Uzbekistan has decided to withdraw from GUUAM [Georgia, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova]. The comments by Kyiv, Tbilisi, and Baku are mostly calm while Chisinau is less optimistic. The reality is that postwar history has known no precedents of a country withdrawing from a successful international organization. Tashkent could be understood: the US-led anti-terrorist operation in the wake of the September 11 events determined its new role and place in the short term. Tashkent received new opportunities that had seemed almost impossible before. This concerns its relations with the United States, reassessments of the policy for Central Asia and many other things. Tashkent also received new impetus in its relationship with Moscow, which remains a considerable factor in all processes in the post-Soviet area. Tashkent was never very interested in GUUAM. As is said in diplomatic circles, it was the West that wanted Uzbekistan to join the informal alliance of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. Now the situation has changed, and so have attitudes.
GUUAM has not become a political alternative to the CIS, and it could never have been any different. It has not fulfilled its main function declared at its founding summit in Yalta, Crimea – it has not become a customs union or a free trade zone for its member states. GUUAM does not have the vital component of a real security policy. Kyiv argues that it is owing to Tashkent that GUUAM remains a declarative structure without a common policy, common idea, or common achievements. Now, Uzbekistan’s here and now choice gives the other member countries food for serious thought. The weakest link in the organization is Moldova whose president insists on joining the Eurasian Economic Community. At present, GUUAM cannot compete with the EAEC, which is warranted by the Agreement on Collective Security. There is not a single large scale project to its credit that could demonstrate substantial interest of Western capital in it or add to its image. Under the present conditions, missing at least one letter in its name, GUUAM will have no chance to become a political organization, and its prospects appear to be very uncertain. One of the possible reasons for its crisis is the unfortunate fact that declared intentions have raced ahead of political and other capabilities. But this is not yet a funeral march. It is merely to state the fact: this structure must get an attractive idea and instruments to materialize it (like Moscow did with the EAEC). Otherwise, the very existence of the organization that has not shown its worth could well be placed in serious doubt. For any declarations or intentions that are not backed by real steps always lead to crisis.
