Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
For five years already Kazakhstan, Russia, and other post-Soviet states, most of which are united in the Common wealth of Independent States, have developed in the situation of a new political reality as equal agents of the world order. But the process of the formation of new independent states and open democratic social systems has just begun.
Without going into detailed critique of the CIS, let us note that all its activities and all the bilateral and multilateral efforts of its member states clearly show that the time has come for a more effective, deep, and diverse integration of the countries involved - the kind of integration that would achieve a stabilization of the situation in the economy and ensure its development on a qualitatively new basis. This applies above all to the economies of Kazakhstan and Russia, which might be come the engines of future integrative processes in the post-Soviet space. There are also quite a few issues pertaining to cooperation in the military-political, scientific-technological, humanitarian, and other spheres, which are awaiting their solution in the framework of a more effective integration model. The idea of the formation of the Eurasian union of states proposed by President Nazarbayev is precisely such a model; it organically combines both the existing realities and the objec tive needs of today and tomorrow.
Taking into account the differences between our coun tries in the levels of development of market economy, in the democratization of political processes, we propose to estab lish an additional integrative structure, the Eurasian Union, whose activities would be combined with those of the CIS. In doing so, the member states will take into account the diver sity of integration scenarios and differences in the rate, form, and direction of CIS states’ development. Thus there is an urgent need for the formation of a new economic order in the CIS.
It can thus be said that the draft project for the formation of the EAU is in keeping with the natural aspirations of the peoples living in the post-Soviet space, the idea of new integra tion. The project has not only acquired a great many supporters but has also proved that it is realistic, urgent, and vital.
Turning to the genesis of that integrative idea, it must be recalled that the Kazakhstan leader advocated the preserva tion of good relations and re-integration on a new basis of the former Soviet republics from the very first days of the new states acquiring independence. President Nazarbayev stressed repeatedly that he never raised the idea of independence to the status of a fetish but rather endeavored to preserve old ties and create new ones. The idea of the Eurasian Union originates in the midst of life, in the simple and universal human needs.
From that moment, the debate on the idea of the EAU assumed a new tone. It accelerated the political crystallization on the choice between further disintegration and re-integration on a new basis.
Many participants in the hearings stated that the EAU project offers a chance for entering the 21st century in a civilized manner, and that it reflects the objective logic of development of the post-Soviet space and the consciously realized objective need for the development of integration processes.
In this way the initiative of forming the Eurasian Union was gaining momentum. The number of its adherents increased at scholarly events, in government offices, and in the diplomatic circles. An understanding and sincere approval of the EAU project was expressed, among others.
The proposals contained in the EAU project - to intro duce unified visa procedures, to guarantee the freedom of movement, to make the ruble the settlement unit, to create a unified system of defense, parliament, legislation, and an executive com mittee as an interstate organ - were at first guardedly received by some public figures. However, the numbers of adherents of inte gration are growing. Clearly, their approaches to the problem differ, but their desire for integration remains strong.
On the question of the main principles of the EAU project, it must be stressed that the EAU is a union of equal, indepen dent states aimed at the realization of the national interests of each member state and of the available integration potential. The EAU is a form of integration of sovereign states with the aim of consolidating stability and security and socioeconomic modernization in the post-Soviet space. Economic interests determine the foundations of the rapprochement among the independent states. The political institutions of the EAU must adequately reflect these interests and facilitate economic inte gration.
The following principles and mechanism of formation of the Eurasian Union are proposed:
— National referendums or decisions of parliaments on the entry of states in the EAU;
— The signing by member states of a treaty on the setting up of the EAU on the basis of the principles of equality, noninterference in the affairs of each other, respect for sover eignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of state borders. The treaty must lay the legal and organizational foundations for deeper integration, with the formation of an economic, cur rency, and political union as its goal;
— No associated membership is permitted in the EAU;
— Decisions are carried in the EAU by the qualified ma jority of four-fifths (4/5) of the overall number of member countries.
Independent states join the EAU, if the following pre liminary conditions are satisfied:
— Mandatory compliance with endorsed inter-state agree ments;
— Mutual recognition of the existing political institutions of the EAU member countries;
— Recognition of territorial integrity and inviolability of the borders;
— Rejection of economic, political, and other forms of pressure in inter-state relations;
— Cessation of hostilities among member countries.
New members enter the EAU after an expert evaluation is passed on their readiness to enter the EAU and all EAU members vote unanimously on it. An organ formed on parity terms by the states, which expressed their readiness to become EAU members, proposes expert evaluations.
EAU states may take part in other integrative alliances, including the CIS, on the basis of associated or permanent membership or in the role of an observer.
Every member can leave the EAU, giving notice not later than six months before the decision is made.
It is suggested to form the following supranational bodies:
— The Council of EAU Heads of State and Heads of Government - the highest organ of EAU political leadership. Each member state chairs the EAU for a period of six months in rotation according to the Cyrillic alphabet.
— The highest consultative and advisory body is the EAU Parliament. The Parliament is formed by delegating deputies of the member states' parliaments on the basis of equal represen tation of each member country or through direct elections. Decisions of the EAU Parliament come into force after their ratification by the parliaments of the EAU states. Ratification must be effected within the period of one month.
— The main area of the activity of the EAU Parliament is coordination of the member countries' legislation to insure the development of a unified economic space, protection of the social rights and interests of individuals and of mutual respect for state sovereignty and civil rights within EAU states.
— The EAU Parliament creates a common legal basis to regulate the relations between the member countries' econom ic agents.
— The Council of EAU Foreign Ministers, to coordinate the member countries' foreign-policy activities.
— The Inter-state Executive Committee of the EAU - an executive and supervisory body functioning on a permanent basis. The EAU heads of state appoints the head of the Executive Committee -a representative of the member countries — for a period defined by the heads. The Executive Committee's bodies are formed to include representatives of all the countries.
The EAU as represented by its Executive Committee must receive observer status in a number of major international or ganizations, such as:
— The EAU Executive Committee's Information Bureau. The member countries must assume a special obligation or law not to permit unfriendly statements about the treaty's member states, which may damage relations between them.
— The Council for Education, Culture, and Science. The formation of coordinated policy on education, promotion of cultural and scientific cooperation and exchange, and joint activity on compiling textbooks and manuals.
— To achieve a deeper coordination and effectiveness of the activities of the EAU countries, it is deemed advisable to set up in each of them a State Committee (or Ministry) for EAU Affairs.
— Regular meetings and consultations on health servic es, education, labor, employment, culture, combating crime, and so on, by ministers of EAU countries.
— The Russian language is the official EAU language, functioning side by side with the languages of legislation in the member nations.
— Citizenship. Free movement of citizens within EAU borders requires coordination of external visa policy with re gard to third nations. On changing the country of residence within the EAU, an individual automatically receives the oth er country's membership.
— One of the cities at the juncture of Europe and Asia, such as Kazan or Samara, might be proposed as the capital of the EAU.
