It's not a new concept but the framework is starting to get a
little more attention in the international media. Knowing about it will prove
helpful to those trying to understand the dynamic at work between these nations
of Central Europe and power centres like Brussels, Washington and Moscow.
Viktor Orban's recent victory in the Hungarian presidential
election and further focus on Poland will necessarily drive commentators and
analysts to address why some of these former Warsaw Pact members are charting a
course that is increasingly hostile to Brussels.
One way of understanding the posture of both Poland and
Hungary is to view them through the lens of Visegrad, a group formed in 1991
with Czechoslovakia. It's named after Visegrad Castle where a famous congress
took place in 1335 in which the monarchs of Poland, Hungary and Bohemia formed
an anti-Habsburg alliance.
When Czechoslovakia broke up in 1993, the Czech Republic and
Slovakia both retained membership and Visegrad became the V4.
One thing is important to understand. These nations are not
anti-European Union per se. As I said the group formed in the early 1990's and
they all joined the EU in 2004 and for the most part were keen to do so.
They believe in cooperation across the European spectrum,
relations with their neighbours and establishing trade. And all of this is done
with an eye toward maintaining peace.... peace in a Europe that saw horrific
wars in the 20th century. Poland of all the Visegrad group saw the
worst of it. Poland endured almost six long years under the Nazis and it was
host to much of the infrastructure of what would become the Holocaust.
The V4 nations believe in the EU to a point but they also
retain nationalist interests and it is in their interest for these like-minded,
like-situated nations to form a mini-bloc in which they can help further each
other's goals. They realised this almost immediately when the USSR broke up and
it has always been their goal to not only be part of the EU but to maintain
their own separate bloc which includes a separate military command structure.
This enables the V4 to participate with NATO but also retain flexibility and
the possibility of operating outside NATO-specific goals and interests.*
NATO and the EU have tolerated the V4 as long as this 'side
project' didn't supersede the concerns of Brussels (Headquarters to both NATO
and the EU) and yet in recent years it has become a point of contention. Today,
some in the EU might have some regrets about letting these nations into the
union. Certainly the signals were there long before 2004.
However, it is also understood that keeping them out would
also defeat the EU project of continental consolidation. As long as there are
rogue states, there's the potential for history to rear its head and for Europe
that means war. Additionally, though it was not openly declared, there was a
strong desire on the part of Washington and Brussels to 'gobble up' all the
former Warsaw Pact nations and cut off any Russian influence. This project was
aggressively pursued in the 1990's and largely successful. By the early 2000's
most of these nations had entered NATO and had either joined the EU or were in
the process of doing so. It was assumed things would work out and did for the
most part until the financial crisis of 2007-8. The immigration crisis which
began in 2015 has made things worse. It has shifted European politics and this
has widened the already existing cracks between Brussels and the V4.
The V4 nations were part of the 2004 wave, the huge expansion
of the EU which in addition to the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and
Slovakia, included the Baltic Republics, Slovenia and the Mediterranean nations
of Cyprus and Malta.
Those were still the years of optimism and yet now the V4 has
become a thorn in the side of Brussels. The reasons are many. Western Liberal
values are not as openly embraced, especially in nations like Hungary and
Poland. There are unresolved historical issues and a great lack of trust
between these nations of Central-Eastern Europe and the West.
These nations have always been caught between a German
dominated Central Europe and forces from the East. Historically this could
refer to the Mongols and Turks and yet in more recent centuries it has meant
Russia.
This grasp of historical forces and the unique geographical
situation of the V4 and other Central-Eastern European nations will help one to
understand their mindset. Unlike Western thinkers of the 1990's the leaders of
Central and Eastern Europe did not view history as being over or resolved. The
issues were not settled. The West viewed the Cold War as the great struggle
between two competing ideas and systems, the final battle in the great
historical dialectic. Market Capitalism and Western Democracy won the day.
Since the paradigm was fictitious to begin with the collapse and implosion of
the Western narrative is hardly shocking. But many in Central and Eastern
Europe never bought into it. They hated the Stalinism that had been imposed on
them but at the same time there was little chance they were going to coalesce
with the West, let alone trust it.
