Концепции Большой Евразии три года
The concept of Greater Eurasia or Greater Eurasian Partnership was set forward by S. Karaganov and T. <ordachev in 2015 - 2017 in a series of works, among them in the report of Valdai Club. Soon enough these words found their way into the official documents of the Russian Federation. V. Putin addressed the idea of Greater Eurasia in his speech at the "One Belt, One Road" forum in 2017.
The article reflects the author’s views on the future of Greater Eurasia. The articlewas prepared as part of a special project of the journal "Russia in Global Affairs" (globalaffairs.ru/projects) and the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy
While the number of non-tariff barriers in the world is rising, the EAEU is pursuing a decrease of NTBs – and alignment of technical standards with the EU. However, immediate benefits to European companies have not yet materialised.
The working assumption of this report is that once the political problems will have been resolved, the EU and the EAEU would set as an agreed objective the gradual movement towards a comprehensive Greater Eurasian cooperation and integration structure. Such a structure should be in line with the WTO’s rules and obligations, as well as with the approaches and best practices of other relevant international organizations.
Russia’s new policy toward the East turned five this year (Karaganov (ed.) 2014). Much has been achieved during this time, but much remains a work in progress and certain projects have not even taken off. It has proven very difficult to overcome the colossal inertia associated with the secondary nature of the Eastern focus of Russia’s foreign and foreign economic policy relative to other geographical areas. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the main issues surrounding multilateral cooperation in Wider Eurasia, both politically and economically. The main argument is that current trends in this focal region support its further movement toward the establishment of a genuine international community with trust and character of the relationships between its members of better quality than those with the third countries.
The article aims to identify and analyze factors behind the success of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) policy during its fifty-year history. Giving insights in the ASEAN approach to Southeast Asia’s international security challenges during the Cold War, the author then turns to ASEAN’s policy towards the establishment of Asia-Pacific multilateral dialogue platforms on security issues through the prism of identifying the external and internal prerequisites for its success. The article highlights the most important global and regional challenges that ASEAN is currently encountering, and its readiness to respond appropriately. Finally, the article focuses upon the degree of ASEAN’s relevance to its partners in terms of its potential contribution to the establishment of Greater Eurasia. In the author’s view, necessary preconditions for ASEAN’s successful policy are emerging there. The relevance of the undertaken analysis rests upon ASEAN’s eagerness to raise its сompetitiveness against the downward trends in relations between global actors and the upcoming projection of their contradictions on the Asia-Pacific and Southeast Asia. Among the key reasons behind ASEAN’s successes and failures during and after the Cold War, the author identifies readiness of ASEAN’s partners to regard it as a unified entity, give it the privilege to moderate multilateral cooperation, and readiness of ASEAN itself to assume this mission. These three conditions predetermined ASEAN’s international policy success, mainly manifested by the resolution of the Cambodian issue and establishment of multilateral dialogue platforms in the Asia-Pacific region. Realizing that only the multipolar world gives it chances for a decent future and encountering the rise of conflict in the current global political and economic affairs with its projection on Southeast Asia, the Association aims to develop cooperation in Greater Eurasia. This corresponds to the priorities of ASEAN’s Eurasian partners over the establishment of a continental security, cooperation and co-development system, with ASEAN as an important actor. The presence of the three basic prerequisites for ASEAN’s high international competitiveness and their synergy give ample reasons to expect new ASEAN “success stories”, this time in Greater Eurasia.
On 26-27 June 2017, IIASA hosted a high-level consultation meeting to further discuss the second phase of the IIASA Futures Initiative “Challenges and Opportunities of Economic Integration within a wider European and Eurasian Space”. The event concentrated around one full day on the high-level stakeholder segment and one day of an expert meeting. Stakeholders and organizations interested in participating and supporting the second phase of the project were presented a brief overview of the first phase (2014-2016), plans for the second phase (2018-2022), as well as the research on-going in 2017 as fast track studies. All the discussions are based on the “Lisbon to Vladivostok” and “Greater Eurasia” common economic space concepts.
Established in 2012, the comprehensive strategic partnership between Russia and Vietnam has yet to live up to its name in terms of both vision and action. Nevertheless, Russian–Vietnamese cooperation is embedded in Russia's emerging Eurasian priorities. Indeed, Russia’s prospective plans for its relations with ASEAN within the context of the Greater Eurasia Partnership strategy could serve to unlock the potential of the partnership between Russia and Vietnam, making it truly comprehensive and strategic.
In the emerging system of Greater Eurasia, the states will not be tied by alliance relations, as are the United States and its European satellites. Some of them may turn to different centers of power; however, on the whole, they will form a unity, brought together by core interests. Precisely, this kind of democratic unity of Greater Europe could not be established by the United States and its allies. Attempting to subordinate every state to their dictates, they have united allies from most of Eastern Europe but lost Russia and Central Asia and are increasingly antagonizing China and India, forcing them to draw closer to each other even in spite of significant contradictions. Only the future will tell who will succeed and who will not.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.