In order to create a unified economic space within the EAU framework, it is proposed to establish a number of supra national coordinating structures:
— A commission on the economy under the Council of EAU Heads of State to work out the main directions of eco nomic reform within the EAU framework; the commission takes into consideration the interests of the national states and offers its proposals for endorsement by the Council of the EAU Heads of State;
— A commission on the raw materials of the EAU export er countries to coordinate and endorse the prices and quotas for exported raw materials and fuel and energy resources, an appropriate inter-state agreement to be signed by the member countries; coordination of policy in the mining and sale of gold and other precious metals is to be envisaged;
— A fund for economic and technological cooperation formed with EAU members' contributions. The fund will fi nance promising science-intensive economic, scientific, and technological programs and render assistance in the solution of a wide range of problems, including legal, tax, financial, and ecological issues;
— A commission on inter-state financial-industrial groups and joint ventures; — an EAU international investment bank;
— An inter-state EAU court of arbitration on economic problems, to resolve conflicts on a legal basis and to impose sanctions;
— A commission on the introduction of a clearance mon etary unit (transfer ruble).
It is proposed to implement a number of measures to preserve the potential achieved in the previous decades and to enhance integration in the field of science, culture, and edu cation:
— The setting up of common EAU research centers to carry out fundamental research in contemporary knowledge;
— The setting up of an EAU fund for the development of scientific research to unite the scientific collectives from vari ous countries;
— The setting up of a committee on links in the field of culture, science, and education under the Council of the Heads of EAU Governments;
— Encouragement of the formation of non-governmental associations in the sphere of culture, education, and science;
— The setting up of a grants fund under the EAU Exec utive Committee.
It is proposed to conclude the following accords on de fense within the EAU framework:
— A treaty on joint actions to strengthen the national Armed Forces of the EAU member countries and to protect EAU external borders.
The EAU will establish a unified defense space to coordi nate defense activities:
— The setting up of an inter-state center on problems of nuclear disarmament attended by representatives of interna tional organizations.
— All EAU states except Russia maintain their nuclear-free status.
In the area of ecology, the following mechanisms must be formed in the nearest future, according to the EAU project:
— An ecological fund under the EAU Council of Heads of State, to realize ecological programs within the EAU frame work, to be financed by all member states;
— Coordination of actions with international organiza tions to reduce the extent of environmental pollution;
— Endorsement of short- and long-term programs for major problems of restoration of the environment and liquida tion of the consequences of ecological disasters (the Aral Sea, Chernobyl, the Semipalatinsk nuclear testing ground);
— The endorsement of an inter-state EAU agreement on storing nuclear waste.
The Eurasian Union of States is thus based on three principal provisions:
— Joint supranational coordinating organs for the man agement of the economy, defense, and foreign policy;
— A unified economic space;
— A common defense complex.
The supranational institutions include the highest organ of political leadership of the Union - the council of heads of state and heads of government; the highest consultative organ, the parliament; the councils of foreign and defense ministers;
And the interstate executive committee - a permanently func tioning executive and controlling body whose head is appointed by the heads of government for a term which they them selves define.
As for the unified economic space, it may be built, e.g., on such a basis as coordinating economic policies and manda tory programs; a common legislative basis regulating relations between economic agents; a supranational currency on the Eu ropean ECU model; coordination of direct links between en terprises; the setting up of joint and mixed industrial-financial groups, transport firms, trade houses, and exchanges. The de fense and foreign trade complexes may be just as effective. The EAU as represented by its executive committee must receive the status of an authorized representative in all the leading interstate organizations of the world.
The practical realization of the provisions of the EAU project in the bilateral Kazakhstan!-Russian relations is excel lent proof of the viability of this program.
On January 20, 1995, a package of extremely important integration documents was signed during the working meet ing between presidents Nazarbayev and Yeltsin. This package included a declaration on expanding and deepening Kazakh-stani-Russian cooperation and an agreement on the Customs Union, which was also signed by Belorussia. Both of these were discussed in detail before. This last agreement opens the way to the establishment of a unified customs space to be followed by a unified economic space, as envisioned in the EAU project.
With the setting up of the Customs Union, the econom ic cooperation of the three countries is built on the principles of free, non-discriminatory trade; a common market of com modities, services, capital, and labor; and close interaction in the production, investment, and financial spheres.
At present, the first stage in the formation of the Cus toms Union is largely completed. The work done by the three sides is generally recognized to be an important element of the realization of the foundations of the Economic Union and the formation of the common market of CIS countries.
The legal acts on tariff and non-tariff regulation of for eign trade have been unified. Kazakhstan and Russia have signed an agreement on unified control of customs services. An agreement has also been reached on the identity of trade procedures in both countries in relation to third nations, and unified procedures have been introduced on the customs sta tistics on foreign trade and customs registration of commod ities subject to excise. Customs controls on railroads and passenger air traffic between the two countries are lifted step by step.
A treaty has been signed between the Republic of Kaza khstan and the Russian Federation on joint efforts on the pro tection of outer borders, the term “outer borders” taken to mean the sectors of the border between our countries and the states that are not part of the CIS. The edict of the president of Kazakhstan dated Septem ber 19, 1995 On the Lifting of Customs Control on the Bor der between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Fed eration concludes the first stage in the formation of the Cus toms Union and orders the implementation of joint customs controls on the Kazakhstan and Russian sectors of the outer borders of the Customs Union.
At the second stage of the formation of Kazakhstani-Russian-Belorussian economic efforts to form a customs union, the most important areas of cooperation are a closer coordina tion of economic reforms; harmonization of civil and econom ic legislation; unification of currency, tax, and price regulation by the state with the aim of leveling out the economic and legal conditions for the activities of commodity producers within a unified customs space; working out coordinated positions of the members of the Customs Union in relations with third countries and international organizations. At the meeting of heads of CIS countries in November 1995, three more countries stated their desire to join the Cus toms Union: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Later, only Kyrgyzstan went through with the necessary procedures and entered the Customs Union.
Another example of collaboration in the field of integra tion is the agreement on the Baikonur space vehicle-launching site, which makes it possible to use this great scientific and technological facility in the interests of Russia and Kazakhstan, as well as documents on the issues of citizenship signed by the presidents of Kazakhstan and Russian.
Let us consider in somewhat greater detail the problems of citizenship, of which the solution on a bilateral basis was also outlined in the draft project of the EAU.
Issues of citizenship became particularly prominent at the time of the emergence and building of sovereign indepen dent states after the disintegration of the USSR, when tens of millions of former Soviet citizens overnight ended up outside their "historical homelands." This problem is as topical for Kazakhstan and Russia as for other CIS countries. More than that, it often figures as one of the most important issues of bilateral relations with Russia.
The more acute aspects of this problem were lifted as a result of the signing in January 1995 by the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan of a treaty on the legal status of citizens of both countries living on the territory of the other state and of an agreement on simplified procedures for acquiring citizen ship in moving from one country to another. Well-known specialists from the two countries worked fruitfully on these documents. Authoritative Kazakhstan! and Russian politicians and jurists believe that these are innovative agreements without parallel in the world, and they are a fairly rare example of regulating bilateral issues on a civilized basis. The importance of these agreements both for progressive development of our countries and for normal life of the citizens of Kazakhstan and Russia cannot be exaggerated.
These documents envisage the introduction of maximally simplified procedures for acquiring citizenship and for move ment without visas; they also offer possibilities for contract work and military service; assert the rights of possession, use, and disposal of property; create conditions for exchange of currency and transfer of sums of money by individuals and corporate entities of Kazakhstan and Russia; and many other provisions which reliably protect the rights and interests of the citizens of the two countries.
Yet another sphere in which combining the efforts of all the interested parties is needed is the legal status of the Caspian Sea.
