[main page][map of the server][news of the server][forums][guestbook][press-service][hot issues]

Is the Common Economic Space destined for migrant workers and drug trafficking?

Alexander Shishlov's blog in the Live Journal

October 5, 2011

An exciting picture of a bight future painted with wide strokes the idea of a Common Economic Space (CES) and the Eurasian Union (see Vladimir Putins article in Izvestia - Russian text and English text) is virtually pained over the problems that can become crucial for Russia already in the short perspective.

What are the proposed guidelines for such integration with Russias participation? Obviously, Vladimir Putin intends to focus on the Asian vector, rather than the European. However, there are no grounds (at least for Russia) to count that [Russias] joining the Eurasian Union ... will allow every member state to integrate into Europe quicker and from stronger positions.

Vladimir Putin writes that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan will be prospective partners in the CES. As you know, Russia ranks 154th-163rd (out of 178 countries) at present as of the Corruption Perceptions Index. By the way, other CES member states, such as Belarus and Kazakhstan are ranking higher: 127th and 105th places respectively. Tajikistan ranks the same as Russia as of corruption perceptions index, and Kyrgyzstan is a rank lower occupying 164-167th place. Maybe it was worth while to choose some other bench marks?

Vladimir Putin also writes about the reduction of labour quotas and migration barriers as of unconditional benefits of the CES. Certainly, a number of business sectors would be interested in broadening their opportunities for attracting migrant workers. Indeed, the employment of migrant workers increases profits by means of saving on their wages, those of the unskilled labour in the first place. But whether the Russian society is interested in further uncontrolled growth in the number of migrants already generating serious threats of social, demographic and criminal nature?

By the way, the example of the European Union given by supporters of opening of national borders and national labour market is incorrect! The EU member states protect their domestic labour markets and open them gradually (in many EU countries there are still restrictions and quotas for employment of foreigners - citizens of the "new" EU member states). While only the states complying with the criteria of borders security, personal data protection and cooperation of their law enforcement agencies are allowed into the Schengen zone (one of the examples here is the delay with the entry Bulgaria and Romania into the Schengen zone). However, it is not surprising, as the governments of the UE member states are formed by citizens in elections. And the EU member states aiming at integration do not put "geopolitical" and private business interests above the interests of their citizens.

Finally, how will the Central Asian vector of integration affect spread of drug addiction in Russia which has been rampantly growing already? Central Asia is closely associated with drug trafficking, and can hardly boast of successful drug control measures.

I my view these problems are already enough to question the preparedness and the fruitfulness of the proposed "integration project". Maybe it is better to start from solving Russias present system-defined problems rather than replacing such work with new geopolitical ideas bringing to life the old empire complexes only in a new package?


See also:

The orginal publication


October 5, 2011

Rambler's Top100