DKNB will consult among
themselves on all questions of the international safety, including regional,
but, unfortunately, such has not taken place also it once again speaks that one
of the reasons of an inefficiency DKNB is an existing level of ratios between
Russia and other sides of the Contract. On my sight, on the one hand, Russia
till now is not ready to equal in rights partner to ratios with the new
independent states, and, with another - in the countries FSU of space the
suspiciousness and uncertainty is still saved in what policy Russia will
realize further.
Therefore, on my sight, the special urgency is
acquired now by necessity of amplification of mutual confidence, openness,
knowledge, first of all, between Kazakhstan and Russia having on FSU space the
special level of ratios and the best premises for creation of allied ratios.
Thus, at
folding geopolitical the structure of regional systems of safety is necessary
different level. In particular, Kazakhstan and Russia should not wait of
operations on the part of other countries of region, by a phantom of the dollar
help, and actively be shaded slide on a path not only economic integration in
frameworks EAEU (Euro-Asian Economic Union), but also development of systems of
safety in frameworks DKNB.
Similar
situation in a ratio of cooperating with China within the framework of the
Shanghai architecture of cooperating in a direction of struggle with terrorism,
extremism and separatism
Appearing on January 25 this
year at the extended meeting of the principals of the executive authority
Republic Of Kazakhstan, the President N.Nazarbayev has formulated seven tasks facing to government, including in the
field of exterior policy.
January 25, 2002 in Almaty the third session
Integration of committee EAEU (Euro-Asian Economic Union) has passed, on which
28 questions were considered, from which on 27 the decision is accepted. The
totals of operation of this session, unfortunately, have appeared unfavorable:
a) The
participants still were not defined, in what direction it is necessary to
explicate cooperating;
b) Each
participant wants first of all to defend the interests, instead of interests of
the partners. Therefore, in particular, customs duties till now are not
strip-chart unified to establish a condition of preference for mutual trade;
c) The
countries EAEU (Euro-Asian Economic Union) tend in WTO,
supposing already others, and very rigid, condition, not having matched the
positions.
Nevertheless of Kazakhstan appears for a
development EAEU (Euro-Asian Economic Union), and also others (organization
structures with participation of Russia, as such policy in finished the score
answers interests without dangerous of our country.
3.1 The Eurasian Union:
Realities and Perspectives
For five years already Kazakhstan, Russia, and other
post-Soviet states, most of which are united in the Commonwealth of
Independent States, have developed in the situation of a new political reality
as equal agents of the world order. But the process of the formation of new
independent states and open democratic social systems has just begun.
Without going into detailed critique of the CIS, let us note that all its
activities and all the bilateral and multilateral efforts of its member states
clearly show that the time has come for a more effective, deep, and diverse
integration of the countries involved - the kind of integration that would
achieve a stabilization of the situation in the economy and ensure its
development on a qualitatively new basis. This applies above all to the
economies of Kazakhstan and Russia, which might become the engines of future
integrative processes in the post-Soviet space. There are also quite a few
issues pertaining to cooperation in the military-political,
scientific-technological, humanitarian, and other spheres, which are awaiting
their solution in the framework of a more effective integration model. The idea
of the formation of the Eurasian union of states proposed by President
Nazarbayev is precisely such a model; it organically combines both the existing
realities and the objective needs of today and tomorrow.
Taking into account the differences between our countries in the levels
of development of market economy, in the democratization of political processes,
we propose to establish an additional integrative structure, the Eurasian
Union, whose activities would be combined with those of the CIS. In doing so,
the member states will take into account the diversity of integration
scenarios and differences in the rate, form, and direction of CIS states’
development. Thus there is an urgent need for the formation of a new economic
order in the CIS.
It can thus be
said that the draft project for the formation of the EAU is in keeping with the
natural aspirations of the peoples living in the post-Soviet space, the idea of
new integration. The project has not only acquired a great many supporters but
has also proved that it is realistic, urgent, and vital.
Turning to the genesis of that integrative idea, it must be recalled that
the Kazakhstan leader advocated the preservation of good relations and
re-integration on a new basis of the former Soviet republics from the very
first days of the new states acquiring independence. President Nazarbayev
stressed repeatedly that he never raised the idea of independence to the status
of a fetish but rather endeavored to preserve old ties and create new ones. The
idea of the Eurasian Union originates in the midst of life, in the simple and
universal human needs.
From that moment, the debate on the idea of the EAU assumed a new tone.
It accelerated the political crystallization on the choice between further
disintegration and re-integration on a new basis.
Many participants in the hearings stated that the EAU project offers a
chance for entering the 21st century in a civilized manner, and that
it reflects the objective logic of development of the post-Soviet space and the
consciously realized objective need for the development of integration
processes.
In this way the initiative of forming the Eurasian Union was gaining
momentum. The number of its adherents increased at scholarly events, in
government offices, and in the diplomatic circles. An understanding and sincere
approval of the EAU project was expressed, among others.
The proposals contained in the EAU project - to introduce unified visa
procedures, to guarantee the freedom of movement, to make the ruble the
settlement unit, to create a unified system of defense, parliament,
legislation, and an executive committee as an interstate organ - were at first
guardedly received by some public figures. However, the numbers of adherents of
integration are growing. Clearly, their approaches to the problem differ, but
their desire for integration remains strong.
On the question of the main principles of the EAU
project, it must be stressed that the EAU is a union of equal, independent
states aimed at the realization of the national interests of each member state
and of the available integration potential. The EAU is a form of integration of
sovereign states with the aim of consolidating stability and security and
socioeconomic modernization in the post-Soviet space. Economic interests
determine the foundations of the rapprochement among the independent states.
The political institutions of the EAU must adequately reflect these interests
and facilitate economic integration.
The following principles and mechanism of formation of
the Eurasian Union are proposed:
— National referendums or decisions of parliaments on the entry of states
in the EAU;
— The signing by member states of a treaty on the setting up of the EAU
on the basis of the principles of equality, noninterference in the affairs of
each other, respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability
of state borders. The treaty must lay the legal and organizational foundations
for deeper integration, with the formation of an economic, currency, and
political union as its goal;
— No associated membership is permitted in the EAU;
— Decisions are
carried in the EAU by the qualified majority of four-fifths (4/5) of the
overall number of member countries.
Independent states join
the EAU, if the following preliminary conditions are satisfied:
— Mandatory
compliance with endorsed inter-state agreements;
— Mutual recognition of the existing political institutions of the EAU
member countries;
— Recognition of territorial integrity and inviolability of the
borders;
— Rejection of economic, political, and other forms of pressure in
inter-state relations;
— Cessation of hostilities among member countries.
New members enter the EAU after an expert evaluation
is passed on their readiness to enter the EAU and all EAU members vote
unanimously on it. An organ formed on parity terms by the states, which
expressed their readiness to become EAU members, proposes expert evaluations.
EAU states may take part in other integrative alliances, including the
CIS, on the basis of associated or permanent membership or in the role of an
observer.
Every member can leave the EAU, giving notice not
later than six months before the decision is made.
It is suggested to form the following supranational bodies:
— The Council of EAU Heads of State and Heads of Government - the highest
organ of EAU political leadership. Each member state chairs the EAU for a
period of six months in rotation according to the Cyrillic alphabet.
— The highest consultative and advisory body is the EAU Parliament. The
Parliament is formed by delegating deputies of the member states' parliaments
on the basis of equal representation of each member country or through direct
elections. Decisions of the EAU Parliament come into force after their
ratification by the parliaments of the EAU states. Ratification must be
effected within the period of one month.
— The main area of the activity of the EAU Parliament is coordination of
the member countries' legislation to insure the development of a unified
economic space, protection of the social rights and interests of individuals
and of mutual respect for state sovereignty and civil rights within EAU states.
— The EAU
Parliament creates a common legal basis to regulate the relations between the
member countries' economic agents.
— The Council of
EAU Foreign Ministers, to coordinate the member countries' foreign-policy
activities.
— The
Inter-state Executive Committee of the EAU - an executive and supervisory body
functioning on a permanent basis. The EAU heads of state appoints the head of
the Executive Committee -a representative of the member countries — for a
period defined by the heads. The Executive Committee's bodies are formed to
include representatives of all the countries.
The EAU as
represented by its Executive Committee must receive observer status in a number
of major international organizations, such as:
— The EAU Executive
Committee's Information Bureau. The member countries must assume a special
obligation or law not to permit unfriendly statements about the treaty's member
states, which may damage relations between them.
— The Council
for Education, Culture, and Science. The formation of coordinated policy on
education, promotion of cultural and scientific cooperation and exchange, and
joint activity on compiling textbooks and manuals.
— To achieve a
deeper coordination and effectiveness of the activities of the EAU countries,
it is deemed advisable to set up in each of them a State Committee (or
Ministry) for EAU Affairs.
— Regular
meetings and consultations on health services, education, labor, employment,
culture, combating crime, and so on, by ministers of EAU countries.
—
Encouraging the activities of non-governmental organizations in various
areas of cooperation in accordance with EAU member countries' national
legislation.
— The Russian language is the official EAU language, functioning side by
side with the languages of legislation in the member nations.
— Citizenship. Free movement of citizens within EAU borders requires
coordination of external visa policy with regard to third nations. On changing
the country of residence within the EAU, an individual automatically receives
the other country's membership.
— One of the cities at the juncture of Europe and Asia, such as Kazan or
Samara, might be proposed as the capital of the EAU.
In order to create a unified economic space within the EAU framework, it
is proposed to establish a number of supranational coordinating structures:
— A commission on the economy under the Council of EAU Heads of State to
work out the main directions of economic reform within the EAU framework; the
commission takes into consideration the interests of the national states and
offers its proposals for endorsement by the Council of the EAU Heads of State;
— A commission on the raw materials of the EAU exporter countries to
coordinate and endorse the prices and quotas for exported raw materials and
fuel and energy resources, an appropriate inter-state agreement to be signed by
the member countries; coordination of policy in the mining and sale of gold and
other precious metals is to be envisaged;
— A fund for economic and technological cooperation formed with EAU
members' contributions. The fund will finance promising science-intensive
economic, scientific, and technological programs and render assistance in the
solution of a wide range of problems, including legal, tax, financial, and
ecological issues;
— A commission on inter-state financial-industrial groups and
joint ventures; — an EAU international investment bank;
— An inter-state
EAU court of arbitration on economic problems, to resolve
conflicts on a legal basis and to impose sanctions;
— A commission
on the introduction of a clearance monetary unit (transfer ruble).
It is proposed
to implement a number of measures to preserve the potential achieved in the
previous decades and to enhance integration in the field of science, culture, and
education:
— The setting up
of common EAU research centers to carry out fundamental research in
contemporary knowledge;
— The setting up
of an EAU fund for the development of scientific research to unite the
scientific collectives from various countries;
— The setting up
of a committee on links in the field of culture, science, and education under
the Council of the Heads of EAU Governments;
— Encouragement
of the formation of non-governmental associations in the sphere of culture,
education, and science;
— The setting up
of a grants fund under the EAU Executive Committee.
It is proposed
to conclude the following accords on defense within the EAU framework:
— A treaty on joint actions to strengthen the
national Armed Forces of the EAU member countries and to protect EAU external
borders.
The EAU will
establish a unified defense space to coordinate defense activities:
—
The formation of joint peace-making EAU forces to maintain stability
and eliminate conflicts within the member countries and between them. The
sending of peace-making forces to conflict areas on EAU territory - with the
agreement of EAU member states and in accordance with international legal
norms;
—
The tabling of joint proposals by EAU member countries at international
organizations, including the United Nations Security Council, on lending EAU
joint contingents the status of a peace-making force;
— The setting up
of an inter-state center on problems of nuclear disarmament attended by
representatives of international organizations.
— All EAU states
except Russia maintain their nuclear-free status.
In the area of ecology, the following mechanisms must be formed in the
nearest future, according to the EAU project:
— An ecological
fund under the EAU Council of Heads of State, to realize ecological programs
within the EAU framework, to be financed by all member states;
— Coordination
of actions with international organizations to reduce the extent of
environmental pollution;
— Endorsement of
short- and long-term programs for major problems of restoration of the
environment and liquidation of the consequences of ecological disasters (the
Aral Sea, Chernobyl, the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing ground);
— The
endorsement of an inter-state EAU agreement on storing nuclear waste.
The Eurasian Union
of States is thus based on three principal provisions:
— Joint
supranational coordinating organs for the management of the economy, defense,
and foreign policy;
— A unified
economic space;
— A common
defense complex.
The
supranational institutions include the highest organ of political leadership of
the Union - the council of heads of state and heads of government; the highest
consultative organ, the parliament; the councils of foreign and defense
ministers;
And the interstate executive committee - a permanently functioning
executive and controlling body whose head is appointed by the heads of
government for a term which they themselves define.
As for the unified economic space, it may be built, e.g., on such a basis
as coordinating economic policies and mandatory programs; a common legislative
basis regulating relations between economic agents; a supranational currency on
the European ECU model; coordination of direct links between enterprises; the
setting up of joint and mixed industrial-financial groups, transport firms,
trade houses, and exchanges. The defense and foreign trade complexes may be
just as effective. The EAU as represented by its executive committee must
receive the status of an authorized representative in all the leading interstate
organizations of the world.
The practical realization of the provisions of the EAU
project in the bilateral Kazakhstan!-Russian relations is excellent proof of
the viability of this program.
On January 20, 1995, a package of extremely important
integration documents was signed during the working meeting between presidents
Nazarbayev and Yeltsin. This package included a declaration on expanding and
deepening Kazakh-stani-Russian cooperation and an agreement on the Customs
Union, which was also signed by Belorussia. Both of these were discussed in
detail before. This last agreement opens the way to the establishment of a
unified customs space to be followed by a unified economic space, as envisioned
in the EAU project.
With the setting up of the Customs Union, the economic
cooperation of the three countries is built on the principles of free,
non-discriminatory trade; a common market of commodities, services, capital,
and labor; and close interaction in the production, investment, and financial
spheres.
At present, the first stage in the formation of the
Customs Union is largely completed. The work done by the three sides is
generally recognized to be an important element of the realization of the
foundations of the Economic Union and the formation of the common market of CIS
countries.
The legal acts
on tariff and non-tariff regulation of foreign trade have been unified.
Kazakhstan and Russia have signed an agreement on unified control of customs
services. An agreement has also been reached on the identity of trade
procedures in both countries in relation to third nations, and unified
procedures have been introduced on the customs statistics on foreign trade and
customs registration of commodities subject to excise. Customs controls on
railroads and passenger air traffic between the two countries are lifted step
by step.
A treaty
has been signed between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation
on joint efforts on the protection of outer borders, the term “outer borders”
taken to mean the sectors of the border between our countries and the states
that are not part of the CIS. The edict of the president of Kazakhstan dated
September 19, 1995 On the Lifting of Customs Control on the Border between
the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation concludes the first
stage in the formation of the Customs Union and orders the implementation of
joint customs controls on the Kazakhstan and Russian sectors of the outer
borders of the Customs Union.
At the second stage of the formation of Kazakhstani-Russian-Belorussian
economic efforts to form a customs union, the most important areas of
cooperation are a closer coordination of economic reforms; harmonization of
civil and economic legislation; unification of currency, tax, and price regulation
by the state with the aim of leveling out the economic and legal conditions for
the activities of commodity producers within a unified customs space; working
out coordinated positions of the members of the Customs Union in relations with
third countries and international organizations. At the meeting of heads of CIS
countries in November 1995, three more countries stated their desire to join
the Customs Union: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Later, only
Kyrgyzstan went through with the necessary procedures and entered the Customs
Union.
Another example
of collaboration in the field of integration is the agreement on the Baikonur
space vehicle-launching site, which makes it possible to use this great
scientific and technological facility in the interests of Russia and
Kazakhstan, as well as documents on the issues of citizenship signed by the
presidents of Kazakhstan and Russian.
Let us consider in somewhat greater detail the problems of citizenship,
of which the solution on a bilateral basis was also outlined in the draft
project of the EAU.
Issues of citizenship became particularly prominent at the time of the
emergence and building of sovereign independent states after the
disintegration of the USSR, when tens of millions of former Soviet citizens
overnight ended up outside their "historical homelands." This problem
is as topical for Kazakhstan and Russia as for other CIS countries. More than
that, it often figures as one of the most important issues of bilateral
relations with Russia.
The more acute aspects of
this problem were lifted as a result of the signing in January 1995 by the
presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan of a treaty on the legal status of citizens
of both countries living on the territory of the other state and of an
agreement on simplified procedures for acquiring citizenship in moving from
one country to another. Well-known specialists from the two countries worked
fruitfully on these documents. Authoritative Kazakhstan! and Russian
politicians and jurists believe that these are innovative agreements without
parallel in the world, and they are a fairly rare example of regulating
bilateral issues on a civilized basis. The importance of these agreements both
for progressive development of our countries and for normal life of the citizens
of Kazakhstan and Russia cannot be exaggerated.
These documents envisage the introduction of maximally
simplified procedures for acquiring citizenship and for movement without
visas; they also offer possibilities for contract work and military service;
assert the rights of possession, use, and disposal of property; create
conditions for exchange of currency and transfer of sums of money by
individuals and corporate entities of Kazakhstan and Russia; and many other
provisions which reliably protect the rights and interests of the citizens of
the two countries.
Yet another sphere in which combining the efforts of
all the interested parties is needed is the legal status of the Caspian Sea.
The position of the Republic of Kazakhstan on this
issue is based on the need for an early drafting and signing of a convention on
the legal status of the Caspian Sea, of which a draft was worked out by the
Kazakhstan foreign ministry and sent out to all the interested states as early
as March 1994. Unfortunately, there has been no response to this initiative for
quite a long time now, and the agreement on regional cooperation on the
Caspian Sea issue is still at a standstill.
At the same time preserving this unique object of nature is a task that
the present generation must be worthy of.
The events of the recent years thus prove conclusively
the need to proceed to a new level of integration, which will fully conform to
the vital needs of the peoples. International experience shows that any
interstate association goes through various states in its development, becoming
enriched in the process with new forms of cooperation. The Eurasian Union
should be seen as just one of such transitional forms capable of optimizing
the solution of the problems facing the Commonwealth.
From the time of the publication of the draft EAU
project, politicians and scholars have been paying close attention to it. Four
major scientific and practical conferences were devoted to this subject, as
were hundreds of publications in Kazakhstan, Russia, and other states.
Politicians, scholars, and diplomats continue to study the EAU project with
great attention.
The current
period in history is characterized by a radical breakdown of the old way of
life. Society now faces difficult issues, and each person is subject to serious
trials It is quite natural under these conditions that the peoples of Kazakhstan,
Russia, and other countries with an interest in the unification of the
Commonwealth will find it easier to overcome these difficulties together. A
balanced attitude toward the past, a persistent realization of the present
potential, and confidence in a more certain future - only these things will be
able to give the peoples of our countries a natural feeling of spiritual harmony
and a sense of full-blooded life.
History is offering us a chance to enter the 21st century in a
civilized manner. One of the ways to achieve that, in my view, is the
realization of the integration potential for the establishment of the Eurasian
Union, which will reflect the objective logic of the development of the
post-Soviet space and the will of the peoples of the former Soviet Union to
achieve integration.
This is how President Nazarbayev, the author of the Eurasian project,
characterized the development of this idea and his current vision of its
future: "I still remain an adherent of integration of post-Soviet space.
As I formulated my vision of integration I laid no claims to total realization
of all the provisions of the project, being fully aware of all the political
connotations of that period. Two considerations were my primary motivation.
First, I wanted to generalize within a single whole the most realistic
proposals for further integration, which simultaneously appeared in the
countries of the post-Soviet space. Second, I wished to interrupt the
indecently drawn-out pause in the activities of the CIS institutions.
In the last two years there was movement in the CIS countries on some
issues that had been at a standstill, including
4. VITAL PROBLEMS OF THE
PRESENT-DAY STATE OF KAZAKHSTANI-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
The Present State and Prospects for Economic Cooperation between
Kazakhstan and Russia.
The top priority
area of Kazakhstan’s policy in foreign trade is the strengthening of economic
cooperation with Russia and consistent integration of the economies of the CIS
countries. This is determined by the traditionally strong economic links, a
high level of mutual complementarily and interdependence of two economies of a
once unified state, the size of the commodity market and identify of economic
problems awaiting solution. “Analysis of the results of development of the
economy of the former USSR and of experiences of economically advanced
nations,” President Nazarbayev stressed, “shows that the transition to the
market is objectively necessary and historically inevitable.”
The main feature of the present-day situation in Kazakhstan is the
increasing impact of the mechanisms that have evolved in the years of reform
and a weakening of the effect of non-market factors. In the initial stages, the
underdeveloped state of such important instruments of the formation of the
market as privatization, de-monopolization, absence of a competitive
environment, were the main sources of inflation in the republic, a worsening
state of the finances of enterprisers, an acute shortage of turnover capital, a
fall in production due to falling demand and real earnings of the main mass of
the population, as well as growing abuses in trade and banking structures.
The prevailing technological, economic and organizational standards made
a significant impact on the potential of foreign trade relations. “The cohesion
of the economic space of the former USSR was affected through centralized state
planning implemented by command-administrative management. In the process, the
country’s economy worked as a ‘single workshop’, and not all production and
economic links here were rational from the market point of view. The transition
to a market economy throughout the economic space of the former USSR required a
profound restructuring, and this called for considerable resources and time,”
Ex-Prime Minister A.M. Kazhegeldin stressed.
The policy of liberalization of foreign trade activity and of open
economy did not result in 1993 in any growth of exports. It amounted to $1.5
billion, thus remaining at the 1992 level. Shifts in the geography of
Kazakhstan export due to the re-orientation of foreign trade links to
industrially developed nations resulted in the strengthening of raw materials exports.
The share of machines, equipment and transport vehicles in the export dropped
to 2 percent, and the share of fuel and energy complex and that of metallurgy
rose to 80 percent. Rising domestic prices prevented partners from concluding
long-term foreign trade deals, stimulating instead commodity exchanges. The
share of barter and clearing deals in export operations made up more than 26
percent. More than 56 percent of imports were affected through exchange of
commodities. Barter operations were mostly in the nature of structurally
unbalanced exchanges. The republic suffer considerable losses due to inadequate
knowledge of the market conditions and the desire to access foreign markets at
any price.
A noticeable feature of
Kazakhstan economy is the low level of the development of machine building,
which is not up to present-day requirements, and this makes an adverse impact
on other branches of the economy, as it results in the common shortage of
metal-tooling products. This aggravates the shortage of spare parts and of
products used in several adjacent branches of industry and adversely affects
the standards of servicing.
Some of
Kazakhstan most important tasks in 1994 were the closure of, and changing
production lines at, non-viable enterprises and development of promising
export-oriented ones, which also satisfy domestic demand. This called for a set
of measures to identify enterprises in the state of depression, closing down
unprofitable lines of production in energy-consuming industries and rehabilitation
and reorganization of non-profitable production lines.
The basis of the development of
Kazakhstan, just as of Russia and many other CIS countries, is export of
natural resources. In 1994, the government introduced regulations for the
licensing of natural resources, and a law was adopted on payments for
utilization of natural resources. It was at that time that efforts were
initiated to attract domestic and foreign investors to develop the fuel and
energy complex. The development began of the Tengiz, Karachiganak, and some
other oil yields at oil fields continued to be introduced. Open – cut coal
mining was expanded at Ekibastuz, Maykubek, and Shubarkul coalfields, with the
aim of reducing the mining of coal underground at low-profit and non-profitable
mines of the Karaganda coalfields.
