Europe's Failed States John Horvath

The failed states of Europe reflect the failed state of Europe

Over the past few weeks three events seemed to underscore the awkward position of the European Union (EU) in terms of international relations. These and other similar events continue to leave Europe in a schizophrenic state. On the one hand the EU is made up of sovereign nations which have come together under a common purpose; on the other, Eurocrats in Brussels bemoan the fact that Europe is unable to speak with one voice when it comes to foreign affairs.

This schizophrenic state was highlighted in 2003 with the American war against Iraq. The EU was unable to find common ground, with many of the accession states (Poland, Hungary, etc.) supporting the war while the major EU states of France and Germany were opposed to it. This split led to the notion of old Europe versus new Europe. Soon, however, it became obvious that the so-called coalition of the willing was nothing more than a coalition of the billing; each EU member state which supported the war in Iraq had done so out of self-interest, expecting some sort of return from Washington. For countries like Hungary and Poland, this was in the form of preferential loans and other financial incentives.

Sadly, the political landscape has changed somewhat with the anti-war stance of France and Germany taking on an increasingly belligerent, pro-US tone. This is mostly due to the rise of the right in these countries, with Merkel in Germany and Sarkozy in France rattling their sabres in the direction of Iran. Indeed, the sabre rattling has become perceptibly louder, raising fears that George W. Bush, together with the blessings of Germany and France, will try and attack Iran before he leaves office.

Ticket to Freedom

Whether this will actually happen or not remains to be seen. For now, Eurocrats are still concerned with trying to overcome their schizophrenia. This wasn't helped recently when Hungary negotiated and ultimately signed a memorandum of understanding with the US concerning visa-free travel to the US. This agreement was similar to ones previously signed by the Czech Republic and Estonia.

After the fall of communism, one of the major goals of the countries of the former East Bloc was to secure visa-free travel to the US for their citizens. The US has visa-free relations with all old EU member states except for Greece. However, citizens from the new member states, with the exception of Slovenia, still need a visa for travel to the US.

At times, the objective of visa-free travel for the former countries of the East Bloc appeared even more important than EU membership. However, just as with EU membership, the issue of visas was often dangled as a carrot before the salivating mouths of Central and Eastern Europeans. Indubitably, the promise of visa-free travel to the US was one of the reasons why some members from the coalition of the billing supported the US invasion of Iraq.

After several false hopes, this dream of many within Central and Eastern Europe has come one step closer to being a reality. In February of this year the Czech Republic was the first to sign a bilateral agreement with the US. Subsequently, it's expected that the Czech Republic will join the U.S. visa waiver programme probably this autumn.

Although the Czech step was supported by Hungary, Slovakia and the Baltic countries, not all states from Central and Eastern Europe supported this move. Poland and Slovenia, as well as the so-called old EU member states, supported the idea that the European Commission should negotiate the visa issues on behalf of the EU instead of individual countries engaging in bilateral talks. The problem was further compounded by the fact these countries would have liked to have postponed the talks on visas; member states such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, however, were keen on a quick solution.

All this has aggravated the EU's schizophrenic state. In particular, Brussels was not happy because these bilateral agreements seriously undermine Europe's stance on data protection and personal privacy. It's feared that the US will be able to use countries like Hungary and the Czech Republic to somehow circumvent European privacy laws. The bilateral agreements signed by the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Estonia, therefore, further complicates efforts to find a joint EU position in talks on visas with the US, this according to Slovenian Interior Minister Dragutin Mate (Slovenia currently holds the chair of the EU's rotating presidency). Mate pointed out that most EU members want to take a joint stance during the negotiations about US visa requirements and support the proposals prepared by the Slovenian EU presidency.

An Oily Situation

What tears Europe apart are not only contentious issues blowing in from the west, but those coming from the east also. In particular, plans for rival oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caucuses to supply energy hungry markets in Europe have been a source of friction. A few weeks ago Hungary surprised most observers when Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany suddenly flew to Moscow and signed a deal allowing for a planned Russian pipeline to transit through the country.

The EU had already thrown its support behind the plan for a pipeline which would come from Turkey and traverse across the Balkans to the Adriatic or possibly further north to cross into the EU directly. Russia, however, has its own plan for a pipeline which would cross the Black Sea to Bulgaria and then up through Serbia to the rest of Europe. The advantage of this route for Hungary is that the country would benefit from the transit fees it would receive for maintaining the pipeline on its territory.

