CEU eTD Collection

In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Ar In requirements for of of of Master the fulfilment degree the partial Between the EU and NATO: Hungary’s Strategic Cultur (Word count, excluding headings, bibliography, and and bibliography, headings, excluding count, (Word Department of International Studies &Department Relations European of Supervisor: Professor Merlingen Michael Central European University Budapest, Hungary Marion Smith Submitted to Submitted 2009 By By

appendices: 16,900) 16,900) appendices: ts ts e CEU eTD Collection

© Copyright© rightsby2009. reserAll Marion Smith, Page Page 2

ved.

CEU eTD Collection 1. TableContents:of of strategic culture. reve thus cooperation, security EU through addressed best are needs recognizing while even needs, NATO’s favors overwhelming Hungary could FRONTEX capabiliti deployments, and military of matters EUBAM On integration. in participation Hungary’s best, at on NATO and EU any of Hungary’s sec While Hungary’srational Europeanisation interests. the i heavily both factors ideational of that clear member assessing becomes it a By cooperation, complimentary. as structurin always experiences not military Hungary’s are and agendas security security, border Russia, with relations Abstract: 2. 4.

3. 5. 6.

Introduction..……………… 2.1. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………… 3.2. 2.2. European Security………………………………………………… 4.2. 3.1. Literature Review……………………………………………………………… 4.1. 3.3. 5.1. BetweenHungary and NATO…………………………………………… the EU 5.2. 6.1. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………… Bibliography……………………………………………………………………… Appendices………………………………………………………………………

5.1.1. 5.1.2. 5.1.3. 5.1.4. 5.2.1.

5.2.2. 5.2.3.

NATO……………………………………………… Neorealism…………………………………………………… Research Questions…………………………………………………………..6 ResearchQuestions…………………………………………………………..6 Europeanisation……………………………………………… Methodology…………………… Toward a European Strategic Culture? ………………Toward Strategic Culture? a European Strategic Culture…………………………… Strategic analysis……………………………… documents Policy analysis……………………………………… Theoretical Implications…………………………………………Theoretical

The Documents…………………………………………… Russia………………………………………………………… Conceptualizing borders……………………………………… capabilities structuring………………………………… Russia: energyRussia: security………………………………… Seeking security…………………………………… internal Capabilities: maintainingCapabilities: the guarantee…………………………

………………………… …………………………………………… Page Page 3 …………… …………………………..5 es structuring, and defense spending, defense and structuring, es ……………………… …………………… ……… fune n smtms override sometimes and nfluence ugr’ cocs n security in choices Hungary’s …………………...14 g reveal that EU and NATO NATO and EU that reveal g …………………33 aling the dominant influence dominant the aling ……………… ……………… ……………… …………… …………… ………… ………… lead to further security security further to lead …… urity culture is minimal minimal is culture urity that its stated security security stated its that ……… …… …… ……..35 …….56 …..47 …..49 …..61 ….39 …10 …40 ...6 …23 …51 h mtes of matters the …28 ...62 ...43 ...64 ..33 ..33 7 .73 .73 11 10 22 CEU eTD Collection US NSS NATO NAC RRF PSC EUMS EUMC EUFOR EU ESS ESDP ESDI EDCI EDC ECAP CFSP AbbreviationsofList strategicKey referencedTable Words Frequency of 4: within documents………… Table Hungarian Security 3: Priorities……………………………………………….56 Policy…………………………….51 Table of Europeanisation Hungarian 2: Security Table Strategic 1: Comparison…………………………………………… Culture asFigure of December Missions EU/ESDP 4: 2008………………………………… Figure 2000-2009…………………………………..71 Hungarian Defence Spending 3: 2007-2008...... 70and EU deployments missions Figure NATO Hungarian in % 2: of Elements……………………………………………………Figure Strategic Key 1: ofList Graphs &Tables

ntdSae United States European Union European Security Strategy European Security Strategy National Security Strategy (United States) National States) Security Strategy(United Political Security (EU) Political Committee Rapid Reaction Rapid Force European Defence Community North Atlantic Council European Security and Defence Initiative Initiative Europeanand Defence Security European Defence Capabilities Initiative European Defence Capabilities Foreign Common and Security Policy Europeanand Defence Policy Security European Capabilities Action Plan Action European Plan Capabilities North Atlantic Treaty Organization North AtlanticOrganization Treaty Staff European UnionMilitary European Union Military Committee European UnionMilitary European Union Force EuropeanForce Union Page Page 4 …47 ...38 .65 .72 .72 CEU eTD Collection becomes apparent that limited resourcesfinances sometim becomes manpower and apparent of limited that

states to make a choice in terms of makestates security to a cooperation. in choice member states, the possibility for both cooperation and conflict exis member cooperation both states, for the possibility agendas the are seekingentities enlist twoEuropean to security of these effectivelstrengthen ability use its to rapidly, military force own inadequacies theits United and States capacity has vis-à-vis power hard in embarked has become super civilian to al it but power, the onthe first quest approachwhile maintaining military a securi primarily traditional to scopereinventedend its of expand War of and to o the sought the Cold following itself Thedifferent a US-dominatedconceptions andNATO aims. of means security’s yet, values; share two entities political certain Western the on issues, states advanced of and and the represent most economic military the some in powers evidenceEU they and sha contradictory. The NATO be suggests fact may in It these that obvious twoendeavorsEuropean are complimentary; indee not Union. is increasinglycooper end to contributing security War of to integrated the Cold the US-dominated within transitioningNATOdependency from allia security

o xmn wehr r o te U s uflig t ga o inte of goal its fulfilling is EU the not or whether examine to posi well a offers experience Hungary’s Union. European the into has and States United the with extensively cooperated has Russia, Like other post-communist states of Central finds and Hungary Like Europe, Eastern post-communist other Hungary, a middle sized country in central Europe which has had a trou a had has which Europe central in country sized middle a Hungary, C HAPTER Page Page 5 1 1 y the and When autonomously. grating member states’ security security states’ member grating benefited from its integration its from benefited tioned case study from which which from study case tioned ts. In ts. case it Hungary the of ty. The European The ty. Unionhas EU and NATO and project EU participation of the same participation so beenso to awakened es force member re many member nce the following ation within the within ation sought to lliance has lliance has bled past with past bled world. The d, much perations, perations, itself itself CEU eTD Collection be heavily oriented towards the EU and Hungarian public opinion is is opinion public Hungarian and EU the towards oriented heavily be AO otne t sae ugra scrt ad ees plce w policies defense and security Hungarian shape to continues NATO its own securityits contradictoryIsactor.EUcongr and NATO or membership be a will crucialcountries CSDP (CEES) of within aspect whether the EU strategic culture, which shapes its national response to EU national to security response strategic its which init culture, shapes con and illustrative both be to appears NATO in involvement Hungary’s i This NATO. of influences and interaction dynamic the considering defenc and EU’s Hungarian security to importance exercise the consider to response national the in interested primarily if Even territory. t whether Or missions. ESDP its for support procuring and agendas ResearchQuestions 2.1 the external aspects of its internal security. internalthe security. external aspects of its as EU the sees increasingly Hungary that indicate FRONTEX and Hungar minimal, remains operations ESDP in participation While of field the in priorityforemost and first Hungary’sundeniably structuring capabilities and spending, defence deployments, troop Nevertheless structures. security European integrated more of equal importance to both the EU and NATO. In terms of security la security of terms In NATO. and EU the both to importance equal Hungary’sNATO.st and official EU the within cooperation defence This paper attempts to explore both the rhetoric and policies policies and rhetoric the both explore to attempts paper This Theatof securing of success central and the EU eastern the Eur cooperation

C HAPTER Page Page 6 2 2 of Hungary to ESDP, it is a futile a is it ESDP, to Hungary of security and defence cooperation. cooperation. defence and security Hnays hie f missions, of choice Hungary’s , the framework for addressing addressing for framework the y’s contributions to EUBAM to contributions y’s rategy and rhetoric give near giverhetoricnear and rategy nguage, Hungary appears to to appears Hungary nguage, all indicate that NATO is is NATO that indicate all overwhelmingly in support support in overwhelmingly iatives. of Hungarian security and and security Hungarian of e ntd tts through States, United he s especially true because because true especially s will be ablewill act to as stitutive of Hungarian of stitutive also without e policies ithin the EU’s very very EU’s the ithin uent in theuent field in of opean CEU eTD Collection policies. The key research questions of this paper are: paperare: of questions this Thepolicies. key research security;States’ compatib roleNATO’s European in United the and the broader research theme of strategic culture and national responsesbroader strategicresearch and E to of culture national theme 2.2 Methodology 2.2

cooperative security agendas; as well as the potential Europeanizati ascooperative well as the potential agendas; security and sustainabilityspeaks of inte the European effectiveness to security predominant be al its forced point choose to member at some states will If 2003suggest, security? long in contradictory, as potentially events the then in security cooperation would be most applicable. This paper applicable. be atte most security will This cooperation would goals stated suggestcooperation strategic c when more would that even EU its NATdiscussed to a in Hungaryunwavering later an section, maintains commitment irrationally rational to outcopredicted choice-based contradiction direct in cultural clear determiningBut is in agenda and it outcomes. at that the times forconsider also beand when pressures accounted must external political securityquantifiable preference actors’ strategic influencers on op the of nail culturalwithout pierce to insight, seemingly we hope the cannot

No matter how long we hammer away with rationalist hammers,No there matter howwe rationalist long with away are tim hammer analysis? this from secur national stated and threats of assessments rational NATO, and ESDP 2) What can be concluded about the compatibility of ESDP, NATO sec NATO ESDP, of compatibility the about concluded be can What 2) secur in choices Hungary’s explain to likely more is Which 1) or non-material factors? non-materialor factors? Page Page 7 s. Capabilities as well as internal Capabilities s. mpt to contribute the to to mpt on of Hungary’s security on of Hungary’s security gration; the future of U security initiatives ility of EU and ility ofNATO EU legiance. This research legiance. This ing the role of strategic the role ing t coeain within cooperation ity mes. As will bemes. As will states behave aque non- ivilian-focused urity cooperation cooperation urity run, dual run, dual O military ity priorities ity es when CEU eTD Collection both the ESDP and cooperation the 1999 andNATO, in ESDP both 2008. emphasis ontrends with between atrs f aiul eair ht ebr o a ainl strate national a of members that behavior habitual of patterns taei culture.strategic of element fundamental a considered thus is behavior Strategic in order to embrace a definition that could explore could that definition embracea to order in 5 4 3 2 1 find a to expect does mean clear not attitude-behaviorrelationship.” we should states these and organizations, the to behavior system links that groups, of individuals, part is of a this doctrines,broad ideational and norms, unless variables other rightly analyze to pointless is Johnston it that percep “images, observes necessarymeans, strategic is behavior’sexplore to it relationship to empiricalthrough analysis and of investigative Hungary’s defens security an regard with other each with share and imitation or instruction through conditi ideas, of total sum “the as defined culture strategic of Jac upon builds paper this culture, strategic of definition upon possib deemed are action of courses what or are alternatives the determ not does but “indicates culture Strategic possible. is evolvingexperiences its cultural and shape characteristics of the state s investiga that approaches”strategic research relativist allows for Poore,Stuart t moving and strategic “universal from away empirical idioms With a mind to future research, this paper seeks paper this research, future to mind a With (1977),8. Snyder 15. Toje(2008), 45. (2004), Glenn in Poore Stuart 171. (1998), Johnston Because behavior is an integral part of what constitutes and informs stra Becausewhat part constitutes an of is integral behavior Strategic Culture is helpful in determining what is preferre is what determining in helpful is Culture Strategic 5 Additionally, because strategic cultures are the result of a a of result the are cultures strategic because Additionally,

to move beyond the state-centric definition of straof definition state-centric the beyond move to the strategic culture of non-state actors, specifi actors, non-state of strategicculture the Page Page 8 ine what is expected of an actor, what what actor, an of expected is what ine k Snyder’s original understanding understanding original Snyder’s k tes “how the formative“how the tes le.” oned emotional responses, and and responses, emotional oned i cmuiy ae acquired have community gic d out of the vast array of what what of array vast the of out d ideas and discourse. Alastair ideas a security actor’s observable observable actor’s security a 3 In the absence of an agreed an of absence the In trategic interests.”trategic tions, worldviews,tions, o ula strategy.” nuclear to owards cultural and er research program e cooperation within e cooperation within 1 In the words of tegic culture’stegic path dependent dependent path cally NATO and and NATO cally tegic culture tegicculture s. This This s. 2

4

CEU eTD Collection rcs,i sesnilt oka itrclted n exper and trends historical at look to essential is it process, surrounding the formulation of security policy; and, finally, the actual the finally, and, policy; security of formulation the surrounding by a capabilities-focused theory (neo-realism) or by a const a bytheory or (neo-realism) a by capabilities-focused the EU. Thus, this paper utilizes utilizes paper this Thus, EU. the decision making system.” See Hill (1996), 13. 13. (1996), Hill See system.” making decision identity, clear “a encompassing as actorness” “true identity

nomd n ifune b dfnn hsoia eprecs n tren and experiences historical defining by influenced and informed behavior. policy security and discourse strategic both to reference in bot reflected is that consensus a goals; security of pursuit in and be to understood is culture strategic

simply, an factor is intervening culture ideational strategic determ in cultural consistency ontheir dependent analysis coherence time: is across and tha mind in Keeping studied. be should analysis of objects following val geography, history, relevant the of grasp general a to addition Hunga whether determine to attempt an in Russia with relations

ugr’ scrt coeain I rgrs o od, hs analysis this words, to regards In cooperation. security Hungary’s • • • • •

, , capabilities hs nlss il tep t lo a mltr coeain b cooperation, military at look to attempt will analysis This giving side; and their counterparts, recipients, enemies and victims onthe re andgiving enemies victims counterparts, recipients, and side; their militarygovernmentincluding security office officials, strategists, Interviews committee education hearings, material; general policy and discussions Political rhetoric/discourse multilateral agreements,multilateral sanctions, Actual foreign and security and Actual foreign policies power;” diplomacy, andeconomic other “soft aid forms of Budgetary allocations h bl o te nlss il tep t eaie oh h words the both examine to attempt will analysis the of bulk The of training regimens, diaries, memoirs, and situation briefings. of briefings. trainingregimens, and memoirs, situation diaries, Deep analysis of security of documentsDeep analysis and and of key decision makers of making keyand the security decision in execution processes effective security actors security

institutions for defense, intelligence and police spending in relation to public public to police forrelation spendingand defense, intelligence in including speeches, publications, legislation, resolutions, legislation, resolutions, including publications, speeches, a consensus on the function of force in the exercise of power power of exercise the in force of function the on consensus a in keeping with Christopher Hill’s and William Wal William and Hill’s Christopher with keeping in as referent objects. A security actor is understoo actor security A objects. referent as inter aliainter ” “practical capabilities to affect policy,” and “a and policy,” affect to capabilities “practical ” Page Page 9 including acts of war, andincluding bilateral treaties, acts including strategic documents, orders, descriptions documents, orders, strategic including ; and;

ructivist strategic culture approach. In approach. culture strategic ructivist iences. Combining these elements, elements, these Combining iences. h across time and among actors actors among and time across h ry’s policies are best explained explained best are policies ry’s ues and national culture, the the culture, national and ues ining state behavior. behavior.ining state il ou o examining on focus will t their value in strategic strategic in value their t order management, and and management, order strategic behavior. strategic rs, diplomats onthe rs, diplomats hs osnu i both is consensus This ds; the discourse(s) discourse(s) the ds; and the actions of of actions the and

d to possess possess to d lace’s definition of definition lace’s self-contained self-contained ceiving side; ceiving side; Put Put

CEU eTD Collection 6 vocabulary new t is and socialization change identity “surest of sign the notedRieker that has of and discussion involving level political and technocratic the both at langua This vocabulary. security with and language strategic inti and close a involves adoption their because documents strategic Neorealism 3.1 andthe conclusions assumptions containedpaper. this in infor to both them allowed and desks clerk’s to offices ambassador’s The officials. security Hungarian and NATO, EU, with 2009 May and bet conducted interviews personal by throughout supplemented are data purp illustrative for materials secondary and primary additional structuri capabilities and deployments, troop spending, defense polic the on focus will analysis this security, of language the oit no drn te 90s te hoy eraim a atcltd i articulated was neorealism theory the 1970’s, the during Union Soviet conflict the of nature the in changes of result a As states. other desire a by primarily motivated are states that asserted Addit behavior. state’s a of determinants important most the are Rieker (2006), 19 (emphasis in original). original). in (emphasis 19 Rieker(2006), Realism has traditionally assumed that material considerations material that assumed traditionally has Realism in terms of which the identity can then be publically articu publically be then can identity the which of terms in C HAPTER

3

–

L Page Page 10 ITERATURE to maximize their relative power vis-à-vis vis-à-vis power relative their maximize to R ge-dominated process often occurs occurs often process ge-dominated EVIEW between the United States and the the and States United the between y actions of Hungary, including including Hungary, of actions y oses. The documents and other other and documents The oses. ng. Reference will be made to to made be will Reference ng. oal, els hs further has realism ionally,

m and to evaluate many of of many evaluate to and m and rational self interest interest self rational and ten compromise. Pernille compromise. ten mate involvement with with involvement mate interviews ranged from ranged interviews en oebr 2008 November ween lated.” he development of a a of he development odr o fe a offer to order n 6 In addition to addition In CEU eTD Collection by a paradigmatic proscription of multiple levels of analysi of levels multiple of proscription paradigmatic a by 10 9 8 7 reductionism. was level” national or individual that claimed Waltz Kenneth neorealist the Indeed, actors. state little very assigned which structures, international on was focus realit with corresponded closely more that explanation conceptual Europeanisation 3.2 analysiscontained thereafter. dominant the as serve will which culture strategic of overview an reality.” rea material acknowledg[e] “readily approaches constructivist legacies.” ideational formative historical, deeply behavior state of characteristics and sources the about claims significant a “poses constructivism Johnston, Alastair to According empirically rationality when theory limited conspicuously a it definedandnature; as act “statesmen termspower.” of in interest think guided as viewed he which behavior states’ determined in actors the consider to was thinking realist to contribution Morenthau’s Hans considered as part of a broader security research theme (including Euroconsideredasa part research theme broader of security Johnston (1998), ix. ix. (1998), Johnston (1978),5. Morgenthau (1979),18. Waltz Giegerich (2006), 34. 34. (2006), Giegerich At its conceptual core, the rationalist determinism that charac that determinism rationalist the core,conceptual its At This comparativeThis of andNATO, documents Hungarian strategic analysis EU, 10 The following section will briefly glance at the Europeanization approach, atglance the Europeanization The briefly section following will

