The Eurasian Economic Community, a model of multipolar development

By Orazio Maria Gnerre

(translation edited by Daniele Cocice)

With the electoral conrmation of the supremacy of the consents held by Putin, again for Russia it is going to open a political epoch of strong decisions, of incisive actions and the repetition of the own model in a global level. It is not a case if today Russia, with growing clarity, represents the cultural and purposeful centre of the decisive bend towards the multipolarism: its internal politics and its choices in the international purview, point out the radical will to show itself - as the history has always seen it - as like as the core of the big Eurasian space. Eurasia will be and is already doing. Aleksandr Gelevi Dugin The multipolarism, intended as a geopolitical phenomenon and historical necessity, and as a project of different stabilization of the global dispositions, provides, as the main stage of its organization and structural base, to the creation of the macro-regional poles (the so called "big spaces"). Infact, from the beginning of the new millennium, all the Central Asian zone proceeds towards the creation of a new stable order which, going over the issues of Perestrojka - due, apart from the deconstruction of the vertical executive and the state centralization, also and especially to the dissolution of cultural values and shared models of life - could give a denitive geopolitical reference of the countries that form it. The model which is delineated is the one of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEc), which involves Bielorussia, Kazakistan, Kirghizistan, Tagikistan, Uzbekistan and Russia; and between the observers: Armenia, Moldova and Ukraine (whose prime Minister Mykola

Azarov has already exposed the declarations in favor of the adhesion of a customs union). The EurAsEc performing the main function of geopolitical pin for a concrete community development and completely acquitting at the scope, with the Putin election assumes, now more than ever, also a cultural model, that is the result of a well designed project. It is not a mystery which the President has proposed himself to let go out Russia from the stagnation of the post-Soviet period, at which has been relegated for much time. One of the targets that in an average time are included on the agenda of Eurasian interests, as well as Russian, is to reintegrate the last territorial and strategic unity. But for doing it, it is necessary a shared cultural model and Russia is ready to offer it. Once the times of the autocratic centralization are elapsed, Moscow knows how to repeat the traditional paradigms that belong to the identity of the populace which refer to it, remaining in step with the times. Under this sense the Eurasian Community reects this strategy very well which directly projects the postSovietic's space as well as the rst player onto the geopolitical checkerboard of the next future. It accompanies the major territorial sovereignty of the countries that compose it to the project of a shared solid economical structure, respecting, under the limits of the community interests, the autonomies. Eurasia - as a territory and a Central Asian cultural identity - is in actual construction. A doctrine of the State for Russia is the base of the process of integration. The time has demonstrated that without the adoption of a Russian doctrine of the State the processes of Eurasian integration risk to assume a too much slow trend. Igor' Nikolaevic' Panarin But the complete transition to the unication of the Central Asian space outlines the next step to the reunication of the national Russian community, which could be still affected by the centrifuge forces, derived from the collapse of the empire. The direct genesis of this reality are the phenomena of independentism and ultranationalism, arose in the last decades as the diametrical opposite to the ecumenism that is a trait of the Soviet Union. Putin himself, in his intervention on the columns of the Nezavisimaja Gazeta, identies this as the main cause of a lack of national integrity. The creation of a Russian cultural model, that answers to the exigency of orienting a populace culturally, is a solution to him, that he has proposed to realize; a model that he denes opposed to the western multiculturalism, but it doesn't identify itself with the recognition of the nation on an ethnic base, better, with the same as a set of communities organically oriented around the load-bearing axis of the Russian culture, reproposing the archetype of ecumenical hinge proper to the Holy Rus'. It is clear which, once completed the rebuilding process of the national unity and of the reproposition of the Eurasian pole, Russia will be not only precursor of the times, perhaps

isolated phenomenon in all the continent. If it is true that from a side East Asia seems to move toward the regional integration, deprived of the community structure in which Western Europe is provided, it is also true that in the other side, the countries composing the European union, are not represented by a common political strategy, neither under an economic point of view or in the international one, nor for what regards the building of common cultural platform. Instead today Russia and the whole EurAsEc, represent the model for all strategic space which wants impose themselves on the map as a sovereign entity, oriented to its own interests, in partnerships with other big spaces. From economic unity coordinated to the respect of the national and ethnic reality, from orientation of the same one, toward a common scope to their insertion in a vision that we can't dene imperial: the perspectives of the Eurasian Community are far from being merely economic.