20 Mar Summary of the Budapest Security Conference

Budapest Security Conference – Event Summary

Keynote Speeches

A new world order is currently being established, and Hungary should be on the winning side – started Mr. Péter Szijjártó, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary. Thus, we need to adapt to the new political, economic and social conditions which make today’s security challenges more complex and threatening than before. Concerning present security threats, Mr. Szijjártó argued that the Hungarian position does not imply that illegal migration equals terrorists entering Europe. It only observes the obvious correlation between the uncontrolled masses of illegal migrants and the probability of terrorist attacks in the continent. In order to tackle the migration crisis, he called for an effective protection of Europe’s Southern borders, and the mitigation of tensions in Syria, which he considers the root cause of migration. Mr. Szijjártó firmly endorsed the importance of the V4 cooperation, and lobbied for NATO’s enlargement, mentioning Macedonia and Georgia as the potential new members of the Alliance.

Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajcák strengthened the position of Hungary in endorsing the NATO-enlargement process, but also gave voice to his concern that not all members of the Alliance are equally devoted to this crucial issue. He stressed that those closest to our borders need to be reinforced the most, although it is important that the support provided to them is tailored to their individual needs.

The refugee crisis should not be solved at the expense of another country – stressed Macedonian foreign minister Nikola Poposki, and warned that placing all the burden on the shoulders of a non-EU country cannot be part of the solution either. He believes that it is essential to separate those who are truly entitled to refugee status from the rest of the newcomers. Mr. Poposki called on Greece to keep to its international commitments as well. He welcomed the Hungarian support provided for his country’s Euro-Atlantic integration, but at the same time he expressed his disappointment caused by the reluctance of the EU and NATO to finally accept the accession of Macedonia, despite fulfilling all needed prerequisites.

Mr. Ted Whiteside, Assistant Secretary General of NATO assured that the Alliance would work closely with Frontex as well as the Greek and Turkish coastal guards in the Aegean Sea. He made it clear that NATO’s role in this mission is not withholding or returning the boats, but according to international law, is to save lives at risk. Nevertheless, those rescued will be sent back to Turkey.

Migration as a Long-term Challenge

According to Mr. Michael Spindelegger, Director General of the International Center for Migration Policy Development, finding a delicate balance between human security and state security constitutes the essential challenge for Europe. Mr. Spindelegger identified four major issues which need to be dealt with, in order to reach this balance. First and foremost, we need to find a way to reestablish control over migration flows. Hence, strengthening the cooperation of police and border management authorities between the countries along the main migration route is indispensable. The second most pressing issue is the readjustment of the existing legal framework of the EU to the realities of the refugee crisis. After ensuring that migration flows are under control and a proper legal ground is laid down, the next step is the integration of newcomers. The last and all-encompassing challenge for the EU is to build a completely new migration regime from the bottom-up, which would focus on finding viable solutions for tackling the root causes in the countries of origin.

Mr. Zsolt Németh, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Hungarian Parliament, stressed that the question of migration is existential for the future of Europe. In his view, the mass influx of migrants and refugees is due to the relationship of Europe with its direct environment. Therefore, development policy should be given top priority for the European Union. Another significant policy area which should be reevaluated is security policy, especially hard security. Mr. Németh believes that the soft power approach of the EU must be critically revised from time to time. As to the divisions in Europe, he described the situation as a “dialogue of the deaf”, between two uncompromising groups, unable to reach a consensus due to their essential discrepancies.

Mr. Álvaro Renedo Zalba, Senior Advisor for European Affairs and G20 to the Office of the Prime Minister in Spain talked about the Spanish experience of tackling the mass influx of migrants from West Africa arriving to the Canary Islands during the last decade. He emphasized the crucial importance of building up a strong cooperation with the local authorities of the countries of origin and transit -Senegal, Morocco and Mauritania -, in order to be able to properly handle the situation.

Mr. Gueorg Gueorguiev, member of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the Bulgarian Parliament, explained the difficult situation Bulgaria has recently found itself as being a non-Schengen EU-member country though expected to act as such. He also recalled that his country has always been a stable and reliable partner of both EU and NATO in the Balkan region. Now, when faced with an unprecedented influx of migrants and refugees, the Bulgarian government is attempting to normalize the situation in three different dimensions: protecting the external border of the EU, redirecting the refugee route towards the points of access to the EU for registration, and finally elaborating efficient policies for long-term integration of migrants.

NATO-Russia Relationship – The End of a Beautiful Friendship

The annexation of Crimea was a game changer which shook the foundations of the post-Cold War world order, stressed General Rainer Meyer zum Felde, Defence Advisor at the permanent delegation of Germany to NATO. He explained that such an aggressive act by Russia literally shocked the West, which had not thought of Russia as an adversary since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, the relationship with Russia was so promising that Western countries hoped to establish a strong bilateral cooperation in the field of counter-insurgency operations and other areas of mutual interest. It follows that throughout the last 15 years nuclear deterrence was not on the agenda of NATO either. Gen. Meyer lamented that the present conditions give the Alliance no other chance than to refocus on deterrence. Dialogue, of course, remains the most important aspect of NATO-Russia relations, while Gen. Meyer also emphasized the significance of standing up for our values and principles.