The position of the Republic of Kazakhstan on this issue is based on the need for an early drafting and signing of a convention on the legal status of the Caspian Sea, of which a draft was worked out by the Kazakhstan foreign ministry and sent out to all the interested states as early as March 1994. Unfortunately, there has been no response to this initiative for quite a long time now, and the agreement on regional cooper ation on the Caspian Sea issue is still at a standstill.
At the same time preserving this unique object of nature is a task that the present generation must be worthy of.
The events of the recent years thus prove conclusively the need to proceed to a new level of integration, which will fully conform to the vital needs of the peoples. International experi ence shows that any interstate association goes through various states in its development, becoming enriched in the process with new forms of cooperation. The Eurasian Union should be seen as just one of such transitional forms capable of optimiz ing the solution of the problems facing the Commonwealth.
From the time of the publication of the draft EAU project, politicians and scholars have been paying close attention to it. Four major scientific and practical conferences were devoted to this subject, as were hundreds of publications in Kazakh stan, Russia, and other states. Politicians, scholars, and dip lomats continue to study the EAU project with great attention.
The current period in history is characterized by a radical breakdown of the old way of life. Society now faces difficult issues, and each person is subject to serious trials It is quite natural under these conditions that the peoples of Kazakh stan, Russia, and other countries with an interest in the uni fication of the Commonwealth will find it easier to overcome these difficulties together. A balanced attitude toward the past, a persistent realization of the present potential, and confidence in a more certain future - only these things will be able to give the peoples of our countries a natural feeling of spiritual har mony and a sense of full-blooded life.
History is offering us a chance to enter the 21st century in a civilized manner. One of the ways to achieve that, in my view, is the realization of the integration potential for the establishment of the Eurasian Union, which will reflect the objective logic of the development of the post-Soviet space and the will of the peoples of the former Soviet Union to achieve integration.
This is how President Nazarbayev, the author of the Eurasian project, characterized the development of this idea and his current vision of its future: "I still remain an adherent of integration of post-Soviet space. As I formulated my vision of integration I laid no claims to total realization of all the provisions of the project, being fully aware of all the political connotations of that period. Two considerations were my pri mary motivation. First, I wanted to generalize within a single whole the most realistic proposals for further integration, which simultaneously appeared in the countries of the post-Soviet space. Second, I wished to interrupt the indecently drawn-out pause in the activities of the CIS institutions.
In the last two years there was movement in the CIS countries on some issues that had been at a standstill, including
4. VITAL PROBLEMS OF THE PRESENT-DAY STATE OF KAZAKHSTANI-RUSSIAN RELATIONS
The Present State and Prospects for Economic Cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia.
The top priority area of Kazakhstan’s policy in foreign trade is the strengthening of economic cooperation with Russia and consistent integration of the economies of the CIS countries. This is determined by the traditionally strong economic links, a high level of mutual complementarily and interdependence of two economies of a once unified state, the size of the commodity market and identify of economic problems awaiting solution. “Analysis of the results of development of the economy of the former USSR and of experiences of economically advanced nations,” President Nazarbayev stressed, “shows that the transition to the market is objectively necessary and historically inevitable.”
The main feature of the present-day situation in Kazakhstan is the increasing impact of the mechanisms that have evolved in the years of reform and a weakening of the effect of non-market factors. In the initial stages, the underdeveloped state of such important instruments of the formation of the market as privatization, de-monopolization, absence of a competitive environment, were the main sources of inflation in the republic, a worsening state of the finances of enterprisers, an acute shortage of turnover capital, a fall in production due to falling demand and real earnings of the main mass of the population, as well as growing abuses in trade and banking structures.
The prevailing technological, economic and organizational standards made a significant impact on the potential of foreign trade relations. “The cohesion of the economic space of the former USSR was affected through centralized state planning implemented by command-administrative management. In the process, the country’s economy worked as a ‘single workshop’, and not all production and economic links here were rational from the market point of view. The transition to a market economy throughout the economic space of the former USSR required a profound restructuring, and this called for considerable resources and time,” Ex-Prime Minister A.M. Kazhegeldin stressed.
The policy of liberalization of foreign trade activity and of open economy did not result in 1993 in any growth of exports. It amounted to $1.5 billion, thus remaining at the 1992 level. Shifts in the geography of Kazakhstan export due to the re-orientation of foreign trade links to industrially developed nations resulted in the strengthening of raw materials exports. The share of machines, equipment and transport vehicles in the export dropped to 2 percent, and the share of fuel and energy complex and that of metallurgy rose to 80 percent. Rising domestic prices prevented partners from concluding long-term foreign trade deals, stimulating instead commodity exchanges. The share of barter and clearing deals in export operations made up more than 26 percent. More than 56 percent of imports were affected through exchange of commodities. Barter operations were mostly in the nature of structurally unbalanced exchanges. The republic suffer considerable losses due to inadequate knowledge of the market conditions and the desire to access foreign markets at any price.
A noticeable feature of Kazakhstan economy is the low level of the development of machine building, which is not up to present-day requirements, and this makes an adverse impact on other branches of the economy, as it results in the common shortage of metal-tooling products. This aggravates the shortage of spare parts and of products used in several adjacent branches of industry and adversely affects the standards of servicing.
Some of Kazakhstan most important tasks in 1994 were the closure of, and changing production lines at, non-viable enterprises and development of promising export-oriented ones, which also satisfy domestic demand. This called for a set of measures to identify enterprises in the state of depression, closing down unprofitable lines of production in energy-consuming industries and rehabilitation and reorganization of non-profitable production lines.
The basis of the development of Kazakhstan, just as of Russia and many other CIS countries, is export of natural resources. In 1994, the government introduced regulations for the licensing of natural resources, and a law was adopted on payments for utilization of natural resources. It was at that time that efforts were initiated to attract domestic and foreign investors to develop the fuel and energy complex. The development began of the Tengiz, Karachiganak, and some other oil yields at oil fields continued to be introduced. Open – cut coal mining was expanded at Ekibastuz, Maykubek, and Shubarkul coalfields, with the aim of reducing the mining of coal underground at low-profit and non-profitable mines of the Karaganda coalfields.
In the metallurgical industry, the development of production of ferrous metals and the raw-materials basis of such production continued, including the revamping of the Karaganda metallurgical plant with the aid of foreign investment; its re-orientation toward the iron ore pellets of the Sokolovsko – Saribai mining association; the development of production of stainless steel and rolled metal and the building of an electric metallurgical plant for the production of stainless steels in Aktobe; further development of ferrous alloys in Aktobe and Aksu and of its raw-materials basis –the Donskoy ore –dressing plant; the re-orientation of idle production lines of JSC Khimprom to the production of ferromanganese. Organizational measures were taken in 1994 to develop production of fireproof materials.
At the same time there was a fall in the production of ferrous metallurgy due to an aggravation of the raw materials and fuel shortage and a parlous state of equipment at enterprises of this industry. The decline in industrial production was to a considerable extent due to non-solvency of enterprises in view of their insufficient financial resources, non-payment by the buyers for products delivered, and weak financial discipline.
The decline in non-ferrous metallurgy continued, as production of copper, titanium, and manganese fell. To check the decline in this branch of industry, the production lines at the Chilisai ore-dressing plant switched to a different product; the Zyryanovsky lead plant was rebuilt, and its commissioning was brought forward; the raw – materials basis for the titanium industry was created, as was the Syrymbet tin field, the tin being produced at the Tselinny chemical plant. The functioning gold mines and ore-dressing plants were revamped, and work was accelerated to develop major gold fields at Vasilkov, Bakyrchik, and Akbakai.
