The
Visegrád Group (also known as the Visegrád Four or the V4) is a cultural and
political alliance of four Eastern European countries: the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. The alliance aims to advance co-operation in
military, economic, cultural and energy affairs. All four states are also
members of the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the
Three Seas Initiative.
The
alliance traces its origins to the summit meetings of leaders of
Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland, held in the Hungarian castle town of
Visegrád on 15 February 1991. Visegrád was chosen as the location for the
summits as an intentional allusion to the medieval Congress of Visegrád between
John I of Bohemia, Charles I of Hungary, and Casimir III of Poland in 1335.
After the
dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia became
independent members of the alliance, increasing the number of members from
three to four. All four members of the Visegrád Group joined the European Union
on 1 May 2004, achieving its main goal.
During
the European immigration crisis in 2015, the Visegrad Group successfully
blocked EU-level actions aimed at implementing the forced relocation of illegal
immigrants within the member states. At that time EU Commission started
infringement procedures against actions of the Hungarian and Polish
national-conservative governments, claiming that they undermine democracy,
media freedom, and the independence of the judiciary. The Visegrad Four became
politically split due to changes in governments and diverging reactions to the
Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Yet its role in fostering exchange among
countries' public servants and civil societies (Visegrad Fund) remains crucial.If
the Visegrád Group were a single country, its land area, population, and
economy would be similar to those of Metropolitan France.
REMEMBERING February 7, 2016:
How migrants brought Central Europe together
Visegrád countries might decide they’re better
off alone if the EU sticks to its guns on migration.
February 7, 2016 9:31 am CET
By Radko Hokovský
By joining NATO and the EU at the turn of
century, the Visegrád Group fulfilled its original purpose — to integrate
Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic into Western democratic
institutions.
But the group has struggled to find a common
cause since, despite cooperation on issues like the digital single market and
common support for further EU enlargement. Faced with Russia’s aggressive
policies in the East, the four-country pack virtually split. Poland was a
cheerleader for military assertiveness, while in Hungary, Viktor Orbán appeared
eager to appease and downplay political tensions. Many considered the Visegrád
Group (V4) irrelevant to EU decision making.
Now the migration crisis has handed the group
something to rally behind: restrictive immigration policy.
The Visegrád members agree on what’s in their
best interests: strict protection of the EU’s external borders, faithfulness to
the existing migration rules, and an emphasis on assistance to conflict areas,
instead of the Continent’s current open-door policy and proposed relocation
scheme. The current consensus across political parties, including those in
opposition, is rare in these normally polarized Central European countries.
Their political position intensified when they
were outvoted in the EU council and a second relocation scheme for
asylum-seekers was adopted in September 2015. If the European Commission now
proposed a permanent relocation mechanism and put it to a vote in Council, the
V4 would fight it. If they were outvoted again, the consequences for their EU
membership could be grave.
* * *
Why has the V4 so opposed the mainstream EU
approach to the migration crisis? A lack of solidarity? Xenophobia and fear?
While these factors certainly play a role, the question warrants a more nuanced
answer. There are four main reasons why the Visegrád countries disagree with
what they consider an irresponsible open-door policy, and which they associate
with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
First, Central Europeans are not concerned with
immigration per se. They have integrated Ukrainian and Vietnamese communities,
and refugees from the Balkans were easily granted temporary protection in the
past. They consider today’s migrant influx substantially different because it
consists mainly of Muslims from the Middle East and Africa — and there is a
broadly shared perception that efforts to integrate Muslim immigrants in
Western Europe have failed.
Central Europeans are convinced the German and
European Commission-led response to the migration crisis is wrong and contrary
to European interests.
Central Europeans constantly see media reports of
ghettos, suburban unrest, and even terrorist cells in Western European cities.
They are terrified by the thousands of jihadist foreign fighters coming from
European Muslim immigrant communities. And they are shocked by opinion polls
that show how many Muslims who have lived in Europe for generations do not
identify with our open pluralistic societies. When they hear that 27 percent of
British Muslims have “some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo
attacks,” Central European people tell their leaders: “We want no part of
this.”
Second, Central Europeans do not accept the
assumption that the current migration wave cannot be controlled and reduced.
Migration is a natural phenomenon that cannot be completely prevented, but its
scope, pace and timing is a result of a few factors directly determined by the
decisions of policymakers. There is an overwhelming conviction in the Visegrád
countries that a much more sincere and humanistic way of helping refugees is to
provide them with assistance in the countries closest to their homes, rather
than standing idly by while hundreds drown en route to Europe.
Third, Visegrád countries are bound by the Geneva
Convention, but are under no obligation to provide protection to asylum-seekers
who have already crossed several safe countries or stayed in refugee camps.
Neither the Czechs, Hungarians, Poles nor Slovaks feel that their countries’
foreign policy is the main reason behind the situation in the Middle East or
Africa. There is an absence of any of the kind of historical guilt that Germans
feel for their Nazi past, and the French or Belgians for their colonial heritage.
Finally, not even the pragmatic argument that
refugees might bring economic benefits and reduce demographic decline resonates
in Visegrád countries. Although their populations are aging, Central Europeans
do not believe that migrants from Africa and Middle East will reverse that
trend.
* * *
That is why Central Europeans are convinced the
German and European Commission-led response to the migration crisis is wrong
and contrary to European interests. Since Visegrád voters will not allow their
governments to be part of an EU that accepts over a million asylum-seekers a
year, redistributing them among their countries by the tens of thousands, V4
governments will try to create a coalition to reform the EU immigration and
asylum system.
But the V4 does not only have a common position,
it has a clear vision of a new EU system based on two principles: reducing the
number of migrants arriving in the EU and increasing aid to refugees in the
European neighborhood.
Any immigration policy should be accompanied by
integration measures, which would emphasize the adoption of European liberal
democratic values and would actively counter the spread of extremist
ideologies.
Reduction can be achieved by actually
implementing existing proposals to strengthen the external borders, including
fighting traffickers; using fences, naval blockades and forced returns; and
launching an assertive communications campaign to dissuade illegal travel to
the EU.
Extending help to refugees outside Europe can be
achieved through taking full care of existing refugee facilities in the EU’s
neighborhood — especially U.N. refugee agency ones across the Middle East and
Africa — where people in need will be protected from violence and persecution.
The EU itself would only accept asylum-seekers arriving from states on its
borders, honoring the Geneva Convention’s first-country-of-asylum principal.
This principle means asylum-seekers do not have
an absolute right to choose the country where they apply for protection. They
can accept refuge in the first safe country. Asylum-seekers coming to Europe
across Africa or Middle East from faraway countries would be deported to the
asylum center closest to their country of origin. In return, EU countries would
voluntarily decide to carry out active resettlement programs from the U.N.
refugee agency facilities. Thanks to this, incentives to undertake dangerous sea
crossings would decrease.
Policy on legal migration would remain a
prerogative of individual EU countries. However, any immigration policy should
be accompanied by integration measures, which would emphasize the adoption of
European liberal democratic values and would actively counter the spread of
extremist ideologies, such as Islamism, among migrants and their descendants.
If the V4 fails to fulfill its new mission to
push through an EU immigration and asylum reform, Central Europeans will
probably go for an opt-out from justice and home affairs issues of the kind
Denmark or the U.K. have. That would put them on a dangerous path of
questioning their EU membership in years to come.
Radko Hokovský is the executive director of the
European Values think-tank based in Prague.
This article was corrected to remove reference to
a relocation scheme vote in the European Council. In fact, the vote took place
at an EU council meeting.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário