11959D. Degterev (Degterev_DA@Rudn.university; Degterev@mgimo.ru),
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6, Miklukho-Maklaya Str., Moscow 117198, Russian Federation;
MGIMO University, 76, Vernadskogo Prosp., Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation;
Vasilyuk (Vasiliuk_IP@Rudn.university),
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6, Miklukho-Maklaya Str., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation;
V. Baum (Baum_VV@Rudn.university),
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6, Miklukho-Maklaya Str., Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to the experts on foreign policy of G20 countries for their advice in writing this article, incl. Alla Yu. BORZOVA, Doctor of History (expert in foreign policy of Argentina and Brazil); Larisa M. EFIMOVA, Doctor of History (expert on Indonesia), Olga S. CHIKRIZOVA, Candidate of History (expert on Turkey, Saudi Arabia), and Vladimir I. YURTAEV, Doctor of History (expert on South Africa).
The research was carried out with the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in the framework of the scientific project RFBR-CASS No. 17-27-21002.
Abstract. The article examines the main foreign policy partners of the CIS member states, as well as major international organizations, in which the countries of the Commonwealth participate. On the basis of a number of indicators, the parameters of the CIS countries’ multi-vector nature are estimated. The study is based on the following methods: the content analysis of doctrinal documents, the network analysis of diplomatic representations, quantitative methods to evaluate voting on resolutions of the 47–70th sessions of the UN General Assembly. Comparison of the voting on the UN General Assembly resolutions both between the CIS states and with the G20 countries makes it possible to identify the closest foreign policy partners among the CIS countries, as well as among the most influential countries in the world. Quantitative analysis is complemented by qualitative studies of the CIS states’ foreign policies (the project has been realized for several years by the Department of Theory and History of International Relations at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, in conjunction with the leading universities of the Commonwealth within the CIS Networking University). The analysis carried out by the authors testifies the formation of a separate subsystem of international relations in the post-Soviet space. A number of CIS countries implement the concept of an expanded multi-vector approach in their foreign policies, even trying not to declare the hierarchy of foreign policy partners at the official level at all. The proximity between positions of Azerbaijan, Belarus and Kazakhstan as well as that of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan is observed. Countries of the “Euro-Atlantic orientation” (Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia) have attitudes closest to Germany, Italy and Japan. Particularly distinguished are the symmetrical foreign policy steps of Armenia and Azerbaijan within the framework of mutual reflection. Among the G20 countries, Armenia and Argentina have the closest positions, whereas Belarus and Russia – to China, Central Asian countries – to South Africa, Azerbaijan and Belarus – to Indonesia. Conclusions are also made of Turkey’s and Saudi Arabia’s insignificant degree of influence on the CIS states’ foreign policies.
Keywords: CIS; multi-vector nature; neutrality; foreign policy; applied analysis; voting in the UN; quantitative methods of analysis; international organizations; network of embassies; doctrinal documents
REFERENCES
1. Malysheva D. Na “frontakh” SNG – bez peremen [On the Fronts of the CIS – Without Changes]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2004, no. 12, pp. 69-79.
2. Kosov Yu.V., Toropygin A. V. Sodruzhestvo nezavisimykh gosudarstv. Instituty, integratsionnye protsessy, konflikty i parlamentskaya diplomatiya [Commonwealth of Independent States. Institutes, Integration Processes, Conflicts and Parliamentary Diplomacy]. Moscow, Aspect Press, 2009. 287 p.
3. Aglyan V. R. Dimensions of International Hierarchy in the Post-Soviet Space: Analytical Approaches and Empirical Reflections. Âåñòíèê Ðîññèéñêîãî óíèâåðñèòåòà äðóæáû íàðîäîâ. Ñåðèÿ: Ìåæäóíàðîäíûå îòíîøåíèÿ, 2014, ¹ 4, ññ. 185-192. [Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 185-192.]
4. Holbroad K. Middle Powers in International Politics. New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1984. 234 p.
5. Agamamedova Z. Neitralitet Turkmenistana [The Neutrality of Turkmenistan]. International Trends, 2003, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 121-130.
