CEID organised a conference with four panel discussions on Polish-Hungarian relations in partnership with the Corvinus Society for Foreign Affairs and Culture (CSFAC) and the Polish Institute of International Affairs (PISM) supported by the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Hungary and the Polish Institute in Budapest. The main purpose of the conference was to enhance foreign policy cooperation between Poland and Hungary through emphasizing the main points of convergence and common interests, while also identifying the roots of the existing differences in order to find potential strategies for their settlement.

Speakers of the third panel discussion were:

Mr. Márton Ugrósdy, Research Fellow, Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade

Mr. István Perger, Head of Communication at the European Commission Representation in Hungary

Mr. Tamás Novák, Head of Department, Department of World Economics and International Trade, Budapest Business School

Ms. Anna Szczodrowska, EU Affairs specialist

The following text is a summary of the discussion.

Lack of solidarity: the main theme of the refugee crisis in Europe

Sadly, what best describes the reaction to the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe is the lack of solidarity that permeates the whole structure from the societal level to the highest ranks of EU decision-making.

President Juncker’s commitment to foster economic recovery in Europe is a valid position in light of the instability caused by growing Euroscepticism. But putting economic growth first must not blur his judgment of other pressing issues. In his utmost attempt to put economic prosperity above all, he cannot disregard the fact that a serious humanitarian crisis is rapidly unfolding in Europe, threatening to put even greater strains on the European economy.

The quota-system of the Commission has not come across as fair and solidarity-based to all Member States as it was meant to. In fact, the fierce opposition to the Commission’s initiative constituted the major binding force among V4 countries until the recent drop-out of Poland. Visegrad countries in general are unprepared to handle migratory pressures to such extent, which partially explains the hectic responses coming from this region. While the lack of existing best practices, proper infrastructure and well-trained professionals are serious shortcomings, the greatest problem lies in the deeply rooted intolerance and xenophobia within these societies. The steep rise of far-right movements has escalated tensions by fueling anti-migrant sentiments throughout Europe. A peculiarity of the Visegrad region is the widespread strategy of the political leadership to counter radical far-right parties by adapting a toned down version of their agenda. While this might further the political goals of ruling elites, their failure to distance themselves from extremist ideologies only exacerbates the crisis and sends wrong message. And since in the highly perplexed situation created by the refugee crisis, political rhetoric plays a decisive role, as the case of Hungary proves. Politicians might want to think twice before they frame their political messages. Otherwise, they might easily face immense international criticism regardless to the gravity of their actions. Finger-pointing, lack of understanding of each other’s position, and coming up with radical solutions in order to consolidate power are hardly going to solve the crisis any time soon. Instead of feeding the hostility of the public to ensure votes, politicians must finally assume responsibility for shaping public opinion and start providing unbiased information on the current situation.

As to the EU strategy, the implementation of quotas should be considered as an emergency measure necessary in such extreme circumstances, while for the long-term solution the focus of EU policies must shift from redistribution towards enhanced integration and strengthened partnerships.

Energy security: dependency, deficiency and disinformation

Natural gas has long been the tool of regional politics in Central and Eastern Europe. Russia has been extremely successful in consolidating the perception of dependency in Eastern European countries – and from a broader perspective the whole of Europe – while keeping his own limitations hidden from public knowledge. As a result, most people seem to be unaware of the fact that Russia relies on European energy consumption just as much as Europe is in need of Russian supplies. Although the region has progressed considerably in the field of energy security, the lack of a proper North-South energy infrastructure hinders the opportunity of intra-regional trade. In order to improve our position in this interdependent relationship and counterbalance the hegemonic aspirations of Gazprom, we need to keep investing in interconnectors. However, the construction of new pipelines alone will not solve the complex problem of energy deficiency. Diversifying sources and investing in sustainability measures are indispensable to ensure the long-term stability of energy supplies. Furthermore, energy efficiency should not be a priority only due to strategic concerns on the long run, but also out of our commitment to create a functioning Energy Union, which requires us to decarbonize our energy system. Decarbonization is a sensitive issue, one that nevertheless creates another strong connection between V4 countries, all having difficulties reducing CO2 emission. As an example, 92% of Poland’s electricity and 30% of its overall energy is generated by fossil-fuel power stations. Regarding the proportion of fossil fuels in comparison to alternative energy resources, figures tend to converge throughout the region. Energy poverty, high emissions by road traffic and overreliance on fossil fuels are common challenges for V4 countries, that should prompt enhanced cooperation in the field of energy policy.

TTIP: the triumph of myths over facts

The turmoil surrounding TTIP makes it very hard to navigate amidst the multitude of misconceptions, false information and groundless fears. It seems that the issue of the largest free-trade agreement in history has become a battlefield of opposing opinions where heated disputes prevail over pragmatism and the willingness to compromise. It is just as easy to find feasibility studies – done by recognized experts – that forecast an unprecedented economic boost as those that predict great losses for Europe as a result of the agreement. Credibility, therefore, becomes a rather elusive concept and we have to accept that uncertainty is an inherent feature of today’s highly interconnected global economy. What we can assume, nonetheless, is that benefits would most probably outweigh drawbacks for the Visegrad region, given the export-oriented nature of its economies. In fact, the total of exports of the V4 countries exceeds that of France. So far, these countries have been highly dependent on intra-EU trade in order to ensure the market and FDI for their most valued economic sector: the automobile industry.  The elimination of non-tariff barriers – provisioned by TTIP – could lead to multiplied profit mostly through enhanced indirect exports. Although this is a possible scenario, liberalization can also have adverse effects by decreasing the region’s competitiveness in case of the emergence of new technologies. Another potential risk is that liberalization would unequally affect different economic sectors, leaving agriculture in a disadvantageous position. When it comes to agriculture, though, it is the question of GMOs that provokes the greatest controversy. Russian backed anti-TTIP propaganda and the European Commission’s derailed communication campaign have equally contributed to the widespread belief in unfounded myths about the dangers of genetically modified products. In reality, even if the question of GMOs was to be negotiated under the aegis of the agreement – which is not the case at the moment – it is the Member States who make the final decision, while the Commission is only responsible for carrying out the negotiations. Hence, the old practice of blaming the EU for whatever unpopular decision Member States would like to deny responsibility for, can hardly be justified in this case. On top of that, transparency cannot possibly be called into question with regards to TTIP, since all information on the current status and content of the agreement that falls under the category of unclassified data, have been made accessible to the widest public.