Liter, a public and political newspaper (liter.kz) (Almaty) Integration attitudes as viewed by the press
After the Agreement on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union took effect in early 2015, the issues of Eurasian integration got a new format. The jury believes that the competition will help to disseminate objective information about integration in Eurasia. The submitted entries are of rather high quality in terms of the depth of analysis of regional integration in Eurasia. The expert council comprises heads of the Journalist Unions from the Bank's member states. Among them is Seitkazy Matayev, a known Kazakh journalist who chairs the board of the Journalist Union of Kazakhstan. Mr Matayev agreed to talk with Liter about Eurasian integration and the competition.
Q.: Mr Matayev, how would you formulate the objective of Eurasian integration and its meaning for the country?
A.: In general, we were moving towards Eurasian integration for a long time. As an initiative it was first mentioned by our President Nursultan Nazarbayev at a lecture at the Moscow State University. At the time, the idea did not get much support because it was proposed after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, although the CIS had been set up and these issues were on the national agendas. However, the integration initiative was not supported. The heads of post-Soviet countries probably supported it orally. Finally, the issue became relevant. The point is that we are all connected with each other because we lived and developed as a single country. In addition, our goods are not particularly interesting to non-Soviet countries. We are also alike in that we're suppliers of raw materials and in some other factors. I mean the initial stage, the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.
As for the current integration model, it was based on the model of the European Union in terms of opening national borders and so on, while preserving the specifics of each country. I don't know whether this is for good or not, but after the EEU had been established we've got the second wave of the global financial crisis. And it is natural that the EEU countries are now in the process of adjustment to each other. If to consider this in terms of geopolitics, I believe that this was the correct step for the next 100, 150 and more years. Why do I talk about geopolitics? The point is that our neighbour is the densely populated China - the world's second largest economy, which may pose certain difficulties. So, the bear seems better than the dragon. If to refer to history, we have been friends with Russia for approximately 300 years. It does no assimilate us, Kazakhs, and despite economic and geopolitical differences we're very close to each other. We have a common border, a common mentality, and, in essence, a common economy. The difficulties in the first years are unavoidable. I know that there people who are sceptical about this, national patriots and others who criticise Eurasian integration every now and then. However, this will have an end.
It is understandable that in an unstable economic situation everyone tries to save themselves, but in the future these issues will be solved. In the end we'll have the free movement of goods, services and people as it happened always. All the more so since the mood for integration captures more and more countries. Thus, in addition to the initial EEU member countries, which came from the Customs Union, the EEU was expanded with the Kyrgyz Republic and Armenia. The desire of the West to accuse Russia of another attempt to build an empire is understandable but this is not the case. The main thing here is that we have not lost our sovereignty. On the other hand, Eurasian integration means, to a certain extent, the loss of economic sovereignty. However, all this is necessary and, above all, possible to overcome.
The only thing I don't like personally at the moment is that after customs control has been removed from the borders, the frontier guards began to act as customs officials. I faced this when they began to inspect my car without having any respective authority. Yet, this is our mentality and we'll overcome this.
Q.: How would assess awareness about integration among people living in the CIS countries?
A.: I think that ordinary people - I mean in the first place Russia and Kazakhstan - live a little bit better and perceive integration from a simple perspective. Practically every day I go to a shop and see that we have very good Belarusian products. People also see and feel these changes. We have a great deal of products from the Kyrgyz Republic. I think that this is normal, too. In addition, a lot of people from the neighbouring country work in our markets and rent shops. We should remember that people look for the happy medium between quality and price and no one is against this. All this is so because money plays the most important part here.
I did not see any spontaneous meetings at all. Eurasian integration should be promoted, to a greater extent, by the country, which signed the agreement. I should add that people feel normal about these changes. We have already won in some respects. When the ruble depreciated, many people went to Russia in November and December to buy cars. Now we have the reverse effect and Russians buy our products. Naturally, this happens primarily in near-border areas. For this reason I think that there should be parity between the tenge and the Russian and Belarusian ruble. Today we have certain talks about the single currency. This will possibly be the case in the future, similar to that as the European Union uses the euro.
Q.: Do you think that Eurasian integration is insufficiently covered by the media?
A.: Yes! You know the Russian saying that a man won't pray until it thunders. By the word, the producers of sausage products or petrol in Russia have to raise prices and this reflects on us. At the same time, we do not see quality information support. This means that our journalists primarily write about "related" facts. For example, a journalist's brother who owns a butter factory complains that the market is overfilled with Russian products. But what can we do? It is the market that chooses. Or, we need to impose an embargo then, as some people try to do now. Our car producers, I call them car assemblers, begin to lobby and get preferences, but this is wrong. Why should the state help them so that they can make good money? Or, they want to cancel all supplies or become the only dealers.
I need to repeat that these difficulties are temporary. I believe that we should write more not about the EEU, but about the Eurasian Commission. It employs specialists from each member state and we need to make publications not only about representatives of our own country.
Q.: What role can be played by institutions such as EDB in covering these issues?
A.: This is a very good structure, which had been created before the EEU agreement was signed, and it is headquartered in Almaty. However, we need to talk more about which sectors it lends to and whether these loans are targeted or for joint business. EDB is, in general, a very necessary structure because everything depends on money. If we have no money we have no production and if there's no production there're no jobs. For this reason, this structure needs to be supported both at the governmental level and through the media. By the way, we all see how commercial banks advertise themselves. This is because they work in a competitive environment. Q.: You are a member of the expert council at the competition for the best publication on Eurasian integration, which was arranged by EDB.
Could you please tell us more about the competition?
A.: The idea was correct. When the organisers approached me they said the jury would comprise chairpersons and heads of creative unions and, in particular, the journalist community and that all materials will be assessed. We decided to not limit the competition to three countries. If journalists from other post-Soviet countries submit their materials we will welcome them. We don't need restrictions here because there are countries, which are interested in Eurasian integration. Their journalists could write why
Azerbaijan or Georgia do not want to join the EEU.
p<>We receive very goods materials. In early November we will go to Moscow to announce the winners. The competition should not be limited to the main topic of Eurasian integration only. Materials about what integration was during our Soviet times are quite relevant. The Soviet Union was a true integration project, it also envisioned distribution. As in the rest of the world, there's nothing especially new today, everything goes the known path. At the same time, we began to live in a practically single information space, primarily with Russia. We also receive many entries from the Kyrgyz Republic and a little bit less from Armenia.
And I can state that journalists do write about the EEU. Not all of them have economic background, but the first step is the hardest. I think that the competition should become a traditional one in the future. Its theme is good, it unites. Journalism, in principle, is a civil institution, which should unite people, not only governments or public structures, but society in the first place. As for society, I think that it is rather mature in our countries and the press, as a bridge between people and the government, can play its part and this is the noble task for the media in the EEU.
Q.: Do you have any interesting entries?
A.: We have many entries from each country. However, as a member of the jury I cannot say which one is good or bad. We'll need to discuss the results. For the time being, I can say that the overall level is very high. We received some trivial submissions, but the authors as a whole are sufficiently knowledgeable.
Q.: Since you saw all competition entries, do you think it is possible to create a pool of journalists who would specialise in integration issues?
A.: I think we are moving towards this goal. Initially, we had many dispersed materials and few journalists who wrote about economics. Therefore, with what we have now we can create a pool and, with the help of these people who specialise in integration, arrange conferences, round tables, workshops and other events. This is very important. Surely, this is the first competition which covers these issues. However, its immediate objective is to show who writes and what they write. Together we can identify our strengths and weaknesses. In other words, any competition is a search for opportunities to arrange larger events. And this is only the beginning of integration with respect to the media.
Q.: Is there a need to devise a general portrait of Eurasian integration to use it subsequently for the purposes of further development and to cover Eurasian integration on international arenas?
A.: I think, yes. The point is that journalists in each country favour in their writings the country they live in. Here they need to go to another level, a little bit upwards. By the way, it would be good if journalists can visit each other to better understand how integration influences the neighbouring country. What we see now is certain misunderstanding, as if someone tried to deprive another of something valuable. But this is not the case. I think that our competition and integration on the whole can create a draft for the general portrait, but we will need time for this. I believe that the first competition won't solve all questions and it’s quite possible that in the future it will become a benchmark for politicians who manage issues within integration unions.