In 1994, the share of machine-building industry and machine tooling in the overall industrial production continued to fall, amounting to six percent. Low investment activity, non- competitiveness of the Kazakhstan machine-building industry, limited financial consumer capacity predetermined an almost twofold reduction volumes in most types of machine –building branches even compared to the crisis-ridden year of 1993.
The situation was worst in the chemical and petrochemical industries, whose production capacities far exceeded the republic’s domestic needs. Considerable share of the product was exported to other CIS countries and the “far abroad”, but the enterprises suffered from shortage of raw materials, even shortages of oil, which is produced in Kazakhstan itself. JSC Polipropilen, AKPO, Khimvolokno production association used imported raw materials only. In 1994, the decline in most types of petrochemical products reached 55-60 percent. Oil refining dropped by 20.3percent.
The timber, woodworking, and papermaking industries suffered from shortage of raw materials. Between the beginning of 1993 and the end of 1994, the production of timber fell by 21 percent, and this had a negative effect on the state of production at sawmills and woodworking factories. The production of saw-timber, chipboard, and cardboard fell by 31.9, 59.3, and 47.5 percent respectively, but the production of paper increased threefold.
In 1993 and 1994, decline in production also continued in the construction materials industry. Production of cement declined to the level of 1973, while production of pre cast concrete products dropped to the level of 1974. There was a considerable drop in production at enterprises producing asbestos cement pipes and coupling (by 34.2percent), linoleum (by 40.3 percent), cement (by 61.6 percent), asbestos (by 71.2 percent), bricks (by 78.8 percent). Production of sanitary wares dropped by 25 percent.
During the last five years, GDP volumes continued to fall, declining roughly twofold; the greatest decline (by 25.4 percent) was observed in 1994, and in 1995 it was almost nine percent.
However, during the time of the reform considerable changes took place in the structure of GDP: The share of services grew sharply – from 32 percent in 1992 to 47 percent in 1995; the share of commodity production declined by 12 percent. The volume and share of services mostly grew in the trade, .•.
•3 • ti '
Competitiveness of the Kazakhstan machine-building indus try, limited financial consumer capacity predetermined an al most twofold reduction in production volumes in most types of machine-building branches even compared to the crisis-ridden year of 1993.
The situation was worst in the chemical and petrochemi cal industries, whose production capacities far exceeded the republic's domestic needs. A considerable share of the product was exported to other CIS countries and the "far abroad," but the enterprises suffered from shortages of raw materials, even shortages of oil, which is produced in Kazakhstan itself. JSC Polipropilen, AKPO, Khimvolokno production association in Kustanai, Shymkentshina production association used imported raw materials only. In 1994, the decline in most types of pet rochemical products reached 55-60 percent. Oil refining dropped by 20.3 percent.
The timber, woodworking, and papermaking industries suffered from shortages of raw materials. Between the begin ning of 1993 and the end of 1994, the production of timber fell by 21 percent, and this had a negative effect on the state of production at sawmills and woodworking factories. The pro duction of saw-timber, chipboard, and cardboard fell by 31.9, 59.3, and 47.5 percent respectively, but the production of pa per increased threefold.
In 1993 and 1994, decline in production also continued in the construction materials industry. Production of cement declined to the level of 1973, while production of pre cast con crete products dropped to the level of 1974. There was a consid erable drop in production at enterprises producing asbestos cement pipes and couplings (by 34.2 percent), linoleum (by 40.3 percent), cement (by 61.6 percent), asbestos (by 71.2 per cent), bricks (by 78.8 percent). Production of sanitary wares dropped by 25 percent.
During .the last five years, GDP volumes continued to fall, declining roughly twofold; the greatest decline (by 25.4 percent) was observed in 1994, and in 1995 it was almost nine percent.
However, during the time of the reform considerable changes took place in the structure of GDP: The share of services grew sharply - from 32 percent in 1992 to 47 percent in 1995; the share of commodity production declined by 12 percent. The volume and share of services mostly grew in the trade] in banking and finances, insurance, and realty, while the share of everyday services fell. In other words, the main trend in the changes of macro-economic proportions was a move towards parameters characteristic of countries with well-devel oped market economies. The share of consumption of end products rose to 69 percent of utilized GDP as contrasted with 58 percent in 1993. Investment in 1995 amounted to some 30 percent of GDP.
Beginning in the second half of 1994, certain positive changes began to occur: a decline in the rate of inflation, a growth in accumulation of capital, a stabilization in the ex change rate of the national currency, a decline in the banks' interests rates, and a relative growth in industrial production.
The rate of inflation steadily declined from 4.9 in June 1994 to 3.2 percent in April 1995. The decline in production, which sharply Increased in November 1993 through March 1994, practically, ceased in some branches in 1994. As a result, industry as a whole grew by 0.3 percent in September, by 1.1 percent in December, and by 1.2 percent in April. As distinct from the previous years, a certain stabilization of production, which began in June 1994, was accompanied by a certain slow ing down rather than acceleration of inflation.
The rate of price growth in the production and con sumption sectors of the economy in 1995 slowed down. The highest inflation occurred in January (an increase of 108.9 per cent compared to the previous month), and the lowest, in August (102.1 percent). The annual index of consumer prices throughout the republic was estimated at 160 percent (the monthly index, 104.3 percent, whereas the annual index of inflation of consumer prices in 1994 amounted to 1256 per cent, which corresponds to a monthly inflation rate of 123.4 percent. (The annual index of production prices was at the level of 141.2 percent).
The positive dynamics in the consumer and wholesale prices was achieved above all by harsh financial and credit policies and the government's measures aimed at stage by stage liberalization of prices and tariffs for commodities and ser vices, which resulted hi a sharp reduction in the range of regu lated prices. At the beginning of 1996, only the prices of electric power, heating, gas, passenger and freight railway traffic were regulated, and at the local level, regulation involved prices" and tariffs of communal services and the services of urban pas senger transport.
In 1995, the monetary and credit policies were charac terized by changes in the monetary and credit instruments of the National Bank, its operations at the inter bank credit, cur rency, and stock markets, and the development of the market of state securities. Whereas hi 1994 and January 1995 the prin cipal instruments were centralized and auction credits, in 1995 the emphasis shifted from state-apportioned credits to the de velopment of securities markets and auction credits.
The primary market of state treasury bonds actively began to develop. The volume of trading on this market is steadily growing, with demand exceeding supply. Toward the end of 1995, 4.3 billion tenge's worth of treasury bonds had been issued. In September 1995, pawnshop credits were introduced, with state treasury bonds as collateral.
The National Bank's average refinancing rate went from 210 percent in January to 52.5 percent in December 1995. This reduction was made possible by a considerable alleviation'' of the inflation situation.
The weighted average percentage rate for auction credits amounted in 1994 to 292.61 percent; during ten months of 1995, it went down to 103.29 percent, and in October 1995 it stabilized at the 52.56 percent level.
In 1995, the reduction in production output amounted to eight percent. Production output fell at 44 percent of enterprises. Of the 220 most important kinds of industrial products, produc tion of 48 kinds increased and that of 167, decreased. It should be noted at the same time that hi 1995 decline in production was overcome, and there was an increase in production compared to the previous year in electric power production, metallurgy, and in the chemical and petrochemical industries.
In 1995, the policy of liberalization of foreign trade ac tivity continued; distribution of export quotas was completely eliminated, and the list of licensed export products was con siderably reduced. Kazakhstan traded with 124 states of near and far abroad.