For the EU, the problem with the Russian pipeline is that it would diminish the importance of their plan. Furthermore, Budapest's quick and lightening reaction rendered a slap in the face to Brussels which has been struggling to formulate a comprehensive energy policy to be shared by all member states. Hence, the unilateral action of the Hungarian government seriously undermined these efforts. For his part, Gyurcsany remarked that Moscow came with the best offer and that he immediately pounced on it.

This isn't the first time, however, that the supply of oil has been a bone of contention among EU member states. A few years back Germany did a similar move whereby a separate agreement was reached with Moscow for a pipeline which would run under the Baltic Sea from Russia, thereby by-passing Poland. It goes without saying that Poland was very critical of the German move because it ended up losing out on the transit fees it would have gained by having the pipeline pass through its territory.

As the supply of energy continues to be a contentious issue for Europe, we can expect to see more such friction among EU member states in the future. What is more, the EU appears to have no qualms about sacrificing its lofty ideals for the sake of securing new energy sources. A case in point is its relationship with Algiers. Despite the fact that the Algerian military had brutally suppressed the formation of a democratically elected government, and that the subsequent government has been responsible for gross human rights abuses and violations, the EU has barely raised its voice in protest. This is because Algeria is one of the main suppliers of oil to the EU. Human rights are one thing; business is another. Unfortunately, when it comes to resolving differences between the two, the latter often takes precedence.

Europe's Achilles Heel

Apart from the issue of visas to the US and oil from Russia, perhaps the most pronounced issue of Europe's schizophrenic state is that of Kosovo. Two weeks ago Hungary, Croatia, and Bulgaria issued a joint declaration affirming their recognition of Kosovo's independence, noting that this status of Kosovo was unavoidable. This was soon followed by their official recognition of the breakaway province. The joint declaration was also quick to stress the need for Serbia to quickly become integrated with the rest of Europe, and thus should be made a member of the EU as soon as possible.

Some observers believe that while initially relations between Serbia and the three countries may cool a bit, they nevertheless feel that recognising Kosovo won't lead to a permanent worsening of relations. This may be so for some states such as Bulgaria which hasn't had any major problems with Serbia, but for others such as Croatia and Hungary it?s hard to imagine how the recognition of Kosovo won't have anything but a long-lasting effect on diplomatic and even social relations.

Still, many are optimistic that the worst wave Serb reaction has already passed, and that a rise in anti-ethnic violence, for instance against the Hungarian minority in Vojvodina, is unlikely. Even so, the police have been on heightened alert in minority areas where Croats and Hungarians predominantly live -- just in case. Serb radicals warned that incidents may take place if Croatia or Hungary recognises Kosovo, but so far this has proved to be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Still, although there have been no large scale attacks against ethnic minorities in Vojvodina thus far some individual attacks have been reported. Recently a student in the town of Subotica was beat up because of his Hungarian ethnicity.

As a result, despite claims by minority leaders that all is well, a certain amount of fear in some areas of Vojvodina and elsewhere in Serbia prevails. To this extent, the Serb radicals have achieved their aim; to instil an atmosphere of fear so that those with the ways and means will flee from the area of their accord, thereby aiding in the low-intensity ethnic cleansing of the area which has been already going on for the past decade or so.

While most believe that there won't be large-scale attacks in Serbia against the minorities of countries which have recognised the independence of Kosovo, this doesn't mean that the existing violence and discrimination against minorities won't be further entrenched. In other words, although we won't see a massive retaliation by Serb radicals, we won't see any form of reconciliation either. In essence, the wounds of the past may not cut deeper, but they won't heal either.

For the EU, if the hope was that by recognising Kosovo it would have solved the Balkan crisis then it has seriously miscalculated. The Hungarian minority in Serbia feel that they deserve special protection from the EU since Hungary is a member state. This means Europe can't simply turn its back on what happens next in the Balkans and move on. Meanwhile, Brussels is desperately trying to forget that it was primarily responsible for letting the tragedy of the former Yugoslavia unwind the way that it did. In many ways, little has changed: the EU is still at a loss of how to deal with the ethnic problems which exist in its own backyard.

