University of Public Service: “Central European Cooperation in the Shadow of War”
Ladies and gentlemen! Assembled dignitaries!
The great Hungarian writer Sándor Márai, reflecting on Hungary’s European future after the end of the Second World War, formulated the following sentences:
“Hungary can live and survive in the new Europe only by demanding quality; there is no way we can be mediocre.”
I believe that today’s conference and the series organized by the National University of Public Service in order that we might reflect, eighty years later, not primarily on Hungary, but on Central Europe and, in a broader sense, on the future of Europe. I am convinced that Márai’s views about post-war Hungary remain true for all of Central Europe today. We have to act by demanding quality, and we cannot be satisfied with being mediocre.
Today, our world is changing, just as it was eighty years ago. Anyone who now settles for the merely satisfactory today will be the loser in the decades ahead. And, here in Central Europe, we would like to be the winners of the changes that are unfolding in front of us. We must act with the demand for quality in order to understand the nature of these changes, and to explore the new situation in which we must prosper. We must discover in advance the possible pitfalls which may cause us to stumble, and we must be able to recognize the principles of right action that will help us to succeed. Allow me, by way of introducing my argument, to outline such a course in what follows.
First of all, starting from a broad perspective, what is the nature of the transformation now taking place? I am convinced that it is no less than the reorganization of the political and economic structure of the world. The world as we currently know in was created as a result of processes that unfolded across centuries.
Its most important pillar is the fact that for two hundred years the centre of gravity of the global economy and its strongest performing actors were the states of the West. This meant that the Western world had the largest and strongest economy and the most advanced technology.
The second, institutional pillar, which was created after 1945, was built atop the first: essentially the institutional bodies of international relations and international trade were created by the Western world, and everything that happened in the international space was organized based on this. After the end of the Cold War, this process further accelerated.
The third pillar is also related to this: it was created after 1990, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The essence of this was that the global hegemonic power became the United States, which, in close cooperation with Europe and the European Union, set itself the goal of spreading the neoliberal political and economic model – although it goes by different names – and by doing so it expected that the world would become a more peaceful place.
My basic thesis is that today all three supporting pillars seem to be faltering.
Regarding the third pillar, it has been proven that even its basic premises are not correct. The forced spread of the neoliberal political and economic model merely alienated the rest of the world, in such a way that it also gathered its opponents into ever closer forms of cooperation. The past year has furnished obvious proof of this. Today, we have come to the point where even the greatest proponents of the “end of history” theory do not believe that the spread of this model would transform the world into a more peaceful place.
Today, incidentally, the same idea has a new name: they talk about the struggle between democracies and autocracies. The only problem with this is that, according to 2022 data, the democratic administration of the United States, which wants to manage the world based on such a division, sold weapons to 48 countries they themselves classified as authoritarian. This is more than half of all countries classified as authoritarian, or 57% to be precise. “How can this be?” asks the timid, stuttering Central European politician. But facts are facts, and in more serious places everyone now treats it as a fact that our world cannot be explained or described in this way anymore.
In this context, even the second pillar is no longer as stable as it once was. The challengers to the current status quo are building alternative settlement systems, alliances, and dispute resolution forums. The point will soon come when they will finally be able to bypass the institutional system created over the last several decades of globalization and survive in parallel systems.
And as for the first, most important pillar: the economic competition between the Western world and the non-Western world – for the first time in at least two centuries – seems these days to be approaching equilibrium. It is not that one hegemonic pole will be replaced by another hegemonic pole – as it might easily be misinterpreted – but rather that an equalization will take place, and a state of equilibrium will return. There are at least five factors that express how these civilizational shifts unfold. These factors are economic power, raw material resources, population trends, technological development, and military power.
Let us begin with the most important: economic power. Equilibrium can be quantified here. In 1990, the share of the world’s economic output held by the Western world – even understood in the narrow sense – approached 50 percent, while today it is only 30 percent.
Moreover, economic analyses predict that this trend will continue.
Nor are we not doing very well in terms of the second aspect, energy supplies and raw materials. Europe, for example, does not really have energy supplies, nor the rare earth metals needed for the most modern technological products. The United States is in a better position in terms of energy supplies, but most reserves are still located outside the Western world. All of this is a serious problem, because historical experience shows that all industrial revolutions that have occurred in the past were the result of putting some cheap energy and/or raw material source into service.
That is why we understand the desire of our German friends to regain the energy independence of our continent through renewable energy sources, and to gain a competitive advantage through cheap energy. However, the technology is not yet suitable for this – we are not there yet, and a transition forced from above will ultimately lead to the degradation of industrial capacities and the impoverishment of the middle class. The old Hungarian joke comes to mind: we know what will happen – but what will happen until then? Until this question is answered, it is not worth taking the gamble.
Nor are we doing so well even in terms of the third factor, demography. No matter how you count them, there are slightly more than 8 billion people in the world, and 7 billion of them are in non-Western countries. Moreover, all forecasts show that this disparity will continue to grow in the coming decades.
The fourth factor, technology, is a dead heat. The biggest new players spend almost as much on research and development as the biggest old players. Several countries are moving head-to-head. It is enough to mention Eastern electric cars or battery technology, which are areas that seriously affect us Central Europeans.
Only in terms of the fifth factor, military power, is the West is still far ahead of the East. This is basically good news, but I think we can all agree that if we sought to exploit this competitive advantage, it would not be very rewarding, because it would entail global tragedy.
Ladies and gentlemen! Conference attendees!
Based on all this, I just wanted to underline that we have to imagine the future of Central Europe and Europe in a completely different global environment than that which we are accustomed to. We have to get used to the idea that the era of the multipolar world has arrived, in which Western civilization – of which we are a constituent part – will unquestionably be an important pole, but still just one among several focal points of power.
This does not alter the fact – indeed, it makes it more important than ever – that we Central European countries are interested in the success of the Western world. We want the Western world to remain successful in this new environment, and we want Central Europe to have decisive importance within the Western world.
And to achieve success in this we must learn from our predecessors. We need to examine how Europe became successful during the great changes in the world, and what methods it used to lead the countless European nations with different values, identities, and interests into successful cooperation. Let us see how the founding fathers of Europe managed their affairs.
Henry Kissinger, who recently turned one hundred, said of Konrad Adenauer that he was the “strategist of humility”. The secret of Adenauer’s success lay in the fact that, as a deeply religious, Christian-democratic politician, he had no problem reconciling humility with strength, insight, and even strategic thinking.
In what did Adenauer’s humility reside? It is best exemplified by his most famous saying, one probably familiar to many of those present here, which goes “we all live under the same sky, but not all of us have the same horizon.” [“Wir leben alle unter dem gleichen Himmel, aber wir haben nicht alle den gleichen Horizont.”]
Adenauer and the founding fathers of the EU were aware that the pursuit of our common goals does not require us to agree entirely on every major or minor issue in life. They understood that we should not focus on our differences, but rather on what unites us. Because if we do not act in this way, the very possibility of cooperation can easily slip between our fingers.
Nowadays, it seems, we tend to forget the truth of our founding fathers. However, the dangers lurking in wait for us are no less threatening than those which faced post-war Europe in the mid twentieth century. Europe is now in a situation where its peoples and countries must devote even more energy than in peacetime to understanding each other’s point of view.
Today, however, I think there are two fault lines that make pan-European cooperation of this sort more difficult. The first is related to identity and value commitments, and the second relates to the assessment of geopolitical issues.
Let us start with the first one. Today, we see that the peoples and countries of Western Europe judge immigration differently, and have different views on the importance of the family, the role of the nation, the definition of liberal democracy, and how to protect children. Moreover, these points of discussion often get mixed up, and we get them all in one package. We in Hungary perceive this as: “If you don’t want gender propaganda in schools, you will get a rule of law procedure thrown at you.”
I am convinced that the greatest danger to the prospect of unifying Europe today is if we allow these questions to become the defining elements of European discourse. Unfortunately, it seems that, no matter how hard it is to say, these issues of identity today do not unite us, but divide us. This must be said honestly. Therefore, if we want to work together, these must be pushed into the background, and points must be found in which frameworks for mutually beneficial cooperation can be established.
In addition to all this – as a second point – Europe is divided today by a geopolitical issue. Ever louder voices are urging that in the multipolar world that seems to be emerging, Europe should align itself with another powerful force, and at the same time should adjust to closing itself off and defending itself – both economically and culturally.
But we Hungarians see that this is a wrong approach. Europe has always been at its most successful when it was open to the world, when it assumed the role of intermediary between East and West, when it was able to speak with the voice of peace, and could trade peacefully.
That is why, for our part, in relation to other parts of the world, we do not think in isolation, not in terms of blocs or decoupling, but in connectedness and connectivity.
Well, there are basically three things we can do with these controversial issues. We can conclude the matter and settle the dispute, declaring one party right and the other wrong; we can settle for an ideological war of attrition; or perhaps we can take them off the agenda and then bypass them.
In our opinion, the latter is the most beneficial, if only because making a controversial issue out of either identity or geopolitics is essentially a waste of energy. And the energy wasted on unnecessary debates renders us unable to identify other areas of cooperation.
Ladies and gentlemen!
After all this, one may rightly ask what precisely the areas are on which we should cooperate, from a European and specifically Central European perspective. It is legitimate to expect us not only to be critical, but also to voice constructive thoughts.
For this, however, it is necessary for us Central Europeans and for the whole of Europe to accept a premise. Individually, no Central European country is strong enough to seriously formulate such proposals. But together – perhaps even supported by Germany – there would be sufficient weight for unified Central European proposals.
Consider it for a moment: Together, the V4 countries now account for almost 8 percent of the EU’s GDP. Collectively, it is the fifth largest economic unit. You can see its growth over the last 12-13 years, while the economic activity and weight of the Southern European countries is in steady decline. So a kind of shift in economic balance is taking place within the European Union from the West or the South – depending on how you look at it – to the East. In other words, the bloc formed by the V4 and Germany seems to define the centre of gravity of Europe.
In this way, together, as Central Europeans, I think we can make proposals. I have five suggestions to make.
The first is not to take away the political and cultural identity of European countries. We boldly recommend this because we, the Central European states and the peoples living here, have been constantly fighting for our own identity for the past 1000 years. We know what a treasure it is. Europe knew this a long time ago, when it coined the phrase “unity in diversity” as its motto. The strength of Europe lies in this diversity, in the many worldviews and perspectives, which in the end only broadens the range of proposed solutions. In fact, it makes the entire continent more crisis-proof.
That is why we think that the practice of Brussels judging the identity, culture, and national characteristics of each member state should be abandoned. Those who act in this way do not help the cause of integration, because they focus on differences instead of similarities, and see diversity not as unity, but as disunity. And this goes against everything that Europe stands for.
My second proposal is that the enlargement of the European Union should continue. I believe that this is the interest of all European citizens and EU states today. The conflict in Ukraine has made it clear that the European Union is in fact unable to control even the events in its immediate neighbourhood. And the enlargement of the EU offers at least a partial solution to this.
For this to happen, however, the European Union must be made attractive again, so that as many people as possible want to join us. Unfortunately, it is precisely the possibility of further expansion that brings to light plans that would tie expansion to the abolition of the need for unanimous foreign policy decisions. The argument goes that with such a large number of member states, a unanimous decision – in matters of foreign policy, of instance – would paralyze the European Union.
But who would want to join such a European Union, where a member state has to give up one of the most important hallmarks of its sovereignty, its independent foreign policy? In my view, no one.
As such, the condition for further expansion is not the further deepening of integration, but the reduction of the imperial bureaucracy in Brussels. A more flexible framework must be created in which each state can make decisions and find solutions according to its sovereign interests.
The third such proposal – which is also one of the clear consequences of the war – is that Europe should be made able to defend itself. And this entails military force. We must be able to defend ourselves against the Russian threat from the East. And we must also be able to prevent and respond to an armed conflict in our own neighbourhood, if necessary, without the involvement of our friends on the other side of the Atlantic. This is the only way we can get the world to take us seriously, and to sit down to negotiate with us as an independent, equal partner.
Consequently, defence spending must be increased, and the European defence sector must be strengthened so that it can be competitive and support production capacities even when it comes to the most advanced military technologies. By the same token, we need to develop cooperation at the EU level to enable individual national armies to guarantee our common security as a linked force. In this respect, I think Poland represents a forward-looking policy for the entire continent.
The fourth point is that Europe’s competitiveness must be improved. For this, we need cheap energy, because without cheap energy, European industry will decline and the European middle class, which is already struggling, will disappear. That is why the transition to renewable energy sources must be continued, but must be done more cautiously, and the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater. In specific situations, this is not always easy, but in general, energy cooperation with any partner should not be interrupted, and certain energy sectors should not be downgraded overnight with a single word from on high. Therefore, as our German friends implement the Energiewende, we Central Europeans in the V4 group say fine, but a little langsam spazieren, bitte!
Finally, a fifth suggestion. Please forgive me if you consider such statements biased, but that is all right, because as a Christian Democrat, conservative, right-wing politician, I can say it: The fifth proposal is that we must preserve our Christian values in European politics. When we Central Europeans talk about the importance of Christian values – and this is the message we have to convey to everyone – it is not some fashionable conversion program. After all, faith is a matter of conscience and does not belong to the world of politics.
On the other hand, we believe that Christian values and Christian teachings can be translated into political and economic principles that help us create a better, fairer, and safer Europe. These values create the common cultural basis on which the states of Europe can work together. The problem is that when various progressive and left-wing political forces seek to persecute Central European states for their Christianity, they actually eliminate the basis of civilization, the framework of interpretation through which European countries – despite all the difficulties and hostility – have been connected to each other for centuries. By doing so, they harm cooperation more than they think, because without Christian democracy, a united Europe cannot exist.
Ladies and gentlemen!
A successful Europe cannot be imagined without a strong Germany and strong Franco-German cooperation. But in the same way, it is not possible to imagine Germany seriously falling out with Central Europe either.
And even if quarrels do arise, one particularly charming anecdote about Konrad Adenauer remains. In his old age, he allegedly caught a bad cold, and his personal doctor could not really offer him much help. Because of this, the old chancellor reprimanded his doctor, who said:
“I’m not a wizard, I can’t make you young again!”
“That’s not what I asked for”, replied the chancellor. “All I want is to grow older”.
We Central Europeans are not wizards either. We do not think that if everyone accepted our proposals today, Europe would be rejuvenated in one fell swoop. But I do believe that if we start working together to implement them, then old Europe can enjoy good health for a long time to come!
Thank you very much for your attention!