In the framework of official aid for development, Kazakhstan received a number of credits to the tune of $1.3 billion from international financial organizations and individual donor countries.
One of the main types of foreign resources for the repub lic was direct investment, in particular the setting up of joint ventures and foreign enterprises. The rate of establishment of joint ventures in Kazakhstan is fairly high. Thus, at the end: of 1990 there were just 15 of them, while at the end of 1995 more than 2000. JVs operated in the republic, of which 500 operated on foreign capital only. Most of these were set up in the; mining industries.
From the beginning of 1995, steadily increasing numbers of enterprises were turned over for administration. Toward the end of December 1995, external administration was introduced at some 20 major industrial enterprises in various sectors. The necessary legislative basis was created for the involvement of foreign capital in Kazakhstan.
Thus the implementation of economic policies in 1992-1995 in Kazakhstan resulted in the liberalization and openness of the economy and the expansion of private enterprise.
There were significant shifts in the market infrastructure. Trade and the banking sector developed rapidly, and other financial institutions were born - in other words, there was, progress in those spheres of the economy that had previously; been underdeveloped but that were vital for the functioning of the market economy.
The liberalization of foreign and domestic trade resulted in a slight reduction of export in 1994 and early 1995 compared to the decline in the volume of GDP. The export of commodi ties, mostly to CIS countries, amounted to $13 billion in 1994 and $4.97 billion in 1995. The greatest share of exports went to the Russian Federation — 47 percent, or $1.4 billion's worth in 1994; in 1995, the exports amounted to $2.8 billion, includ ing $2.1 billion to Russia.
Russia's share in Kazakhstan's imports from CIS coun tries at the beginning of 1995 was the largest - 70 percent; Turkmenistan's, 10 percent; and Uzbekistan's, 9 percent. Of considerable significance is the fact that more than 50 enter prises securing Russia's defense interests work on Kazakhstani territory. All principal roads of Russia leading east and south east, Yuzhsib and Transsib railways included, pass through Kazakhstan. Major Russian high voltage power lines, com munications lines, and pipelines are also connected with Kazakhstan.
As before, Kazakhstan's exports to Russia are raw materi als, oil and petrochemical products, as well as products of ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy.
Deliveries of ferrous metals (35.2 percent), copper and items made of copper (15.1 percent) make up a considerable share of exports. Russian enterprises are also the main consum ers of Kazakhstan oil and petroleum products, which amount to 40 percent of the exports of mineral products.
In 1994, Kazakhstan's imports of industrial and techni cal goods and of consumer goods from the far and near abroad amounted to $3.4 billion; in 1995, the figure was $3.7 billion. The largest share of imports fell on Russia - $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion respectively. Imports from Russia covered 30 per cent of the demand of households and the republic's enter prises for raw materials, 70 percent of the demand for indus trial manufactured products (including 90 percent of the de mand, for complex household appliances), and more than 70 percent of the * demand for products of the chemical and tim ber industries. Kazakhstan's imports from Russia are domi nated by electric; machines, equipment, mechanisms, and, transport vehicles. Their share in over imports amounts to 70-percent. There are also imports of considerable amounts of raw materials for the foodstuffs industry and the foodstuffs themselves (10.2 percent), mineral products and metals (10.1 percent), and other consumer goods (7.8 percent). More than half of imported mineral products and non-ferrous metals come from Russia.
The share of deliveries against convertible currency in the export-import operations between Kazakhstan and Russia amounted to 6.5 percent of the total volume of exports; the share of baiter operations was 32.6 percent; and the share of clearing and similar operations, 60.9 percent. In this process, baiter deals did not as a rule result in a balanced and equivalent exchange. Analyses of export-import barter deals in 1993-1995 shows that total exports were twice as large as imports of com modities. As a result of these operations, considerable funds of Kazakhstan Commodity producers annually stay in Russia.
On the whole, the results of economic development show that the republic was close to achieving macroeconomic stabilization, that the impact of market incentives increased, and that a new system of reference points and motivations devel oped. The main problems of the critical period of development were partially solved, but new ones emerged.
Harsh monetary and credit policies, liberalization of the domestic and foreign markets promoted the formation in the republic of market mechanisms for the regulations of the economy and for ensuring equal possibilities and guarantees for all the agents of economic activity. In this situation the possibility appeared of creating a common economic space cov ering Kazakhstan and Russia, in which free circulation of com modities, capital, and labor would be made possible.
The development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations be tween 1991 and 1995 showed that the two states adopted a great many documents covering a wide range of economic issues.
The implementation of these agreements created favor able conditions for establishing economic links between eco nomic agents and for the development of a common market that would be advantageous for the economic interests of both Kazakhstan and Russia.
The relations between the two countries in the economic sphere developed, against the background of improving multi lateral cooperation: within the CIS framework. The legal basis for this, process was the treaty on the jetting-up of the CIS Economic Union signed on September 24, 1993.' This docu ment proclaimed as the main goal a voluntary, stage-by-stage re-creation, on new, market principles of unified economic space, or common market, with free circulation of commodi ties, services, capital, and labor. On the basis of the treaty, a solid legal groundwork was created. On October 21, 1994, an interstate economic committee was set up at a-session of the council of CIS heads of state, and a memorandum on the main directions of integration development of the Commonwealth of Independent States was signed. These documents envisaged a stage-by-stage formation of a customs union and the possibil ity of movement of different countries at different speeds to ward a unified economic space within the Economic Union.
A characteristic feature of the situation in the CIS is uni versal recognition of the need for stepping up integration pro cesses in the economic interaction of CIS countries. It should be noted that, among CIS countries, economic relations were most intense between Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Byelorussia, with 80 percent of commodity circulation within the CIS taking place within these countries.
One of the basic documents on economic integration was an agreement on a customs union between the Russian Federa tion, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Republic of Belarus.1 Let us recall that on January 20, 1995 the presidents of Kazakhstan and Russia, in their joint declaration on the ex pansion and deepening of Kazakhstani-Russian cooperation, instructed their governments to sign an agreement on the cus toms union. The heads of govern ments of Kazakhstan, Russia, and Belarus signed this document.
The formation of the customs union was preceded by extensive preparatory work aimed at harmonizing the legislative systems of the two countries. A number of governmental and interdepartmental agreements, protocols, and joint normative acts were signed, including those on free trade, on a unified procedure for regulating foreign trade, on the re-export of commodities, on the introduction of a unified procedure for non-tariff regulation of trade with a coordinated nomenclature and volumes of licensed and quoted commodities, on the establishment of a free trade zone, on the unification and sim plification of customs procedures, on collaboration between customs services, on combating illegal drugs trafficking, on the terms of maintenance of military facilities on the territories of the two sides, and on joint security measures for the protec tion of the external borders of the Customs Union. These agree ments covered a sufficiently wide range of issues, and they formed the basis for further action.
The agreement on the setting up of the Customs Union was based on the principles of unified customs territory of the member states of the Customs Union and the existence of a uniform mechanism of economic regulation. It is proposed to form the Customs Union in two stages. At the first stage, tariffs and quantitative restrictions on mutual trade are lifted that are envisaged in the agreement on a unified procedure for regulat ing foreign trade activity of April 12, 1994; fully identical sys tems for regulating foreign economic links, identical trade regu lations, common customs tariffs and non-tariff measures for regulating relations with third countries are introduced. At this stage, work is envisaged on the unification of legislation on foreign trade, customs, currency, finances, tax, and of other laws bearing on foreign trade activities.