6. Dundich A. S. Tadzhikistan: mir bez protsvetaniya [Tajikistan: Peace Without Prosperity]. International Trends, 2010, vol. 8, no 3, pp. 143-154.
7. Dundich A. S. Kirgiziya mezhdu “velikimi” … [Kyrgyzstan: Between the Great Powers…]. International Trends, 2010, vol. 8, no 2, pp. 117-123.
8. Bogaturov A.D., ed. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya v Tsentral’noi Azii: Sobytiya i dokumenty [International Relations in Central Asia: Events and Documents]. Moscow, Aspect Press, 2014. 560 p.
9. Expert Portal of the RUDN University on International Relations (In Russ). Available at: http://ir.rudn.ru/ (accessed 03.04.2017).
10. Degterev D.A., Kurylev K.P., åds. Vneshnyaya politika stran SNG [Foreign Policy of CIS Countries]. Moscow, Aspect Press, 2017. 650 p.
11. Kovalenko S.A., Smolik N. G. Uchastie RUDN v deyatel’nosti Setevogo universiteta SNG [Participation of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia in the Activities of CIS Network University]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 207-213.
12. Degterev D. A. Kolichestvennye metody v mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniyakh [Quantitative methods in international studies in Russia and abroad]. International Trends, 2015, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 35-54.
13. Babadzhanov A. Ya. Voenno-politicheskoe sotrudnichestvo postsovetskikh gosudarstv: problema sochetaemosti natsional’nykh podkhodov [Military-Political Cooperation of post-Soviet States: the Problem of Compatibility of National Approaches]. Moscow, Aspect Press, 2014. 256 p.
14. Degterev D.A., Degterev A. Kh., Nikulin M.A., Oganesyan A. L. Prikladnoi analiz vneshnei politiki stran SNG [Applied Analysis of the Foreign Policy of CIS Countries]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 176-184.
15. Shmelev B.A., åd. Vneshnyaya politika novykh nezavisimykh gosudarstv [Foreign Policy of New Sovereign States]. Moscow, Institute of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015. 240 p.
16. Tikhomirov A. V. Vneshnyaya politika Respubliki Belarus’ v 1991–2011 gg. [Foreign Policy of Belarus Republic in 1991–2011]. Minsk, Pravo i ekonomika, 2014. 278 p.
17. Shadurskii V. G. Formirovanie kontseptual’nykh osnov vneshnei politiki Respubliki Belarus’ (1991–2011) [Formation of the Ñonceptual Bases of the Foreign Policy of the Republic of Belarus (1991–2011)]. Vesnik BDU. Ser. 3, 2011, no. 3, pp. 31-36.
18. Kurylev K. P. Vneshnyaya politika Ukrainy v kontekste formirovaniya regional’noi sistemy bezopasnosti v Evrope [Foreign Policy of Ukraine in the Context of the Formation of a Regional Security System in Europe]. Moscow, RUDN University, 2014. 531 p.
19. Kurylev K.P., Naryshkin V.S., Ozinkovskaya E., Rakhimov K. Kh. Evraziiskii ekonomicheskii soyuz vo vneshnepoliticheskoi strategii Rossii [EAEU in Russian Foreign Policy Strategy]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2016, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 75-86.
20. Machavariani G.G. GUAM kak proekt al’ternativnoi integratsii na postsovetskom prostranstve [GUAM as a Project of Alternative Integration in the Post-Soviet Space]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 112-119.
21. Degterev D. A. Setevoi analiz mezhdunarodnykh otnoshenii [Network Analysis of International Relations]. Vestnik of Sankt-Petersburg University. Series 6. Politology. International Relations, 2015, no. 4, pp. 119-138.
22. Anderson J., Wincoop E. Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle. American Economic Review, 2003, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 170-192.
23. Rose A. The Foreign Service and Foreign Trade: Embassies as Export Promotion. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 11111, February 2005. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w11111 (accessed 03.04.2017).
24. Kuznetsov A. V. Pryamye inostrannye investitsii: “effekt sosedstva” [Foreign Direct Investment: “Neighborhood Effect”]. Mirovaya ekonomika i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2008, no. 9, pp. 40-47.
