GUUAM has three possible scenarios for its further development: stagnation, collapse, and stable development. The third option demands approving a common strategy, and there is a potential for this. Such was the conclusion made by Ukraine’s Razumkov Center for Economic and Political Research experts at the GUUAM After the Yalta Summit: From Declarations to Action round table. Most state representatives from the Foreign Ministry, government, and Presidential Administration are speaking for this last scenario. Meanwhile, many admit that GUUAM is now at the formative stage. In spite of all the fanfare greeting the signing of the Yalta Charter by the five, it is obvious that prospects for unity are still uncertain, since there is a number of interpretations for the reasons for and goals of its being formed.
A month after Yalta summit it appeared that 62.6% Ukrainians have never heard of GUUAM, and that experts do not see cooperation within the framework of this organization as a priority for Ukraine.
You can often hear that this organization was stillborn, and that, being aimed against Russia, it contradicts Ukraine’s interests. Incidentally, leader of Ukrainian Rukh Hennady Udovenko believes that founding GUUAM was a certain answer to Russia’s politics in the post-Soviet space.
“History is evidence that no good comes out of unions of the poor,” one expert told The Day, “especially if they don’t have any common economic interests. This is confirmed by numerous examples in Africa.”
GUUAM unites poor countries with restricted market capacities, thus in the nearest future the agreement on free trade, which had not been signed in Yalta but is planned to be prepared by the end of this year, cannot bring significant dividends. This idea was expressed by the Razumkov Center President Anatoly Hrytsenko. The idea of Professor Oleksiy Plotnykov’s speech was that it is necessary to approach GUUAM in a realistic way and not lay hopes on this organization to lead Ukraine out of the crisis and help it to reach unprecedented heights.
As Hrytsenko’s research states, the GUUAM countries, on the one hand, are livnig through a period of internal instability, and, on the other hand, they preserve some differences in their approach to various issues. However, the major unifying idea has been outlined: a Europe-Asia oil transport corridor, which can and must be of interest not only to the five but also to Western Europe. Much skepticism remains, but there is some hope as well. There is also support from the West. At any rate, this is a start, but this is still far from being a guarantee for a success.