Agreements on the Customs Union envisage the possibil ity of introduction of coordinated time restrictions on mutual trade in case of shortages of commodities on the domestic market, acute payment deficit, and other circumstances.
The countries assumed the obligation to establish unified control over their customs organs and organize joint supervi sion of the movement of commodities and transport vehicles on the borders. The procedures for such supervision are regu lated by agreements between the customs organs of the states involved.
The agreement on the Customs Union is open to all other CIS member states that will recognize the provisions of the agreement and express a readiness to fulfill them in their entirety.
The joint statement was in effect an agreement on coor dinated moves for further realization of economic reform and creation of a uniform mechanism for regulating the economies based on market principles. It set the task of unification of legislation on foreign trade, customs, currency, finances, prices, taxes, and other economic laws ensuring free development of production links and of enterprise, as well as equal possibilities and guarantees for economic agents of the three states.
In that document, the heads of the governments of the three states noted the considerable progress in the creation of possibilities for a real formation of a customs union on the basis of agreements and protocols signed. The sides agreed that tariff and quantitative restrictions on mutual trade will be lifted through the setting up of fully identical systems of regulation of external economic links, unconditional guarantees for effective joint pro tection of the external borders of the member states of the Cus toms Union, and establishment of identical trade procedures, common customs tariffs, and measures for non-tariff regulation with respect to third countries. It was stressed that the develop ment of foreign economic links will be promoted by the stage-by-stage formation of a clearing union to ensure continuous clear ing on the basis of mutual convertibility of national currencies and formation of an effective payment system.
An agreement was reached to render state support to the development of direct links and cooperation between enter prises, to the establishment of financial-industrial groups, for mation of favorable conditions for mutual access and protec tion of investment, and acquiring real estate,
Measures were outlined for the formation of a common scientific/technological space for a more rational utilization of the available intellectual, scientific, and technical potential.
State delegations headed by deputy heads of governments take part in regular monthly sittings of the commission. These sessions consider the implementation of agreements, analyze the state of affairs in the practical formation of the customs union, and coordinate joint measures.
At the same time each side set up its own national sec tions of the intergovernmental commission on the customs union. Five groups were set up in the framework of each national commission to cover the following areas:
1. Creation of the Customs Union. Solving tasks in the realization of a mechanism for the establishment, of a. free trade zone; working out normative acts for the unification of cur rency, financial, and general legislation; preparing proposals for the introduction of unified procedures for foreign trade regulation and an identical customs tariff, for coordinating a unified procedure of customs control, for working out an agree ment on unified management of customs services, and so on.
2. Harmonization of legislative systems to coordinate the legal basis of agreements with agreements already achieved and to eliminate discrepancies in the economic legislative systems of the states, and to solve other issues.
3. Realization of the provisions of treaties; of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance; preparation of draft agreements and documents on freedom of movement, citizens' legal status, conversion, mutual debts of enterprises, and on mili tary cooperation.
4. The development of production and enterprise. Taking coordinated measures for economic reforms, preparing agree ments on scientific and technological cooperation, investment activity, state support of enterprises participating in joint financial-industrial groups.
5. In the area of finances and payment relations: the orga nization of work on providing regular quotations for the na tional currencies, on the setting up of a network of currency exchange points, on concluding an inter bank agreement on mutual access to domestic markets of authorized banks, on working out a common mechanism for currency regulation and control, on unification of taxes and their size, on the method ology of price formation, and so on.
Practically all issues have been resolved in. the framework of the three countries on non-tariff regulation of foreign trade activity; work on the unification of normative legal acts in this area has been completed. The partners came to an agreement on the procedure for registering contracts on exports of strate gically important commodities.
Work is being completed on the establishment of unified operation modes in trading with countries and on re export of commodities.
Apart from bilateral agreements, the Customs: Union also relies on a number of multilateral agreements and conventions adopted by the CIS Countries, including The Foundations of Customs Legislation, A Unified Methodology for the Customs Statistics on Foreign Trade, On the Movement of CIS Coun tries' Citizens Through Their Territories Without Visas, On Guarantees for the Rights of Individuals Belonging to Na tional Minorities, On the Establishment of a Unified System of Air Defense of CIS Member States, and On Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family, and Criminal Cases.
Thus the main principle on which the Customs Union is founded is the existence of a unified customs territory and a uniform mechanism for regulating the economy, based on unified legislation.
Toward the end of 1995, significant changes occurred in the trade and economic relations of Kazakhstan and Russia. The agreement was revised on trade and economic relations; the emphasis was made on the development of direct links between producers, which resulted in a considerable increase in the exchange of products. In 1995, trade between Kazakhstan and Russia amounted to $319 billion, or 54 percent of the total volume of the republic’s trades, an increase of 55.4 percent on the same period in the previous year. Exports amounted to $2.1 billion, which made up 42 percent of the total volume of Kazakhstan export; exceeding the 1994 figures by a factor of 1.5. Imports reached the $1.8 billion mark, or 49 percent of all imports, exceeding the 1994 imports by 66 percent.
Work on the formation of the Customs Union can thus be seen as one of the main achievements in the field of eco nomic integration of Kazakhstan and Russia. A breakthrough was achieved in the establishment of a common market. The three countries established a unified customs zone and elimi nated controls at their internal borders. Close businesslike links were established between the customs services.
The Customs Union brings tangible results to each of its members. The overall volume of trade between the CIS coun tries outside the Customs Union continued to fall, while the lifting of custom barriers enabled Kazakhstan, Russia, and Byelorussia to considerably increase commodity circulation.
In October 1995, the heads of the governments of Rus sia, Kazakhstan, and Byelorussia issued a joint appeal to the governments of CIS member states to join the triple union. Running somewhat ahead of the story, let us note that in March 1996 Kyrgyzstan joined the customs union.
At the same time progress in the development of bilateral economic relations is checked by a number of problems, nota bly by chronic nonpayment of mutual debts. Kazakhstan's debt for electric power received from Russia grew almost threefold in 1995. In turn, Russia owed a large sum to Kazakhstan for the coal from Ekibastuz.
Serious possibilities are sometimes missed for successful cooperation between enterprises in the fuel and energy complex, in metallurgy, and other branches of the economy of Kazakhstan and Russia. Close production links became established between the Orskneftegazsintez JSC and the Aktyubinskneft JSC, which form the Orenburg JSC. Early in 1995, the management of these associations conducted mutual consultations and decided that a joint oil company must be set up.
In Russia, the formation of financial-industrial groups went on at an increasing pace. The results of their work in 1995 show that integration of industrial and banking capital had a positive impact on economic development.
Further effective economic cooperation between Kazaklistan and Russia calls for systematic analysis and work on a mechanism of control over the implementation of bilat eral Kazaklistani-Russian treaties and agreements.
The following tasks should in our view be singled out in the field of economic cooperation between Kazaklistan and Russia that are of mutual interest and call for coordinated de cisions of the governments:
b) Diversification of exports;
c) Additional currency and investment resources for re structuring the economy;
d) Support for active trading policy on CIS countries' potential markets;
e) Moderate protectionism in relation to newly created import-replacing production lines.
