WHO IS NEXT?

Against the background of European summits trying to find ways of resolving the worldwide economic crisis, the 10 October CIS summit in Bishkek did not attract any special attention. Anyway, this was always the case. The only exception being that Georgia's request to quit the CIS was accepted in Kyrgyzstan.

Although Georgia's membership of the CIS will formally end one year after its request, i.e. in August 2009, this does not change anything. The CIS has one country fewer. "Perhaps we can regret this. Every country benefits from membership of the CIS. On the other hand, Georgia's membership of the CIS was hardly aimed at consolidation and was, rather, geared towards an erosion of the CIS," said Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. "Georgia's departure from the CIS is no reason to terminate the activities of the organization," added the head of the CIS executive committee, Sergey Lebedev, former director of the Russian foreign intelligence service. In response, we can only shrug our shoulders. The essence of the Commonwealth is well-known, which is why very few people are concerned about the number of member states, with all the consequences that ensue. But it is not clear why Lebedev thinks that Georgia's "resignation" should be seen through the prism of a collapse of the whole CIS. Is the CIS executive committee, led by Lebedev, so concerned about such a possibility?

Most politicians admit that the summits of the former allied republics are useful only because, during these summits, heads of state, government and foreign ministers have a chance to hold a large number of bilateral meetings with their counterparts. The results of these short meetings are often far more important than the collective decisions, especially as the latter are mainly of a declarative nature, because not a single important decision has ever been adopted without reservations and "special opinions" by individual states. This is why many admit that the CIS has turned into a huge bureaucratic apparatus with thousands of different non-binding decisions and resolutions…

Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of CIS member states agreed to formally terminate the activities of collective forces to maintain peace in Abkhazia under the aegis of the CIS. Thus, the Russian troops in Abkhazia finally lost their status as peacekeepers. Now the only legal basis for their presence on the republic's territory is a bilateral agreement between Sukhumi and Moscow.

At the same time, Moscow seems to have failed to persuade its partners to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The day before the summit, Sergey Lebedev said that this issue would not be specially discussed with CIS leaders, while Sukhumi and Tskhinvali would be recognized on an individual basis.

This is understandable because, without the approval of foreign ministers who express the opinion of their heads of state, this issue cannot be put on the agenda of the Presidents. Russia itself had an interest in this, first of all in order to "save face" after attempts to enforce a decision at a bilateral level and then at foreign ministerial level, did not yield the desired result.

One of the common, routine decisions of the summit was taken when its participants signed a project on the strategy for the economic development of the CIS until 2020, which includes the development of transport infrastructure and electricity. They also approved a convention on border cooperation and a concept of cooperation between states in the area of information security. Moreover, the participants in the summit discussed the fight against the illegal trafficking of drugs, measures to counter illegal migration and the actions of air defence duty officers in CIS member states when they receive information about the hijacking of a plane by terrorists.

Apart from that, the participants in the CIS summit reached an agreement to set up a working group at finance ministerial level which should gather in Moscow in the near future to discuss the situation around the world economic crisis.

It must be noted that, apart from Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, of the participants in the previous CIS summit held in Dushanbe, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko did not visit Bishkek.

Ilham Aliyev had a good reason not to go to Bishkek - presidential elections in his country, along with all the difficulties that a head of state and main contender for re-election has to shoulder.

As for Viktor Yushchenko, he has a real "headache" - there is another political crisis in Ukraine, accompanied by a dissolution of a parliament and extraordinary parliamentary elections.

Nevertheless, Kommersant newspaper said that, unlike the Azerbaijani President, Viktor Yushchenko did not officially explain the reason for his absence to his counterparts. Kiev was not even represented at the summit by the Ukrainian foreign minister, but by his first deputy, Yuriy Kostenko. All this generated rumours that, at the session of foreign ministers, Ukraine had declared its intention to leave the Commonwealth. When Sergey Lavrov was asked about this, the Russian minister replied brusquely: "There were no statements that Kiev is thinking of leaving the CIS." Although such a step by the Ukrainian leader would not be surprising in view of his total support for Georgia in the conflict with Russia, not to mention his "candidacy to become a candidate" to join NATO, which, coupled with the first factor, has exacerbated relations between Kiev and Moscow once again. The same Russian newspaper Kommersant wrote that "…at the previous summit in Dushanbe, Moscow let it be known that it will not allow Russian influence to decline in the post-Soviet area and that it intends to strengthen the potential for integration within the CIS. It seems that the situation which arose after the war in the Caucasus has put paid to all these ambitious plans. The idea is probably to save the CIS, even in its current amorphous state. In these conditions, even Kremlin officials admit that there is no point in expecting the CIS summit and the session of the EurAsEC interstate council (held in Bishkek at the same time) to take any decisions of special benefit to Russia." "No revolutionary decisions are expected. This is a routine working session," said Russian presidential aide Sergey Prikhodko.

Russian journalists accurately called the Bishkek meeting "a disuniting summit", which emphasized the main component of the forum. This is the first time that the Commonwealth has shrunk.

Yes, formally, Georgia has one year to "reform". The head of the CIS executive committee, Sergey Lebedev, said that CIS countries have an interest in restoring and establishing "good neighbourly and constructive relations with Georgia". "The door is not closed to Georgia, and if its leadership decides to rejoin the CIS later, I think this issue will be solved positively," he promised.

However, it is not clear whom else Mr Lebedev meant when he spoke about "CIS countries" in the plural: no-one, apart from Moscow and Tbilisi, seems to have damaged or severed their relations. Its departure from the CIS does not mean the severance of bilateral relations.

Even Russia's closest friend and ally - Belarus - is in no hurry to damage relations with Georgia by recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

In a word, according to the Russian press, Lukashenko himself turned up at the summit only briefly. When decisions were being taken the Belarusian president was absent, preferring to attend personal meetings scheduled during the summit.

In any case, according to the results of the Bishkek meeting, Lukashenko did not miss anything important. However, we can most probably assume the opposite. He missed it deliberately in order to justify in the eyes of Moscow his failure to recognize Georgia's breakaway regions.

As for August 2009, by which time Georgia has to reconsider its decision to quit the CIS, we can only guess what could make Tbilisi change its position and how. Neither Sergey Lebedev himself nor those who delegated him to this post explained what he meant. His statement may be put down to diplomatic etiquette or simply seen as a transparent hint.

It is worth dwelling on another important aspect: if the current political crisis in Ukraine ends in favour of the supporters of President Yushchenko, who is pursuing an openly pro-Western policy of integration into NATO, one more country may leave the CIS at a later summit.

But, as it were, we shall see what we shall see…