22-01-01 The signing in Astana on 10th October of the Treaty of formation of the Eurasian Economic Community comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, on one hand, inspires great hopes for a new round in the development of economic integration among the members of the alliance, and, on the other, excites apprehension that this initiative will not produce expected yields, as was the case with the other ones, too.
To estimate the really existing level of economic ties among the member-countries of the Community, let's consider the external trade links among them. Quite intensive trade links are noticeable between Russia and Belarus, between Russia and Kazakhstan, between Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. For all the member-states Russia is an important partner.
For Belarus Ukraine ranks second in supplying it with exports (7.8 %) after Russia. Ukraine leads among all the other partners from the CIS, that total less than 5 % of exports to Belarus. For Kazakhstan, within the CIS, its supplies to Ukraine (7.4 %) and to Uzbekistan (5.3 %) are of no small importance, while for Kyrgyzstan its exports to Uzbekistan (29,7 %) are significant in the framework of the CIS. For Russia partner number one in the CIS is Ukraine - 43.3 % of exports in 1999. For Tajikistan the leading partner is Uzbekistan (61.4 %).

An identical situation is observed in import operations, too. So, many important partners of the member-countries in their external economic activity within the CIS remain beyond the framework of the Community. Furthermore, the main external trade flows of the Community countries are related to those outside the CIS.
Outside the CIS, for Belarus important trade partners are Latvia and Lithuania, as well as the countries of Western Europe, with Germany leading among them. For Kazakhstan significant partners importing its products are Great Britain, China, Germany, whereas among a large number of the countries exporting to Kazakhstan Germany and the USA stand out only. For Kyrgyzstan itstrade with China, Germany and the USA is of importance. Outside the CIS Russia's counterparts are European countries, the USA and China. For Tajikistan its ties with Iran and some European countries (Great Britain, Switzerland) are important.
So, the Community not so much seals the ties that have already formed, as traces ways of intensifying the integration processes among the member-countries. As for Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, the integration processes with the larger countries offer them possibilities to resolve quite rapidly a whole number of problems in their economies, whereas for the rest of the member-countries of the Community the integration in itself is neither a necessary condition nor a sufficient one for resolving all their current and strategic economic problems.
Both Kazakhstan and Russia possess a powerful potential of raw materials, guaranteeing them a favourable balance in their trade with distant foreign countries ("distant" meaning here not former USSR constituent states, now being "near foreign countries"). Attracting foreign investment may ensure Kazakhstan's stable development, within the framework of an economic model based on raw materials, for many years to come, as well as Russia's -- for a certain period of time.

All the above-mentioned leads to a conclusion: none of the Community countries is critically dependent on the others, and each of them has an alternative of cooperating with other partners. There arises a question: what economic advantages can the new integration provide to the Community countries?
First of all, the new integration can provide the member-countries with stable trade ties within already established trade flows.
Secondly, such integration can give an impulse for industrial development of these countries, making use of the established division of labour and existing installed capacities.
Thirdly, such integration may be useful in joining transport and other infrastructures for common purposes.
Fourthly, such integration can become an important lead-in for a common further economic rise.
Fifthly and finally, a definitive disintegration will be costlier than the maintaining and adjusting of the ties.

In Belarus's exports the products of machine-building account for nearly 40 %, those of the chemical industry -- for about 15 %, light industrial goods -- for about 10 % and agricultural produce -- for some 10 %. The exports of Belarus to distant foreign countries are much less valuable, the leading ones being chemical and mineral products, as well as textiles.
Kazakhstan exports to outside the CIS mainly mineral products and metals (over 80 % in total), while supplying the CIS with mineral products (about 50 %), chemicals (about 15 %), agricultural produce (15-20 % of the exports) and some kinds of machine-building production (6-7 %).
The statistical data does not make it possible to determine Kyrgyzstan's structure of exports to outside the CIS, since more than 70 % of the volume of exports fall under the category of "articles not included in other chapters", attesting to the small amount and specific nature of exports. Kyrgyzstan exports to the CIS states substantial volumes of mineral products (about 1/3 of its exports), agricultural produce (more than 1/3) and some machine-building products (around 15 %).
In the world economy Russia is at present a supplier of fuel and a first-stage processor of raw materials, first of all, of metals. Fuel and metals total about 2/3 of Russia's exports to distant foreign countries. To the CIS, apart from fuel and metals, Russia supplies also products of machine-building (15-17 % of exports).
Tajikistan exports to outside the CIS non-ferrous metals (50-60 % of exports to distant foreign countries) and textiles (35-40 %), while to the CIS countries - mineral products (about 60 % of export to the CIS countries) and food (around 10 %).

So, it's obvious that the Community member-countries' exports to the CIS countries and to outside them vary widely in their structure. A rupture of links in the CIS is fraught with considerable failures in their reproduction processes and a loss of markets, as well as with a recession in many sectors of national industries. The existing trade flows still serve to a large extent the formerly established division of labour between the republics of the then USSR.
The industrial recession occurred in all the CIS countries has resulted in putting out of use considerable production facilities. For instance, the manufacturing of trucks in Belarus decreased from 38 to 13 thousand units from 1990 to 1999, while in Russia - from 616 to 175 thousand. The manufacturing of tractors in Belarus fell down from 95 to 27, in Kazakhstan -- from 34 to 6, and in Russia -- from 178 to 13.000 units.
Even though imported makes are superior to those that are produced in the CIS, still, the remaining manufacturing capacities now not in full use have great potential for increasing the production of cheap machines, adapted for local conditions. The same refers also to the production of mineral fertilizers, consumer goods and agricultural produce.
The potential dropped out of production process may be re-engaged relatively rapidly, with restoring production in a number of cases up to the norm satisfying habitual needs for home-manufactured articles, if there appears a certainty in the rules of economic cooperation within the Community. Besides, the integration of the markets of the Community countries may become an attractive factor for foreign investors.

Coming together has an important advantage in making it possible to use jointly the Community states' infrastructures. Kazakhstan's and Russia's geographical position places them into the centre of possible positive changes. The existing transport corridors passing through Kazakhstan, Russia and Belarus can be considerably enlarged to increase transit from the countries of Asia to Europe.
It's obvious that there is a need for such routes, but the competing contest of attracting international cargo traffic may beacute. The sooner the Community countries formulate their position concerning this issue, the greater their chances may be to direct the traffic through their territory.
It's noteworthy that even the planning of economic integration for the future may become an important factor of successful economic development in perspectives. An economic rise in the member-countries may increase the need of each of the countries in the resources of the others. The resources now being exported to outside the CIS may become demanded by the Community countries themselves.
The integration intentions of the countries that signed the treaty of formation of the Community have already brought about criticism in those CIS countries that did not join it. First of all, it refers to Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Yet, only the future can bring in a verdict of whose policy is more distant-sighted. In the event of the integration efforts being a success, they can be expanded by other counties' joining the Community also.

The present-day world tendencies are such that, apart from the processes of globalisation, regional economic integration processes among countries manifest themselves in most diverse parts of the world economy -- from Europe to South-East Asia. Remaining uninvolved in these processes would mean the CIS countries would stay on the periphery of the world economy.
Joining these or those associations one by one means assuming roles of junior partners, whose interests are taken into account to a minimum degree. The Community of the countries, powerfully and solidly integrated, may become a perspective, full and equal partner in the world economy of the 21st century.