Moreover, it goes without saying that not all countries in Europe are happy about the situation in Kosovo, foremost Spain, Romania, and Slovakia which all have large minorities of their own. The problem for them is that Kosovo may set a precedent even though the EU maintains that it won?t. Not only this, but independence doesn't necessarily mean sovereignty. This fine distinction is manifest in the need for recognition by the UN of Kosovo's independence. Along these lines, some observers maintain that Hungary could have waited with its recognition of Kosovo until the province was officially recognised by the UN. While its recognition of Kosovo independence may have been largely symbolic, Hungary has now opened a Pandora's Box of diplomatic and social unease with neighbouring EU states, namely Romania and Slovakia, both of whom have large ethnic minorities of clamouring for autonomy.

Consequently, a wave of xenophobic nationalism - sometimes supported by the government - has become apparent in these countries. In Slovakia, for instance, the government has pushed through a new education policy which seeks to further curb the rights of minorities. Not only does it seek to teach a biased view of the country's history, it also doesn't recognise Hungarian as an official language; instead it's treated as simply another foreign language. Until recently, Hungarian has been recognised as an official language of sorts, with priority naturally given to Slovak. Gradually, however, the right of minorities to use their own language has been curbed to the extent that in areas predominantly and traditionally Hungarian, the mother tongue of some citizens is not allowed to be used in public (for example when a Hungarian patient visits a Hungarian doctor) as Hungarian is now considered by the state to be a foreign language.

In Romania, meanwhile, nationalist extremism is slowly on the rise. Hungarians still have to fight for their right to have bilingual signs; when such signs are put up they are often either removed or defaced. Also, physical attacks against minorities have increased. During the March 15th anniversary commemorating the 1848 revolution against Habsburg rule, for instance, two Romanian youths beat up a Hungarian who was on his way to attend an official celebration.

Aside from being plagued by both ghosts of the past and present, the legacy of the EU's schizophrenia and inability to deal with problems in its own backyard is evident in the failed states which have emerged as a result. This is certainly true of Kosovo, which most likely will turn out to be like Bosnia, another failed state in the Balkans.

Unfortunately, the media (and hence the public) perception of a failed state is that of Afghanistan or Iraq, where terrorism and war is commonplace. Ironically, akin to the Balkans, in those two countries NATO and US involvement was supposed to bring democracy, a beacon of hope for other countries in the area. After relatively easy victories in the beginning, however, these wars are still going on and democracy is further away than ever. In fact, the situation is so bad that some within the region look back to the good old days when Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were in power.

While there are many similarities between the situation in the Middle East and that of the Balkans, the situation in the former Yugoslavia is admittedly nowhere close to being as chaotic. Nonetheless, in places such as Bosnia the state is unable to function on its own. The country is basically a protectorate of the EU: the highest political authority in the country is the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the chief executive officer for the international civilian presence in the country. Since 1995, the High Representative has been able to bypass the elected parliamentary assembly, and since 1997 has been able to remove elected officials. On several occasions the actions of the High Representative have been criticized as undemocratic. International supervision is to end when the country is deemed politically and democratically stable and self-sustaining. Yet over ten years since the end of the civil war, the prospect of this happening any time soon is remote.

Just as remote is the dream of a European Union where the countries of Europe work together for a common goal, where co-operation lays the foundation for peace among the nations of Europe. Alas self-interest and competition, both in the realms of economics and diplomacy, have replaced the notion of co-operation. As a result, Europe is finding it increasingly difficult to speak with one voice. The US visa issue, the trans-Balkan pipelines, and the status of Kosovo all have vividly demonstrated this.

Finally, it must be kept in mind that a failed state is not only one that fails to function because of war and civil strife. Hungary itself is on the path to becoming the first failed member state of the EU thanks to the spiralling level of debt it finds itself in. The economic prospects for the country looks gloomy and many are now talking about the possibility of the government becoming insolvent within the next five years or so unless something drastic isn?t done soon. Unfortunately, efforts are hampered by EU regulations and its convergence programme for Hungary which seeks to put the rights of investors and big business ahead of ordinary citizens.

Given all these failures, Brussels needs to take a hard look at itself; the concept of a European Union needs to be redefined with the support of the people it supposedly represents, as opposed to the present practice of pushing through reforms that few understand and that even fewer support. Presently, the institutions of the EU are nothing more than forums for has-been and dying politicians who use them as a means to pump up their self-importance by engaging in prestige politics or to put the finishing touches to their mortal legacy. Unless fundamental change occurs at the very heart of its institutions, and that the politicians within these institutions are replaced by ones elected directly by the people for the purpose of promoting the health and welfare of all Europeans, then the schizophrenia that the EU presently suffers from will end up driving Europe mad. (John Horvath)