25. US Department of the State Congressional Reports. Available at: http://www.state.gov/p/io/rls/rpt/index.htm (accessed 03.04.2017).
26. Alker H., Russett B. World Politics in the General Assembly. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1965. 326 p.
27. Keohane R. The Study of Political Influence in the General Assembly. International Organization, 1967, vol. 21, no. 02, pp. 221-237.
28. Liphart A. The Analysis of Block Voting in the General Assembly: A Critique and a Proposal. American Political Science Review, 1963, vol. 57, no. 04, pp. 902-917.
29. Russett B. Discovering Voting Groups in the United Nations. American Political Science Review, 1966, vol. 60, no. 02, pp. 327-339.
30. Voeten E. Clashes in the Assembly. International Organization, 2000, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 185-215.
31. Young H., Rees N. EU Voting Behaviour in the UN General Assembly, 1990–2002: The EU’s Europeanising Tendencies. Irish Studies in International Affairs, 2005, vol. 16, pp. 193-207.
32. Degterev D. A. Rossiiskaya Federatsiya kak novyi mezhdunarodnyi donor: dilemmy identichnosti [Russian Federation as a New International Donor: Identity’s Dilemmas]. Vestnik mezhdunarodnykh organizatsii, 2013, no. 2, pp. 69-85.
33. Shakleina T.A., åd. Situatsionnye analizy [Situational analysis]. Issue 1. Moscow, MGIMO-University, 2011. 235 p.
34. Degterev D. A. Khartiya o strategicheskom partnerstve mezhdu SShA i Ukrainoi [Charter on Strategic Partnership Between the United States and Ukraine]. Natsional’naya bezopasnost’, 2011, no. 1, pp. 85-94.
35. Dostanko E.A., Vorotnitskaya T. V. Politika rasshireniya Evropeiskogo Soyuza na Vostok [The Policy of Expanding the European Union to the East]. Minsk, Academy of Public Administration Under the President of the Republic of Belarus, 2007. 237 p.
36. Shakleina T.A., åd. Situatsionnye analizy [Situational analysis]. Issue 2. Moscow, MGIMO-University, 2012. 276 p.
37. Zhil’tsov S.S., Vorob’ev V.P., Shutov A. D. Evolyutsiya politiki Rossii na postsovetskom prostranstve [Evolution of Russia’s Policy in the Post-Soviet Space]. Moscow, Vostok–Zapad, 2010. 168 p.
38. Borzova A. Yu. Rol’ Brazil’skogo Agentstva po sotrudnichestvu v sodeistvii razvitiyu po linii Yug-Yug [The Role of Brazilian Cooperation Agency in Promoting South-South Development Cooperation]. Latinskaya Amerika, 2015, no. 5, pp. 27-38.
39. Efimova L. M. Vneshnepoliticheskaya doktrina Prezidenta Indonezii D. Vidodo [The Foreign Policy Doctrine of Indonesian President Joko Widodo]. Yugo-Vostochnaya Aziya: Aktual’nye problemy razvitiya, 2016, no. 33, pp. 55-69.
40. Savicheva E.M., Shaar M. O. Otnosheniya arabskikh stran Persidskogo zaliva s tsentral’no-aziatskimi gosudarstvami SNG [Relations of the Arab Gulf countries with Central Asian states of CIS]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 160-168.
41. Chikrizova O.S. K voprosu o metodologii izucheniya sunnito-shiitskikh vzaimootnoshenii [On the Methodology of Research of Sunni-Shiite Relations]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2015, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 74-82.
42. Yurtaev V.I. BRIKS: vyzovy sotrudnichestva na Afrikanskom kontinente [BRICS: Ñhallenges of Ñooperation on the African Ñontinent]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2016, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 191-202.
43. Shikin V. V. Energeticheskoe izmerenie vneshnei politiki Indii v Tsentral’noi Azii (2000–2014 gg.) [India’s Foreign Policy Energy Agenda in the Central Asia (2000–2014)]. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 2014, no. 4, pp. 148-159.
Registered in System SCIENCE INDEX
No comments