The formation of the V4 shouldn't have been a surprise. It
was actually a pretty bold and clever move. In hindsight I would imagine the
bureaucrats in Brussels wished they had forced them to dissolve it before joining
NATO and the EU but now it's too late.
This is not to say that the group has always been united.
Some argue it's no unified bloc at all but is instead a platform for diplomacy
and a mechanism for these groups to meet and regularly collaborate.
There are tensions. Hungarian nationalists have frequently
expressed anger at Bratislava for oppressing the still large Hungarian minority
that lives in the country. There have been diplomatic tensions and sometimes
violence. The half-million Hungarian minority represents almost 9% of the
population. Many today are unaware that Slovakia was part of the Kingdom of
Hungary for roughly 1,000 years from the 10th to the 20th
centuries. It was World War I that broke up Hungary and Slovakia quickly formed
a union with their fellow Slavs, the Czechs in 1918. Czechoslovakia lasted
until the Velvet Divorce in 1993. Slovakia for the first time in history stood
alone and yet there are Hungarian irredentists that are still bitter about the
partition wherein they lost not only Slovakia, but Transylvania, portions of
Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia, a sliver of today's Austria and a small section
that is today in Western Ukraine. Altogether Hungary lost almost 75% of its
former lands and over 60% of its population. Not all this population was
Hungarian by any means but there were many Hungarians that as of 1918 found
themselves living in other and newly formed states. A century later the issues
are not resolved and there's lingering bitterness.
Much of the bitterness toward Hungary stems from the 19th
century when Budapest grew powerful enough to force the weakened Habsburgs into
the Dual Monarchy in 1867. The Habsburgs had dominated Hungary since the
Turkish invasion in the 16th century. As the decimated Magyar
kingdom was reconstituted and expanded in the 17th and 18th
centuries it was controlled by Vienna. In the 19th century
everything was torn apart by poor administration and surging nationalism. The
Hungarians got the upper hand and by the time Austria-Hungary was created they
were in many ways the ascendant power. A programme of Magyarisation embittered
the many (often Slavic) minorities and helped foster the partition in 1918.
This would lead Hungary down the unfortunate path of allying with the Nazis in
World War II and the eventual open embrace of fascism.
The Cold War put things on hold and many believed EU membership
and its borderless ethos would resolve the historical problems but they haven't
entirely gone away.
There have also been divisions in the V4 over the question of
Russia. Some have embraced the Anti-Russian campaign and there has been some
collaboration with Ukraine which borders all V4 states except the Czech
Republic. And yet, figures like Orban have not fully embraced the project and
have taken a more favourable stance toward Moscow. Bratislava recently endured
Western criticism for refusing to expel Russian diplomats in the wake of the
Skripal Scandal.
Bratislava has also criticised the placement of US missile
bases in the Czech Republic and Poland signalling a lack of unity with regard
to the V4 vis-à-vis NATO and Moscow.
The V4 stance on immigration has frustrated and angered
Brussels and yet they are not fully united on these questions. And yet it is
immigration probably more than anything else at the moment that is uniting the
V4 and angering the EU leadership. Brussels is using various bureaucratic tools
to punish the V4 and seeks to break their collective resistance.
V4 states have in part united on the basis of a common 'Christian'
culture and believe Brussels' policies are undermining national identity and
certainly their cultural heritage.
Recently ousted Slovak PM Robert Fico gained headlines in
2016 when he asked, 'Who bombed Libya?', and 'Who created problems in North
Africa? Slovakia? No'.
Brussels of course viewed these sentiments as subversive to
the EU. Fico further angered many by insisting that Slovakia would only accept 'Christian'
migrants.
Sadly Fico's own questionable conduct and political scandals
have yet once again brought shame to the label Christian.
Additionally Slovakia is the only V4 member to join the
Eurozone which given the volatile status of the currency it could later present
a potential problem and one that Brussels might be able to use to drive a wedge
within the V4 apparatus.
In the late 1990's and early 2000's the V4 constituted part
of what Donald Rumsfeld referred to as 'New Europe'. This was during the period
in which Washington was expressing a more open hostility to the EU project,
viewed at the time as a dangerous rival to America's claims of unipolarity. The
War on Terror project helped to bring Europe back into the US fold and the
Anti-Russia campaign has allowed the United States to establish missile bases
in V4 nations like Poland and the Czech Republic.
It could also be argued that the US relationship with the V4
nations has and is being used by Washington to check Brussels' power and with
Brexit may ultimately be established as a something of a substitute for the
United Kingdom's role as 'America's vote' in the European Union.
But at present the near schism between the V4 and the EU is
proving to be a source of irritation. Washington wants a unified front in
opposing Moscow and a fragmented EU has the potential to allow Russian and even
Turkish gains in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
The V4 wedge as it might be called can block some
Franco-German aspirations and yet too much division runs the risk of harming
NATO and will fuel the Paris-Berlin project to establish an independent
European military command, something the Pentagon does not want to see.
While the V4 has the potential to represent US policy in
Central Europe it would be a mistake to think they are completely on board with
Washington. These nations are trying to dance between the power centres of
Brussels, Berlin, Paris, Washington and Moscow and thus it's natural they will
use all tools available to them. The recent attempts to establish trade
relations with China represent just such an example. Ultimately the force
behind the V4 is very similar to the impulses that led to the creation of both
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia at the end of WWI. And yet the V4 is not a union
and thus it is much weaker and easier to fragment.
One must also consider the role being played by NGO's and
while it has become fodder for conspiracy theorists there is little doubt that
billionaire George Soros continues to exercise influence on the politics of
Budapest. The Orban government has grown quite hostile to him. Some view this
as disingenuous, an Emmanuel Goldstein-like ploy used by Orban to consolidate
his base. Others would argue that Soros is playing a part in manipulating
Hungarian politics and is seeking to undermine Orban and any force resistant to
the EU.
There's little doubt this is the case but the question is....
what or who does Soros represent? Is he an autonomous power seeking to carve
out a personal empire? Does he represent the so-called globalists? Or, does he
represent the US dominated Western Establishment and in this case is working at
the behest of both Washington and Brussels?
I believe it to be the latter and while I don't think the US
is hostile to the V4 per se... especially in light of Brexit, I do think they
would like to see Orban replaced with someone less polarising and a little more
loyal to the West. The flirtation on the part of Orban as well as the Czechs
and Slovaks with Moscow is a growing concern for elements within the Washington
power structure.
Ultimately the V4 has to be a cause for concern in Europe. It
represents a potential Trojan horse. By design it's somewhat subversive and an
attempt to create a kind of Central-Eastern Europe sub-EU.
One can hardly blame them. The post Cold War interlude is
over and right now I'm certain that academics and strategists within the V4
structure are thankful that they are already ahead of the game. If the EU
implodes, they will be ready. It's an interesting reflection on the progressive
forward looking nature of Western Europe and the deep historical memory that is
rooted in Central and especially Eastern Europe. They're not as likely to be
taken in by the slogans and visions of the moment. The fact that they named their group with a
14th century paradigm in mind demonstrates this. As I mentioned
before the context was an Anti-Habsburg alliance. Well, the Habsburgs are no
longer the dominating factor in Central and Eastern Europe but German
Imperialism represented by a host of historical forces from the Holy Roman
Empire to the Teutonic Knights, the Hohenstaufen, the Habsburgs and eventually
the Hohenzollerns are all part of the collective memory. As Germany comes to
dominate the EU, that memory is very much alive.
Though I add this as a footnote much could be said about the
Christian churches in places like Hungary and Slovakia. I refer here to the
Protestant bodies, some of which still have a regard for historic Bible-based
Christianity. Much more could be said about the role of Roman Catholicism
within Poland and the larger question of conservative Catholicism vis-à-vis the
EU project. In all cases there are relevant questions regarding nationalism,
its connections to Christianity and the relationship between these churches and
forces outside the country... whether located in Rome or in North America.
*Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999. Slovakia didn't join until 2004.
See also:
Interesting stuff... I've become fascinated with Austria-Hungary and the Peace Congress of 1814, so good to learn a bit more about that part of the world.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.eu/article/orban-new-initiative-needed-epp-stays-liberal-path/
ReplyDeleteFidesz out of the EPP means less voice for the ruling Hungarian party in Strasbourg which translates into more anti-EU sentiment.
A new Right-wing party in Strasbourg means consolidating anti-EU sentiment and trouble for Brussels and Paris