| The post-Soviet regionalism is either new phenomenon or peculiar form ofregionalism. It is new as it had started to take the form of regionalism after thedissolution of Soviet Union.Firstly, it is peculiar because the post-Soviet regionalism correspond the pattern ofregionalism where there is a big gap of power distribution between states sinceRussia's economic, political and military capabilities exceed the other states'capabilities in the region. Moreover, most of the former Soviet republics sharecommon economic, environmental, security issues that could push them to cooperatewith each other. There are several regional institutions which are mostly created byRussia and aimed to integrate the former Soviet republics into common economicprojects. However, after two decades of formation observers of post-Soviet studiesagree that the post-Soviet regionalism failed to integrate former Soviet republics inany meaningful sense.Secondly, it is peculiar because mainstream international relations theories cannot fully account for the formation of the patterns of post-Soviet regionalism.Neorealism emphasizes the power distribution among states, the dynamics of powerpolitics, and international structure which are appropriate in case of post-Sovietregionalism. However, neorealism considers the regions strongly from the outside inand understands the emergence of regionalism as a response to external threat andchallenges. Moreover it neglects the impact of domestic politics and the interests andcost-benefit considerations of political leaders in small states in the making of theirforeign policy, in particular, joining the projects of regional integration. Neoliberalinstitutionalism also can not fully provide the explanations for the post-Sovietregionalism since it emphasizes the existence of common issues, the mutuality ofinterests and high levels of interdependence and gives priority for the internationalinstitutions in promoting cooperation between states. As it mentioned above, formerSoviet republics share common issues and possess mutual interests and were highlyintegrated but it did not lead to the formation of either effective regional institutionsor regionalism. Constructivism focuses on regional awareness and regional identity onthe shared sense of belonging to a certain region and their role on bringing the mutual responsiveness, trust between states of particular region. These characteristics of aregion may be appropriate to the post-Soviet region and former Soviet republicsbecause they still have some "commonness" and regional identity as a result of sharedSoviet past. However, this commonness neither brought these states together and norwas resulted in the formation of effective regional institutions. The post-Sovietregionalism, therefore, is a peculiar case study of international politics since formerSoviet republics do not follow the ways of state behavior established by the maininternational relations theories. Thus, only the combination of theories and theoreticalapproaches can explain the patterns and failure of post-Soviet regionalism.This paper attempts to explore the failure of post-Soviet regionalism by using thecombination of hegemonic stability theory, its neorealist version in particular, and thedomestic political considerations of political leaders in small states. It further arguesthat post-Soviet regionalism failed as the Russian regional hegemony continued todecline. During the Cold War two superpowers managed to sustain their blocs byestablishing strong regional institutions that included their allies. The Soviet bloc, inparticular, was sustained thanks to the strong power disparities between memberstates and while Soviet Union stayed powerful it could maintain its own regionalinstitutional order that comprised of Warsaw Pact, Comecon. When the Soviet Unioncame to its decline due to its internal economic weakness the regional institutionalorder weakened too and it eventually collapsed. Although international powerstructures had changed with the end of the Cold War, the Soviet successor state–Russia maintained its regional hegemonic position in relation to former Sovietrepublics. During the early years after the Soviet collapse Russia acknowledgedspecial responsibilities in its "near abroad" as a regional hegemon and took theinitiatives of establishing regional institutional order. For instance, theCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that included all the former Sovietrepublics was established by Russia as a means of implementing its regionalhegemonic interests. Former Soviet republics sought regional accommodation withRussian regional hegemony in the hope of receiving special rewards, especially theeconomic assistance for their development. However, the worsening economic crisisof Russia and its gradual decline affected negatively to the establishment of effectiveregional institutions and led to the formation of failed patterns of regionalism. What is the strategic response from small states when regional hegemon is in itsdecline? The behavior of former Soviet republics can be a good example in order toanswer this question. As regional hegemon declines, small states will respond to it byseeking the other sources of benefits since the declining hegemon is incapable ofproviding it in the forms of regional institutional order. Therefore, small states willseek different regional powers that can provide them wherewithal and othernecessities in accordance with their domestic political considerations. This will resultin the emergence of "geopolitical pluralism" i.e. the "arrival" of other regional powersin the sphere of influence of a declining hegemon. Therefore, the decline of regionalhegemon may change twice and differentially. First, the hegemonic decline can beresult of absolute decline of the dominant state when there is an absence of economicsurplus therefore, absolute and relative size diminishes compare to hegemon's formerpower. Second, the decline can be result of the "arrival" of other regional powers inthe sphere of influence of a declining hegemon although the absolute size of regionalhegemon increases.The weakness of Russia and its incapability of sustaining regional institutionssuch as the CIS pushed former Soviet republics to respond strategically bycooperating with the EU, the US and China. This kind of strategic response has beenthe policy of not only those who have been most reluctant participant of post-Sovietregional institutions, such as Ukraine, but also those who have been enthusiastic aboutpost-Soviet regional cooperation, such as Kazakhstan. Therefore, the strategicresponse by these countries that manifested in the form of cooperation with morepowerful regional powers brought the emergence of "geopolitical pluralism" in thepost-Soviet area. One can observe it from the policies of EU, the US and Chinatowards former Soviet republics which show that there are several regional powers inthe post-Soviet area and Russia is no longer strong regional hegemon. Thus, Russiaunderwent the process of hegemonic decline twice; first when her absolute sizediminished as a result of economic weakness in early1990s and second time when theemergence of "geopolitical pluralism" meant Russia's relative power decline in thepost-Soviet area despite the fact that her absolute power have increased compare toearly1990s.In sum, this paper argues that the decline of Russian regional hegemony wasresulted in the failure of regionalism projects in the post-Soviet area. In order to get benefits which Russia was incapable of providing former Soviet republics cooperatedwith other regional powers by bringing the geopolitical pluralism into this region and,thus, making the formation regionalism more complicated. |
PDF Full Text Request