What’s wrong with Tokayev’s words about the Union State of Russia and Belarus
During the Eurasian Economic Forum in Moscow, a resonant statement was made on Russian-Belarusian relations.
True, it was not Vladimir Putin or Alexander Lukashenko who made it, but the President of Kazakhstan.
“We have a union state in the EAEU, that is, a unique precedent has been created in world political history, or a phenomenon, whatever you want - the creation of a state according to the formula “two countries - one state” with a single political, legal, military, economic, monetary, cultural , humanitarian space. With a single union government, with a single union parliament, I apologize, and even nuclear weapons are one for two now,” Tokayev.
His Russian and Belarusian colleagues responded to these words with a handshake, and Belarusian state propaganda presented them as a compliment. But Tokayev’s words are far from the real state of affairs, and he meant something completely different.
The leader of Kazakhstan continued his speech with the phrase about “another level of integration represented by his country, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Thus, he not only divided the EAEU into two parts according to the depth of integration, but also listed in which areas he was not going to create a single space with Russia.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the common spaces mentioned by Tokayev in the Union State either do not exist at all, or are far from being fully implemented.
It’s clear about the political and legal space. There are two countries with their own political institutions and legislation, and it is the Belarusian side that has always consistently opposed any supranational bodies, especially if they are not only deliberative, but also authorized to make binding decisions and monitor their implementation.
The Union Government and the Union Parliament exist only in the agreement on the creation of the Union State, which was signed back in 1999 and has not yet been implemented. The Supreme State Council and the Parliamentary Assembly are completely unsuited to this role. To some extent, a single economic space has been implemented, but there has been no talk of a single currency space for a long time.
The cultural and humanitarian space is also somewhat one-sided. If Russia does not put up any special barriers in this regard, then in Belarus there are problems with bringing literature from Russia and starting to sell it - everything is very strictly regulated.
As for Russian TV channels - that is, ONT, RTR-Belarus, NTV-Belarus and STV, on which the main part of the network is taken from First, Rossiya 1, NTV and REN-TV, respectively, but these are Belarusian channels, Belarusian legal entities and some of the content is also Belarusian.
In general, the list of foreign (there is no exception for Russian) TV channels allowed for broadcasting in Belarus is closed and even, for example, “Russia 24” is not on it.
Consequently, the broadcast of the absolute majority of Russian TV channels in Belarus is simply prohibited, and if any of the providers includes them in their package, they will have problems, including losing their license.
There is no common space in education either - the lack of mutual recognition of the Unified State Exam and Belarusian centralized testing creates serious problems for applicants. The only area where common space is now being actively built is the military one. But military integration is a forced measure, and not so long ago Belarus sharply protested against the strengthening of the Russian military presence on its territory.
Official propaganda, naturally, does not talk about all this. Moreover, when it comes to the fact that in fact no single spaces exist, the one who expressed such a seditious thing is hit with a barrage of criticism from a decent part of the “Yabatek”. Well, an attack on “sacred and inviolable” sovereignty. Perhaps I will take the opportunity to respond to such critics here.
Sovereignty cannot be absolute. None of the modern states possesses it fully. International law and the activities of international organizations and institutions in one way or another limit the sovereign rights of states. States share these rights for the sake of their own security, economic development and the well-being of their citizens. And it is precisely these interests that state leaders should be guided by in their policies.
An example of a relatively effective delegation of sovereign rights to the supranational level is the European Union. Few of the noisy defenders of Belarusian sovereignty will argue that the EU countries are not sovereign, but all those common spaces that Tokayev talks about have been built there for a long time and exist.
In the end, the sovereignty of Belarus itself is not a sacred cow. I remember that on March 17, 1991, 82,7 percent of the residents of Belarus who came to the polling stations voted to preserve the Soviet Union. Sovereignty fell out of the blue a few months later, and no referendums were held on this matter. Moreover, even three years later, Lukashenko came to power under the slogans of restoring a unified state and in the first years of his rule he consistently implemented this policy.
Of course, the bearer of sovereignty in Belarus is the people, and it is they who will decide the fate of this sovereignty. But the ideology of unionism is absolutely natural for the republic, historically justified and, at a minimum, should have the right to exist.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.