“Mimicry” as an Obstacle for Development of the Relations between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union

The article attempts to answer, why, though European Union’s experience inspired the founders of the Eurasian Economic Union, which was expected to ease development of relations between the two integration unions, in practice, the EU is very skeptical about both the prospects of the EEU and the prospects of relations between the EU and the EEU. The article demonstrates that institutions and political practices established for the EEU do not only appear to resemble the institutions and practices working in the EU, but institutions and practices of both integration unions are essentially similar. The main reason is that Russian experts in European studies actively participated in working out of the institutional structure and the political practices for the EEU. However, the article concludes that Western elites prefer not to notice the similarities between the EU and the EEU, while underlining differences between them. It is very important for Western elites to demonstrate that institutions and political practices of the EEU and the EU are “almost similar, but not quite”. Thus, it is justified characterizing Western elites’ attitude to the EEU in terms of ‘mimicry’, in the meaning given to that notion in Post-Colonialism in International Relations. The article explains that Western elites do not only demonstrate such kind of attitude to EEU, but almost to all other attempts of regional integration that have ever been undertaken in various parts of the world. The article names such attitude the main obstacle to development of relations between the EU and the EEU, and between the EU and other regional integration unions.

international relations, post-colonialism, mimicry, Eurasia, Europe, integration, EEU, EU

1. Butorina O. V., Zakharov A. V. On a scientific basis of the Eurasian Economic Union [O nauchnoi osnove Evraziiskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza] //the Eurasian economic integration [Evraziiskaya ekonomicheskaya integratsiya]. 2015. N 2(27). P. 52–68. (rus)

2. Eurasian Economic Commission. Eurasian Economic Union. Questions and answers. Figures and facts [Evraziiskaya ekonomicheskaya komissiya. Evraziiskii ekonomicheskii soyuz. Voprosy i otvety. Tsifry i fakty]. M. : PRINT Unitary Enterprise, 2014. (rus)

3. EurAsEC and integration experience of the EU [EvrAzEs i integratsionnyi opyt ES] / Under the editorship of M. G. Nosov (ex. edition), A.Yu. Bochever, Yu. A. Boyko. M. : Russian souvenir [Russkii souvenir], 2009. (rus)

4. Kosov Yu.V. Role of the Roman contract in the European integration [Rol’ Rimskogo dogovora v evropeiskoi integratsii] // Administrative consulting [Upravlencheskoe konsul’tirovanie]. 2008. N 3 (31). P. 46–50. (rus)

5. Lanko D. A. Geopolitics of Eurasia in representation of political elite [Geopolitika Evrazii v predstavlenii politicheskikh elit] // Euroasian integration: economy, law, policy [Evraziiskaya integratsiya: ekonomika, pravo, politika]. 2012. N 11. P. 130–137. (rus)

6. Lizunova E. A. Communicative mimicry and its types [Kommunikativnaya mimikriya i ee tipy] // Bulletin of the Kemerovo State University [Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta]. 2012. N 4–4 (52). P. 37–41. (rus)

7. Mishalchenko Yu.V., Tkachenko S. L. Eurasian Economic Union: prospects of creation of the economic and currency union (on the example of the European Union) [Evraziiskii ekonomicheskii soyuz: perspektivy postroeniya ekonomicheskogo i valyutnogo soyuza (na primere Evropeiskogo soyuza)] // Eurasian law journal [Evraziiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal]. 2012. N 3 (46). P. 10–12. (rus)

8. Romanova T. A. Three lessons of the European integration [Tri uroka evropeiskoi integratsii] // Eurasian integration: economy, law, policy [Evraziiskaya integratsiya: ekonomika, pravo, politika]. 2013. N 3. P. 248–256. (rus)

9. Filipchenko Yu. A. Variability and methods of its studying [Izmenchivost’ i metody ee izucheniya]. M.–L. : State publishing house [Gosizdat], 1929. (rus)

10. Fomchenkov T. Commodity turnover of the Russian Federation and the EU in 2014 was reduced by 10 percent [Tovarooborot RF i ES v 2014 godu sokratilsya na 10 protsentov] // Russian newspaper [Rossiiskaya gazeta]. 2015. June 11. (rus)

11. Adomeit H. Putin’s ‘Eurasian Union’: Russia’s Integration Project and Policies on the Post-Soviet Space. Istanbul : Kadir Has University, Center for International and European Studies, Black Sea Trust for Regional Cooperation, Project of the German Marshall Fund. Neighborhood Policy Paper N 4. 2012.

12. Bhabha H.K. The Location of Culture. London and New York : Routledge, 1994.

13. Buzan B., Waever O. Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003.

14. Ferdinand P., Wang J. China and the IMF: From Mimicry towards Pragmatic International Institutional Pluralism // International Affairs. 2013. Vol. 89. N 4. P. 895–910.

15. Jarosiewicz A., Fischer E., Bakunowicz T. The Eurasian Economic Union — More Political, Less Economic // OSW Commentary. 2015. N 157 (January 20). P. 1–8.

16. Ling L. H.M. Cultural Chauvinism and the Liberal Institutional Order: ‘West vs. Rest’ in Asian Financial Crisis // Power, Post-Colonialism and International Relations: Reading Race, Gender and Class / Ed. by G. Chowdhry and S. Nair. London and New York : Routledge, 2004. P. 115– 141.

17. Standish R. Putin’s Eurasian Dream Is Over Before It Began // Foreign Policy. 2015. January 6.

18. Weitz R. After Ukraine, Putin’s Eurasian Union Might Be Dead on Arrival // World Politics Review. 2015. January 6.

19. Wiseberg L. S. Human Rights in Africa: Toward the Definition of the Problem of a Double Standard // Issue: A Journal of Opinion. 1976. Vol. 6. N 4. P. 3–13.

20. Wiśniewska I. Eurasian Integration: Russia’s Attempt at the Economic Unification of the PostSoviet Area. Warsaw : Centre for Eastern Studies, 2013.