30 Jun Beyond the NATO Summit: A roundtable discussion in Prague
The project is focusing on four aspects of regional cooperation in the changing European security environment. You can read further details on the goals of the project on the following link.
On 25th June CEID with its local partner, the Prague Security Studies Institute organised a roundtable discussion in Prague to map and discuss Czech interests within the Visegrad Four.
In Wales, ambitious goals were set up by NATO members, but since then nothing has really happened, and the continuity of Visegrad cooperation is also facing serious challenges due to political disagreements. The basis of the collaboration is not yet elaborated enough, and each V4 nation has different approaches towards similar problems. Many of these questions have strong political implications, which also creates a block on the way of future cooperation. The North-South division regarding security perceptions re-emerged within the NATO, and mutual solidarity is not strong enough. That is also represented within the V4. While Hungary is concentrating on migration linked with Islam fundamentalism and the IS, Poland mainly focusing on the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Creating a common V4 position within NATO and enhancing the partnership would be crucial for the V4 member states, but that would require more solidarity towards each other.
The first topic that emerged connected to the prospects of V4 cooperation, was the energy issues. From the region it is considered to be a priority by the Slovaks, because they could be in a position of a transit country for the Russian gas. During the discussions an important discrepancy has been revealed, that lies in the fact that for the Czech Republic and Slovakia the most obvious and efficient partner in this case would be Austria (with Baumgarten), while for Hungary rather Croatia or Slovenia. Other fundamental questions came up during the discussion, for instance the possible origins of the gas in the new stream. Where should the pipeline come from? Is the Turkish Stream we are concentrating on? How much that project is linked or compatible with Eastring? Will Brussels give financial support to any of them, especially as Turkish Stream is a Russian initiative or not? Furthermore it was emphasized, related to the energy union, that the liberalization of energy markets especially in Hungary and Poland, goes very slowly and they are far behind the expected level. This area also has a security and defence aspect – where the NATO comes back into the picture – that is the protection of the existing infrastructure, especially as crucial interconnectors are not yet finalised. In case of the Ukraine, such question becomes essential.
Secondly, the future enlargement of the NATO came up. The enlargement has not only geopolitical aspects but also political implications. In this context, especially the Ukraine, Georgia and Montenegro have special status. A common starting point, on which each V4 nation agrees, is the need for an extensive cooperation with the possible candidates. Nevertheless, there is broad consensus that the fulfilment of the accession criteria is a challenging, nearly impossible task for Ukraine and Georgia, due to the conflicts that had an impact on their territorial integrity and capability to control certain regions of their country (making Article 5 impossible to implement in their case). The main cause of this inability, besides the economic and political deficiency of these countries, is the continuous change in the requirements of the NATO. It is also commonly recognized that strict progress reports on the Western-Balkan region are needed. The question of the enlargement is usually seen as a dividing line in the region.
Regarding the V4 defence and security cooperation participants emphasized, that in the past few years in the history of the V4 lots of joint projects were launched, but none of them has yet been implemented fully. As a first step, trust need to be built up and strengthened between the allies. For the time period until the Warsaw Summit, the priorities should be the following: to set up a common unit (which can be permanent) and to hold more joint trainings, to follow up with forming the united airspace, even though it has many legal and technical difficulties, and to concentrate on the procurement with technical cooperation and beginning with smaller, simple projects. For the Visegrad countries the modernization, improvement of interoperability and increasing the budget spent on military and defence issues are crucial. To prevent possible accidents with Russians, like the ones in the Baltic airspace, renewed military hotlines should be supported by the governments. Another extensive question emerges from the invitation and the probable participation of Ukraine in the joint battalions and exercises, first of all in the Visegrad Battle Group.
The most controversial and uncertain viewpoints came up regarding to NATO-Russia relations. On one hand, the concept of smooth and efficient cooperation with Russia is considered to be a naivety. On the other hand, there are opinions towards maintaining the strategic communication between NATO and Russia. A real threatening point that should be on the Warsaw Summit agenda is nuclear deterrence. It was considered that a common position in the framework of NATO is urgently needed. Some guesses about Russia’s real intentions concerning the NATO membership and credibility have also been brought up. According to some views, Russia becomes extremely important when it comes to the fight against the Islamic State, which is a reason again on the side of maintaining a cooperative relation.
The papers, analyzing the abovementioned points, are planned to be introduced in October, within a more extensive event, at the Budapest Security Conference.