In the metallurgical industry,
the development of production of ferrous metals and the raw-materials basis of
such production continued, including the revamping of the Karaganda
metallurgical plant with the aid of foreign investment; its re-orientation
toward the iron ore pellets of the Sokolovsko – Saribai mining association; the
development of production of stainless steel and rolled metal and the building
of an electric metallurgical plant for the production of stainless steels in
Aktobe; further development of ferrous alloys in Aktobe and Aksu and of its
raw-materials basis –the Donskoy ore –dressing plant; the re-orientation of
idle production lines of JSC Khimprom to the production of ferromanganese.
Organizational measures were taken in 1994 to develop production of fireproof
materials.
At the same time there was a
fall in the production of ferrous metallurgy due to an aggravation of the raw
materials and fuel shortage and a parlous state of equipment at enterprises of
this industry. The decline in industrial production was to a considerable
extent due to non-solvency of enterprises in view of their insufficient
financial resources, non-payment by the buyers for products delivered, and weak
financial discipline.
The decline in non-ferrous
metallurgy continued, as production of copper, titanium, and manganese fell. To
check the decline in this branch of industry, the production lines at the
Chilisai ore-dressing plant switched to a different product; the Zyryanovsky
lead plant was rebuilt, and its commissioning was brought forward; the raw –
materials basis for the titanium industry was created, as was the Syrymbet tin
field, the tin being produced at the Tselinny chemical plant. The functioning
gold mines and ore-dressing plants were revamped, and work was accelerated to
develop major gold fields at Vasilkov, Bakyrchik, and Akbakai.
In 1994, the share of
machine-building industry and machine tooling in the overall industrial
production continued to fall, amounting to six percent. Low investment
activity, non- competitiveness of the Kazakhstan machine-building industry,
limited financial consumer capacity predetermined an almost twofold reduction
volumes in most types of machine –building branches even compared to the crisis-ridden
year of 1993.
The situation was worst in the
chemical and petrochemical industries, whose production capacities far exceeded
the republic’s domestic needs. Considerable share of the product was exported
to other CIS countries and the “far abroad”, but the enterprises suffered from
shortage of raw materials, even shortages of oil, which is produced in
Kazakhstan itself. JSC Polipropilen, AKPO, Khimvolokno production association
used imported raw materials only. In 1994, the decline in most types of
petrochemical products reached 55-60 percent. Oil refining dropped by
20.3percent.
The timber, woodworking, and
papermaking industries suffered from shortage of raw materials. Between the
beginning of 1993 and the end of 1994, the production of timber fell by 21
percent, and this had a negative effect on the state of production at sawmills
and woodworking factories. The production of saw-timber, chipboard, and
cardboard fell by 31.9, 59.3, and 47.5 percent respectively, but the production
of paper increased threefold.
In 1993 and 1994, decline in
production also continued in the construction materials industry. Production of
cement declined to the level of 1973, while production of pre cast concrete
products dropped to the level of 1974. There was a considerable drop in
production at enterprises producing asbestos cement pipes and coupling (by
34.2percent), linoleum (by 40.3 percent), cement (by 61.6 percent), asbestos
(by 71.2 percent), bricks (by 78.8 percent). Production of sanitary wares
dropped by 25 percent.
During the last five years, GDP
volumes continued to fall, declining roughly twofold; the greatest decline (by
25.4 percent) was observed in 1994, and in 1995 it was almost nine percent.
However, during the time of the reform considerable changes took place
in the structure of GDP: The share of services grew sharply – from 32 percent
in 1992 to 47 percent in 1995; the share of commodity production declined by
12 percent. The volume and share of services mostly grew in the trade, .•.
•3 • ti '
|
Competitiveness of the Kazakhstan machine-building industry,
limited financial consumer capacity predetermined an almost twofold reduction
in production volumes in most types of machine-building branches even compared
to the crisis-ridden year of 1993.
The situation was worst in the chemical and
petrochemical industries, whose production capacities far exceeded the
republic's domestic needs. A considerable share of the product was exported to
other CIS countries and the "far abroad," but the enterprises
suffered from shortages of raw materials, even shortages of oil, which is
produced in Kazakhstan itself. JSC Polipropilen, AKPO, Khimvolokno production
association in Kustanai, Shymkentshina production association used imported raw
materials only. In 1994, the decline in most types of petrochemical products
reached 55-60 percent. Oil refining dropped by 20.3 percent.
The timber, woodworking, and
papermaking industries suffered from shortages of raw materials. Between the
beginning of 1993 and the end of 1994, the production of timber fell by 21
percent, and this had a negative effect on the state of production at sawmills
and woodworking factories. The production of saw-timber, chipboard, and
cardboard fell by 31.9, 59.3, and 47.5 percent respectively, but the production
of paper increased threefold.
In 1993 and 1994, decline in production also
continued in the construction materials industry. Production of cement declined
to the level of 1973, while production of pre cast concrete products dropped
to the level of 1974. There was a considerable drop in production at
enterprises producing asbestos cement pipes and couplings (by 34.2 percent),
linoleum (by 40.3 percent), cement (by 61.6 percent), asbestos (by 71.2 percent),
bricks (by 78.8 percent). Production of sanitary wares dropped by 25 percent.
During .the last five years, GDP volumes
continued to fall, declining roughly twofold; the greatest decline (by 25.4
percent) was observed in 1994, and in 1995 it was almost nine percent.
However, during the time of the reform
considerable changes took place in the structure of GDP: The share of services
grew sharply - from 32 percent in 1992 to 47 percent in 1995; the share of
commodity production declined by 12 percent. The volume and share of services
mostly grew in the trade] in banking and finances, insurance, and realty, while
the share of everyday services fell. In other words, the main trend in the
changes of macro-economic proportions was a move towards parameters
characteristic of countries with well-developed market economies. The share of
consumption of end products rose to 69 percent of utilized GDP as contrasted
with 58 percent in 1993. Investment in 1995 amounted to some 30 percent of GDP.
Beginning in the second half of 1994,
certain positive changes began to occur: a decline in the rate of inflation, a
growth in accumulation of capital, a stabilization in the exchange rate of the
national currency, a decline in the banks' interests rates, and a relative
growth in industrial production.
The rate of inflation steadily declined from
4.9 in June 1994 to 3.2 percent in April 1995. The decline in production, which
sharply Increased in November 1993 through March 1994, practically, ceased in
some branches in 1994. As a result, industry as a whole grew by 0.3 percent in
September, by 1.1 percent in December, and by 1.2 percent in April. As distinct
from the previous years, a certain stabilization of production, which began in
June 1994, was accompanied by a certain slowing down rather than acceleration
of inflation.
The rate of price growth in the production and consumption
sectors of the economy in 1995 slowed down. The highest inflation occurred in
January (an increase of 108.9 percent compared to the previous month), and the
lowest, in August (102.1 percent). The annual index of consumer prices
throughout the republic was estimated at 160 percent (the monthly index, 104.3
percent, whereas the annual index of inflation of consumer prices in 1994
amounted to 1256 percent, which corresponds to a monthly inflation rate of
123.4 percent. (The annual index of production prices was at the level of 141.2
percent).
The positive dynamics in the consumer
and wholesale prices was achieved above all by harsh financial and credit
policies and the government's measures aimed at stage by stage liberalization
of prices and tariffs for commodities and services, which resulted hi a sharp
reduction in the range of regulated prices. At the beginning of 1996, only the
prices of electric power, heating, gas, passenger and freight railway traffic
were regulated, and at the local level, regulation involved prices" and
tariffs of communal services and the services of urban passenger transport.
In 1995, the monetary and credit
policies were characterized by changes in the monetary and credit instruments
of the National Bank, its operations at the inter bank credit, currency, and
stock markets, and the development of the market of state securities. Whereas
hi 1994 and January 1995 the principal instruments were centralized and
auction credits, in 1995 the emphasis shifted from state-apportioned credits to
the development of securities markets and auction credits.
The primary market of state treasury
bonds actively began to develop. The volume of trading on this market is steadily
growing, with demand exceeding supply. Toward the end of 1995, 4.3 billion
tenge's worth of treasury bonds had been issued. In September 1995, pawnshop
credits were introduced, with state treasury bonds as collateral.
The
National Bank's average refinancing rate went from 210 percent in January to
52.5 percent in December 1995. This reduction was made possible by a
considerable alleviation'' of the inflation situation.
The weighted average percentage rate
for auction credits amounted in 1994 to 292.61 percent; during ten months of
1995, it went down to 103.29 percent, and in October 1995 it stabilized at the
52.56 percent level.
In 1995, the reduction in production
output amounted to eight percent. Production output fell at 44 percent of
enterprises. Of the 220 most important kinds of industrial products, production
of 48 kinds increased and that of 167, decreased. It should be noted at the
same time that hi 1995 decline in production was overcome, and there was an
increase in production compared to the previous year in electric power
production, metallurgy, and in the chemical and petrochemical industries.
In 1995, the policy of
liberalization of foreign trade activity continued; distribution of export
quotas was completely eliminated, and the list of licensed export products was
considerably reduced. Kazakhstan traded with 124 states of near and far
abroad.
In the framework of official aid for
development, Kazakhstan received a number of credits to the tune of $1.3
billion from international financial organizations and individual donor
countries.
One of the main types of foreign resources
for the republic was direct investment, in particular the setting up of joint
ventures and foreign enterprises. The rate of establishment of joint ventures
in Kazakhstan is fairly high. Thus, at the end: of 1990 there were just 15 of
them, while at the end of 1995 more than 2000. JVs operated in the republic, of
which 500 operated on foreign capital only. Most of these were set up in the;
mining industries.
From the beginning of 1995, steadily
increasing numbers of enterprises were turned over for administration. Toward
the end of December 1995, external administration was introduced at some 20
major industrial enterprises in various sectors. The necessary legislative
basis was created for the involvement of foreign capital in Kazakhstan.
Thus the implementation of economic
policies in 1992-1995 in Kazakhstan resulted in the liberalization and openness
of the economy and the expansion of private enterprise.
There were significant shifts in the
market infrastructure. Trade and the banking sector developed rapidly, and
other financial institutions were born - in other words, there was, progress in
those spheres of the economy that had previously; been underdeveloped but that
were vital for the functioning of the market economy.
The liberalization of foreign and domestic
trade resulted in a slight reduction of export in 1994 and early 1995 compared
to the decline in the volume of GDP. The export of commodities, mostly to CIS
countries, amounted to $13 billion in 1994 and $4.97 billion in 1995. The
greatest share of exports went to the Russian Federation — 47 percent, or $1.4
billion's worth in 1994; in 1995, the exports amounted to $2.8 billion, including
$2.1 billion to Russia.
Russia's share in Kazakhstan's imports from
CIS countries at the beginning of 1995 was the largest - 70 percent;
Turkmenistan's, 10 percent; and Uzbekistan's, 9 percent. Of considerable
significance is the fact that more than 50 enterprises securing Russia's
defense interests work on Kazakhstani territory. All principal roads of Russia
leading east and southeast, Yuzhsib and Transsib railways included, pass
through Kazakhstan. Major Russian high voltage power lines, communications
lines, and pipelines are also connected with Kazakhstan.
As before, Kazakhstan's exports to
Russia are raw materials, oil and petrochemical products, as well as products
of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy.
Deliveries of ferrous metals (35.2
percent), copper and items made of copper (15.1 percent) make up a considerable
share of exports. Russian enterprises are also the main consumers of
Kazakhstan oil and petroleum products, which amount to 40 percent of the
exports of mineral products.
In 1994, Kazakhstan's imports of
industrial and technical goods and of consumer goods from the far and near
abroad amounted to $3.4 billion; in 1995, the figure was $3.7 billion. The
largest share of imports fell on Russia - $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion
respectively. Imports from Russia covered 30 percent of the demand of
households and the republic's enterprises for raw materials, 70 percent of the
demand for industrial manufactured products (including 90 percent of the demand,
for complex household appliances), and more than 70 percent of the * demand for
products of the chemical and timber industries. Kazakhstan's imports from
Russia are dominated by electric; machines, equipment, mechanisms, and,
transport vehicles. Their share in over imports amounts to 70-percent. There are
also imports of considerable amounts of raw materials for the foodstuffs
industry and the foodstuffs themselves (10.2 percent), mineral products and
metals (10.1 percent), and other consumer goods (7.8 percent). More than half
of imported mineral products and non-ferrous metals come from Russia.
The share of deliveries against convertible
currency in the export-import operations between Kazakhstan and Russia amounted
to 6.5 percent of the total volume of exports; the share of baiter operations
was 32.6 percent; and the share of clearing and similar operations, 60.9
percent. In this process, baiter deals did not as a rule result in a balanced
and equivalent exchange. Analyses of export-import barter deals in 1993-1995
shows that total exports were twice as large as imports of commodities. As a
result of these operations, considerable funds of Kazakhstan Commodity
producers annually stay in Russia.
On the whole, the results of economic
development show that the republic was close to achieving macroeconomic
stabilization, that the impact of market incentives increased, and that a new
system of reference points and motivations developed. The main problems of the
critical period of development were partially solved, but new ones emerged.
Harsh monetary and credit policies,
liberalization of the domestic and foreign markets promoted the formation in
the republic of market mechanisms for the regulations of the economy and for
ensuring equal possibilities and guarantees for all the agents of economic
activity. In this situation the possibility appeared of creating a common
economic space covering Kazakhstan and Russia, in which free circulation of
commodities, capital, and labor would be made possible.
The development of
Kazakhstani-Russian relations between 1991 and 1995 showed that the two states
adopted a great many documents covering a wide range of economic issues.
The implementation of these
agreements created favorable conditions for establishing economic links
between economic agents and for the development of a common market that would
be advantageous for the economic interests of both Kazakhstan and Russia.
The relations between the two
countries in the economic sphere developed, against the background of improving
multilateral cooperation: within the CIS framework. The legal basis for this,
process was the treaty on the jetting-up of the CIS Economic Union signed on
September 24, 1993.' This document proclaimed as the main goal a voluntary,
stage-by-stage re-creation, on new, market principles of unified economic
space, or common market, with free circulation of commodities, services,
capital, and labor. On the basis of the treaty, a solid legal groundwork was
created. On October 21, 1994, an interstate economic committee was set up at
a-session of the council of CIS heads of state, and a memorandum on the main
directions of integration development of the Commonwealth of Independent States
was signed. These documents envisaged a stage-by-stage formation of a customs
union and the possibility of movement of different countries at different
speeds toward a unified economic space within the Economic Union.
A characteristic feature of the
situation in the CIS is universal recognition of the need for stepping up
integration processes in the economic interaction of CIS countries. It should
be noted that, among CIS countries, economic relations were most intense
between Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Byelorussia, with 80 percent of
commodity circulation within the CIS taking place within these countries.
One of the basic documents on economic
integration was an agreement on a customs union between the Russian Federation,
the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Republic of Belarus.1 Let us recall that on
January 20, 1995 the presidents of Kazakhstan and Russia, in their joint
declaration on the expansion and deepening of Kazakhstani-Russian cooperation,
instructed their governments to sign an agreement on the customs union. The
heads of governments of Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus signed this document.
The formation of the customs union was
preceded by extensive preparatory work aimed at harmonizing the legislative
systems of the two countries. A number of governmental and interdepartmental
agreements, protocols, and joint normative acts were signed, including those on
free trade, on a unified procedure for regulating foreign trade, on the
re-export of commodities, on the introduction of a unified procedure for
non-tariff regulation of trade with a coordinated nomenclature and volumes of
licensed and quoted commodities, on the establishment of a free trade zone, on
the unification and simplification of customs procedures, on collaboration
between customs services, on combating illegal drugs trafficking, on the terms
of maintenance of military facilities on the territories of the two sides, and
on joint security measures for the protection of the external borders of the
Customs Union. These agreements covered a sufficiently wide range of issues,
and they formed the basis for further action.
The agreement on the setting up of
the Customs Union was based on the principles of unified customs territory of
the member states of the Customs Union and the existence of a uniform mechanism
of economic regulation. It is proposed to form the Customs Union in two stages.
At the first stage, tariffs and quantitative restrictions on mutual trade are
lifted that are envisaged in the agreement on a unified procedure for regulating
foreign trade activity of April 12, 1994; fully identical systems for
regulating foreign economic links, identical trade regulations, common customs
tariffs and non-tariff measures for regulating relations with third countries
are introduced. At this stage, work is envisaged on the unification of
legislation on foreign trade, customs, currency, finances, tax, and of other
laws bearing on foreign trade activities.
Agreements on the Customs Union envisage the
possibility of introduction of coordinated time restrictions on mutual trade
in case of shortages of commodities on the domestic market, acute payment
deficit, and other circumstances.
The countries assumed the obligation
to establish unified control over their customs organs and organize joint
supervision of the movement of commodities and transport vehicles on the
borders. The procedures for such supervision are regulated by agreements
between the customs organs of the states involved.
The agreement on the Customs Union is open
to all other CIS member states that will recognize the provisions of the
agreement and express a readiness to fulfill them in their entirety.
The joint statement was in effect an
agreement on coordinated moves for further realization of economic reform and
creation of a uniform mechanism for regulating the economies based on market
principles. It set the task of unification of legislation on foreign trade,
customs, currency, finances, prices, taxes, and other economic laws ensuring
free development of production links and of enterprise, as well as equal
possibilities and guarantees for economic agents of the three states.
In that document, the heads of the
governments of the three states noted the considerable progress in the creation
of possibilities for a real formation of a customs union on the basis of
agreements and protocols signed. The sides agreed that tariff and quantitative
restrictions on mutual trade will be lifted through the setting up of fully
identical systems of regulation of external economic links, unconditional
guarantees for effective joint protection of the external borders of the
member states of the Customs Union, and establishment of identical trade
procedures, common customs tariffs, and measures for non-tariff regulation with
respect to third countries. It was stressed that the development of foreign
economic links will be promoted by the stage-by-stage formation of a clearing
union to ensure continuous clearing on the basis of mutual convertibility of
national currencies and formation of an effective payment system.
An agreement was reached to render state
support to the development of direct links and cooperation between enterprises,
to the establishment of financial-industrial groups, formation of favorable
conditions for mutual access and protection of investment, and acquiring real
estate,
Measures were outlined for the
formation of a common scientific/technological space for a more rational
utilization of the available intellectual, scientific, and technical potential.
State delegations headed by deputy heads of
governments take part in regular monthly sittings of the commission. These
sessions consider the implementation of agreements, analyze the state of
affairs in the practical formation of the customs union, and coordinate joint
measures.
At the same time each side set up its own
national sections of the intergovernmental commission on the customs union.
Five groups were set up in the framework of each national commission to cover
the following areas:
1. Creation of the Customs Union.
Solving tasks in the realization of a mechanism for the establishment, of a.
free trade zone; working out normative acts for the unification of currency,
financial, and general legislation; preparing proposals for the introduction of
unified procedures for foreign trade regulation and an identical customs
tariff, for coordinating a unified procedure of customs control, for working
out an agreement on unified management of customs services, and so on.
2. Harmonization of legislative systems to
coordinate the legal basis of agreements with agreements already achieved and
to eliminate discrepancies in the economic legislative systems of the states,
and to solve other issues.
3. Realization of the provisions of
treaties; of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance; preparation of
draft agreements and documents on freedom of movement, citizens' legal status,
conversion, mutual debts of enterprises, and on military cooperation.
4. The development
of production and enterprise. Taking coordinated measures for economic reforms,
preparing agreements on scientific and technological cooperation, investment activity,
state support of enterprises participating in joint financial-industrial
groups.
5. In the area of finances and
payment relations: the organization of work on providing regular quotations
for the national currencies, on the setting up of a network of currency
exchange points, on concluding an inter bank agreement on mutual access to
domestic markets of authorized banks, on working out a common mechanism for
currency regulation and control, on unification of taxes and their size, on the
methodology of price formation, and so on.
Practically all issues have been resolved
in. the framework of the three countries on non-tariff regulation of foreign
trade activity; work on the unification of normative legal acts in this area
has been completed. The partners came to an agreement on the procedure for
registering contracts on exports of strategically important commodities.
Work is being completed on the
establishment of unified operation modes in trading with countries and on re
export of commodities.
Apart from bilateral agreements, the
Customs: Union also relies on a number of multilateral agreements and
conventions adopted by the CIS Countries, including The Foundations of Customs
Legislation, A Unified Methodology for the Customs Statistics on Foreign Trade,
On the Movement of CIS Countries' Citizens Through Their Territories Without
Visas, On Guarantees for the Rights of Individuals Belonging to National
Minorities, On the Establishment of a Unified System of Air Defense of CIS
Member States, and On Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and
Criminal Cases.
Thus the main principle on which the Customs
Union is founded is the existence of a unified customs territory and a uniform
mechanism for regulating the economy, based on unified legislation.
Toward the end of 1995, significant
changes occurred in the trade and economic relations of Kazakhstan and Russia.
The agreement was revised on trade and economic relations; the emphasis was
made on the development of direct links between producers, which resulted in a
considerable increase in the exchange of products. In 1995, trade between
Kazakhstan and Russia amounted to $319 billion, or 54 percent of the total
volume of the republic’s trades, an increase of 55.4 percent on the same period
in the previous year. Exports amounted to $2.1 billion, which made up 42
percent of the total volume of Kazakhstan export; exceeding the 1994 figures by
a factor of 1.5. Imports reached the $1.8 billion mark, or 49 percent of all
imports, exceeding the 1994 imports by 66 percent.
Work on the formation of the Customs
Union can thus be seen as one of the main achievements in the field of economic
integration of Kazakhstan and Russia. A breakthrough was achieved in the
establishment of a common market. The three countries established a unified
customs zone and eliminated controls at their internal borders. Close
businesslike links were established between the customs services.
The Customs Union brings tangible results to
each of its members. The overall volume of trade between the CIS countries
outside the Customs Union continued to fall, while the lifting of custom
barriers enabled Kazakhstan, Russia, and Byelorussia to considerably increase
commodity circulation.
In October 1995, the heads of the
governments of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Byelorussia issued a joint appeal to
the governments of CIS member states to join the triple union. Running somewhat
ahead of the story, let us note that in March 1996 Kyrgyzstan joined the
customs union.
At the same time progress in the
development of bilateral economic relations is checked by a number of problems,
notably by chronic nonpayment of mutual debts. Kazakhstan's debt for electric
power received from Russia grew almost threefold in 1995. In turn, Russia owed
a large sum to Kazakhstan for the coal from Ekibastuz.
Serious possibilities are sometimes
missed for successful cooperation between enterprises in the fuel and energy
complex, in metallurgy, and other branches of the economy of Kazakhstan and
Russia. Close production links became established between the
Orskneftegazsintez JSC and the Aktyubinskneft JSC, which form the Orenburg JSC.
Early in 1995, the management of these associations conducted mutual
consultations and decided that a joint oil company must be set up.
In Russia, the formation of
financial-industrial groups went on at an increasing pace. The results of their
work in 1995 show that integration of industrial and banking capital had a
positive impact on economic development.
Further effective economic cooperation
between Kazaklistan and Russia calls for systematic analysis and work on a
mechanism of control over the implementation of bilateral Kazaklistani-Russian
treaties and agreements.
The following tasks should in our view be
singled out in the field of economic cooperation between Kazaklistan and Russia
that are of mutual interest and call for coordinated decisions of the
governments:
a)
Stabilization of export of raw materials and subsequent increase in it
as a basis for the growth of currency earnings for the modernization of
production;
b) Diversification of exports;
c) Additional currency and investment
resources for restructuring the economy;
d) Support for active trading policy on CIS
countries' potential markets;
e) Moderate protectionism in relation to
newly created import-replacing production lines.
Under these conditions the two
countries will have to solve new problems in economic integration in the
framework of the Customs Union and in the system of world economic links, in
searching for additional financial resources necessary for the implementation
of economic restructuring and their balanced growth, in defending the interests
of the domestic market from unfavorable conditions in the world economy and
from, foreign competition at the stage of stabilization of their economies.
In choosing a promising export and
import specialization, Kazakhstan and Russia should give preference to commodities
that are least susceptible to market fluctuations. To achieve this, it is
necessary to conduct regular analysis and forecasting of the situation on the
markets for the principal import and export commodities, favoring long-term
agreements on their purchase/selling over one-off deals.
In the medium-term perspective,
transition should be effected from restrictive policies to encouragement,
consistently facilitating the formation of a progressive, structure of exports
and creating a corresponding system of its state support.
Analysis of export/import operations of
foreign trade companies and enterprises shows that, in the absence of combined
controls over exports and currency and of an obligatory norm of currency sales,
1 all export earnings reach the republic. According to Kazakhstan specialists
calculations, some $0.6-0.8 billion end up on the accounts of Kazakhstan
enterprises in the countries of near and far abroad. According to Russian
experts, corresponding figures for Russia range from $5 to $17 billion. In this
connection, one of the main tasks of management of foreign trade activities of
the two states is the setting up of systems of customs control over export and
import contracts and banking control over currency earnings, investments, and
other commodities.
In future, it is advisable to step up
coordination of information systems of control over repatriation of currency
earnings by the customs bodies and the banking system, which will permit a
concentration of efforts on securing maximum currency earnings from exports.
It is advisable to restrict the decisive
role of the state in foreign economic activity to internationally recognized
standards, to be implemented in accordance with the rules and norms of the
World Trade Organization.
It is also advisable, in a situation of
considerable reduction of the share of state property, to export and import
commodities in state interests only within the framework of intergovernmental
agreements, which must not include any privileges or tax or duty exemptions.
For this purpose, the possibility is created for domestic purchases on a
competitive basis.
The state policy of selective
protection in relation to promising exporting industries and conquering foreign
markets gradually becomes one of the main priorities of economic policy as a
whole; it is called, upon to prepare the implementation of a really proactive
export policy, without which it is impossible to ensure either the payment of
foreign debts, or internal financial stabilization, or investment activity and
employment.
Another important task is the
achievement of favorable trading procedures-in relations with foreign countries
and their trade and economic groups, organizations, and unions, as well as the
lifting of existing discriminatory restrictions, and prevention of new ones,
with regard to the member states of the customs union.
To solve this task, plans are made to work
consistently and purposefully toward the entry of Kazakhstan and Russia in the
World Trade Organization, to harmonize our countries' legislative systems with
international norms and principles, and to implement the agreement on
partnership and cooperation with the European Union and agreements with other
countries.
Formation of new economic relations
with states of the near abroad will require a longer that previously believed
period of time and a gradual and coordinated advance toward generally accepted
international norms of organization.
The future economic policy of Kazakhstan in
relation to Russia and the countries of the near abroad must have the following
goals development and rationalization of cooperative economic links in terms of
minimizing expenditure and increasing competitiveness;
— The utilization of transit
communications serving the export/import commodity flows from Customs Union members
to third countries;
— Cooperation and coordination of CIS
countries' efforts in the restructuring of production and in optimizing the
distribution of production forces. An active economic policy in relation to
countries of the near abroad is seen as one of the levers for the
rehabilitation of the economy and creating conditions for its upward swing.
Particularly important in the
economic relations of Kazakhstan and Russia is the creation of conditions for
establishing horizontal links between agents operating on the market, the use
of new forms of economic cooperation, such as joint ventures, transnational
production, commercial, and financial structures, and of financial-industrial
groups.
Thus the entire course of economic
cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia and its present state show that there
is no alternative to close, mutually advantageous, and constructive relations
between the two countries. As the two largest countries of post-Soviet space
possessing great natural resources, production potential, and a desire for
cooperation, Kazakhstan and Russia are quite capable of solving the tasks they
face in reforming the economy and achieving the level of economically
developed countries.
Present-day economic science and
practice show that economic integration is the absolute imperative of the
future.
CONCLUSION
The analysis, in terms of history and political
science, of the birth and development of new, sovereign states at the end of
the 20th century, considered here in dynamic interaction with the
development of other states, leads us to a number of significant conclusions.
The formation of interstate relations between the Republic of Kazakhstan
and the Russian Federation is an example of synthesis of mutual relations
between two equal agents of international law. Considering the unique
situation and the entire context of ongoing processes, these relations may be
seen as a considerable contribution to the world political and juridical
experience.
An in-depth analysis of the causes of the disintegration of the USSR was
not the goal of the present study; besides, as President Nazarbayev pointed
out, it is difficult and even practically impossible to understand everything
that is connected with this event, which had such stupendous consequences.
However, it is possible to outline the objective and subjective
characteristics of this historical event.
Among the
objective factors, economic causes must above all be pointed out. The rigidly
conservative plan-and-command system of the country's economy, carrying the
unbearable burden of the military-industrial complex and serious structural
unbalance, could not meet the real challenges of the present level of
development of the world economy - the postindustrial resource- and
energy-saving revamping of the economy and a breakthrough in information
technology. The inevitable nationality problems that accumulated in the
ethnically diverse Soviet Union called for considerable attention and timely
response to the challenges in this area. Perestroika suddenly made these
challenges topical almost overnight, but it couldn't provide an adequate
solution of the problems within the framework of a unified state structure. The
Novo-Ogarevo project proved Utopian in view of its goal of achieving a
consensus among nearly forty of its participants.
It is no secret that Russia played an integrative
role, being a kind of backbone in the genesis and architecture of the unitary
state. Considering its actual political and economic weight as the most
powerful republic of the Union, it is easy to understand the centrifugal
effect of the separation of the Russian Communist Party from the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union and the subsequent declaration of the sovereignty and
independence of the Russian Federation.
Among other factors, the subjective element also played
a role in the disintegration of the USSR. This element could be analyzed in
terms of persons and situations, but this is not of the greatest importance for
the purposes of the present study.
The dialectical development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations
in the process of the sovereignty of Kazakhstan showed the correctness of the
view of this process as a consequence of the disintegration of the USSR and
subsequent objective course of events in the post-Soviet space. It is
important to stress, in the context of our study, the consistent efforts of
President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan aimed at developing integrative processes
in the relations between Kazakhstan and Russia and in the Commonwealth of
Independent States.
In turn, the declaration of sovereignty was only the beginning of a
complex process of real sovereignty for the post-Soviet countries. Using
Kazakhstan as a model, we tried to analyze the serious and comprehensive work
that had to be done, and will still have to be done, to achieve a normal, civilized
entry of the Republic in the international community. The formation of the new
Kazakhstan statehood occurred against the background of an all-round political
and economic reform of society. Despite many complicated and contradictory
processes, the country's leadership endeavored therefore to act on the basis of
scientifically well-founded programs and concepts capable of providing the
Kazakhstan is with real reference points, the nearest tactical goals, and
general strategic objectives in this far from simple transition period.
The instituting
of the post of president of the republic, the elections of the first head of
the Kazakhstan state, the constitutional reform, the formation of a
full-fledged parliamentarian system in the country were the landmarks of the
development of Kazakhstan as a sovereign independent state.
The parliamentary system developed in Kazakhstan as a significant part of
a general political reform; it went through many political conflicts and
problem situations.
The Supreme Soviet of Kazakhstan, consisting of 360 deputies elected in
1990, was far from perfect. It should be remembered, however, that it was this
parliament that adopted the most important state acts on sovereignty,
independence, and the presidency; under this parliament, political reform
began, and new market laws were discussed and adopted. The deputies of this
parliament nurtured the idea of a professional, compact, and effective highest
legislative organ of the country working on a permanent basis.
The first professional parliament of Kazakhstan, numbering 177 deputies,
was elected in March 1994. Its fate was contradictory and dramatic. Though
elected for a term of four years, this Supreme Soviet was not quite ready for
routine legislative work; besides, there were significant violations of
procedure during its election, and it was therefore dissolved on a decision of
the Constitutional Court in March 1995.
The country's political parties and movements took an active part in the
elections in December 1995 of a new parliament consisting of two chambers, the
Senate and the Mazhilis. Compact and professional, the new parliament is, in
the view of many jurists and politicians, quite capable of fruitful legislative
work and is absolutely in keeping with the democratic principle of the
division of powers.
The constitutional process in the republic also developed in a dynamic
way. This process consistently, step by step opened up new areas of the rule of
law, which corresponded to the vital periods in the development of the
republic. The path traversed from the first Constitution of sovereign
Kazakhstan, adapted in January 1993, to the Fundamental Law of the country,
adopted at a referendum in August 1995, is the path of progressive dynamic
legislative movement, of which many parameters corresponded to the standards
of developed democratic states.
Decisions on a wide range of problems in interethnic relations, the
dynamics of their development from the Forum of the Peoples of Kazakhstan and
the rise of national-cultural centers to the convocation of the Assembly of the
Peoples of Kazakhstan made it possible to conduct, in this most difficult
period in the building of the Kazakhstan state, all-round socioeconomic and
political reforms largely due to the preservation of interethnic accord, civic
peace, and goodwill of the peoples of Kazakhstan.
There is no need to emphasize the importance of Russia as a magnitude of
world order and Kazakhstan's closest neighbor. It is known all too well what
complex, and at times painful, political, economic, and social processes took
place, and are still taking place, in both states. During the hundreds of years
of cohabitation on vast adjacent territories, Russians and Kazakhs have
accumulated, despite certain differences in their culture, traditions, and
religion, a wealth of experiences in good-neighborly relations.
The historical
community, interdependence, and inter-connectedness of the two countries'
economies form the basis of Kazakhstani-Russian relations. Of great
significance is the geopolitical aspect of the relationship between Kazakhstan
and Russia as the two biggest states of the region, which largely affects the
general climate of the Eurasian subcontinent.
President Nazarbayev repeatedly stressed that Russia is our main strategic
partner, and the special relationship with Russia helps in the solution of the
most important current and long-term tasks in the development of Kazakhstan. It
may be stated today that a qualitatively new level of relations is now taking
shape in the relations between Kazakhstan and Russia, characterized above all
by the beginning of a practical realization of the high integration potential
accumulated in the public consciousness of the two countries. It is tills area
in Kazakhstan's foreign policy, one that provides the key to the formation of
a new shape of the Kazakhstan state and is closely connected with the policy of
integration, that is an absolute priority for Kazakhstan.
Under the new historical conditions, the stable and dynamic development
of Kazakhstani-Russian relations rests on a serious legal basis. That basis is
the treaty of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance between the
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation dated May 25, 1992, as well
as treaties and agreements signed in the course of the first official visit of
President Nazarbayev to Russia in March 1994 and his working meeting with
President Yeltsin in January 1995. As a follow-up to these fundamentally
important agreements, a whole series of intergovernmental documents, agreements,
and memorandums were signed which regulate the relations between concrete
ministries and departments.
However, the everyday practical experiences of bilateral cooperation show
that the joint efforts of the two countries must be constantly kept up. Closer
integration, especially in the economy and in the humanitarian sphere, is
necessary in the interests of democratic reform both in Kazakhstan and in
Russia. The process of further elaboration and coordination of new agreements
does not therefore cease. Recent years have seen continuous meetings of heads
of ministries and departments, government delegations, and groups of experts
to consider bilateral issues.
A considerable share of the economic potential of Kazakhstan and Russia
is employed in supporting production in the two countries. In recent years,
integration links have dynamically developed not only on the interstate level
but also between individual regions and enterprises. Besides, our peoples are
linked by centuries-old spiritual and cultural ties, as well as by kinship and
purely human relations, which must be constantly reinforced. That is why the
policy of integration is a principled line of conduct for Kazakhstan
leadership. "On the question of priorities," President Nazarbayev
commented, we must stress the vast importance of relations with the Russian
Federation. The effective factors here are the interdependence of the
economies, historical affinity, and demography. The two countries are simply
doomed to good-neighborly relations and collaboration. This collaboration must
be based on equal rights and mutual advantage, if we have in mind the strategic
goal of consolidating our common economic, defense, humanitarian, information,
and educational space.
Various aspects of economic and financial relations, problems in state
security and military-strategic cooperation, and humanitarian problems may, as
practical experience has shown, be positively resolved only if mutual interests
are taken into account, and if there is a conscious desire for fruitful and mutually
advantageous cooperation.
On March 28, 1994 a package of 23 treaties and agreements were signed,
five of them by the heads of state. These are, above all, the treaties on
further deepening of economic cooperation and integration, on military
cooperation, an agreement on the main principles of using the Baikonur
launching site, and a memorandum on the issues of citizenship and legal status
of citizens of the two countries.
These steps are in keeping with the integration efforts of our states in
the CIS framework, too. The ground has been laid for the economic and
settlement unions, and the Interstate Economic Committee - the Economic
Union's coordinating and executive committee - has begun to operate in Moscow.
Other agreements, which significantly increase the horizons of
multilateral and bilateral cooperation, also promote the progress of the
Commonwealth toward new integration successes. Apart from the trade and
economic ones, agreements on cooperation in the sphere of defense also belong
here.
While noting the
high level and rate of development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations, it must be
said that, both in previous times and nowadays, unresolved problems naturally
remain. There is a certain stage-by-stage approach in foreign policy due to
objective differences between the two countries in their view of priorities in
the phases of declaration, establishment, and consolidation of sovereignty and
independence.
The historical experiences of good-neighborly relations between
Kazakhstan and Russia and the solid relations of strategic partnership in the
present inspire confidence that the peoples of Kazakhstan and Russia will enter
the 21st century in a dignified manner.
LIST OF USED SOURSES
1.Mansurov. T. “Relationship between Kazakhstan and
Russia”, 1998, /p.p178- 250/
2. Esengalin. N. “ External Economy” 1999, /p.p
12-45/
3. Peter Bophinger. “Kazakhstan 1993-2000” 2001,
/p.p171-184/
4. Luts Hoffmann. “ Kazakhstan During the
Transition”1998, /p.p202-235/
5. World Bank “Annual Report” 1998, /p.p 252-259/
6. World Bank “Annual Report” 2000, /p.p153-159/
7. National Agency of Statistics “Semiannually
Report”2001 /p.p 159-175/
8. Hella Engerrer “Research of relationship between
Kazakhstan and Russia during the Transition” 1999 /p.p 25-50/
9. Katerina Dittmann “Tendency of Economic
Development of Kazakhstan”, 1998 /p.p 89-123/
10. Todaro “Transition in CIS countries 2001 /p.p
25-31/
11. Mishkin “Relation Between Russia and CIS
Countries 2001 /p.p 23-30/
12. Krugman “International Economies” 2001/2 /p.p
31-35/
13. EBRD “Annual Economic Report ” 2001, /p.p
123-159/
14. Daniel Gross “Economic Transition in Former
Soviet Union” 1995 /p.p 145-160/
|