Janis Berzins, Director of Research of the Latvian National Defence Academy, warned that NATO sees escalation in a different way from Russia. While Russia might be willing to cross the nuclear threshold only to show off, in the case of the Alliance this would equal to doomsday. Therefore, NATO’s task now is to find a way of dealing with Russia without engaging in direct confrontation.

Mr. Boris Shmelev, Director of the Institute for Political Research at the Russian Academy of Sciences and Arts, pointed out that lack of confidence is the major problem in the relationship of NATO and Russia. He explained that Ukraine is far more important to Russia than the West, therefore the partial loss of influence in the post-soviet country meant a geopolitical catastrophe to Moscow. In Mr. Shmelev’s view, the current crisis is the result of NATO’s policies, which rejected a strengthened cooperation with Russia. Approached from another perspective, he identified the Ukrainian crisis as the result of conflicting geopolitical interests, and called for a compromise between the two parties. He also reminded that Russia does need the West, since its modernization projects would be impossible without Europe’s help, while at the same time, Russia is not comfortable with the idea of US hegemony.

In Mr. Desmond Bowen’s (Former Director-General of Operational Policy in the Ministry of Defence of the United Kingdom) opinion, it is important to keep in mind that there had been enormous improvements in NATO-Russia relations before the Russian aggression in Ukraine eliminated confidence between the two sides. The basic principles and values of their bilateral cooperation have been laid down together. He also assessed the initial response by the EU as sufficiently unified, and referred to sanctions as a demonstration of solidarity. He also agreed that dialogue must be maintained, and that a common ground needs to be found with Russia. Mutual interests in their relationships with Iran, North-Korea or even Syria might lead to finding the common denominator after all. Despite all, Mr. Bowen alerted that Crimea would not be simply forgotten by the international community.

Collective defence

The third panel dealt with the issue of collective defence as a reemerging priority to NATO. Mr. Jiří Schneider, Executive Director of the Aspen Institute Prague, found that the sanctions against Russia proved the existence of strategic thinking within NATO, which seemed to be fading away after the end of the Cold War. According to him, the worst-case scenario would be the spread of post-soviet type governance across Europe. As to the Russian strategy, he highlighted that the turning point was the Russian intervention in Georgia in 2008. Since then, Russia has started to spend more on defence matters and invested vast resources into asymmetric warfare. An essential part of this strategy is that it is extremely hard to determine whether Russian troops crossed the border or not.

In the Deputy State Secretary for Defence Policy and Planning of the Ministry of Defence of Hungary, Mr. Péter Siklósi’s assessment, NATO is facing two essentially different challenges at the same time, and the needed defence capabilities differ accordingly. In order to tackle the Eastern challenge, we need to refocus on territorial defence and heavier forces, which is not an easy task, due to the serious investments and high level of unity it requires. Nonetheless, at least we have done it already during the Cold War, so from a theoretical approach, it should not be that much of a challenge. On the other hand, the Southern threat is something completely new both in nature and scale. Actually, we have no idea at all how to cope with it from a strategic point of view. We know that fighting it requires a whole different set of capabilities used in ou-of-area operations, including lighter, quickly deployable troops. Although we have practiced this type of military engagement in recent years, now we have to face the combination of the two menaces at the same time. Mr. Siklósi believes that the Readiness Action Plan (RAP) was the right answer to this complex situation, and its implementation is going well so far. As to the delicate issue of the defence budget, he called the attention to the fact that public spending dedicated to the defence sector had at least stopped declining throughout the Alliance. He called for further investment into capability building, which is indispensable for a strong and resilient NATO.

Col. Tomasz Kowalik, Advisor to Undersecretary of State for Defence Policy at the Ministry of Defence Poland, emphasized how serious the Eastern threat is, by pointing at the following facts: 1.Russian conventional forces are currently being stationed in another country’s sovereign territory – namely in Donbass – , 2. a physical movement of borders followed the Russian aggression in Ukraine, and 3. Kaliningrad – the Russian exclave on the shore of the Baltic Sea – is being militarized as we speak. These facts all prove that Russia is not afraid of completely disregarding the norms of international law. He argued that hybrid warfare implies a conventional aspect as well, which can be deployed in case other means go out of control. According to Mr. Kowalik, the current Air Policing mission could transform into an Air Defense mission in the near future.

Mr. Marian Majer, Director of the Slovak Security Policy Institute underlined the lack of mobilization plans in NATO’s strategy, adding that real time exercises were of crucial importance. He considers specialization to be the right solution for increasing efficiency, especially in the case of smaller countries.