Page Page 11 7 In essence, Waltz’ neorealism is characterized is neorealism Waltz’ essence, In 9 t s motn t nt, oee, ht many that however, note, to important is It s in explaining the behavior of states. states. of behavior the explaining in s lity as a prerequisite for social social for prerequisite a as lity al t gvr sae’ actions. states’ govern to fails importance to the uniqueness of of uniqueness the to importance by rooting strategic choice in in choice strategic rooting by by a distinctly rational human rational distinctly a by y. Nevertheless, neorealism’s neorealism’s Nevertheless, y. challenge to structural realist realist structural to challenge o ok o “ass t the at “causes for look to terizes neorealism has made has neorealism terizes 8 peanization), which seeks peanization),

conceptual frame of the the of frame conceptual importance of human human of importance could be followed by CEU eTD Collection Nordic security countries’ policies. model by support forprovides exploring empirical the well-tailored her 13 12 11 on nationaldefence security and policies.” and the ESDP impact onthe of to national responses there thi a is of “lack scholarship Baan area important security as of research identity. because, is This the explore influenceto EU and security cooperation onchanges of integration i offeringIdentity constructivism’s as “social (SIT) Theory Social Trinemore conceives Flockhart of offers stat dynamic a both which model of the socialization components as constitutive national fundamental population structthree political and filters “other” (“self” categorizations; entity state that international eventually whose socializing adopts norms t we” state informed which both is andby of on behalf the responds socialized argueFlockhart SIT self-othering l constant that to processes utilizes albeitnorm characterized at focused t and “acceptance,” “learning” by completed theconsiderations. is legal with “institutionalizat The process self-entrapment.” adaptation” followed is “instrumental by This of norms as state rhetoricengage discours actors substantive into them then drawing in norms between in overcomeaand actor misfit their the relevant international process.elite actorsat the the same The placing firmly into time overcome anda “sociological divide between “rational in institutionalism” engaging change; new instrumental in and discourse; institutionali persuasion; Flockhart (2006), 92. (2006),92. Flockhart 59-61. Rieker(2006), 24. (2006), Giegerich Pernille Rieker’s model, composed of five phases of socialization (prevaofcomposed socialization Pernille Rieker’s of five model, phases

11

Page Page 12 ures and and processes; political process begins as elites seek to begins as to process elites seek theory agent,” of the ead to a“significant desiredead to stian Giegerich noted, stian has he elite level.he elite socialization of select socialization . The model contains model . The ion” of the external e and “argumentative stitutionalism” while stitutionalism” allowed domestic by own state. The elite o the relevant seekszation), to n national iling traditions; iling traditions; process. While e elites and the 12 Rieker 13 s initiative initiative s

CEU eTD Collection process may not be internalized at the nation level, which by at would be the level, nation indicated process be may not internalized the “even at that norm the out state level, points adoption following norm successful Even unjustifiable. though seems popular the socialization institutionalizat policies of the Nordic countries, then socialization is achieved.” is then socialization ofpolicies countries, the Nordic also institutionali is process: security the “If approach comprehensive transformation experienced by the elites has yettransformation take at experienced byplace t elites has to the islevel it perhaps of socialization, socializa premature declare to the national lawswithin or does of accepted indee a state practices policy Rieker’s model. disregarding the conceptual importance of mass socialization within the tot within disregarding importance socialization the of conceptual mass 16 15 14 the at s both real whichof implies “taken-for-grantedness” socialization adopt, theinternalize, inc or institutionalized to final conform This norms. stage of theinstitutionalization pop and socializing agent’s among the national norms, elite takes level,throughat chara place the and state the filters three In or top-down social elite at or neither). configuration, its level, mass at both, culture traditions) and four and allows for scenari participation potential mass phenomenon;” understanding. of“princ security Rieker the socialization as sees policy forpolicy ill-suited mass awarconsideration – a of domain policy security ac socialized elite-focused Riekerissues, her analysis of justifies Rieker (2006), 61. 61. Rieker(2006), 55. Rieker(2006), (2006),98. Flockhart Rieker goes theanalysisRieker elite to levelrestricting her of beyond level While Flockhart applicableWhile ofmodel socialization the spec offers full to a 15 thus would seem the it that the mass level outside scope justifiably falls

Page Page 13 16 tors by virtue of hertors virtue by specialized tion completetion when the he popular level.he Flockhart popular This theoretical This disregard of cterized bycterized zed inzed the national security ipally” an a “elite ipally” and not tate and mass levels. os (socialization at the (socialization os d indicate a deep very d eness and eness ion of certain norms al socialization al socialization , to completely, to ization passes ization ludes an element ludes an element ulation who ulation persistent persistent trum of policytrum transfer 14

of CEU eTD Collection 3.3 Strategic Culture Strategic 3.3 execution, ratherexecution, basic aims.” than on onformon coloration a of ofreality….[Its] expression, bearing background, is polit aKennan determinant and and “ideology of a that not social is wrote product bebeYet,effectivel made understood the must attempt and if conduct that to is ofand the determination theserole the relative of twoforces of officia each in Theremorecanfew psychological difficult t analysisbe tasks of ideology exercisedcircumstances….which nearly have for and they de three now Kennan, personalityideas, p ofpolitical and Soviet “the For behavior. among the concerning1951, for conceptual obviation relationship he cult upon had the hit it only andnot laws,when also the has the nation but nation’s transformed elites it influence the level deepest of socializ because elite-driven elites, but of adoption merely wi norms the because level may the originate popular 20 19 18 17 set.” conform of to the population thefailure instit with proportion a in significant where is diffusion this that lies.” theStudies real challenge of norm least the that because c “nation/people cannot is “it be level not ignored,” F could norms be overnight.For alteredalmost institutionalized reasons, these George Kennan quoted in Gaddis (1982), 33. 33. (1982), Gaddis in quoted Kennan George (1985),107. Kennan (2006),108-109. Flockhart (2006),93. Flockhart 17 This consideration is especially pertinent for democratic especiallyfor consideration This pertinent societie is George Kennan attempted to grasp the cultural elements of Soviet strate of Soviet grasp to George culturalattempted Kennan elements the necessar dynamicFlockhart’s is ofrobust and the inclusion masses her in model

20 According to Ken Booth, it is impossible to consider to Ken According the impossible Booth, is it to Page Page 14 han to try to traceto han try the to interaction 18 ation mayation occur said to be

ower [was] the product of [was] ower s wheres the thin a statethin and lear from lear Development utionalized norm l Soviet conduct. Soviet l lockhart argueslockhart nd on method ofnd onmethod y countered.” gic behavior gic in cades in Russia. Russia. cades in ical self. y, not ure, ure, 19

CEU eTD Collection past events effecta have profound onsuch processes. analytically useful manner is anything but obvious. analytically anything is manner obvious. but useful may andrelationship strategicbetween articul behavior be, ideas approach to strategic thinking as a [consistent and] uniqueapproach ‘strategicculture and] as a thinking [consistent strategic to “intra-war in deterrence”limitation” strategies. key, he was The wrote, differencesexplain American unilateralcooperat between Soviet and offirst security introduced “strategicculture” He studies. the concept to context offer without strategican outcomes: Capabilities incomplet ideationalcontendsare variables essential more historical that and to full a in Inste mechanisticrespond or predictable external stimuli manner. to element – they (or common in other perhaps states that act reject the idea culthe disparate onstrategic ofrelevance. thought strands Nevertheless, there ofthe culture, definition strategic noconsensus alone applica let is on its respectablecould beof a of amount done.what the schol vast Despite array of of understanding is behavior,goals.Indetermined as what provides to it terms security regarding actors’ preferences employe means strategic and offergreatersecurity outcomes and making processes understa policy aoutcomes full causes. can,based provide culture onideational however, Strategic or predi Huntington’s test of solve the civilizations, to security clash dilemma, and definitions be avoided. must Strategic artificialimpose dichotomizations 21 thesecurity influence processcultur from decision-making independently of

Booth (1990). (1990). Booth Ineasilyabsence identifiable objects and of of quantifiable the anal In 1977, years culture, of Sn Soviet Jack observations Inafter his Kennan published 1977,

Page Page 15 21 As obvious as the existence of a as As obvious the existence of d in pursuit of pursuit politicallyd in ating that relationship in anrelationship in that ating e picture. ive approaches to “damageive approaches to to “look at to the Soviet was attempting to was ad, strategicad, culture ture hold one hold keyture yunderstanding ors too) rationallyors nding terms of in ysis, to temptation the ’”: e, primarily because culture offer cannot arship onthe topic, bility and ct behavioral actually out done er of picture yder CEU eTD Collection question of differing desires concerning the means to provide to for ofquestion differing their defense concerning the desires means It The was question assumptions. geography. one not capability, of or opportunity, were be not explaine USSR developing could that different strategies the same relativeWith circumstances military and capabilities, op 22 article“third be approach. could generation’s” largely se Johnston’s eclectic contained Peter in Katzenstein’s an analyticalcoherence asand of tool culture applicability strategic a existinga discontentcharacterized with shar research and by mainly self-termedStrategic his fallsgeneration” within (1995) “third Culture” elite-drivenIain noteworthy Alastair Johnston’s behavior. ar strategic aespecially disconnectwas st disingenuous whenbetween perceived there of decisionmore elites in and making role critical largely note onthe focused of resort. last generatioexplanation The the discourse “second so-called of analyses. technologicalunderstanding from capabilities Cultur traditional or beculture to a auxiliary the considered abs in secondary explanation was generation”the “first First generat of culture strategic scholarship. Snyder (1977), v. v. (1977), Snyder Neither preconcept nor American Soviet are strategists culture-free, Snyder’s 1977sparkedwave seminal article research a in Ala of by termed have developed answers that differthat have significant answers respects. developed in abouthave and the use of asked nuclear different weapons questions somewhat and the and Americans Soviets technologicalsituational constraints. As a result, and response in historical,organizational, and contexts, different to political and American Soviet theorists, different in developed have doctrines

The Culture of National Security of The Culture Page Page 16 22 (1996) are indicative of the portunities, the and US portunities, the ion scholarsion believed that

. The perspectives diverse d by rationalist d by rationalist ticle “Thinkingticle about ed desire for greatered for desire of scholarship of scholarship e was an thus e rategicand discourse n” struck a decidedly ion-free gameion-free ence of satisfactory en as a proposed processes, . stair Johnston stair Johnston was a

CEU eTD Collection pursuit in order in pursuit empirically to str “ideational”establish causeand its behavior, how allow it the to order for “conceptual in and space” determining what culture choice, to that “frustrating of about vagueness relationship culture’s level strategic choice. The formulation of this positivist of this methodologicalstrategic The choice. framew formulation aimposes “rough ratheron the priorities; focusedculture is order” de he onhow how strategicsets culture appearswith concernedsome behavior. less Johnston that therethat conceptual be can strategic all nosuch space, because beha most vocal critic,Johnston’s “thegeneration”and methodologically ap scholar 25 24 23 of strategicgenerations’ conceptualization culture. a remedyasguideemerging the deficie to and ofbody the scholarship to culture [as] the world feeling,culture of mind, and [as] of a for great is point thosespace who contention con analysis empirical for strategic choices from which we can derive predictions aboutstrategic behavior.” we from derive choices can which predictions strategicdecision-makers and culture“providew can that variables” of“that falsifiable, astrategic is theory or culture need at in least is Accordi cultureandatfundamentally explaining what does. therefore unhelpful of culture ideas which unf which and leads is that intertwines and a behavior to theory friction intervenes that cultural and preferences behavior.” between approachJohnston’s agree has that previous been scholarship “insufficiently

Johnston (1995), 44. 44. (1995), Johnston (1999),50. Gray 45. (1995), Johnston Johnston criticized “firstJohnston generation” ta all-encompassing, scholars’ Johnston’s dichotomization order ofin conceptual ideas Johnston’s provide and to the behavior does in a behavioral sense.” He started with the assumption that culture that theHe sense.” assumption with does aff not started a in behavioral

habit in behaviour.” in habit Page Page 17 For Gray,“first Colin a distinguishable from non- distinguishable 24 ith a uniquely ordered set of a ordered uniquely ith set ategic behavioralategic effect. Johnston addressed Johnston the viour is affected human by viour is 23 ncies of previous ncies is, about what it is that that about is what is, it Even critics of ork central is his to utological conception utological sider “strategic critical of thecritical the “agenda” or palling truth [is] [is] truth palling ng to Johnston, ng Johnston, to termines termines does affect alsifiable alsifiable ect all all ect 25

CEU eTD Collection between a positivist social morebetweena relativisti science positivist a approach and beings who cannot help but bebeings culturalcannot agents.” help but who behavior,context.” are the effect of “ideational” causes effect of “ideational” causes centersdispute role the concept of within behavior onthe of cultur strategic variable itself? Strategicculturevariable which itself? serve the rolewhich fulfills sometimes of variable and independent sometimes 29 28 27 26 academic consensus on this central academic consensus contention. on this disentangle.years the discourse,After and in ar stops of we starts thirty duringgenerational conceptua tediously scholarship, a has complex first proven influenced by that culture. Despite Johnston’s worthyinfluencedgrea Despite provide culture. that by Johnston’s to attempt reinforcing whoforces areactors themselves modifying decisions and or of we, us; our within is onlyalso it rigorous. not is ins ‘out there,’ culture Strategic understandthecannot behaviour “problem strategic we that is meth that by har is acknowledges the perspective “from it that of methodological rigour would empiricism. which W baseindependent Johnston positivist his variable upon as “aunderstanding of word-concept” culture experience,understoodwith gatheredand and processed.” however widely ideas, ideas from derive but matters to about intellectual strategic have Gray (1999), 53. (1999),53. Gray (1999),54. Gray (1999),60. Gray (1999),59. Gray At its core,generationsAt its “third” the between dispute is the and “first” Culture must be understood must Culture as affected a is that part process nosmall by in 29

or

is behavior a requisite component of culture behavior strategic is defined so a requisite prima facieprima Page Page 18 28 would not allow culture not as serve to the would 26 Gray as regard a culture strategic “zone of does seemed so obvious and useful seemed a and concept obvious so c post-positivist outlook. This c post-positivist and emotional interaction emotional and e no closer reachinge to an no d to fault [Johnston],” fault to [Johnston],” d 27 od, be it everod, be it so in no small part nosmall in e. Ise. the behavior the difference Gray’s ter analytical ter tools s ass the dependent l webl to titutions, and our titutions, the self- hile Grayhile CEU eTD Collection predict strategic behavior, then just whatpredict then exactly just cul strategic strategic can behavior, to Ann Swindler, culture is the from kit” “tool is course Ann which Swindler,to can culture actors their of choose and cultural curiosi historicaladd, tidbits with other discussion than coloring the or are what of courses action possible.” deemed culture expected does determine the but is of not “indicates an what what actor, ends the helps of means determine p thus, necessarily strategic Culture, not the 34 33 32 31 30 appears analyticalas an tool.” unattractive seeking social scientists operationalize, “for observa positivist Because that. meanscultural for are are variables difficult noless real b and outputs, inputs frustratingly complex processmultifarious with coreits operationalize expense a of meaning. expunging term Cult at the the affectswhereby ofexplain culture and may understand onstrateg scholars alongconsideredas geography, a capabilities, variable with circumstanc discernableallow strategic variables other behavior, influence over Strategicconsensusculture essentially of prefer a is strategic securityand discourse thefor chosen means achieving strategic d otherwise was eager so enablesJohnston and prove.culture limits, to inf Strategic surrounds, “cause” strategic in anything doesaccepts the not culture conclusion that strategic offer rigi not “discerning cultural variables tendencies “abehavior. of” constituent strategic Quoted in Glenn (2004), 48. (2004),48. Glenn in Quoted 15. Toje(2008), (1986). Swindler (1999),50. Gray Poore (2003) Poore If the ideational independent variablecultureIf strategic used cannot the t ideational of independent be , 283. 283. ,

31

30 Strategic culture is both a “shaping context for” Strategic culture a and both “shaping is context Page Page 19 33 Colin Gray have Colin Booth and noted Ken that ences and time possessing over ble, quantifiable data, culture data, ble, quantifiable d determinants.” ture do? value What doesture it do? ing. Culture, thus, must be must thus, ing. Culture, ut its influence its ut onstrategic to identity and identity to es and internationales ure is an is intricateure and a positivist sense, as positivist a etermined objectives. y, unhelpful to is it olicy. Strategic alternatives are alternatives 34 ties? Accordingties? o explain and explain o This paper This orms theorms action. 32

CEU eTD Collection betweenand defensive military offensive doctrines.” cannot analyses “functionalpreferences. and She states that structural domestic constraints and militarydomestic constraints doctrine.” and distributions within society within historical experiencedistributions and of the importance considerations, sheGoing the emphasizes import external rationalist beyond 40 39 38 37 36 35 national character.” analyses culture thein military’s of culture; i strategic organizational them.” condition ofoutside the cultures that yet,Poorestructures; var“non-cultural argues, or material as Stuart the te ends. Reconceived and in influence and means political strategic both over ratherbut means-ends eac a military dichotomy, where political, dichotomy paperworkconsidered as her this does as addr in not defined culture strategic unimaginable.” constrains“by what behavior ‘natural’ other establishing and is mak[ing] p interwartheir employed chosen were during the means period strategic reducing thesame same threa for objective the context: military interest BritainF defensive Sheconsiders and strategies. although both that military preferencefocuses subcultures explain military choi to on political Kier (1996), 204. 204. Kier(1996), 203. Kier(1996), 202. Kier(1996), 215. Kier(1996), 214. Kier(1996), 282. (2003), Poore Kier states that her “organizational culture the not is someti Kier primordial notion “organizational states her that Elizabeth Kier’s organizationalElizabeth political addresses work a culture re on 38

39 Rather, “the organizational culture is the intervening is Rather, variable betwee culture “the organizational

40 35 Page Page 20 Kier’s “political culture” organizational Kier’s be cannot

37 Rather subculture dominant a state’s ces between offensive orces iables can have can nomeaning iables s not equivalent not thes to adequately explain choicesexplain adequately remarkably dissimilar. s in determining strategic in s t posed Germany,”by posed t atterns of behavioratterns h appears have to rance“shared the ance of power ess a similar lated Kierissue. lated rms setrms forth in mes found n 36

CEU eTD Collection strictly to the choice of strategic means and the surrounding discourse. strictly and the the of means surrounding choice to strategic discourse. the differentiation betweenwithin identity political and strategic militarycomprising and player civilian among both culture strategic overall and of strategy one outp inputs the only multifarious part would,however, be may organi ofconcept military subculture organizational discerned. The be m acompetingcomponents strategic to consensual contributing as the culture subculture organizational paper, political couldthis be however, Kier’s of strategic culture necessitates a definition that encompasses action, a encompasses that action, of definition strategic necessitates culture primarilyis of used pursuit politically in the ends. means determined A including orforce maint regarding the perceptions in projection function of the a observes secuby ofcontinuation politics that paper This other means. strategyadvancinggoals. Military identity serv political and its approa and merely militarist an a aggressive end very but itself, result in ofmeans Europe, Thus,im were similar. often their strikingly strategic Indeed,the crucible for their or Protestant strong identity. Catholic the of Islam; French the threatened and infidels British, em even Ottoman Spanish R culture enemies. Barbarians threatened was its juxtaposed that The to often a has po specific every hadempire evenmeans. that denied But cannot it be end goal as its a both means, expansion embraces such a as imperial state when strategicandIn inform culture. an of cult strategic actor’s dominant terms becauseBehavior of achosen strategic is crucial element st culture, Of course, it can be argued that some overlap exists Ofbetween canexists argued some that overlap it course, be politic In a sense, this approach harkens back to Clausewitz’s originalInharkensa observation sense, Clausewitz’s approach to back this Page Page 21 es political objectives.es political culture, would be limited beculture, limited would rategic means both exhibit means exhibit both rategic s. Further, this input, set input, Further,s. this i.e. perial expansion was not expansion perial considered the one of means focused definition focused definition means rity actor’srity strategy, ch to protectingand ch to strategic behavior. ure’s analytical warring states empire al ends and strategical ends zational influencezational on litical identitylitical and pires were in forged oman civilization, oman civilization, ilieu fromilieu which an enance of power, nd its strategicnd its that war that a is uts uts CEU eTD Collection both as well as the current shape of NATO-EU relations. as shapeboth well as the of current NATO-EU relations. membership.ha NATO Hungary reflected influenced its both by and in heavily 41 acrossactors. and time among applicability, a is what requisite behavior l component the analyst of must

either NATO or the EU, it is necessary is either recognize to theNATO EU, first necessary to it or Inupsettingorder place H its understand alliance. a to in military strong have conflicts historic the to losing andc its learned side seems be in to overly Importantly, EUresponses and securityHung other ESDP to initiatives. coordi 2001 in Policy Defence and of Security European the on Declaration tool main s the the with changed This as EU. the and served NATO between communication (WEU) Union European Western the of t and During NATO. the EC/EU cooperation between formal of was link no Europea the with cooperation official without security European NATO Instead, 1954. in ratify to refusal France’s with (EDC) E the of failure the caused however, integration, European speedy army. European a for called Churchill Beloff (1963), 63. 63. (1963), Beloff The findings indicate that it is Hungary’s is it cultureThe determine that findings that strategic indicate

The idea of a European military is not new. As early as 1950, Paul 1950, as early As new. not is military European a of idea The C HAPTER

4 41

– ifrne i srtgc prahs n osals to obstacles and approaches strategic in Differences

E Page Page 22 UROPEAN S ECURITY became the method of providing providing of method the became n Community; until 2001, there 2001, until Community; n and the subsequent agreement agreement subsequent the and uropean Defense Community Community Defense uropean the distinctive character the distinctive of

ary’s strategic ary’s is culture ungary’s relationship to to relationship ungary’s igning of the NATO-EU NATO-EU the of igning ook for and compare Reynaud and Winston Winston and Reynaud his time the remnants the remnants time his autious aboutautious s too often picked often too s s national national s ain and nation CEU eTD Collection began to openly criticize American use of military power. power. military of use American criticize openly to began problem that “arrangements concerning [Europeans’] vital int vital [Europeans’] concerning “arrangements that problem 44 43 42 militarily.”engaged not is NATO where act militarily capacityto develop must the Europe that EU members i political European integratedmore stronger, a of institutions g “the reflected and operations military EU for intelligence shar for allowed agreements These arrangements. Plus Berlin the on 4.1 Toward a Toward a Culture? Strategic European 4.1 which with NATO could US work. and the E solidly a provided which ESDP, the of establishment eventual the cruis Pershing of deployment US as such events to response in and p unabashed of one became role America’s administration, Reagan the K Henry ‘80s, and 1970s the in Still charge. took US the capabilities, face the In unreliability. like lot a looked security own their on osnu nvr betd o srnl. o lat eas Aeia do American because least Not strongly. too objected never consensus second place we’ll all disagree.” all we’ll place second p first Inthe defence, about talking time waste “Don’t advised: them.” He blamed European “irresponsibility” for encouraging A encouraging for “irresponsibility” European blamed He them.” Toje (2008), 30. 30. Toje(2008), 25. (2008), Asle in Toje quoted Hallstein Walter (2006),243. Handbook NATO/OTAN. omr rsdn o te uoen omsin 15-7, atr Hal Walter (1958-67), Commission European the of President Former

43 For Americans, Europeans’ lack of motivation and consensus and motivation of lack Europeans’ Americans, For 42 Such cooperation would have been unlikely without unlikely been have would cooperation Such Page Page 23 radual emergence within European European within emergence radual dentity, and the conviction of many of conviction dentity,the and erest are being negotiated without without negotiated being are erest lace we don’t understand it. In the Inthe it. understand don’t we lace of European inaction and lack of lack and inaction European of Nevertheless, official European European official Nevertheless, merican unilateralism.merican e missiles in 1983, Europeans Europeans 1983, in missiles e in appropriate circumstances appropriate in uropean security component component security uropean ing of capabilities and some and capabilities of ing rimacy. During this time this During rimacy. sigr osdrd t a it considered issinger minance in the region region the in minance lstein, once once lstein, 44 During CEU eTD Collection obvious if not not if obvious E ‘new the in as borne be to later burden a was and there “if Increasingly, neighborhood” “near the of part as first EC/EU, the Europe Eastern and Central of states Western-oriented the Thus, n tu as a a a o ehnig h scrt..f h nw r newl or new the security...of the enhancing of way a as also thus and economi “guaranteeing of means a as EU the join to countries Pact by enhanced greatly also was EU the of power regional The Plan. b may which programme Phare the as such efforts stabilization as power soft its in boost a experienced EU the aftermath, the 49 48 47 46 45 geopolitics” European of out sting the “took force military traditional more by up backed be to needed EU a economic the that apparent became It neighborhood. own its in even unab was and espoused it values democratic and rights human the up Europe,”in “in which the one EU but ba a “created 1990 since elsewhere and Europe Eastern and Central authentic have did 1990s early and 1980s late the the of changes of “radical end the US, the of role the recognizing although that, clear actor security a as EU the of role developing the for consequences today.the largely is it power civilian McGuire (2008), 206-208. 206-208. McGuire(2008), 206. McGuire(2008), 203. McGuire(2008), 203. McGuire(2008), 25. Toje(2008), During the Balkins crises of the 1990s, the EU realized that it la it that realized EU the 1990s, the of crises Balkins the During h eet sronig h ed f h Cl Wr uig 9919 hd great had 1989-1991 during War Cold the of end the surrounding events The the the obvious candidate to bear it.” bear to candidate obvious

and the US remain[ed] implicated.” remain[ed] the US 45 Page Page 24 and allowed the EU the opportunity to evolve into into evolve to opportunity the EU the allowed and 48 It is clear that the enlargement of the EU into into EU the of enlargement the that clear is It ; thus, the necessary political will will political necessary the thus, ; a result of its reconstruction and reconstruction its of result a urope,’ the EU seemed to be an be to seemed EU the urope,’ became a primary concern for for concern primary a became e considered an EU Marshall Marshall EU an considered e the desire of former Warsaw Warsaw former of desire the in Europe. First of all, it is it all, of First Europe. in le to prevent deadly conflict conflict deadly prevent to le sically new power structure structure power new sically c and social reconstruction social and c part of the EU proper. proper. EU the of part ally European roots.”European ally od a icuig the including War Cold nd cultural power of the the of power cultural nd cked the ability to back back to ability the cked 49 lbrtd regimes.” liberated y

46 In 47

CEU eTD Collection ea t fnly om n die uoen euiy nerto. The integration. security European drive and form finally to began personnel and hardware capabilities. Through this path dependent pro dependent path this Through capabilities. hardware and personnel NATO. NATO. the conflict. This period was a test case for the ESDP which ha which ESDP the for case test a was period This conflict. the framew CFSP the within actions join and decisions declarations, 22 than confli the throughout and hostilities of buildup the During effective. 52 51 50 respond to the international crises.” international the to respond and them, use to decide to means the forces, a military credible autonomous for capacity “the develop to Europe on called Kingdom inte security Europe’s in forward step a was 1998 in Malo Saint Franco-B 1997.The in the of Treaty Petersburg in Amsterdam incorporated tasks capabilities wa towards impetus additional military TheTreaty 1992. in esta (CFSP) Policy Security and Foreign Common the were ESDP as intervention order.” European moral “transnational described Havel Vaclav Kosovo, defendi in In involvement 1999. in Kosovo surrounding discourse the in apparent was commitment syndi one values the underwrite militarily to willing is one unless on environment security today’s in “that belief found new their on enabli adopted was (ECAP) Plan Action Laeke Capabilities the European at 2001 in While ESDP. and CFSP the to (WEU) Union European Def and Security European the replace would which (ESDP) Policy Christopher Coker, “The ESDP: A Threat to the Tran the to Threat A ESDP: “The Coker, Christopher Tran the to Threat A ESDP: “The Coker, Christopher Europea on Declaration Joint Summit Franco-British In 1999, the EU Council meeting at Cologne assumed the competencies of competencies the assumed Cologne at meeting Council EU the 1999, In 52

notntl, h E’ cnrbto i Ksv ws es than less was Kosovo in contribution EU’s the Unfortunately, 50 Europe’s answer was the European Security and Defence and Security European the was answer Europe’s Page Page 25 satlantic Alliance?” in Ilgen (2006), 61. 61. (2006), Ilgen in Alliance?” satlantic 61. (2006), Ilgen in Alliance?” satlantic n Defense (St. Malo, December 1998) 1998) December Malo, Defense(St. n d largely been established during established been largely d a readiness to do so, in order to to order in so, do to readiness a gration. France and the United United the and France gration. g oriain f military of coordination ng e cannot be a civilian power power civilian a be cannot e cates.” ence Identity (ESDI) within within (ESDI) Identity ence ct, the EU “issued no fewer no “issued EU the ct, cess, Europeans have acted acted have Europeans cess, ntttoa oiis f the of origins institutional blished by the Maastrict Maastrict the by blished s also seen with the WEU WEU seen the with also s ork” in an effort to end to effort an in ork” 51 ction, backed up by by up backed ction, hs mret EU emergent This ritish Summit at Summit ritish protecting a a protecting Smi the Summit n the Western the ng EU EU ng CEU eTD Collection building up the EU’s own diplomatic capabilities. This is a capabilities.building is t problem diplomatic This upthe in EU’s own political consensus, inefficient institutional capacity, and insuf and capacity, institutional inefficient consensus, political 53 cont European the on security enforce to States” United the of hour anafteragainst an eventual Mil campaign intense bombing settlement the quicklywith promise e ofUS coercive military diplomacy employed U the invited Europeans action, EU sluggish With practice. in force t of because largely conflict, the ending or preventing either Ult earlier. years few a conflict Bosnian similar very the prefer ra ofNATO the whom still member house in of pray states, to a number that regard acapableactorglobal of trulytransforming c pursuing the EU into this in is It (ESDP). Policy Defense and Security lar is capability security EU acquired newly This force. of enabling thereby t defense capabilities, and ofacquisition military and provided the incentive to articulate a European Securityanda articulate provided to European the incentive Strategy. more a for desire Europeans’ bolstered further Iraq over dispute security enhanceEU to commitment European spur to continued has trend the to continent European the from priority its shift to and diminis Europe, to terrorism, fighting on focus to begun has US The Treaty. i reflected are which of many ESDP the of reform for calls p its project to ability the lacks ultimately EU the that For a fuller discussion of the ESS see Appendix II Appendix see ESS the of fullerdiscussion a For Kosovo should have been, in the words of Jacques Poos, “the hour of Europe, not the not Europe, of hour “the Poos, Jacques of words the in been, have should Kosovo The EU has, however, been unsuccessful at enlisting the security cooperation of alThe at unsuccessful enlisting cooperation EU the has, security however, been well could 1990 since policy foreign EU of success greatest The

I. I. Page Page 26 ower. The experience in Kosovo prompted Kosovo in experience The ower. imately, EU actions were incapable of of incapable were actions EU imately, gely represented within the European the within represented gely n the proposed reforms of the Lisbon Lisbon the of reforms proposed the n heir overwhelming reluctance to use use to reluctance overwhelming heir ficient military capabilities proved capabilities military ficient autonomous security structure structure security autonomous he EU to possess a credible use credible use possess a EU to he ommon EU foreignommon policies. h eegne f SP is ESDP of emergence the Middle East and Asia. This This Asia. and East Middle inent. Unfortunately, lack of of lack Unfortunately, inent. S to engage in Kosovo. The Kosovo. in engage to S 53 osevic’s forces. osevic’s forces.

erms of credibility both nforcement, which led to led to which nforcement, h its troop presence in in presence troop its h be considered the EU’s the considered be capabilities. The 2003 The capabilities. ther than invest in in invest ther than l l

CEU eTD Collection position; “without a “without militaryposition; te the a EU like dimension is barking dogwithout the Europeanpolice power, According to apower. Parliament not military possibilities and limitations. possibilities 55 54 single-handedly.” Iraq twiceKosovo or wouldthink about leavingcrisi EU an manage to urgent questions the Indeed, EU witnessed that a and howgovernment workabilityfor the “any the EU. report ofEU a realities capabilit is bureaucratic assessment of Iraq eventsgovernment highly surrounding response 2003) in politicized in the 2008 to the War of grand beingundoubtedlyby agr ideas (instead also the that affected fact i This mechanisms, than implementation thegoals 2003ESS. strategic and suggested andsecurity report instead agenda. less normative more Solana’s is specif and appear that complexity signalsaas movi world problems the with of a the emphasizes ongoingin Changing title 2008report’s s of nature The “doing” World.” forthe slightly 2008report’s the but congruent of settled title humbler task EU strategic“Secure a for in B Whereas Europe planned attitude. a 2003the EU in of thethe twodocuments strategic titles Even the development. used language in becausedifferent represent also different but spot they people, theirand style indicatingare substance, they that different both w in very The of the twodocume the implementation 2003ESS. examine Solana to and secretariat his 2007 European meetingcalled the Secretary for Council’s General/High Rep followingthe 2003European Conclusions Strategy. the De The Presidency’s Security EU Parliament (2009), “Vatanen Report,” 14. 14. Report,” “Vatanen (2009), Parliament EU 145. Toje(2008), On 11December yearlong of his the Solana succes released 2008,Javier assessment 54 While the ESDP has great potential, in its current its has in the great ESDP state, the EU mainl While is potential,

Page Page 27 ies and decision making ies and decision s in the continuum of European the continuum in s ng targets onthe EU’s ere perhaps by drafted ic and realistic its ic in this is an is unacceptablethis eed of on heads by “Providing Security resentative Javier resentative Javier eth.” signal a in shift ddressed theddressed etter World,” 55 s s

cember ecurity ya s s s of of s nts nts CEU eTD Collection 4.2 NATO 4.2 natural most changing “providing partner its world.” a in in security EU significantstrategic remains thethat most the the w “other” US, for and alongEurope Transatlanti Europeanists fall appear consistently the to appeared mediate placed the to US better between the two parti than In wasconflict Georgiancrisis, highly the stabilisation. EU visible the goalshaverol ofEU and commonly banner played important held pursuit in usac peitn o gaaten U piay n h t the in primacy US guaranteeing or predicting substance 57 56 s the on beginning” very its “since NATO in conflicts fundamental unrealistic is Mérand Frédéric sense, this In pillar. American providi in active and strong as be would pillar European the that especi – signatories the of many of hope the was it contrary, since 2003. have the the EU 2003ESS in certainly mi hasachieved, twenty launched ESDP been not therelated g dependency and broad aims gas. security onRussian While normative War andaction the ongoing was Eurby 2008Georgian over also highlighted discourse the 2008.The Republic and onex Czech divide in defense Poland strategic the in base shield statesasfor continues exist, was to evident inst during the made US’s plans North Atlantic Treaty (1949). (1949). Treaty Atlantic North VIII. See Appendix When the North Atlantic Treaty, establishing NATO, was signed signed was NATO, establishing Treaty, Atlantic North the When The divides in strategic approach to the role of the US in EuropeThe in member strategic US in divides among of EU approach the the role to 56 These missions represent member successful coope state security

Page Page 28 astatc framework. ransatlantic in assuming that there have been been have there that assuming in ally many American lawmakers – – lawmakers American many ally ng for European security as the as security European for ng es. As the rifts within the rifts within es. As in the negotiations and negotiations the in hich also happens be to hich trategic goals and power power and goals trategic in 1949, it contained no contained it 1949, in cists camps, it is likely camps, is cists it alling a missile es pre- in and post- ration under anration under oals included oals 57 n the On ssions ssions ternal opean opean

CEU eTD Collection einn t cag wt te mrec o ehne E security EU enhanced of emergence the with change ine to beginning been has framework security transatlantic the in primacy identity, and the conviction of many EU members that Europe must de must Europe that members EU integ many of conviction the and more identity, stronger, a of institutions European within emergence o military EU for intelligence and capabilities of sharing agr These arrangements. Plus Berlin the on agreement subsequent Defence and Security European the on Declaration NATO-EU the as served (WEU) wi changed This NATO. and EU Union the between communication and coordination European Western the of remnants the time NA and EC/EU the between cooperation of link formal no was there si Europe and US the between link relevantinstitutional most the especiallycompetition are among N states of the who EU both members and s of process complementary a facilitate agree could which to framework failure a in resulted has This NATO. with dialogue or oc however, structures, defence and security EU of emergence becoming rapidly is and actor security important an already 58 Alliance.Atlantic the of structure short In burden. the of more shoulder to US the forced) (or enabled which NAT from withdrawing France’s as factors such along by furthered strate in maker decision prime the consequently, and, responsibility becam US the where situation a to led states European the of Mérand (2008), 65. (2008),65. Mérand Both in its origins and operations, NATO is about security coope security about is NATO operations, and origins its in Both

58 Unfortunately the absence of military capabilities on beha on capabilities military of absence the Unfortunately Page Page 29 eain ad elce “h gradual “the reflected and perations curred without substantive contact contact substantive without curred a multilateral military actor. The The actor. military multilateral a tepiaybae o military of bearer primary the e nce World War II. Surprisingly, II.Surprisingly, War World nce crt coeain n avoid and cooperation ecurity vitable not optional. This is is This optional. not vitable O’s military structure in 1966 in structure militaryO’s eements allowed for select select for allowed eements on a cooperative strategic strategic cooperative a on TO until 2001. During this this During 2001. until TO gic policy. This trend was was trend This policy. gic aaiiis a te U is EU the as capabilities, rated European political political European rated Policy in 2001 and the the and 2001 in Policy velop the capacity to act act to capacity the velop ration and has served as served has and ration ATO. ATO. h mi to of tool main the , the fact of US US of fact the , th the signing of of signing the th lf CEU eTD Collection provided a solidly European security component with whichwith NATO coul US componentprovided and security the a solidly European eae ot paet uig h tastatc o oe te Ira the over row transatlantic the during apparent most became ESDP replaceESDP NATO. coordinatestrate and on consult partners trans-Atlantic wherevenue “ was NATO that known opinion his made Schröder’s Gerhard Chancellor alli NATO US-led the from separately develop should ESDP the femt o WI. o te is tm sne 99 te possibil the 1949, since time first the For WWII. of aftermath ho US the what is situation current the Happily needed. longer no is pri US asymmetrical of necessity The necessary. when lead and i been has world the in influence US of strength The alliance. Euro the strengthening as viewed been have should capabilities 62 61 60 59 is NATO where circumstances appropriate in militarily http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341713,0 hindered by a growing perception of strategic differences be differences strategic of perception growing a by hindered cooperation would have been unlikely without the eventual establishme eventual the without unlikely been have would cooperation Europe.“new” and “old” between distinction Cheney’s President s to opportunity great a “missed had states European Eastern and US invasion. US whi and French over US in the with solidarity expressed Eight” Hungary, including the of “Letter the by evidenced as Europe divided Der Spiegal International. “Schröder’s Security Co Security “Schröder’s International. Der Spiegal 84. (2007), Cottey 84. (2007), Cottey (2006),243. Handbook NATO/OTAN. h Ia rf ntihtnig te vlto o E mltr ad secur and military EU of evolution the notwithstanding, rift Iraq The h psiiiy o maigu coeain ewe te U n NA and EU the between cooperation meaningful for possibility The 60 An action which prompted French President Chirac to declare that that declare to Chirac President French prompted which action An 62

nference Blooper,” Available at at Available Blooper,” nference Page Page 30 0.html . . ts ability to adjust to circumstances circumstances to adjust to ability ts tween the US and the EU, which EU, the and US the tween o eggd militarily.” engaged not macy in the transatlantic alliance alliance transatlantic the in macy 61 pean pillar of the transatlantic transatlantic the of pillar pean ity of more equitable burden burden equitable more of ity hut up” and elicited US Vice Vice US elicited and up” hut q War in 2003. The dispute dispute The 2003. in War q The rift convinced some that that some convinced rift The ne I 20, hn German then 2005, In ance. gic ideas” and suggested that that suggested and gic ideas” ch several EU members, members, EU several ch German opposition to the to opposition German e fr n h immediate the in for ped nt of the ESDP, which which ESDP, the of nt no longer the primary primary the longer no t srcue and structures ity TO was soon soon was TO certain Centralcertain d work. d work. 59 Such CEU eTD Collection power superiority to traditional American hard power. While neve While power. hard American traditional to superiority power scene as a fully functioning security actor. Thus, in the field of field the in Thus, actor. security functioning fully a as scene existing structureexisting of NATO. 64 63 ( NATO needed longer no EU emphasizing interests, diverging of discourse a in engaged EU the t complement a long free,” and whole was “Europe a of fulfillment a ESDP and cooperation that Washington convince to failed however, the within possible made been has input strategic and sharing more on this matter, fault favors Atlantic. matter,more side of fault onthis neither the cooperat security for framework strategic a in differences emergin the of role the is EU the within issues divisive most nonetheles divided is it but parts, new and old between divided be not Europe or East Middle the China, Russia, as such issues on unab discussions seem themselves Europeans is that it is that discussions reasons transatlantic main the of “one that out pointed recently has on Council European The EU. the within consensus on depend will matters called has andrelationship between NATO. ESDP Morin Hervé Defense of Minister French lines, these EU the on depends Much cooperation. EU-NATO of lack and misunderstanding Korski, Korski, 44 the to Speech Hervé Morin. The EU’s acquisition of military capabilities has allowed the allowed has capabilities military of acquisition EU’s The Meaningful EU-NATO transatlantic dialogue and real cooperati real and dialogue transatlantic EU-NATO Meaningful contr that inadequacies institutional only not is it however, Crucially, et al. et , 2. 2. , th Conference on Security Policy (Munich, February 20 February (Munich, Policy Security on Conference

i.e. the United States), there was no successful effort to harmonize to effort successful no was there States), United the 63

Page Page 31 ion. While the EU could have done done have could EU the While ion. g security structures security g diplomacy, Europe now has a a has now Europe diplomacy, transatlantic alliance. The EU EU The alliance. transatlantic hoped for by the US. Instead US. the by for hoped r officially declaring that the that declaring officially r the EU’s normative and soft soft and normative EU’s the EU to emerge on the world world the on emerge to EU le to have real strategic strategic real have to le o a oe harmonious more a for difficult to have proper proper have to difficult on especially on security security on especially on an defence. Europe may may Europe defence. an s.” 08). 08). 64 Perhaps one of the of one Perhaps Foreign Relations Relations Foreign transatlantic o tef Along itself. vis-à-vis ibute to to ibute the the CEU eTD Collection rvosy eevd xlsvl fr AO A a osqec CFS consequence a As NATO. for exclusively reserved previously rep cooperation defence and security integrated the Nevertheless, phone number. The voice that answers, however, still represents an E an represents still however, answers, that voice The number. phone Hungary state’s country. obligations. individual one is such t the where issues on NATO and EU the both of members are who challenge politica of element unpredictable the upon hinge efficacy and affec matters important most the that appear would it Treaty, refor impending and CFSP the of solidification than Other affairs. EU’s interests around the world. This reality has moved the EU int EU the moved has reality This world. the around interests EU’s posi better is EU the toolbox, diplomatic comprehensive acquired foreign the spectrum full EUthat diplomacy of options policy possesses 66 65 itn Peiec’ hm cptl Uo rtfcto, h Lis the ambiguity, ratification, Upon capital. home Presidency’s sitting Repr High CFSP the in rings phone the if clear immediately instituti the to due partly is reality This parts. its of sum “ one but Europe,” in structure power new basically a “created remain[ed] implicated.”remain[ed] McGuire (2008), 206-208. 206-208. McGuire(2008), (2006),2. Giegerich and Berenskoetter The EU has emerged from a Common Market to a global securi global a to Market Common a from emerged has EU The t s la ta te nagmn o te U no eta ad Ea and Central into EU the of enlargement the that clear is It to NATO’s monopoly NATO’s to European as for the provider security.” inter alia inter , by clearly establishing the double-hatted High Representa High double-hatted the establishing clearly by , 66 What remains unclear are the realities of security cooperationfor s securityrealities of are the remains What unclear

Page Page 32 onal structure of the EU; it is not not is it EU; the of structure onal ting the EU’s diplomatic coherence diplomatic EU’s the ting esentative’s office or at the current current the at or office esentative’s l will among the member states. states. member the among will l bon Treaty will clarify this this clarify will Treaty bon resented within ESDP ensures ESDP within resented n hc te EU the which in tioned than ever to pursue the the pursue to ever than tioned ms contained with the Lisbon the with contained ms o security domains that were were that domains security o here is conflict between the between conflict is here 65 . U which is less than the than less is which U tr Erp sne 1990 since Europe stern P/ESDP has become a a become has P/ESDP

ty actor; with its newly its with actor; ty tive for foreign foreign for tive and the US US the tates CEU eTD Collection be heavily influenced by NATOareabe externa heavily of strategy, influenced internal, by the in Hungary’s While strategicprioritizing The mi results means. are mixed. languageconceptualizing security, speaking terms is perc Hungary of in Securitygain some order insi and in 1999Strategic NATO’s Strategy Concept to management, the EU appears to be guidingmanagement, appears Hungarian strategy. be to the EU socialization is the development is ofsocialization a and the Rieker that “surest oftenc of has compromise. sign identity noted Pernille occursdominated process and leve the at technocratic political both often security strategic with with and involvement intimate and language vocabulary andocuments part is important of national security primarily identity, The national of security adoption offici of identities? EU on security thinking documents Strategic analysis 5.1 security theseareas. cooperation within three and The the language relations on both Russia. with belowpolici focus analyses and borderHungary’s are: choices management cooperation; security military The most obvious question may be: why analyze security may question why strategies obvious The analyze exp most to be: This section contrasts Hungary’s 2004 Security Strategy with both the section EU’ both This contrasts with Hungary’s 2004Security Strategy the broad securityWithin areas three domain, which offer particular insi C HAPTER 5

–

H UNGARYBETWEEN THE new vocabulary new vocabulary

Page Page 33 in terms identity ofin which be can the then EU AND because it involves a involves close it because l security and border securityl litary policy continueslitary to policy eiving threats and threats eiving NATO l involving l discussion and police activities; and al grand strategic . This language- . This ght into ght whose into lore the effects hange andhange s 2003 s es of CEU eTD Collection publically articulated.” NATOand the 2003European key Strategic Strategy Hungaria Concept, Security represent a consensus or at leastrepresent compromise strategic or onacceptable a consensus influence Hungarian official strategic language to a greater strategicinfluence degree to language th Hungarian official that NATO’sbeSecurity can stra reasonably concluded it Strategy, Strategyresembles NATO moreconcept re than it Strategic the 1999 Hungary’sH strategic logic being if that official the 2004 The language. one thehas EU can adopted about at the i of success something oncertain issues, infer documents and determining conceptuali which and language strategic security membership.thefull of EU By both which and in Hungary NATO, comparing th has securityofcompared the current with one, st strategy Hungary’s, national 68 67 question remains: why? why? remains: question security and language strategicsecurity Hungarian in policy security Hungarian analyze to fromwhich hereinmethodology primarily ana a is to utilized comparative document limited flexible conflict management).flexible (internal/external) anddimensional capabiliti 3) security; military 1) of (and perceptions conceptdiscerned. Russia Ukraine); are issues 2) The wellamongof as Hungarian the development as over the documents strategy convergence a have indicators of whereby identified as been points significant Inpurposes.materials manageably compare for to order the illustrative sources Referencedocuments made from a other 1993-2004. also to be primary will While limited to the official rhetoric of strategi of officialrhetoric the to limited While original). in (emphasis 19 Rieker(2006), Importantly, comparison this 67 security strategies are worthy objects of analysis, not least b securityanalysis,areworthy not strategies objects of

is notis c documents, this analysis provides a very usefuls very a provides analysis this documents, c of several an security but analysis strategies, national relation to the EU and NATO; if there is a disconne a is ifNATO; there and EU the to relation policy (as evidence suggests may be the case), then case), the be may suggests (asevidence policy Page Page 34 es structuring (traditional vs vs es structuring (traditional tegic language continues language to tegic an does the EU.an does goals and approaches. flects the 2003Europeanflects documents, three documents, issues ungarian Securityungarian rategic documents of ualizing of multi- time may be time zation Hungaryzation nd disagreement lysis of the 1999 lysis of n strategic n strategic tarting point point tarting nd secondary nd secondary 68 e ecause they ct between between ct The nfluencing the the CEU eTD Collection limitations of this paper prevent explicit mention mention explicit prevent paper this of limitations 5.1.1 The Documents Documents5.1.1 The the andpolicies influencing member of the its strategies states. now represents up-to-daterelevant the NATO most document and strategic Concept.Strategic NATO’sreplaced was theby 1999Strateg 1991 Concept and War, the strategic treaty wassome ofCold its update relevance lost Following post-WWIIsigned of thearticulated fundamentals security. 1949and in 70 69 occurring simultaneous to the drafting and adoption and drafting the to simultaneous occurring developments of Hungarian, EU, and strategies. NATO future beconsiderations. offered Finally, to a with concluding mind comments will fromgleaned Strategy. the be comparative analysis su will Themes Hungary’s 2004Securiandwith assince comparing be a 1993will provided background of Hungary eachEuropean relevant position On issue, the Security Strategy. represented locatingNATO Strategiposition theby 1999 the principle EU’sethos, whichbeof strategicNATO’s identified will both i and the Of analyticaland 2004strategic necessity, paper assume this documents. represented 1993,1998,2002 the documents and as the by history, through Hungary’s strategic comparsection will ascomparative analysis. focal Each of the points analysis.three correspond the three with subsequent sections indicator The i

Yost (2005), 21-27. 21-27. Yost (2005), co international events, current of aware Although 1999 NATO Strategic Concept1999 NATO This section is followed sectionThis is by the documents constituting the of a introduction brief

:

The North Atlanticestablishing Treaty,The was NATO, of any, but the most relevant non-textual considera non-textual mostrelevant the but any, of of the various strategic documents compared herein compared strategicdocuments various the of nflicts, as well as certain policy successes and fa and successes policy certain as well as nflicts, Page Page 35 69

70

pplemented bypplemented policy select e perspectives both across both e perspectives c Concept andc the 2003 Concept d by the 1991 Strategic d theby 1991Strategic n regard each issue by to s certain characteristics s in terms of in informing ic Concept which ic Concept ssues serve and will ’s strategic texts texts strategic ’s the end of the the end of ilures tions. tions. ty , space space , CEU eTD Collection policies. The ESS is relevant is Thepolicies. ESS doesbecause a articulate it compreh uniquely onEU security maybe considered it position a strategy While not strategy. member states. of the European nationalcrucial adaptation is possibility this strat to more representsAdditionally, for robust, integra the the possibility ESS variety ensuconceptualization to of ofembraces security means a and wide goals guidingforthemerging broad the secur EU’s foreign, common strategic uniquelyoperationalappr definitely several EU articulates terms, it was it modified bymemberSecretariat’s states a the contributions, the general public.” spread“one“omnipresentmost documents EU and among in of discourse” and the read EU is Security of Hungary” of the Policy Republic Ba two documents: “The strategy set forth to attempt a adopting by national and light first in Hungaryand of NATO prospective EU memberships, made its 74 73 72 71 the Republic of Hungary.” the from pillars, military.” aid and diplomacy and to trade, the only“strategiceffect document covering atEU attempt a the for whole of in represents Nevertheless, EU 2003ESS exist. member the the states continue to strategic the strategic role the in ethos: divides of Europe approach the in US to “A Magyar Köztársaság Honvédelmének Alapelveiről S Alapelveiről Honvédelmének Köztársaság Magyar “A Alape Biztonságpolitikájának Köztársaság Magyar “A 1. (2008), Biscop Ibid., 2. 2004 Hungarian Security Strategy: Security 2004 Hungarian The 2003 The Strategy:European Security

72 Although the 2003 ESS is largely representative of the Council Council largely Although is of representative the the 2003ESS 74 In 1998, one year NATOInto “The accession, adopted Hungary 1998,one prior

In 1993, following the breakup of the WarsawIn Pact the the 1993,following breakup of 73 Page Page 36

lveiről Szóló,” (11/1993. (III. 12.) OGY Határozat) 12.)OGY (III. (11/1993. Szóló,” lveiről and “TheNational Defence Basic of Principles of The EU does not yet The not a clearly EU identifiable does possess zóló,” (27/1993. (IV. 23.), OGY Határozat). Határozat). OGY 23.), (IV. (27/1993. zóló,” 71 Far from irrelevant, the ESS is is the ESS Far from irrelevant, nd represents a consensusrepresents nd oaches to securityto and sets oaches egic concepts EUbyconcepts egic ted security cooperation: ted ensive re security. in militarilyin sic of Principles the eign across policy, ity and defence ’s first and, far, so among EU post-Cold War post-Cold . .

CEU eTD Collection 78 77 76 75 Basic Security and of the Principles Defence Policy Republic of the of millennium: The National Republic Security of Hungary millennium: the Strategy of of 2002 the first national strategy, (“Security threshold as adopted such, was onthe combined security stra NATO’s and many while of defence incorporating the following in Hungarian analysis. text strategic servethesethe current it legally reasons, For national strategy. standing com theThe Ministry 2004Hungarian Security of the Strategy most Defence. is compromises by the Minister’s office, Prime the Minist the Parliament, Security the resultof of was Hungary’s contribution National Strategy 2004 and remain but centeredborder NATO their in military management, stra 2004 versions onsuch reflect matters decidedlyEU as positions comprehensive more version party by however,domestic political version was replaced the shifts, soon 2002 Official English version, (2073/2004. (III. 31.) K 31.) (III. (2073/2004. version, Official English (2005),21. Póti Stratégiá Biztonsági Nemzeti Köztársaság Magyar “A Védelempolitik és Biztonság- Köztársaság Magyar “A 77

(“The National Security Strategy of the Republic of Strategy Hungary” of (“The National the Republic Security

orm. Határozat). Határozat). orm. Page Page 37 járól,” (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Határozat). Határozat). Korm. 6.)(V. (2144/2002. járól,” ájának Alapelvei,” (94/1998. (XII. 29.) OGY Határoz OGY 29.) (XII. (94/1998. Alapelvei,” ájának Hungary” ry of Foreignandry Affairs of s as the principle as s 78 ”). tegy. The formulation The tegy. ). Both the 2002and). Both tegic principles. In tegic principles. 76 s froms and As the result of the 2004 prehensiveand 75 which the new security security at). at). CEU eTD Collection SecurityStrategy 2003 European 2003 Green = Green Preferred Means Strategic Blue= Priorities Identified = Red Threats

KeyStrategic Elements Figure 1: • • EU

programs programs development Economic reduction Poverty

• EU and NATO

does not also share. share. also not does Hungary which means or priority strategicthreat, common no share EU the and NATO Interestingly, • • Hungary EUand •

management management border Integrated failure State Environmental threats threats Environmental • • • Hungary and NATO, EU, • • • •

Dialogue and diplomacy diplomacy and Dialogue security Energy trafficking drug crimeand transnational Terrorism, Economic cooperation cooperation Economic WMDs Military alliance alliance Military Instability Page Page 38 /stability • • NATO

Nuclear deterrence deterrence Nuclear term) (long aggression Military

• • Hungary

Hungarians abroad abroad Hungarians of rights Minority Russia

• • Hungary and NATO

military deterrence deterrence military Conventional Ukraine Russia; SecurityStrategy 2004 2004 Hungarian StrategicConcept 1999 NATO 1999

CEU eTD Collection a major and our factor in prosperity.” security r work to fordeclares: continue Ukraine “We closer should but specifically, security:Ukraine.” and Russia reg “twothat the post-Soviet primary countriesfrom importance are of documents explicitly unequivoc or donot Russia Ukraine, the 2002Strategy mention states 83 82 81 80 79 thus economic,of socialcreated.” instabilities political, and countries of unresolved the ethnic region, in and problems the minorities religious democracies, conf relations our nature in region, bilateral the underdeveloped of the developmentaldecades, heritage dictatorship, the psychological of proble economy, region,underdevelopment market to problems of our shifting of Partner Threat?5.1.2 Russia, or Art. 2.2.4 2.2.4 Art. Ukrajna és Oroszország hatással: jelentős van állam t politikai, lévő összefüggésben szoros mindezekkel etnika nemzeti, a konfliktusokból, közötti nemzetek a problémáiból, fejlődési társadalmak demokratikus problémákból, megoldatlan évszázados nehézségeiből, intern “Thecooperation [Russia’s] emanating dangers from the West. with of instrument stabi as views a Russia both it threatthat as a and possible and security.”factorsRussia of Ukraineare“key stability and NATO’senduring views be partnership “a and 1999strategy strong, stable achieve to and stability the Russia” Euro-Atl in as lasting “essential acountries means as are or seen of of sources threat stability primarily (III. 12.) OGY Határozat), Art. 3.3. [Translations [Translations 3.3. Art. Határozat), 12.)OGY (III. EU (2003), 14. (2003),14. EU 36. Art (1999), NATO utód létrejött követően felbomlását Szovjetunió “A régión veszélyforrás legtöbb a kapcsolatban “Ezzel Ibid., Art 37. Art In 1993, Hungary recognized that “most of “most that theIn risk factors recognized Hungary economic from stem 1993,

80 It if these the document clear immediately within not is throughout are provided by Anna Stumpf]. Stumpf]. Anna by provided are throughout ársadalmi instabilitásból ered.” Republic of Hungar of Republic ered.” instabilitásból ársadalmi i és vallási kisebbségek rendezetlen helyzetéből és helyzetéből rendezetlen kisebbségek vallási ési k gazdasági elmaradottságából, a piacgazdaságra val piacgazdaságra a elmaradottságából, gazdasági k térség országai közötti kapcsolatok kezdetleges áll kezdetleges kapcsolatok közötti országai térség .” Republic of Hungary (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Ha Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. Hungary of Republic .” Page Page 39 83 a diktatúrák pszichikai örökségéből, az újonnan lé újonnan az örökségéből, pszichikai diktatúrák a államok közül Magyarország biztonságára elsősorban elsősorban biztonságára Magyarország közül államok Hungary’sexceedinglyclear 2004Strategy is 79 While Hungary’s While 1993and 1998 82 The ESS does not mention does mention The not ESS antic area” and security. security. and ion concerning ion Hungary’s problems of newproblems lity through its al instability have elations with Russia, Russia, elations with 81 and both that licts between licts ms unsolved forms and kinds all tween NATO NATO tween a a y (11/1993. (11/1993. y apotából, a a apotából, ó áttérés áttérés ó trejött trejött tározat), tározat), ally ally két két CEU eTD Collection between Russia and Hungary’s energy concerns. Hungary’sbetween onRussia Hungary’s energy concerns. and position Russia szervezett bűnözés, immigráció, menekültprobléma. E menekültprobléma. immigráció, bűnözés, szervezett 86 85 84 yet completelydisappeared.”decreased, not have but is.” Republic of Hungary (11/1993. (III. 12.) OGY H OGY 12.) (III. (11/1993. Hungary of Republic is.” humani környezeti, katonai, gazdasági, politikai, a was the 1999 to NATO similar which Strategic mentioned the interaction Concept It the 1993,1998orin see 2002docs. suggested theconnection document’s difficult to not is “energy time Hungary’s whi for also mentions the first 2004Strategy security,” integration the all byrapprochement of the structures to Euro-Atlantic as stability democraticmaintenanceand transformation its Ukraine’s of the document meanswithin as cooperation. of a also security suppor through “Hungary whichaeffect security have all country.” direct on the of internal our new crime, and as to expand international refugee ones immigration, organized such (such military, humanitarian economic, as rig environmental, political, and human Basic Ina the forward manner, 1993 Security of looking Principles de Hungary factors constitut “beyond ofcomplex security, the elements traditional the internal external Borders:5.1.3 Conceptualizing and security linking strategic documents. towards thanThe Russia position 2004Strategy critical also enunciates a more roleRussia’s stability, itse in Russia as a describing not partner but contrast which thestands in 1999 NATOboth EU emphasize to documents, of both and 2003 “Ezen veszélyforrásokkal összefüggésben a magyar b magyar a összefüggésben veszélyforrásokkal “Ezen H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic Ibid ., Art 3.2.3. Art .,

atározat), Art. 3.3. 3.3. Art. atározat), tárius- ember jogi - olyan újakkal egészültek ki, m ki, egészültek újakkal -olyan jogi ember tárius- atározat), Art 2.2.3. 2.2.3. Art atározat), Page Page 40 zek közvetlen kihatással vannak az ország belső biz belső ország az vannak kihatással közvetlen zek iztonság komplex tényezői a klasszikus elemek melle elemek klasszikus a tényezői komplex iztonság 84 Ukraine, on the other hand, considered Ukraine, the is other on lf as a of source instability. 86 means available.” means This acknowledgment This well as its as its well ing Hungarian security in previous in in this document this in ch is not presentch not is hts) now also hts) now between the int a nemzetközi nemzetközi a int problems clared that ts the ts 85 tonságára tonságára

tt - így -így tt CEU eTD Collection burden on Hungarian authorities” including “providing technical and human resources”“providingburden and technical including human a onHungarian authorities” of armed conflicts, can also pose problems for secu for problems pose also can conflicts, armed of movem uncontrolled The resources. vital flow of the te of acts including nature, wider risks a of other can be efficiently provided for in cooperation with the EU. the EU.canefficiently for be cooperation with provided in Hunga that skepticism andfundamental distinctly indicates a tone unwilling put requirements and legal cooperation, of EU institutional norms to “conforming externally of internal dimensions linked security. advocatesa“borders”ESS means as of the of importance more intelligently openare of externalborders aspects the security internal and which i in of information andas cooperation.” “improving share the with terrorism,”dimension.”with “important as external having an ofillegal criminalweapons,” gang “activities including and migrants the 91 90 89 88 87 internal of and state external dimensions security; a biztonságpolitika területére.” Republic of Hungar of Republic területére.” biztonságpolitika a -egy terrorizmus kábítószer-kereskedelem, bűnözés, trafficking, and terrorism.” policy,assecurity organipart matters such of are national now security Strategyreaffirmsdefense. “new that Hungary’s 2002 focused onconventional area. this forcooperation surprisinggiven in not security is This that NA provide not and or threat thedimensional tackled i certainly framework may be did 2003 ESS are Schroeder newidentified, Ursula thebut that solutions suggested. notes onlyofexternal security, the internal new is meaning and not multi-dimens that (2003),4. EU Hatá Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. Hungary of Republic egyértelmű korábban a hogy jelenség, új “Ugyancsak g the of account take also must security “Alliance Ibid ., 1. ., The 2003 ESS identifies theThe internal “cross-border 2003ESS threats trafficking in of 88 The 2002 Strategy also points out that in the realm in that out ofalso points border The 2002Strategy

rrorism, sabotage and organised crime, and by the d by and crime, organised and sabotage rrorism, y (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Határozat), Art. 1.1. 1.1. Art. Határozat), Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. y rity and stability affecting the Alliance.” NATO (1 NATO Alliance.” affectingthe stability and rity lobal context. Alliance security interests can be a be can interests security Alliance context. lobal ent of large numbers of people, particularly as a c a as particularly people, of numbers large of ent re inkább nemzetközi dimenziót kapnak, ugyanakkor k ugyanakkor kapnak, dimenziót nemzetközi inkább re Page Page 41 rozat), 2.2.7 2.2.7 rozat), en belbiztonsági körbe sorolt jelenségek - szerveze - jelenségek sorolt körbe belbiztonsági en 91 87 Thus the ESS provides an Thusthe ESS actionable linking yet, which did not suggest how this multi- yet, suggest how not this did which 89 This particular This a has passage 90 In of “increasingly world this ndissolubly linked,” the ndissolubly zed crime, drug zed s” which “can haves” links TO is a is military alliance TO managing the managing the ry’s internal security , formerly internal ionality of threats s ans additional drugs, women, nstruments nstruments 999), Art 24. 24. Art 999), ffected by by ffected isruption of isruption ’s targeting onsequence onsequence tt tt s well s ihatnak ihatnak CEU eTD Collection domestic issues ofdomestic country.” issues any one of cannot ethnic situation minorities and beas more regarded the specifically living neighboring in ofminorities as the a Trianon of result states treaty Strategic had very earlier this articulated theme, i Principles but internal security and its external relations.”internal security external and its necessitates security to mea approaches and new this that practically 95 94 93 92 emerging serveto ofreigning an EU value strategy. as the a security failing allows more forweak “comprehensive,” human and statehood” well as and instabilityofas organized “transnational crime, terrorism kizárólagos belügyének sem.” Republic of Hungary (9 Hungary of Republic sem.” belügyének kizárólagos secondary consideration. security sec abetween external and was link internal already providing highlights blurring “the the that between borderline external and again i of the at European integratedboth and T international cooperation levels. border H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic etnikai és nemzeti a belül ezen emberi jogok, “Az 2. (2009), Schroeder Ibid., Art 3.3.1. Art protection and law enforcement activities. It protectionenforcement and our in basic law activities. is interest fo protection of the EU’s external borders as well asprotection the development as external of borders well the of EU’s the organisational structure and a organisationalbetween linkage beborder and to structure established the a of transformation thecontrolling also require borders of system internal of“The Guards, the Hungarian Border of tasks the changing increased set By Securityrecognized had 2004,Hungary the its officially imp in Strategy

93 For manner, a in therefore, limited Hungary, human 95 kisebbségek helyzete nem tekinthető egyetlen állam állam egyetlen tekinthető nem helyzete kisebbségek atározat), Art 2. 2. Art atározat),

4/1998. (XII. 29.) OGY Határozat), Art 11. 11. Art Határozat), 29.)OGY (XII. 4/1998. Page Page 42 92 Interestingly, Hungary’s 1998 n connection with Hungarian with n connection ns contributing to the “EU’s to contributing ns and conflicts causedand conflicts by urity, with borders as borders a with urity, 1920: “Human rights 1920: nternal risk factors”nternal r the futurer the exclusively the he document based approach based

ortance of 94

CEU eTD Collection participated in FRONTEX’s Five Borders project aimed at stemm Bordersparticipated Five project FRONTEX’s in National Security Strategy (NSS) andNational the Security 2003 European Strategy Security(NSS) Strateg the EU with provide to belief inter the of efficacy cooperation in integrated involved. activemost Ukrainefive role Hungary countrie of the the EU the which into in played management which addresses the external dimension ofIn internal 2007,H management security.addresses the external dimension which the EU border for theFRONTEX, framework comprehensive provides within which understandingHungary this has implemented partlythrough Hungary’s partic 98 97 96 strategymeanscivilia the EU’s of cooperation; was European security identified tactics crucial in suggested theby twodocument differences of commonalitythe points European andand in American divergence strategy. man force conflict vs. Structuring: traditional 5.1.4 Military Capabilities of the EU position. which signi is position issue ofadopted security, a has Hungary strategic of transnational illegal crime traffickingas and wel migration, drug regardingroledecisive thinking combating of in the in mul shift borders the include the EU to with “preventive is a andThe intelligence cooperation border Details available at http://www.frontex.europa.eu/ at Details available Ibid., Ibid., Art 4. Art 4. Art Writing in 2005, Berenskoetter utilized aUnited St comparative analysis of 2005,BerenskoetterWriting in the utilized 2002 entire European Union.” security, serve to ofexternal borders the t our security but own only national not 98 Compared to earlier documents, Hungary’s Compared a Strategy earlierdemonstrates to documents, 2004Security

96

Page Page 43 examples_of_accomplished_operati/art22.html ing illegal immigrationing from illegal l as indicating an emerging as l indicating n focused, in contrast in n focused, with s, such as the structural such s, ficantlyreflective more y and(ESS) drew out nal security. On this tidimensional threattidimensional agement agement ipation in in ipation Berenskoetter ctivities alike.”ctivities ungary . . s s he ates 97

CEU eTD Collection provide for collective defence.” As of 1999, rather than strategy reinventing Asprovide of its 1999,rather for defence.” collective o NATO influence:of Hungary’s was “the the it dominant structure military, by the potential real threat factors, the defence necessities of factors, the countr by the necessities defence threat the real potential address threats.” the new more into militaries mobi transform member flexible, [EU states’] interoperableIn capacicivilian-military for the EU build order to involving military both valueand capabi developing civilian by operations declares the consideration. that strategies EU “ The presently ESS under reconsider his decision, cease his attack and withdraw. NATO forces must maireconsider forces and must NATO cease attack withdraw. his decision, his war ra strategygoal of has military “terminat[ing] the overarching responsibilities as well asresponsibilities ourand resources.” financial economic conceived.operations,” traditionally forces, contribute to its “to the management intended crises NATO through of mi állományarányait, fegyverzetét és felszerelését a v a és felszerelését fegyverzetét állományarányait, 105 (1993(11 Hungary of Republic garantálni.” rovására 104 103 102 101 100 99 militarythe ontraditional transatlantic force. emphasis throughwas protection onUS dependent NATO. canguarantee byfact itself “no that European European institution se capa NATOsame understanding “enhancing time as the merely operational number of reserve forces, and its weapon structure will be shaped will weapon and consultat number –in its forces, of structure reserve Berenskoetter (2005), 84. 84. (2005), Berenskoetter “A Magyar Köztársaság fegyveres erőinek szervezeti erőinek fegyveres Köztársaság Magyar “A képes sem intézmény állam, egyetlen ma “Európában 49. Art (1999), NATO (2003),12. EU 87. (2005), Berenskoetter (2003),11. EU With a mind to territorial to a mind With integritycons and security, 1993,Hungary political in 102 In vein, the heavily US-influenceda 1999 NATO more traditionalist

103

árható reális veszélytényezőknek, az ország védelmi ország az veszélytényezőknek, reális árható /1993. (III. 12.) OGY Határozat), Art 3.2. Art Határozat), 12.)OGY (III. /1993. Page Page 44 és hadrendi struktúráját, létszámát, belső létszámát, struktúráját, és hadrendi egyedül, önmaga a biztonságot szavatolni, vagy azt azt vagy szavatolni, biztonságot a önmaga egyedül, 104 In of therefore, security terms matters, 99 This observation This borne the is in out ty it would would be necessary it ty “to 105 pidly by making an aggressorpidly an making by le forces,and enable to to them In NATO continued 2002, to curity” and Hungarycurity” thus y, NATO our could add particularcould lities” s troop levels, the s bility EU.” of the ntain thentain ability to ion with NATO with ion – 100 r restructuring litary while at the

idered a it mások 101

CEU eTD Collection beguarantorof “the Hungary’s prime security.” NATO, allies.” defence its the and collective for of “NATONATO all that included Strategic the declaration forces Concept m 15. 15. helicopter exercise sponsored by the European Defen European the by sponsored exercise helicopter megfelelően - a Szövetséggel egyeztetve - alakítja -alakítja egyeztetve Szövetséggel -a megfelelően kötelezetts vállalt Szövetségben a szükségleteinek, 112 111 http://inforadio.hu/hi at Available 2007), November 110 109 108 107 Rep együttműködés.” folytatott keretében Szervezete 106 a cost ofSaab million.€823 at AB manufacturer the military capabilities required for the collective defencethe collective required military for of capabilities Hungary the incorporated 1993,1998,2002and 2004strategic needs its possess into documents: to “Hungary theycapabilitiesexpected the acquire contribute, goa to to them; were ability providecollective to for defence.” deployment. support as welbetterhelicopters mission civilian to suited were deemed Thefig EU acquiring requested consider Hungary instead that of helicopters the that EUtime was cap of the stressing importance interoperability operations.contract i Hungarian The revisedgovernment original was the by ofsupporting Hungarianbe Gripen to use jets the and Czech fighter acquisitions made NATO” to philosophy, the sense in an ableforce new fulf armed of to is that operational In March 2009, the EU emphasis on integrated helic integrated on emphasis EU the 2009, March In (2008). officer NATO by Remarks ma a vádolja elfogadásával kenőpénzek “Százmilliós H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic 47. Art (1999), NATO garanciáj legfőbb biztonságának katonai ország “Az Ibid., Art 4. Art In 2001, the Hungarian government agreed to buy 14 Gripen figher jets from the Sw 14 Gripengovernment from jets In figher agreed buy Hungarian to 2001,the 112 Hungary decided to go with its NATO Hungary its with obligations, go was to decided after it all NATO 109

107 ki.” Republic of Hungary (94/1998. (XII. 29.) OGY 29.)OGY (XII. (94/1998. Hungary of Republic ki.” égeknek, valamint az anyagi, pénzügyi erőforrásokna pénzügyi anyagi, az valamint égeknek, Wherepossess the NATO members not did rek/kulfold/hir-164199 atározat), Art 4. 4. Art atározat), Page Page 45 ce Agency (EDA) in order to enhance the interoperab the enhance to order in (EDA) Agency ce ublic of Hungary (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Határoza Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. Hungary of ublic a a kollektív védelemre épülő Észak-atlanti Szerződ Észak-atlanti épülő védelemre kollektív a a opter capabilities culminated in the first EU “mult EU first the in culminated capabilities opter gyar pártokat a New York Times” (Inforadio.hu: 26 (Inforadio.hu: Times” York New a pártokat gyar 106 110 Inguaranteesecurity, order the 1999 to this 108 At the time, theand Atthe US time, NATO were This translates into a goal of “develop[ing] goal of translates “develop[ing] a This into . . abilities in EU missions. EU in missions. abilities l of which Hungary ofl which has within the framework of within l asl strategic troop ust maintain the maintain ust hter jets, n 2003,around the ill the commitments the commitments ill d in Allianced in Határozat), Art Art Határozat), 111 k k as inational” inational” és which t), Art 3. 3. Art t), ility of ility edish

CEU eTD Collection because of the fact that by the time a Gripen takes off fromGripenbecause Hungarian t a takes the the that by time fact of be implemented into security and defence policies that favors that securitybe implemented into and military policies defence “mountainous terrain.” Details available at http:// at available Details terrain.” “mountainous and increase troop 400. presenceplans to 300to its from Afghanistan in has commitment recently, for decidedMost its a extend Hungary to defense rhetoric indicating regarding Hungary’s that strategic policies, the overwhelmingillustrates thinking influence of strategic onHungari NATO March 2009), available at: http://www.honvedelem.hu at: available 2009), March operational in 2010. GAP 2009 simulation exercises exercises simulation GAP2010.2009 in operational enhanced for framework ongoing an provide (HTP)to wit coincides simulation The deployment. helicopter already is airspace.cruising it altitude, Hungarian of outside and permanent involvement in the fields of crisis managementand the fields in involvement ofpermanent and crisis peacekeep membership the EU, in its “Hungary hasacknowledges prepare to due that fo to external mili in role orderGripen in its taken fighter fulfill to was jets 116 115 114 113 Kecskemétairbase. became On 22December 14Hungarian Gripens guaranteed 2009, the their security. over NATO. http://www.naplo-online.hu/news_in_english/20090304 a acknowledgementlikely turn strategic into to take to for priority time this Republic of Hungary (2073/2004. (III. 31.) Korm. H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic ( Year” One for Afghan Mission to Extend “Hungary officer. military Hungarian a to According IsAlready Hungary Of Airspace “The Szűcs. László The choice to invest in fighter jets as opposed to flexible operational helic The as choice opposed flexible fighter to in invest to jets

113 It from acquire and to obvious the strategies f is Hungary’s decision www.eda.europa.eu/newsitem.aspx?id=458 were held in the Alps of southeast France in order order in France southeast ofAlps the in held were h the development of an EU “Helicopter Tactics Prog Tactics “Helicopter EU an of development the h Guarded By Gripens” (Hungarian Ministry of Defence, of Ministry (Hungarian Gripens” By Guarded atározat), Art 4. Art atározat), Page Page 46 Napló Online Napló helicopter in ESDP operations, which will become will become which operations, ESDP in helicopter /cikk/194/14104/gripens_guarding.html _hungary_extend_afghan_mission 115 : 4 March 2009). Available at: at: Available 2009). March 4: The 2004Hungarian Strategy 114

tary cooperation. least Not integration with the EU with integration NATO is a is reality. policyNATO erritory and reaches and erritory and even to longer . . ing;” an security andan security . . r an increasing . . opters 116 nother year nother active at yet, is it to train in in train to ramme” ramme” 4

CEU eTD Collection (see Figure in Appendix II for frequency of other k other of frequency for II Appendix in Figure (see 117 SecurityBeyond Language:Policie the Hungarian 5.2 Hungarianand location, For Hungary due thought. its like to security historical is reasons g demonstratingthe Hungarian a the concrete EU’s documents strategic path one the border EU with integrated ma in security and management, cooperation in conceptualizationas of the threat security spaceborder connecting the indicates that the EU has become a major instrument ofs securingindicatesbecome the that Hungary’s EU instrument has a major the EUmention once of orpriorities providing means among its the 2004docume security, the each 1998doc with documents. While strategic Hungary’s official redrafting of as ac arelation the relevantEU security EU, to Hungary’s ofperception the greatlystructuringwhich influences s and Hungarian defence force spending cooperation, only NATO oncapabili has its strengthened Hungary dominated thinking In national guarantorNATO security.fiwith its as the the of fundamental mil and views Hungary relationNATO the its in both EU, to indicates still that EU mentioned five times in 1998 Strategy; 10 times 10 Strategy; 1998 in times five mentioned EU Dimension of Strategic of Dimension Culture Cooperation Instruments Capabilities Capabilities Structuring Structuring Preferred Arena of Arena of The development of Hungary’s strategic thinking on securityThe and thinkingHungary’s strategic defense development since of Word used to describeWord used Security Cooperation Europeanism Europeanism Table 1: Strategic Culture Comparison (emphasis) 1: StrategicTable (emphasis) Comparison Culture Atlanticism Atlanticism Projection Territorial Military Military Defense Defense Civilian Force

“European” ey words among the texts.) texts.) the among words ey SP AO Hungary NATO ESDP Page Page 47 in 2002 Strategy and 71 times in the longer 2004 s 2004 longer the in times 71 and Strategy 2002 in X X X X X X X X X X X X “Transatlantic” “Transatlantic” “Atlantic” or s s of internal and ofs external internal eld of military tor has increased rowing influence on “Euro-Atlantic” tructuring. Intructuring. ecurity. itary cooperation y within see ument did not not did ument 117 ties ties 1993,and In the trategy. trategy. ly to nt nt

CEU eTD Collection lc i te et I 20, t h 1 ya anvray f ugr’ a Hungary’s of anniversary year 10 the at 2009, In West. the in place ugra peiet efimd hs etmn: bcmn a NA a “becoming sentiment: this reaffirmed president Hungarian the was NATO through US standards. the with alliance new NATO their that conviction to adapt and militaries their restructure Poland Hunga help to million $60 over spent States United the Immediately, 119 Stumpf]. Anna by provided are throughout (1993(11 Hungary of Republic garantálni.” rovására 118 external security pressuresto in shifts and thinking. policyandgambital culture security strategic of which a nation’s only documentsandand aspe is strategic framing Hungary. one vocabulary of The Hungaryshort, speaking strategically the strategi is multi-lingual; cooperationintegrated view less as to Russia a come management sourc border andcontinue view may Russia to Ukraine as but both strategic priorities, European security” and thus Hungary was dependent on US protection US on dependent was Hungary thus and security” European ins European “no that fact a it considered Hungary Pact, Warsaw Hungarian minister of Foreign Affairs declared that “aHungarianForeignAffairs declared ha choice historic of that minister Indep in ceremony a at membership NATO accepting formally

János Martonyi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Affairs Foreign of Minister the Martonyi, János képes sem intézmény állam, egyetlen ma “Európában the family.” home, come has habitat…Hungary natural her to Hungary to returning accession NATO security. about only not was decision the Yet, known. that security of network largest the NATO, joining for applied We int outside any from free own, our on decision this made Hungarians, “We, With a mind to territorial integrity and political security political and integrity territorial to mind a With 119

/1993. (III. 12.) OGY Határozat), Art 3.2. [Transla 3.2. Art Határozat), 12.)OGY (III. /1993. the Republic of Hungary (Independence, MO: 12 Marc 12MO: (Independence, Hungary of Republic the Page Page 48 egyedül, önmaga a biztonságot szavatolni, vagy azt azt vagy szavatolni, biztonságot a önmaga egyedül, endence, Missouri in 1999, then then 1999, in Missouri endence, following the dissolution of the of dissolution the following so reveal much about responses revealso c of language EU NATO, the titution can by itself guarantee guarantee itself by can titution TO member was part of our our of part was member TO ry, the Czech Republic and and Republic Czech the ry, Hungary expressed its its expressed Hungary through NATO.through guarantor of Hungary’s of guarantor through successes in d been because made” d dmission to NATO, the the NATO, to dmission history has ever ever has history we are back in in back are we e of threat. Ine of threat. is also about also is ct of the entirect of erference. tions tions 118 h 1999). 1999). h When mások CEU eTD Collection rseos n scr” nldn te rsrain f ugra minoriti Hungarian of preservation the including secure” and prosperous NATO. NATO. memb NATO a been already had Hungary 2004, May 1 on EU the joining countries. eedny n usa ntrl a. urnl 7-0 o Hnays natura Hungary’s of 70-80% Currently gas. natural Russian on dependency January 2009). January 124 123 122 121 2009). 120 requ not “do and regional are concerns security Hungary’s Since States,”United the of involvement had we where communism.” community, Euro-Atlantic and European the to return After the recent confrontation between Russia and Europe over the overEurope and betweenRussia confrontation recent the After Ukraine, through Russian 5.2.1 Avoiding Influence vi stance” policy foreign pro-EU-integrationist marked a take Hunga theory, “in that noted beenhas Indeed,it affairs. military assume to began EU the as especially cooperation security for Europ southeastern and central of states the making on focused be would ossety eosrtd ht n n cnlc bten SP n N and ESDP between conflict any thr in that domain demonstrated militaryconsistently the in integration European to receptivity regionally Despite member. active an become recently only had Lynn Berry And Maria Danilova, “Russia stops all g all stops Danilova,“Russia Maria And Berry Lynn 44. Tálas(2004), and Póti 44. Tálas(2004), and Póti of Affairs Foreign of Minister the Martonyi, János Repub the of President Sólyom, fromLászló Message 121

120 Yet, even in 1999 it was apparent that Hungary’s principle secur principle Hungary’s that apparent was it 1999 in even Yet, 124 ugr’ msrs o Rsi hs eee is fot t reduce to efforts its renewed has Russia of mistrust Hungary’s

122 it would seem that Hungary might prefer to look to the EUthe to look to prefer might Hungary that seem would it the Republic of Hungary (Independence, MO: 12 Marc 12MO: (Independence, Hungary of Republic the as supplies to Europe via Ukraine (Real ClearMarke (Real viaUkraine Europe to supplies as Page Page 49 lic of Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Parliament, 12 Parliament, Hungarian (Budapest: Hungary oflic a more robust role in political and political in role robust more a s-à-vis NATO.s-à-vis ry would be the best candidate to to candidate best the be would ry focused security interests and a a and interests security focused ough ESDP, Hungary has has Hungary ESDP, ough ATO, Hungary chooses chooses Hungary ATO, cut-off of gas supplies gassupplies of cut-off e “stable, democratic, democratic, “stable, e er for five years, but but years, five for er belonged to before before to belonged 123 s n neighboring in es l gas comes from from comes gas l Upon officially Upon ire the direct direct the ire ity concerns ity ts, 7 ts, h 1999). 1999). h March March its CEU eTD Collection auc cetd miaec o te at f ugr twr te pr the toward Hungary of part the on ambivalence created Nabucco NATO’s position as well. NATO’s as well. position (New York Times, 18 January 2008); and “Hungary-Rus and 2008); January 18 Times, York (New Times 126 125 sides. o its balance to decided has Hungary’s pipelines. Stream South and the undermine to Russia of efforts persistent the by worsened uncertaint but on, early Hungary by backed was sources, gas Russian E reduce to planned which pipeline, Nabucco backed EU The Russia.

is althoughappear position adopt of EU to Ukraine, this on the policy matter sta member EU an in possible less be would playing power and joi it if stronger be will Russia with zone buffer security bel Hungary Hungary. into Ukraine from goods and immigrants illicit buffer Hungary’ a cement from to separate seeking but is Hungary issue, Ukraine, related to a regards is In This Russia. and energy showdown. up standing or Nabucco constructing in succeed either to ability la a reveals also It intimidation. of tool a as energy using from See David Miliband, “Ukraine, Russia and European European Russiaand “Ukraine, Miliband, See David signs “Russia Dempsey, Judy and Brunwasser Matthew , 27 February 2008). 2008). February 27 , 125 This ambiguity in the end depends on the hard guarantee of NATO NATO of guarantee hard the on depends end the in ambiguity This

Page Page 50 sia Gas Deal to gas deal to hurt EU-backed Nabucco” EU-backed hurt to gasdeal to Deal siaGas Stability (The Guardian, 29 August 2008). 2008). August 29 (The Guardian, Stability deal to bring natural gas pipeline through Bulgari through gaspipeline natural bring to deal ns the EU, since overt Russian activity Russian overt since EU, the ns project, including its Blue Stream Stream Blue its including project, cnen o tm h fo of flow the stem to concern s ck of confidence in the EU’s EU’s the in confidence of ck o usa n h eet f an of event the in Russia to te. 126 zone between its borders borders its between zone ptions by placating both both placating by ptions jc. h stain was situation The oject. ieves that Ukraine as a a as Ukraine that ieves rp’ dpnec on dependence urope’s hs Hnay would Hungary Thus, y over the future of of future the over y also in keeping also in with to discourage Russiadiscourage to ( a” a” Earth Earth CEU eTD Collection atcpto i ED, u ised fes ugsin o ftr EU- future on suggestions offers instead but ESDP, in participation eec’ wbie Ufruaey hs a pit oad a la a towards point may this Unfortunately website. Defence’s availa is information ESDP practical of scarcity similar 129 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb69 128 TKirlqfgw&hl=en&ei=0sLZSeO4DcKD_Qb4vLzRDA&sa=X&oi=b PA121&dq=hungarian+nato+esdp&source=bl&ots=YPPNJJsv 127 Security: Internal the5.2.2 Seeking EU within Hungary supportive of EU member states. Support remained at 81% in 2007. in 81% at remained Support states. member EU of supportive making policy,” defence European articulate and unified independent, Mini no r contains Policy” EUin Security“Hungary’s and participation Defence Affairs Foreign Hungarian the of section the Amusingly, ESDP. knowle little very is there as however, misleading, be may project. EU other any than more ESDP in development supported Available at http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kum/en/bal/fore at Available (Eurob Summary Executive Report, National “Hungary http://books.google.com/books?id=3jp8W_aX0gYC&pg=R towards Russia towards Management Management n 04 8% f ugr’ aut ouain upre te “developme the supported population adult Hungary’s of 82% 2004, In Cooperation (attitudinal, (attitudinal, non-policy) Integrated Approach Approach Military Border

Table 2: Europeanisation of Hungarian Hungarian 2: of Security Europeanisation Table Policy Issue Area EU Position EU Area Issue Reduce role of US/NATO Reduce US/NATO role of Should UkraineShould become Become more in Active Necessary domestic for in European Security? Europeanin Security? EU/NATO member? EU/NATO member? Is Russia a Threat? Is a Russia Threat? ESDP operations.ESDP

security? security? Page Page 51 /eb69_hu_exe.pdf arometer 69; Spring 2008). Available at at Available 2008). Spring 69; arometer ign_policy/security_policy/ESDP/ Th&sig=WHihQxW0oQo5LmFG1- A1-PA121&lpg=RA1- ook_result&ct=result&resnum=9#PRA1-PA120,M1 (eventually) ble on the Hungarian Ministry of of Ministry Hungarian the on ble YES YES E NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES NO . . dge regarding the practicalities of of practicalities the regarding dge rger issue – that is that the the that is that – issue rger 128 127 The public opinion polls opinion public The AO cooperation. NATO As of 2008, Hungarians 2008, of As eference Hungary’s to it one of the most most the of one it stry website entitled entitled website stry . . Hungarian Hungarian (as as soon possible) Position Position YES YES t f an of nt 129 A

CEU eTD Collection be said about NATO than EU cooperation. Hungary has agreed to to agreed has Hungary cooperation. EU than NATO about said be Hungarian contributions to EU missions.EU to contributions Hungarian operati NATO to deployments troop Hungarian but Althea, EUFOR Her and Bosnia to banner EU the under troops 158 deployed ta has Hungary no represents venture this yet, Italy; and Slovenia with Group aig n iprat xenl dimension.” external “important an having “can which gangs” criminal of “activities the including weapons,” 134 133 132 131 130 endeavor.” l has large, and by community,academic and political “Hungarian security and defence, and security Hungarian involvement in ESDP missions abroad. missions ESDP Hungarian in involvement gr securitysuch of ESDP; of outside albeit EU, the cooperationwithin examples provide FRONTEX and EUBAM in cooperation as Hungarian external the of awareness Hungarian increasing an to addition pla Hungary that priority strategic the to linked be can endeavors exter the managing intelligently more of means a as “borders” indiss are security of aspects external and internal the which http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb61 EU (2003), 4. (2003),4. EU VII. and VI Appendices in 3 and 2 See Figures EUI Battlegroups,” EU the “Enter Gustav Lindstrom. ( Report” National “Hungary 45. Tálas(2004), and Póti hl Hnays taei dcmns lo niae ble in belief a indicate also documents strategic Hungary’s While h E hs dniid cosbre tafcig n rg, oe, i women, drugs, in trafficking “cross-border identified has EU The 130

131 in terms of actual policies, the simple fact is that ther that is fact simple the policies, actual of terms in Eurobarometer 2004.1 Eurobarometer

133 Significantly, Hungarian participation in EU securityEU in participation Hungarian Significantly, 134 Page Page 52 ; July 2004). Available at at Available 2004). July ; SS Chaillot Paper No. 97 (February 2007). 2007). (February 97 No. Paper Chaillot SS /exec_hu.pdf n hs ol o “nraigy pn odr in borders open “increasingly of world this In . . nally linked dimensions of internal of dimensions linked nally olubly linked,” the EU advocates advocates EU the linked,” olubly cooperation may lead to further to maylead cooperation ces on stability in its region in in region its in stability on ces ittle knowledge of this [ESDP] [ESDP] this of knowledge ittle have links with terrorism,” as terrorism,” with links have participate in an EU Battle EU an in participate gbe ciiy hs far. thus activity ngible et o itra security. internal of pects the desirability of EU EU of desirability the n icesnl dwarf increasingly ons llegal migrants and and migrants llegal zegovina as part of of part as zegovina e is much more to more much is e wn security owing 132

CEU eTD Collection u i cneto wt Hnain ioiis iig n egbrn st neighboring in living minorities Hungarian with connection in but asg’ dsicl uwlig oe niae a udmna ske fundamental a indicates tone unwilling distinctly passage’s blurring of the borderline between external and internal risk factors” betweenexternal andblurring internal the borderline of puts an additional burden on Hungarian authorities” including “providing techni “providing including authorities” Hungarian on burden additional an puts ant e eadd s xlsvl te oetc sus f n one any of issues domestic the exclusively as regarded be cannot the specifically more and rights “Human 1920: of Treaty Trianon 138 (9 Hungary of Republic sem.” belügyének kizárólagos 137 136 135 security. the EU. with security for cooperation canprovided in efficiently be lega and institutional to “conforming cooperation, border of realm Security 2002 Hungary’s difficult. more was Trans policy into consideration. creativity secondary a as borders with security, internal alreadysecurity provi was humanmanner, limited a in therefore, serve ofreigningsecurity an EU value approach s emerging as based to the m a for allows statehood” weak and failing by caused conflicts and c organized and terrorism “transnational of targeting ESS’s 2003 the Urs management. border integrated of instrument policy the through integrated border cooperation at both the European and international and European the both at cooperation border integrated resources” as well as “improving the share of information and coop and information of share the “improving as well as resources” Republic of Hungary (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Hatá Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. Hungary of Republic etnikai és nemzeti a belül ezen emberi jogok, “Az 2. (2009), Schroeder (2003),4. EU Interestingly, Hungary’s 1998 Strategic Principles had earlie had Principles Strategic 1998 Hungary’s Interestingly, y 04 Hnay a ofcal rcgie i is euiy Strate Security its in recognized officially had Hungary 2004, By 135 h E frhr rvds h atoal lnig f nenl n ex and internal of linking actionable the provides further EU The

kisebbségek helyzete nem tekinthető egyetlen állam állam egyetlen tekinthető nem helyzete kisebbségek 4/1998. (XII. 29.) OGY Határozat), Art 11. 11. Art Határozat), 29.)OGY (XII. 4/1998. Page Page 53 rozat), 2.2.7 2.2.7 rozat), ding a link between external and betweenexternal link ading pticism that Hungary’s internal internal Hungary’s that pticism ore “comprehensive,” human human “comprehensive,” ore situation of ethnic minorities minorities ethnic of situation necessitates new approaches necessitates l requirements of EU norms norms EU of requirements l r articulated this very theme, theme, very this articulated r ula Schroeder has noted that that noted has Schroeder ula country.” taey oe ta i the in that noted Strategy rime, as well as instability as well as rime, eration.” levels. Indicating that “the “the that Indicating levels. ferring this conceptual conceptual this ferring ates as a result of the the of result a as ates trategy. gy the importance of of importance the gy 138 137 This particular This enl security, ternal cal and human and cal o Hungary, For 136

CEU eTD Collection border management in order to stem the flow of illegal immigr illegal of flow the stem to order in management border participate in either EUBAM or ESDP missions abroad. participate missions EUBAM or either ESDP in within the EU for comprehensive border management which addresses t addresses which management border comprehensive for EU the within crime. external sources of its internal security threats. Significa threats. security internal its of sources external mi EUBAM in participate to eager was Hungary Bánfi. Ferenc led is mission The there. from originate Hungary into immigrants Hung for concern particular of region a border, Moldovan-Ukrainian the f framework the provide to seeks EUBAM 2005. November in begun mission participa through action into understanding this implemented has Hungary 142 141 140 139 external relations.” the to contributing means this practically that and security to inte and “preventiveinclude to is EU the with cooperation borderThe EUBAM website available at http://www.eubam.org/ at available website EUBAM H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic 142 rtcin f h E’ etra bres s el s h develop the as well as borders external EU’s the of protection protection and law enforcement activities. It is in our basic int basic our in is It activities. enforcement law and protection diinly Hnay a be atv i FOTX wih rvds the provides which FRONTEX, in active been has Hungary Additionally, Te hnig e o tss f h Hnain odr urs te incr the Guards, Border Hungarian the of tasks of set changing “The raiainl tutr ad lnae o e salse bten t between established be to linkage a transforma and a structure require organisational also borders internal of system controlling entire European Union.” s the but security, national own our serve to only not borders external The EUBAM mission has a staff of 200 and is stationed in the Transnistria region al the Transnistria stationed in is 200and has The a of staff EUBAM mission 139

140

atározat),Art 4. atározat),Art 4. atározat),Art 2. Art atározat), Page Page 54 . . ntly, Hungary has been less willing to willing less been has Hungary ntly, ants, illicit drugs and organized organized and drugs illicit ants, “EU’s internal security and its its and security internal “EU’s ssion in order to address the the address to order in ssion by Hungarian Major-General Hungarian by lligence activities alike.” activities lligence erest for the future future the for erest he external dimension of dimension external he tion in the EUBAM the in tion ary as many illegal illegal many as ary ecurity of the of ecurity et f the of ment tion of the the of tion he border border he or integrated integrated or eased eased framework ong 141

CEU eTD Collection 143 involved. countries five the of role active which in EU the into Ukraine from immigration illegal stemming FRONTEX’ in participated Hungary 2007, In security. internal stabilityregion. the in i its to contributor significant a as EU the sees Hungary that EUBA in participation Hungary’s position. EU the of whic reflective policies security and position strategic adopted has Hungary security. internal provide to EU the with cooperation integrated of indicating as well as trafficking drug and crime transnational thr multidimensional the combating in borders of role the regarding shi decisive a demonstrate FRONTEX and EUBAM in involvement Hungarian Details available at http://www.frontex.europa.eu/ at Details available

143 Page Page 55 examples_of_accomplished_operati/art22.html ugr’ ofca scrt pstos s el as well as positions security official Hungary’s an emerging belief in the efficacy efficacy the in belief emerging an tra scrt ad n ensuring in and security nternal s Five Borders project aimed at at aimed project Borders Five s M and FRONTEX also indicate indicate also FRONTEX and M ugr pae te most the played Hungary On this issue of security, security, of issue this On h are significantly more more significantly are h a o ilgl migration, illegal of eat t n thinking in ft . . CEU eTD Collection belonging the West in Protect cultural and External sourcesExternal of Hungarians abroad Guarantee national ih” xrsig oiaiy ih h U oe Fac ad Ger and France over US the with solidarity expressing Eight” the of one was Hungary 2003. in war Iraq the over row transatlantic 5.2.3 Maintaining the Guarantee: Hungary within NATO NATO the Guarantee: 5.2.3 Maintaining within Hungary

security and state Internal Security human rights of Ensure of place (Euro-Atlantic Community) sovereignty sovereignty Priority Form of Threat Preferred Means Preferred Means Form Threat of Priority ugr’ egres o oprt wt te ntd tts was States United the with cooperate to eagerness Hungary’s national sovereignty currently in Slovakia, Serbia, Slovakia, in Romania means of preventing Russian Acknowledges notraditional immigration, trade. narcotics Hungarian ethnic minorities Hungarian ethnic minorities military threat Hungarian to national identity which was originallyas the conceived A strong aspect of current Aaspect strongcurrent of Feared of discrimination following the Cold War. following War. the Cold Organized crime, illegal influencecoercion and Table 3: Hungarian Priorities 3:Security Hungarian Table and Ukraine. exists. exists. Page Page 56 Atlantic Community Atlantic Community diplomatic channelsdiplomatic security identity to (Integrated Border compliance of EU economic system NATO, Article 5 Pressure through align Euro- with (IMF, and EU) minority rights Committed to to Committed structuring its Management; FRONTEX) to enforceto EUBAM, norms. norms. EU EU ay poiin o h US the to opposition many signers of the “Letter of the the of “Letter the of signers paet uig the during apparent promote its national promote its norms, evennorms, though Represents the only observe these same commitment to EU to commitment Hungary respect in which cooperation area Hungarian of to Roma minority Roma to security in policy Hungary to seeks interests through with is primarily is with Commitment to to Commitment NATO military within the EU.within Consequence norms within within norms it is forced is it to cooperation. population. population. Strategic

CEU eTD Collection significantly. significantly. level. this even meet G of percent 1.7 at set officially is budget defense Hungarian The we remains GDP of percentage a as spending Hungary’sdefense threat factors, the defence necessities of the country, our NATO our country, the of necessities defence the factors, threat NA with consultation in – shaped be will structure weapon its and troo its military, Hungary’s of structure “the policies: and 148 147 http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/hungary-nato 146 145 144 invasion. allowed for it.for allowed althoug NATO, from dismissed be to Hungary for calls were there 2002 criti much was NATO participation the of source within 2003, Hungary’s meager approac Atlanticist Hungary’s for explanation possible A Mission. Ir in remain soldiers Hungarian three Currently action. in killed Hungari one time which during 2005, March through 2003 August from (MNF-I) Multi the of part as Iraq to was 1989 in independence regaining since Throughout Hungary’s Indeed, transatlanticist. unwaveringly Europe. remained Hungary “new” and “old” between distinction Cheney’s President shut to opportunity great a “missed had states European Eastern obligations See Figure 3 in Appendix VII. VII. Appendix in 3 See Figure 44. Tálas(2004), and Póti 13 (Euractive.com: Link?” Weakest NATO’s “Hungary: 84. (2007), Cottey 84. (2007), Cottey Even by 1998, NATO had become the dominant influence on Hungary’s securit Hungary’s influenceon dominant thebecome had NATO 1998, byEven 144 147 An action which prompted French President Chirac to declare t declare to Chirac President French prompted which action An and its military reforms were much slower than either Pol either than slower much were reforms military its and 146 At the time Hungary was estimated to have fulfilled only 25% of of 25% only fulfilled have to estimated was Hungary time the At 148 Since 2003, however, Hungary’s involvement in NATO has increased has NATO in involvement Hungary’s however, 2003, Since

Page Page 57 November 2002). Available at at Available 2002). November -weakest-link/article-118201 p levels, the number of reserve forces, forces, reserve of number the levels, p aq as part of the NATO Training Training NATO the of part as aq ll below NATO’s mandated 2%. mandated NATO’s below ll responsibilities as well as our as well as responsibilities DP, but it consistently fails to fails consistently it but DP, up” a te ie a ta until that was time the at h O b te oeta real potential the by – TO largest foreign deployment deployment foreign largest 145 . . h no formal mechanism mechanism formal no h and or Czech Republic. Czech or and Ntoa Fre Iraq - Force -National n eiie U Vice US elicited and hat the Central and Central the hat cism. Indeed, cism. in an soldier was soldier an the ordeal, ordeal, the its NATO its y strategy CEU eTD Collection buy 14 Gripen fighter jets from the Swedish Saab AB manufact AB Saab Swedish the from jets fighter Gripen 14 buy 15. 15. instead of fighter jets,fighter of instead Hungary that requested EU The missions. EU in capabilities importa stressingthe EU was thethat time the around 2003, in government cont original The operations. Alliance in used be to jets fighter Hung and Czech the supporting were NATO and US the time, the At sense of operational philosophy, able to fulfill the commitments madesense the to commitments fulfill of to philosophy, operational able 155 http://inforadio.hu/hi at Available 2007), November 154 153 152 151 Rep együttműködés.” folytatott keretében Szervezete 150 -alakítja egyeztetve Szövetséggel -a megfelelően kötelezetts vállalt Szövetségben a szükségleteinek, v a és felszerelését fegyverzetét állományarányait, 149 resources.”economic and financial allies.” its of and NATO,of framework the within Hungary ofdefence collective the milit the possess to needs “Hungary documents: strategic 2004 and incorporat has Hungary which of goal the them; acquire to expected defence.” t maintain must “NATOforces all that declaration the included security.”Hungary’s Remarks by NATO officer (2008). (2008). officer NATO by Remarks ma a vádolja elfogadásával kenőpénzek “Százmilliós H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic H Korm. 31.) (III. (2073/2004. Hungary of Republic 47. Art (1999), NATO garanciáj legfőbb biztonságának katonai ország “Az szervezeti erőinek fegyveres Köztársaság Magyar “A As part of acquiring the needed capabilities, in 2001 the Hungar the 2001 in capabilities, needed the acquiring of part As 151 hr NT mmes i nt oss te aaiiis o contr to capabilities the possess not did members NATO Where 152 hs rnlts no ga o “eeo[n] n re force armed an “develop[ing] of goal a into translates This 150 155 n re t gaate hs euiy te 99NT Srtgc Conce Strategic NATO 1999 the security, this guarantee to order In as helicopters were deemed better suited for civilian miss civilian for suited better deemedwere helicopters as

149 In 2002, NATO continued to be “the prime guarantor of guarantor prime “the be to continued NATO 2002, In ki.” Republic of Hungary (94/1998. (XII. 29.) OGY 29.)OGY (XII. (94/1998. Hungary of Republic ki.” árható reális veszélytényezőknek, az ország védelmi ország az veszélytényezőknek, reális árható égeknek, valamint az anyagi, pénzügyi erőforrásokna pénzügyi anyagi, az valamint égeknek, rek/kulfold/hir-164199 atározat), Art 4. Art atározat), 4. Art atározat), Page Page 58 ublic of Hungary (2144/2002. (V. 6.) Korm. Határoza Korm. 6.) (V. (2144/2002. Hungary of ublic a a kollektív védelemre épülő Észak-atlanti Szerződ Észak-atlanti épülő védelemre kollektív a a gyar pártokat a New York Times” (Inforadio.hu: 26 (Inforadio.hu: Times” York New a pártokat gyar és hadrendi struktúráját, létszámát, belső létszámát, struktúráját, és hadrendi ract was revised by the Hungarian Hungarian the by revised was ract he ability to provide for collective collective forprovide ability to he . . urer at a cost of €823 million. €823 of cost a at urer consider acquiring helicopters helicopters acquiring consider ed into its 1993, 1998, 2002 1998, 1993, its into ed ary capabilities required for required capabilities ary arian acquisitions of Gripen Gripen of acquisitions arian ian government agreed to to agreed government ian for the collective defencecollective the for NATO” nce of interoperability interoperability ofnce ht s e n the in new is that bt, hy were they ibute, 153 ions support as ions

Határozat), Art Art Határozat),

k k és t), Art 3. 3. Art t), 154 pt

CEU eTD Collection lnig tt, hr dvlpd dpoai dsue ewe the between dispute diplomatic a developed there state, planning airbase. Kecskemét at active became “mountainous terrain.” Details available at http:// at available Details terrain.” “mountainous exercises simulation GAP2010.2009 in operational enhanced for framework ongoing an provide (HTP)to wit coincides simulation The deployment. helicopter Defen European the by sponsored exercise helicopter military industry aspect “is sometimes forgotten.” sometimes military “is aspect industry Ac policies. defense and security Hungarian on thinking strategic the illustrates helicopters operational flexible to opposed http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/NATO_08 160 hardwar European buy won’t they that so technology, 159 158 http://www.honvedelem.hu at: available 2009), March 157 156 troop deployment.well as strategic G and France with aircraft, of choice the over industries defence he its for aircraft Russian on reliance its end to NATO enable Air Heavy NATO’s form to aircrafts III Globemaster C-17 ha (SAC) which Capability Airlift Strategic the form to Finland order in capabi airlift strategic for need NATO’s meet to order In preferences policy and NATO within relevance enhanced Hungary’s NATO host will Hungary fact the by indicated further is ESDP airspace. Hungarian of outside already is it altitude, Hungaria from off takes Gripen a time the by that fact the of externa in role its fulfill to order in takenwas jets fighter December 22 On security. their guaranteed which NATO was it United States Defense Security Cooperation Agency. Cooperation Security StatesDefense United “T that remarked Bush Herbert George to advisor An officer. military Hungarian a to According IsAlready Hungary Of Airspace “The Szűcs. László helic integrated on emphasis EU the 2009, March In

156 157 Hungary decided to go with its NATO obligations, after allobligations, after NATO its go with to decided Hungary It is obvious that Hungary’s decision to acquire Gripen acquire to decision Hungary’s that obvious is It www.eda.europa.eu/newsitem.aspx?id=458 were held in the Alps of southeast France in order order in France southeast ofAlps the in held were h the development of an EU “Helicopter Tactics Prog Tactics “Helicopter EU an of development the h Guarded By Gripens” (Hungarian Ministry of Defence, of Ministry (Hungarian Gripens” By Guarded Page Page 59 ce Agency (EDA) in order to enhance the interoperab the enhance to order in (EDA) Agency ce helicopter in ESDP operations, which will become will become which operations, ESDP in helicopter e further down the road.” Quoted in Toje (2008), 10 Toje(2008), in Quoted road.” the down efurther opter capabilities culminated in the first EU “mult EU first the in culminated capabilities opter /cikk/194/14104/gripens_guarding.html Press Release, 9 May 2008. Available at at Available 2008. May 9 Release, Press he aim is to get the new member countries hooked on hooked countries member new the get is to aim he -32.pdf 159

158 . . h coc t ivs i fgtr es as jets fighter in invest to choice The l military cooperation. Not least because least Not cooperation. military l lities, NATO joined with Sweden and Sweden with joined NATO lities, lift Wing (HAW). This capacity will will capacity This (HAW). Wing lift overwhelming influence of NATO NATO of influence overwhelming ’s new Central European airbase. airbase. European Central new ’s 2009, the 14 Hungarian Gripens Gripens Hungarian 14 the 2009, trioy n rahs cruising reaches and territory n v arit operations. airlift avy ermany favoring Airbus’ new new Airbus’ favoring ermany cording to Asle Toje, the the Toje, Asle to cording American and European European and American s purchased three Boeing three purchased s for NATO over over NATO for . . . . to train in in train to 160 inational” inational” ramme” ramme” 0. 0. 4 ility of ility n the In US CEU eTD Collection NATO’s choice of the C-17. Of course, technical reasons were cite were reasons technical course, Of C-17. the of choice NATO’s hesitanc Germany’s and France’s including concerns political by another yearanother increase troop presence to its and from 400. plans 300to comm its extend to decided has Hungary recently, Most 2003. least p pro-Atlanticist a with consistent is base NATO new the host 165 164 http://www.s at Available 2008. October 4 Edition), 163 02630 http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sa at Available 162 http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090313b 161 airfields.” st from takeoffs and landings and evacuations, aeromedical airdrops, humanit and military tactical, “strategic, NATO’s perform to predictab as well as manufacturing Airbus’ in DelaysIII. ve more but expensive, more Boeing’s for pushed US the while A400M ald h coc o Pp oe Rmti a pr oiia move political “pure a Ramstein over Pápa of choice the called lo alternative an as Hungary of choice the to led aircrafts purc of issue the on relationship tense increasingly an Germany, http://www.naplo-online.hu/news_in_english/20090304 years.thirty of nor in Base Air Pápa the at stationed be will and flag” Hungarian willing.” be would that nation a for looking were practic decision the called Management Airspace and Defense October 2008. Available at http://www.stripes.com/a at Available 2008. October “Hungary to Extend Afghan Mission for One Year” ( Year” One for Afghan Mission to Extend “Hungary StaffNATO to Troops “US Vandiver, John in quoted to Troops “US Vandiver, John in quoted Jim Lovell C- NATO’s Sibling: “SALIS’ Daily, DefenseIndustry Release, Press Systems. Defense Integrated Boeing . . lhuh h HW a oiial itne t b hue a Ramste at housed be to intended originally was HAW the Although 161

164 The first C-17 is expected to arrive at Pápa in July 2009. Hunga 2009. July in Pápa at arrive to expected is C-17 first The

tripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=57885 17 Pool Inaugurates In-House Heavy Lift,” 15 Novemb15 Lift,” Heavy In-House Inaugurates Pool 17 Staff NATO Base in Hungary,” Stars and Stripe (Euro Stripe and Stars Hungary,” Base in NATO Staff Page Page 60 rticle.asp?section=104&article=57885 lis-sibling-natos-c17-pool-inaugurates-inhouse-heav Napló Online Napló 13 March 2009. Available at at Available 2009. March 13 Base in Hungary,” Stars and Stripe (European Editio (European Stripe and Stars Hungary,” in Base _hungary_extend_afghan_mission _nr.html 163 The C-17s are to be registered “under the “under registered be to are C-17s The : 4 March 2009). Available at: at: Available 2009). March 4: le industry rivalry (possibly exacerbated exacerbated (possibly rivalry industry le . . cation. Some defence experts have have experts defence Some cation. arian missions, as well as brigade as well as missions, arian al: “They made the offer and we and offer the made “They al: lc ted icral sne at since discernable trend olicy hasing C-17 instead of A400M of instead C-17 hasing ,” thwest Hungary for a duration duration a for Hungary thwest d including the C-17’s ability ability C-17’s the including d 162 165 andard runways or austere or runways andard i Agaitn ld to led Afghanistan) in e btNT’ ha o Air of head NATO’s but itment in Afghanistan for for Afghanistan in itment

rsatile C-17 Globemaster Globemaster C-17 rsatile . . . . ry’s decision to decision ry’s in air base in in base air in . . pean pean er 2008.er y-lift- n), 4 n), CEU eTD Collection NATO has been uncomplimentary to its military cooperation military its to uncomplimentary been has NATO NATO operations. While Hungary has participated in EU Hungary missions, in civilian the NATO While has operations. participated instrument of promoting its national interest whichits the of furtherinstrument is promoting stabiliz st policy foreign and security EU’s the into integration further rela In apparent. choice the made has budget and manpower limited structures security EU and NATO between choosing officially avoid Hungary that evidence is there Significantly, spending. defense and securit Hungary’s NATO of within cooperation security bulk towards oriented increasingly the that clear is it EU, the in years A personnel. security of deployment the in and budgeting state of c most policy, security to comes it when choose to forced often are EU the within both cooperation security in participate who Hungary securitymechanisms for deployment. civilian area this factor cooperation in Hungary’s limited was for the underdevelo was mo reasonmain missions civilian Hungarian participation ESDP for in conducted Security the EU’s in Brusse officials in Political with Committee operations. ESDP Pe civilian even such Hungarian cooperation in a decrease of Inde consideredan cooperation. of essential Hungary’s security element Perhaps one of the most salient conclusions of this case study is is study case this of conclusions salient most the of one Perhaps ItHungarian abroadare clearof the that is majority deployments mi C HAPTER 6 Page Page 61

–

C ONCLUSIONS within ESDP. Despite an effort to to effort an Despite ESDP. within ructures is viewed primarily as an an as primarily viewed is ructures

fter 10 years in NATO and five and NATO in years 10 fter , including force deployments force including , onspicuously in the allocation the in onspicuously ad ees plce are policies defense and y ’s military cooperation with with cooperation military ’s , Hungary’s allocation of its its of allocation Hungary’s , and as members of NATO, NATO, of members as and tion to the EU, Hungary’s Hungary’s EU, the to tion ation of its neighbors. ofation its ed, recented, indicate trends pment of Hungary’spment that countries such as as such countries that stly One declaratory. litary deployments in litary deployments in ls indicatels the that se cannot be rsonal interviews CEU eTD Collection AO oprto i dee b Hnay o e n epn wt it with keeping in be to Hungary by deemed is cooperation NATO operation civilian EU than rather needs operational NATO with mil purchase to chooses Hungary spending, military allocate to deploy W missions. ESDP to over missions NATO chooses where overwhelmingly Hungary deciding When NATO. with cooperate to choose, to Hungary’sgrea that realization stated and fact the Despite H securityemergingintegration, EUof mechanisms throughthe met Theoretical Implications 6.1 growing EU’s influence. concre a policies security and documents strategic Hungarian within b integrated in EU the with cooperation in and security external connecting space the as security border of conceptualization the In Hungary’s relations with Russia become better and Hungary bel Hungary and better become Russia with relations Hungary’s embra has Hungary Here throug stability of zone the extended by security of understanding EUBAM. and FRONTEX Euro increasingly be to seem does Hungary which within in area one The cooperation desirethe exacerbated 2009gas be only to dispute Hungary’s protected b away. go not does realities current despite that view a Russia, for need traditional Hungary’s by influenced greatly is view This mem valuable a be to commitment ideational its by influenced is financi despite that indicating goals, security its necessarily Significantly, Hungary’s perception of the EU as a relevant s relevant a as EU the of perception Hungary’s Significantly, Page Page 62 al and capability constraints Hungary Hungary constraints capability and al Indeed, actions by Russia during Russia by actions Indeed, itary hardware that is in keeping keeping in is that hardware itary requirements. The importance of of importance The requirements. order management, one may see see may one management, order ieves that it faces no traditional traditional no faces it that ieves ber of the transatlantic alliance. alliance. transatlantic the of ber test security challenges are best best are challenges security test h civilian and police actions. If actions. police and civilian h ungary decides, when forced when decides, ungary h tras f nenl and internal of threats the ecurity actor has increased. increased. has actor ecurity military protection against against protection military te path demonstrating the the demonstrating path te s political goals and not not and goals political s y NATO. peanized is through its through is peanized hen deciding where deciding hen limited manpower, manpower, limited ced the EU’s EU’s the ced CEU eTD Collection securitymembers statesNATO. behavior EU in of goes and choices state on culture strategic of power the reveals mil irrationality The hard cooperation. NATO to itself commit to Hungary for need historical its as understood culture, strategic would it however, being, time the For ESDP. within including mission, intens would Hungary that likely appears it threats, military

Page Page 63 ify its cooperation in EU security security EU in cooperation its ify of this policy on certain issues issues certain on policy this of some way to illuminating the the illuminating to way some itary protection, influences influences protection, itary appear that Hungary’s that appear CEU eTD Collection

Volker, Amb. Kurt. United States Mission to NATO. to Personal(BrussVolker, Mission States interview Amb. Kurt. United United Department of States Defense. 2008. Personal December interview. Torda, Péter. Permanent RepresentationUnion. PersTorda, the of Péter. European to Hungary Permanent interview.Republic of Hungary Personal 2009. January of Defense. Ministry Martinson, Col. Jon, United States Department of State. Personal int Personal State. of Department States United Jon, Col. Martinson, Hunter, Amb. Robert, United States Department of State. Persona State. of Department States United Robert, Amb. Hunter, Horváth, Katalin. Permanent Representation of Hungary to the European Union. Pe the European Representation to Hungary Horváth, of Katalin. Permanent Gyila, Representation Union. Permanent the of Péter. European to Hungary Byrnes, Kate Marie. United States Mission to NATO. Personal i Personal NATO. to Mission States United Marie. Kate Byrnes, of I: Interviewees List Appendix Appendices

November 12,2008). April 20,2009). (CIVCOM).] (CIVCOM).] cris 21,2009). [areas(Brussels, Civilian Belgium: April of responsibility: May 6, 2009). May 6,2009). Group.] Group.] (PMG), capabilityWP EuropeanDefenceEU-NATAgency, development, April 21,2009). [areasBelgium: interview of responsibility: (Brussels, Poli training] 21,2009). crisis [areas(Brussels, PMG, Belgium: April of responsibility: April 20,2009). Page Page 64 l interview (Berlin, Germany: Germany: (Berlin, interview l nterview (Brussels, Belgium: Belgium: (Brussels, nterview erview (Budapest, Hungary: Hungary: (Budapest, erview Personal interview els, Belgium: els, onal interview management, is managementis O Capability rsonal tico-Military CEU eTD Collection II: StrategicKeyword Appendix Documents List

Global/globalisation International capabilities-building deployment Force & Confidencebuilding Institution Security State Multinational Multi Military Civil Civil Diplomacy/diplomatic Influence WarCold War Conflict Peace/peaceful Stability/instability Threat/s “Euro EuropeanUnion (EU) UnitedStates (US) NATO UnitedNations (UN) Ukraine Russia Border/s Region/regional *Whileth contexts, in wordsare various used these - i

an(operations) military (co - lateral Keywords - building

Atlantic” degree the level of importance degreewith of associated level the the

-

building

-

building

Table4

-

op.)

: Frequency of Key Wordsreferenced within

Total 13 13 51 15 18 38 45 39 64 Strategic Concept 0 8 0 3 0 6 9 4 3 5 6 8 1 9 2 4 3 1 1 0

(8,002words 1999 1999 NATO

Adjusted 1000 1000 words 0.50 0.37 8.00 0.62 0.75 1.00 0.12 1.12 0.25 1.62 0.50 0.37 0.12 0.12 0.00 1.62 0.00 6.37 1.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.75 1.87 2.25 4.75 5.62 1.12 4.87

e frequency of certain documents of s the wordswithin e frequency

per Page Page 65 term, in either a positive, a eithernegative neutral term,in or con Total 37 19 23 29 10 28 31 SecurityStrategy 5 4 6 0 5 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 6 0 5 3 0 4 6 6 7 0 2003 2003 European

(4,200words)

Adjusted 1000 1000 words 8.81 1.19 0.95 1.43 0.00 1.19 1.19 4.52 5.48 6.90 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.00 1.43 2.38 0.00 1.19 0.71 0.00 0.95 1.43 6.67 1.43 1.67 7.38 0.00 strategic

per documents Total 71 41 12 29 69 29 73 23 19 10 34 30 32 9 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 0 4 8 5 0 0 SecurityStrategy 2004 2004 Hungarian

(10,887 (10,887 words)

1000 1000 words Adjusted ignify to some to ignify

text. text. 6.52 0.83 3.77 0.73 0.83 1.10 2.66 6.34 2.66 6.71 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.28 2.11 0.00 0.37 0.73 0.46 0.00 0.00 1.75 0.92 3.12 2.76 2.94 per

CEU eTD Collection prevents the expectations of thepreventsfulfilled. Through EU from the expectations being pi these deficit overcomingprimary the consensus concern, on rather the but EU focus should characterized American approaches to European security. characterizedapproaches European security. to American of harddisinterest Europe’s in explanation security. Kell According to Venusvs. Robert Kagan’stherefore analogy Mars was that unsurprising I as the Bush weak. andconcerns Washington many Administration in wereby viewed the internationalwithin framework pursuing ob in lawsbroad and its norms of onthe com other had hand, a ESS, concern.become multilateralism tertiary The right inte that self-defense signaling preemptive of preventative or approach 9/11 emphasi to post its engaging The the shifted European US neighborhood. concernedforce security, was the Europe provide Easte with to projection was 9/11 the in post that focusedout world,capab while the US’s onmilitary NSS In Europe. Ke within addressing substance the documents, terms of divisions of the 167 166 III: The European SecurityAppendix Strategy of European security has progressed to such a point that a that lackof Europeanprogressed ofa capabilit haspoint such security to Americandivergence European and in tha argues Finally, Asle strategy. Toje ofcomparative commona and analysis of draws the documents two the textual out points Berrenskoetter Felix NSS, was utilize a a the in the 2002 to response sense 2003ESS the current incompatibilityNATOEU and security integration between reservations immediate US almost and t regarding EU concerns, strategic the highlight 2002 not NSS to was European address division written the to order that ESS in the onthereaction to Catherine US of ESS). implementation Kelleher focuses and Solana Javier ESS primaryanalytical (the sources and articles 2003 two wedevelopments of European strategy the in here l release 2003ESS, since the In divergent. understa EUstrategic to order and were of US approaches most the Kelleher (2008) more to norms, where realistic of the aims security E providing strategic global EUmovement play in grand strategya to role from intentions and spre one may of Solana’sthe the ESS, implementation 2008report releasewith of on Javier events all Washington’s and centrality developments.” to weregeneral hubris ofadministrati “the the Bushactions and due the 2002 NSS to the EU wascharacter res arguing merely that that perceptions the ESS, of Kelleher bythe ESS underpla administration. antipathy ledsoon the to Bush for stratcontentcoupled its of a the in the US with cooperation with document lack of Nuclear Crime Terror/terrorism Kelleher (2008), 139. 139. (2008), Kelleher 150. (2008), Kelleher

The launch of the 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS) came at a point when t The at came (ESS) a launch 2003European point Security Strategy of the Although initiallya the ESS “welcome as surprise”came

26 1 2

3.25 0.12 0.25

Page Page 66 18 17 2

167 Instead,was with concerned the ESS 0.48 4.29 4.05 166 rnational cooperationrnational and

to most in Washington, in most to the eher, this view haseher, this structure. Inarguing that structure. considered a worthy considered a worthy U is capable. U is he probablehe ponding to American to ponding rnand Enlargement eces of analysis, and eces of analysis, ies is nolonger is ies the 28 35 2 ’s 2008 report onthe’s 2008report

t the developmentt ad European

2003 ESS in order in 2003ESS jectives. These ook at three ys reactive the mitted to acting to mitted nd the ilities and ilities on about egy for Iraq,egy for lleher points s as that that 0.18 2.57 3.21 t is is t discern a discern ze the ze he lity and

, the CEU eTD Collection NSS clearlyNSS NATO sees the transatlantic fulcrum US-led “as and of inne presented andperception Berenskoetter relation threat in strateg to by potential difficulties in strategic cooperation. In of specific strategic difficultiespotential in cooperation. terms past,” of “secure. Europe making the as realities Europeans recognize Berenskoetter notes is in relationmeansBerenskoetter the in structural to of is European securit notes tomorrow.” reasonsthe paths theystates assume “there that to aregood that wi outline BerenskoetterWhile nohard regardingfuture makes predictions transatlant morhand, contains implement plans to broad goals, the but NSS and idealistic of pursuit more representsindicate rea means idealistic the that ESS in tactics the completely UN bywithin act legal to framew promising crime.stateand failure limite The significantly organized EU, however, globalthemore other The of identifiable hand, EU, reg front. threats on targeted terrorism unrealisticallyquite asembraced a and threat the possibi t result, contrast As insecurity sense a the 9/11. US’sfollowing heightened to of In contrast, the ESS sees NATOIncontrast, sees as “enhancing the only ESS capabil the operational necessity” regarding whatever means taken to provide fornecessity” provide European means to securi regarding taken whatever states “interna that Rather aESS than military depending the alliance, on Toje (2008) Toje (2008) 174 173 172 171 170 169 168 “strategic theby NSS the world. These presented cultures” different r “idealistic”while therepresents ESS approach a surprisingly of the document that US commonality thecontention and points the conclusion reaches and dic Berenskoettercites Felix Robert Kagan’s simplistic also Throughanalysis and the the Berenskoetter 2002 2003ESS. NSS identifie comparisons, of his Europe,manlyandas onlypr a a but America soft backdrop against which to Berenskoetter (2005) due to a “lack of decisionmaking procedures capable ofdue a overcoming to of “lack capable decisionmaking dissent.” procedures theInstead, EU“unable and is the foreign Toje security deliver that argues to therefore alone the ineffectiveness can capabilities explain of no longer andalt structures, EUgap” security prove to order in capabilities that “outKelleher traditional Additionally of deba “the area’ that since out 2003, points continuedIran’s at efforts complementary peace b nuclear to program, coordinatedto cooperation diplomatic military Afghanistan in support from and EU the str interests essence in to haveIraq, US over both led commonalities of as a rationality” understandi way (values)(means/ends) and of “instrinsic for“values” “nationalas and the interest” EU’s offers “instr substitute Toje (2008), 121. 121. Toje(2008), 90. (2005), Berenskoetter 80. (2005), Berenskoetter 86. (2005), Berenskoetter 87. (2005), Berenskoetter 84. (2005), Berenskoetter 159. (2008), Kelleher Asle 1993focus upon Christopher Toje Hill’s expands ona “capabilities-exp Kelleher, however, highlights the fact that when tensions cooled down after the cooled divide down after Kelleher, highlights when the that fact tensions however, The ESS states “Europe that The has secure.” never ESS been…so 173

Page Page 67 epresents “realist” view a of more 172 s, one area of divergence area that one s, lity action of ona unilateral ork(s). These differences ork(s). This sentiment stand sentiment This stark in hotomization betweenhotomization a and the ESS point to to point ESS and the hough nascent, do exist andhough nascent, doexist ic means, in essence, in means, ic ” umental rationality”umental uilding in the Balkans. the in uilding listic ends. On thelistic other 168 the EU’s foreign the policy. d themselves terms of in r-European security.” tional cooperation is a cooperation is tional

ng how values can can ng how values

ll not change not direction ll ty. ity of theity EU.” ic cooperation he efforts regarding efforts y cooperation. The 171 esent a comparativeesent a 174 policies expected” expected” policies e realistic tactics.e realistic

he targeted US Toje presents Toje presents ional conflict, conflict, ional ategic te seems long te ectations 170

169 s s

CEU eTD Collection bolster its traditional military capabilities and military traditional NATO with bolster its capabilities embr revision and the EU has just concludedrevision and of onthe the the implementation EU an ESS. has assessment just the IV: Beyond StrategiesAppendix EU overcome to a consensus issue. lack ona of particular embrace decisionshould makinga more institutional procedure pragmatic tha ga consensus-expectationsmechanisms enough significantly overcome to the does remedy alter not not it deficiencywill the decis because consensus the consensus the the onhow address problem. to believes Significantly, that Toje where opportunitybut decisive takenan EU for due action mission, style has no been the and case is idealsexample of representedwhere of the conditions Darfur actor, Toje argues, has been significantly undermined preciselyactor,argues, significantly been by Toje undermined has t procedure.intergovernmentalcharacter and intent The unanimity EU’s voting subject parliamentary to approval. by currentlySecurity the which being Ministry revised is Strategy ofHun aIn Defense Hungary, newand recently Kehl drafted April 2009. in the Ministry “anti-democratic tinge.” and“disinvestment attaking. encourages the free sa riding,” it while Rather, costs and participation European in mission does lend it not initiatives, defence 180 179 178 177 176 175 objective.” rational ways most achie and dialogue’ ‘critical the when are not even to these engage will influence ‘const EU foreign in states “the that EU He policy. each V: and EU – learning NATO The Appendix other’s language? Hungariangovernment. likely the inst currentreleased is political 2009, but in to be to due delayed NATO’sdiscussed the in preliminary meetings leading 60 to called NATO-EUa defence new for and strategy integrated security cooperation integrated Shortly Europe. milita in after rejoining NATO’s crucialarea forhave membership consideration (including Hungary) joint dynamics and and strategies theirNATO’s relationshi the EU’s between a problem. pre-chosen which values, its fit theits situations attracted EU to is tacti approaches security interoperability. to civilian t – including These influence.” orde in how applied economic mightroughest guidelinebe as tools and to military yet offer and twice thegoal, ESS in does“the t times not even ESS the 2010headline in Official at the Hungarian Ministry of Defence. Defence. of Ministry Hungarian the Official at http://www.euractiv.com/en/security/france-unveils (2008). EU 132. Toje(2008), 127. Toje(2008), 127. Toje(2008), At present, the security strategies of NATO (and US) andAt present,are Hungary strategies the US) security of (and i NATO The s beas EU converging, strategies the and EU appear NATO of the to both Indeed,global be to The a Toje player. EU counts the definitely intends 175 176 This is, heorderglobally is, suggests, This act to ma the to not best way in because The current system of CSFP/ESDP decision making, including allocation decision of making, The of current system CSFP/ESDP including 177 Yet, most import, the current because import, Yet, most its system of ineffective is

180 The expected newbe to Hungarian Security Strategy is

Page Page 68 -new-security-strategy-eu-focus/article-173463 th anniversary Summit at Strasbourg anniversary Summit acingcomprehensive more of Foreign Affairsand is of its inability to its rends mayrends a joint indicate 179 which is currentlyis which being cs. A solution in search in A solution ofcs. ry command, Francery ps to those states to whops ructive engagement’ructive future security ability of the ion makingion fer afer perfect me time havingmean time p. Forp. the EU Toje, t wouldallow thet Lisbon Treaty ve a givenve a self action- to o be a global n a state of n word “global”word 22 act r to exert r exert to . Toje’s to a lack of a to lack eeks to

he 178 garian intain intain The CEU eTD Collection prosperity, and no prosperity without Justice and goodAdministration.” Justice prosperity, without and no prosperity boundaries.” the suchboundaries” drugsand as trade threats that and “terrorism recogniz donot “There can be no government an“There army, without can no army money, moneywithout be no no without and civilian military links NATO/ISAFapproaches, which draws on heavily TheNationaldecisionsmandates, Afghan of Developme actors.” all and autonomy community, re andwidecivil involving military spectrum while a of instruments, approach challengesdemonstratesa by comprehensive today’s that require “operationalTheexperience,particularly document Af states that in 184 http://www.ands.gov.af/ 183 182 181 opposingthreats to are nolonger or our state to mar security limited armies ISAF Afghanistan in values“f operations relation reveals that NATO in to strategicregards a document 2008 outlin development, strategic NATO’s to gradualNATOlearninga a “NATO- “Europeanization” of andprocess; societyand of representatives international NGOs.” various to politicalof the actors, EuropeanUnion” addition in representatives particularin Nationsengaged Assistance i the Mission United Afghanistan, in responsible who Representative is forCivilian liaising “inte (SCR) with evolvingoperationalizing NATO the understanding, pos NATO’s has established The Senior Civilian Representative website availab website Representative Civilian TheSenior Afghanistan. of Republic Islamic the of Government document. internal undisclosed (2008), NATO Ibid.

181 Furthermore, NATO has embraced several aspectscomprehensive embracedNATO Furthermore, sec of several has . .

le at http://www.nato.int/issues/scr_afghanistan/in at le Page Page 69 “Afghan National Development Strategy, 2008. Avail 2008. Strategy, Development National “Afghan 184

ghanistan and Kosovo, ization” of the EU. In of the EU. ization” rnational organisations rnational 183 ully that recognizes As part of the international ked geographicby ing strategic NATO success by stating: stating: by success Afghan civil civil Afghan n Afghanistan and specting t oft Senior e territorial nt Strategy,nt urity. dex.html able at: at: able 182 . .

CEU eTD Collection 186 185 mission EU deploymentsPercentages Hungarian and NATO Figure of in 2: VI: Appendix

http://www.hm.gov.hu/honvedseg/missziok http://www.hm.gov.hu/honvedseg/missziok 8 KÖZPONT, MŰVELETI HONVÉDSÉG MAGYAR to According

Page Page 70 June 2007. 2007. June 185 186

s 2007-2008s CEU eTD Collection http://portal.ksh.hu/portal/page?_pageid=37,115776& 187 2000-2009 DefenceFigure Spending Hungarian 3: VII: Appendix http:// at (available Finance of Ministry Hungarian Based on data from the Hungarian Central Statistic Central Hungarian fromthe data Basedon 0020 0220 0420 0620 082009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1.7 2 2 6 . 9 272. 4 1.8 Hungary's Defence Spending

2 7 9 . 5 . 1.7 1.7 Hungarian DefenceBudget (in HUFbillions) Defence spending as % of GDP 214. 3 www1.pm.gov.hu/web/home.nsf/frames/cimlap Page Page 71 al Office (available at at (available Office al _dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&szo=gdp 310. 7 1.5

187

84.528 1 .25 283. 1 1.2 1 .09 2 7 8 . 2 ) and the the and ) 1.2 1. 320.6 319.7 ). ). CEU eTD Collection 188 VIII: Figure DecemberAppendix of as 4: EU/ESDP Missions 2008

ISIS Europe – Chart and table of ESDP and EU missi EU and ESDP of table and –Chart Europe ISIS

Page Page 72 ons December 2008 www.isis-europe.org 2008 December ons 188

.

CEU eTD Collection North Atlantic Treaty (Washington, 1949). Available at: at: North Atlantic(Washington, Treaty 1949). Available NATO/OTAN HandbookNATO/OTAN North Atlantic Rome: Tre NATO, Strategic Alliance’s 1991,“The Concept,” NATO, 1999, “The Alliance’s Strategic Concept,” Washington, DC: Washington,North DC: Atlant NATO, Strategic Alliance’s 1999,“The Concept,” Republic of (11/1993. (III. Hungary, “A Határozat), OGY Köztársa Magyar 1993 12.) Defence EuropeanEU-NATOand (BrussDeclaration Policy on Security European Union, 2003, “A Secure Europe in A Better World –TheBetter Secure European World European Security“A St A in Europe Union,2003, “Berlin Plus Arrangements”“Berlin Summary Plus (Berlin, March a available 2003). Primary Sources Bibliography Republic of (27/1993. (IV. