Eurasian Union

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) between Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia is the most developed institution of regional economic integration among post-Soviet states. As it reaches its five-year anniversary, it is time to assess its principal achievements, failures, and challenges. The paper also analyzes the principal expectations of EAEU countries with regard to establishing or joining the union and to what extent those expectations have come true.

The Eurasian Higher Education Area is a concept that recently entered the lexicon of the post-Soviet political space. It refers to a higher education region involving Russia and other countries of the former Soviet region in different configurations. Shared educational space is often seen as complementary to a regional organization such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) or Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and its predecessor the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEc). Thus, in some situations, the “region” even extends beyond the former USSR to include countries such as China, India or Pakistan. At the same time, post-Soviet countries are included in larger projects led by “outsiders”, e.g. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative. The lack of clear delineation of the area leads to the conclusion that a Eurasian Higher Education Area is still in the making, when different meanings and scenarios are possible.

The development of Eurasian integration is increasingly becoming the subject of various assessments and discussions. The recent publication of Report No. 43 by the Eurasian Development Bank (titled Eurasian Economic Integration), which focuses on the insufficient level of regulatory competition within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), makes it necessary to analyse this phenomenon and the factors that affect it. It also prompts a deeper discussion on whether or not regulatory competition is necessary for international (and regional) integration.

The argument that a crisis in Russian-Chinese relations is unavoidable has been repeatedly referred to by analysts since the 1990s. The reason for this crisis would be geopolitical competition between the two powers in Central Asia. In 2013, China’s President Xi Jinping announced the concept of the New Silk Road (referred to by the Chinese side as ‘One Belt, One Road’). At the same time, Moscow announced its efforts to build its own integration project in the form of the Eurasian Economic Union. These two developments seemed to confirm that the initial argument was correct and that the two projects were apparently fated to compete. Meanwhile, in May 2015, during President Xi Jinping’s visit to Moscow, a joint declaration was issued calling for combining the two projects and creating a formal mechanism for their coordination in the form of a joint task force. The vision of “a great Eurasian partnership” announced by President Vladimir Putin during the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg on 16–17 June 2016 – which he also referred to as the Greater Eurasia project – is a signal that Moscow has ultimately opted for the strategy of joining a stronger partner (bandwagoning) instead of choosing the strategy of counterbalancing the rising power of China. At the same time, Moscow is trying to conceal the growing asymmetry in Russian-Chinese relations.

Turkey has always been a fertile environment and an ideological crucible for debate about ‘secularism’ and ‘Islam’, ‘Pan-Turkism’ and ‘Pan-/NeoOttomanism’, etc. These debates and confrontations can be traced back to
the Ottoman Empire. In spite of the fact that the newly established Turkish Republic’s main official direction was toward the West, these debates still exist today. For instance, while the Democratic Party (1946–1960) to Justice Party (1961–1980) line and the National Salvation Party (1972–1980) to Welfare Party (1983–1998) line had pro-Ottomanist and proIslamist approaches respectively, the centre-left Republican People’s Party (CHP), by and large, embraced a Western-oriented approach after the establishment of the Republic of Turkey until the early 2000s, even if it seems that the CHP (the main opposition party) has recently lost its enthusiasm toward the Western world and has radiated mixed signals on whether it will continue to support Turkey’s Westernist foreign policy discourse.

As a consequence of these debates and confrontations, it should be mentioned that Russian Eurasianism has had some reflections on Turkish society. In particular, the conditions of the post-Cold War era and the recent activism in Turkish foreign policy have put the Eurasianism debates back on the agenda. Various perceptions of this view can be observed in contemporary Turkish politics. In this context, this chapter provides a detailed analysis of the discourses of Turkish Eurasianism. Specifically, the first part of this section focuses on four of the main ideologies which have been dominant in Turkey in shaping the discourses of Turkish Eurasianism since the late 1980s: Neo-Ottomanism, Islamism, PanTurkism and Pan-Turanianism. It is significant to analyse these ideologies as they are four of the main determinants of Turkish domestic and foreign policy directions. Besides, these ideologies have played a vital role during the attempts of Aleksandr Dugin’s Neo-Eurasianism to penetrate into Turkey, as his initial Eurasianist thinking was anti-Turkish and it was these ideologies which moulded and added perspectives to the discourses of Turkish Eurasianism. In this sense, the latter part of the section will resent an overview of the discourses of Eurasianism in contemporary Turkish politics.

The newly elected President of Moldova, Igor Dodon, makes his first visit Brussels on February 7th, following his first visit to Moscow in January, where he announced his wish to repeal his country's Association Agreement with the EU and to join the Eurasian Economic Union instead. While this cannot happen until and unless the parliamentary elections in 2018 return a parliamentary majority supporting his Socialist party, his statement has already inflicted damage by creating strategic uncertainty over Moldova's European orientation. Dodon's argument seems to ignore the huge restructuring of Moldovan trade towards Europe and away from Russia that has taken place over the last decade. To try to set the clock back would be a disastrous move – effectively committing economic suicide for Moldova.

The present work focuses on the so-called 'Ukraine Crisis', the use of unilateral sanctions in international relations and their lawfulness under international law. Chapter I introduces some general concepts about conflicts, coercion, sanctions and international law, in order to better theoretically contextualize the subject matter. Subsequently, the recent case of the 'Ukraine Crisis' - a concrete example of conflict in which unilateral sanctions have been employed - is thoroughly analysed in Chapter II. Due to its geopolitical peculiarities, which are duly explored, it represents a perfect working ground for the purposes of the present thesis; it indeed raises interesting points for reflection on the current status of unilateral sanctions in international law. Chapter III involves primarily the analysis of the current international legal framework regarding unilateral sanctions, together with the assessment of the lawfulness of the Ukraine-related sanctions. In particular, the assessment is focused on the sanctions adopted by the EU and the US in response to the allegedly illegal annexation of Crimea and the other actions by the Russian Federation deemed to be against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and on the 'counter-sanctions' adopted by Russia in reaction. Finally, the concluding remarks represent an attempt to sum up the issues dealt with in the present work, to evaluate the effectiveness and the impacts of the Ukraine-related sanctions and to further reflect on the role of international sanctions in contemporary international relations.

The article comprehensively researches the problem of development of network society as precondition for effective functioning of the Eurasian Economic Union.
The article suggests modernization of the EEU according to the main components of network society: network economy, transformation of forms of communication, formation of network individualism, reformation of public sector to meet the demands of network society, socialized communication of public sphere, and development of network states.
The article proves the idea that effective modernization of the EEU assumes provision of information security and transition to network society. At the same time it suggests to develop civil society and establish polyarchy to provide better governance in the EEU as a precondition of effective integration both inside the Union and with other integration units.

The intention to create a common economic sphere from Lisbon up to Vladivostok remains topical. The given idea is wanted rather in Moscow than in Brussels. Evidently, a free trade agreement with the European Union (EU) would increase the legitimacy and attractiveness of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). This is essential for Russia's geopolitical interests in the region. To a lesser extent, the same objective is followed by the EU.

The article comprehensively researches the problem of development of public diplomacy in the context of provision of information security. The author suggests developing public diplomacy on the following vectors: education and culture, international information programs, public affairs, strategic communication, as well as programming, planning and resources. At the same time it`s suggested to implement socialization of the Youth in the EEU member-states as a factor to overcome alienation and develop sense of citizenship. The article proves the idea that effective public policy of the EEU supposes four ring of information security: domestic, Eurasian, global cooperation and human security. This approach is based on the necessity to establish and develop human-centric system of information security in the EEU.

Could Kyrgyzstan one day go down the path of the United Kingdom and choose to depart from the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)? Originally published in Voice of Alatoo Gazette and The Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/will-kyrgyzstan-leave-the-eurasian-economic-union/)

Avrasya coğrafyası, Soğuk Savaş sonrası dönemde önemli bir dönüşüm geçirmiş ve dağılan SSCB’nin Rus askeri ve ekonomik hedefleri doğrultusunda yeniden organize edilmesine ve aynı dönemde Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin uluslararası sistemdeki rolünü yeniden sorgulamasına tanıklık etmiştir. Bu süreçte iki ülkenin de uluslararası ilişkilere ve dünya ekonomisine entegrasyon sürecinde bölgeselleşmenin önemli bir değişken olarak ön plana çıktığını görmekteyiz. İki ülke de söz konusu dönemde bölgeselleşme adına gerek birbirleriyle gerekse bölge ülkeleriyle çok sayıda anlaşmalar imzalamış, işbirlikleri oluşturmuş, örgütlenmeler içine girmişlerdir. Bu anlamda, bu makale Avrasya coğrafyası’nı yakında ilgilendiren bölgeselleşme girişimleri olarak karşımıza çıkan TRACECA ve Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği’nin Rusya Federasyonu ve Türkiye Cumhuriyeti’nin yüzyıllardır sahip oldukları ilişkilere ya da rekabete ne ölçüde etki ettiğini incelemektedir.

Bu çalışmada ülkelerin neden ticaret yaptıklarını inceleyen ekonomik entegrasyon ve bölgeselleşme gibi konular temel teorik çerçeve olarak ele alınmıştır.  Türkiye’nin bulunduğu coğrafyada alternatif entegrasyonlara kayıtsız kalmaması adına alanında bir boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla hazırlanan bu çalışmada Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği’nin gelişim süreci en önemli kriter olarak incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın son bölümünde ise Türkiye’nin Avrasya Ekonomik Birliği’ne olası üyeliğinin değerlendirilmesine yer verilmiştir.