Under these conditions the two countries will have to solve new problems in economic integration in the framework of the Customs Union and in the system of world economic links, in searching for additional financial resources necessary for the implementation of economic restructuring and their balanced growth, in defending the interests of the domestic market from unfavorable conditions in the world economy and from, foreign competition at the stage of stabilization of their economies.
In choosing a promising export and import specializa tion, Kazakhstan and Russia should give preference to com modities that are least susceptible to market fluctuations. To achieve this, it is necessary to conduct regular analysis and forecasting of the situation on the markets for the principal import and export commodities, favoring long-term agreements on their purchase/selling over one-off deals.
In the medium-term perspective, transition should be effected from restrictive policies to encouragement, consistently facilitating the formation of a progressive, structure of exports and creating a corresponding system of its state sup port.
Analysis of export/import operations of foreign trade com panies and enterprises shows that, in the absence of combined controls over exports and currency and of an obligatory norm of currency sales, 1 all export earnings reach the republic. According to Kazakhstan specialists calculations, some $0.6-0.8 billion end up on the accounts of Kazakhstan enterprises in the countries of near and far abroad. According to Russian experts, corresponding figures for Russia range from $5 to $17 billion. In this connection, one of the main tasks of manage ment of foreign trade activities of the two states is the setting up of systems of customs control over export and import con tracts and banking control over currency earnings, investments, and other commodities.
In future, it is advisable to step up coordination of in formation systems of control over repatriation of currency earn ings by the customs bodies and the banking system, which will permit a concentration of efforts on securing maximum cur rency earnings from exports.
It is advisable to restrict the decisive role of the state in foreign economic activity to internationally recognized stan dards, to be implemented in accordance with the rules and norms of the World Trade Organization.
It is also advisable, in a situation of considerable reduc tion of the share of state property, to export and import com modities in state interests only within the framework of inter governmental agreements, which must not include any privi leges or tax or duty exemptions. For this purpose, the possibil ity is created for domestic purchases on a competitive basis.
The state policy of selective protection in relation to promising exporting industries and conquering foreign mar kets gradually becomes one of the main priorities of economic policy as a whole; it is called, upon to prepare the implementation of a really proactive export policy, without which it is impossible to ensure either the payment of foreign debts, or internal financial stabilization, or investment ac tivity and employment.
Another important task is the achievement of favorable trading procedures-in relations with foreign countries and their trade and economic groups, organizations, and unions, as well as the lifting of existing discriminatory restrictions, and pre vention of new ones, with regard to the member states of the customs union.
To solve this task, plans are made to work consistently and purposefully toward the entry of Kazakhstan and Russia in the World Trade Organization, to harmonize our countries' legisla tive systems with international norms and principles, and to implement the agreement on partnership and cooperation with the European Union and agreements with other countries.
Formation of new economic relations with states of the near abroad will require a longer that previously believed pe riod of time and a gradual and coordinated advance toward generally accepted international norms of organization.
The future economic policy of Kazakhstan in relation to Russia and the countries of the near abroad must have the following goals development and rationalization of cooperative economic links in terms of minimizing expenditure and increasing competitiveness;
— The utilization of transit communications serving the export/import commodity flows from Customs Union mem bers to third countries;
— Cooperation and coordination of CIS countries' ef forts in the restructuring of production and in optimizing the distribution of production forces. An active economic policy in relation to countries of the near abroad is seen as one of the levers for the rehabilitation of the economy and creating conditions for its upward swing.
Particularly important in the economic relations of Kazakhstan and Russia is the creation of conditions for estab lishing horizontal links between agents operating on the mar ket, the use of new forms of economic cooperation, such as joint ventures, transnational production, commercial, and fi nancial structures, and of financial-industrial groups.
Thus the entire course of economic cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia and its present state show that there is no alternative to close, mutually advantageous, and construc tive relations between the two countries. As the two largest countries of post-Soviet space possessing great natural resources, production potential, and a desire for cooperation, Kazakhstan and Russia are quite capable of solving the tasks they face in reforming the economy and achieving the level of economi cally developed countries.
Present-day economic science and practice show that economic integration is the absolute imperative of the future.
CONCLUSION
The analysis, in terms of history and political science, of the birth and development of new, sovereign states at the end of the 20th century, considered here in dynamic interaction with the development of other states, leads us to a number of significant conclusions.
The formation of interstate relations between the Repub lic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation is an example of synthesis of mutual relations between two equal agents of in ternational law. Considering the unique situation and the en tire context of ongoing processes, these relations may be seen as a considerable contribution to the world political and jurid ical experience.
An in-depth analysis of the causes of the disintegration of the USSR was not the goal of the present study; besides, as President Nazarbayev pointed out, it is difficult and even prac tically impossible to understand everything that is connected with this event, which had such stupendous consequences. However, it is possible to outline the objective and subjective characteristics of this historical event.
Among the objective factors, economic causes must above all be pointed out. The rigidly conservative plan-and-command system of the country's economy, carrying the unbearable bur den of the military-industrial complex and serious structural unbalance, could not meet the real challenges of the present level of development of the world economy - the postindustrial resource- and energy-saving revamping of the economy and a breakthrough in information technology. The inevitable nationality problems that accumulated in the ethnically diverse Soviet Union called for considerable atten tion and timely response to the challenges in this area. Perestroika suddenly made these challenges topical almost overnight, but it couldn't provide an adequate solution of the problems within the framework of a unified state structure. The Novo-Ogarevo project proved Utopian in view of its goal of achieving a consensus among nearly forty of its participants.
It is no secret that Russia played an integrative role, being a kind of backbone in the genesis and architecture of the uni tary state. Considering its actual political and economic weight as the most powerful republic of the Union, it is easy to under stand the centrifugal effect of the separation of the Russian Communist Party from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the subsequent declaration of the sovereignty and independence of the Russian Federation.
Among other factors, the subjective element also played a role in the disintegration of the USSR. This element could be analyzed in terms of persons and situations, but this is not of the greatest importance for the purposes of the present study.
The dialectical development of Kazakhstani-Russian re lations in the process of the sovereignty of Kazakhstan showed the correctness of the view of this process as a conse quence of the disintegration of the USSR and subsequent ob jective course of events in the post-Soviet space. It is important to stress, in the context of our study, the consistent efforts of President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan aimed at developing in tegrative processes in the relations between Kazakhstan and Russia and in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
In turn, the declaration of sovereignty was only the be ginning of a complex process of real sovereignty for the post-Soviet countries. Using Kazakhstan as a model, we tried to analyze the serious and comprehensive work that had to be done, and will still have to be done, to achieve a normal, civilized entry of the Republic in the international community. The formation of the new Kazakhstan statehood occurred against the background of an all-round political and economic reform of society. Despite many complicated and contradictory processes, the country's leadership endeavored therefore to act on the basis of scientifically well-founded programs and concepts capable of providing the Kazakhstan is with real refer ence points, the nearest tactical goals, and general strategic objectives in this far from simple transition period.
The instituting of the post of president of the republic, the elections of the first head of the Kazakhstan state, the constitutional reform, the formation of a full-fledged parlia mentarian system in the country were the landmarks of the development of Kazakhstan as a sovereign independent state.
The parliamentary system developed in Kazakhstan as a significant part of a general political reform; it went through many political conflicts and problem situations.
The Supreme Soviet of Kazakhstan, consisting of 360 deputies elected in 1990, was far from perfect. It should be remembered, however, that it was this parliament that adopted the most important state acts on sovereignty, independence, and the presidency; under this parliament, political reform began, and new market laws were discussed and adopted. The deputies of this parliament nurtured the idea of a professional, compact, and effective highest legislative organ of the country working on a permanent basis.
The first professional parliament of Kazakhstan, num bering 177 deputies, was elected in March 1994. Its fate was contradictory and dramatic. Though elected for a term of four years, this Supreme Soviet was not quite ready for routine legislative work; besides, there were significant violations of procedure during its election, and it was therefore dissolved on a decision of the Constitutional Court in March 1995.
The country's political parties and movements took an active part in the elections in December 1995 of a new parlia ment consisting of two chambers, the Senate and the Mazhilis. Compact and professional, the new parliament is, in the view of many jurists and politicians, quite capable of fruitful legisla tive work and is absolutely in keeping with the democratic prin ciple of the division of powers.
The constitutional process in the republic also developed in a dynamic way. This process consistently, step by step opened up new areas of the rule of law, which corresponded to the vital periods in the development of the republic. The path traversed from the first Constitution of sovereign Kazakhstan, adapted in January 1993, to the Fundamental Law of the coun try, adopted at a referendum in August 1995, is the path of progressive dynamic legislative movement, of which many pa rameters corresponded to the standards of developed demo cratic states.
Decisions on a wide range of problems in interethnic re lations, the dynamics of their development from the Forum of the Peoples of Kazakhstan and the rise of national-cultural centers to the convocation of the Assembly of the Peoples of Kazakhstan made it possible to conduct, in this most difficult period in the building of the Kazakhstan state, all-round socioeconomic and political reforms largely due to the preserva tion of interethnic accord, civic peace, and goodwill of the peoples of Kazakhstan.
There is no need to emphasize the importance of Russia as a magnitude of world order and Kazakhstan's closest neigh bor. It is known all too well what complex, and at times pain ful, political, economic, and social processes took place, and are still taking place, in both states. During the hundreds of years of cohabitation on vast adjacent territories, Russians and Kazakhs have accumulated, despite certain differences in their culture, traditions, and religion, a wealth of experiences in good-neighborly relations.
The historical community, interdependence, and inter-connectedness of the two countries' economies form the basis of Kazakhstani-Russian relations. Of great significance is the geopolitical aspect of the relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia as the two biggest states of the region, which largely affects the general climate of the Eurasian subcontinent.
President Nazarbayev repeatedly stressed that Russia is our main strategic partner, and the special relationship with Russia helps in the solution of the most important current and long-term tasks in the development of Kazakhstan. It may be stated today that a qualitatively new level of relations is now taking shape in the relations between Kazakhstan and Russia, characterized above all by the beginning of a practical realiza tion of the high integration potential accumulated in the pub lic consciousness of the two countries. It is tills area in Kazakh stan's foreign policy, one that provides the key to the forma tion of a new shape of the Kazakhstan state and is closely connected with the policy of integration, that is an absolute priority for Kazakhstan.
Under the new historical conditions, the stable and dy namic development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations rests on a serious legal basis. That basis is the treaty of friendship, coop eration, and mutual assistance between the Republic of Kaza khstan and the Russian Federation dated May 25, 1992, as well as treaties and agreements signed in the course of the first official visit of President Nazarbayev to Russia in March 1994 and his working meeting with President Yeltsin in January 1995. As a follow-up to these fundamentally important agree ments, a whole series of intergovernmental documents, agree ments, and memorandums were signed which regulate the re lations between concrete ministries and departments.
However, the everyday practical experiences of bilateral cooperation show that the joint efforts of the two countries must be constantly kept up. Closer integration, especially in the economy and in the humanitarian sphere, is necessary in the interests of democratic reform both in Kazakhstan and in Russia. The process of further elaboration and coordination of new agreements does not therefore cease. Recent years have seen continuous meetings of heads of ministries and depart ments, government delegations, and groups of experts to con sider bilateral issues.
A considerable share of the economic potential of Kaza khstan and Russia is employed in supporting production in the two countries. In recent years, integration links have dynami cally developed not only on the interstate level but also be tween individual regions and enterprises. Besides, our peoples are linked by centuries-old spiritual and cultural ties, as well as by kinship and purely human relations, which must be con stantly reinforced. That is why the policy of integration is a principled line of conduct for Kazakhstan leadership. "On the question of priorities," President Nazarbayev commented, we must stress the vast importance of relations with the Rus sian Federation. The effective factors here are the interdepen dence of the economies, historical affinity, and demography. The two countries are simply doomed to good-neighborly rela tions and collaboration. This collaboration must be based on equal rights and mutual advantage, if we have in mind the strategic goal of consolidating our common economic, de fense, humanitarian, information, and educational space.
Various aspects of economic and financial relations, prob lems in state security and military-strategic cooperation, and humanitarian problems may, as practical experience has shown, be positively resolved only if mutual interests are taken into account, and if there is a conscious desire for fruitful and mu tually advantageous cooperation.
On March 28, 1994 a package of 23 treaties and agree ments were signed, five of them by the heads of state. These are, above all, the treaties on further deepening of economic cooperation and integration, on military cooperation, an agree ment on the main principles of using the Baikonur launching site, and a memorandum on the issues of citizenship and legal status of citizens of the two countries.
These steps are in keeping with the integration efforts of our states in the CIS framework, too. The ground has been laid for the economic and settlement unions, and the Inter state Economic Committee - the Economic Union's coordi nating and executive committee - has begun to operate in Moscow.
Other agreements, which significantly increase the hori zons of multilateral and bilateral cooperation, also promote the progress of the Commonwealth toward new integration successes. Apart from the trade and economic ones, agree ments on cooperation in the sphere of defense also belong here.
While noting the high level and rate of development of Kazakhstani-Russian relations, it must be said that, both in previous times and nowadays, unresolved problems naturally remain. There is a certain stage-by-stage approach in foreign policy due to objective differences between the two countries in their view of priorities in the phases of declaration, estab lishment, and consolidation of sovereignty and independence.
The historical experiences of good-neighborly relations between Kazakhstan and Russia and the solid relations of stra tegic partnership in the present inspire confidence that the peoples of Kazakhstan and Russia will enter the 21st century in a dignified manner.
LIST OF USED SOURSES
1.Mansurov. T. “Relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia”, 1998, /p.p178- 250/
2. Esengalin. N. “ External Economy” 1999, /p.p 12-45/
3. Peter Bophinger. “Kazakhstan 1993-2000” 2001, /p.p171-184/
4. Luts Hoffmann. “ Kazakhstan During the Transition”1998, /p.p202-235/
5. World Bank “Annual Report” 1998, /p.p 252-259/
6. World Bank “Annual Report” 2000, /p.p153-159/
7. National Agency of Statistics “Semiannually Report”2001 /p.p 159-175/
8. Hella Engerrer “Research of relationship between Kazakhstan and Russia during the Transition” 1999 /p.p 25-50/
9. Katerina Dittmann “Tendency of Economic Development of Kazakhstan”, 1998 /p.p 89-123/
10. Todaro “Transition in CIS countries 2001 /p.p 25-31/
11. Mishkin “Relation Between Russia and CIS Countries 2001 /p.p 23-30/
12. Krugman “International Economies” 2001/2 /p.p 31-35/
13. EBRD “Annual Economic Report ” 2001, /p.p 123-159/
14. Daniel Gross “Economic Transition in Former Soviet Union” 1995 /p.p 145-160/
62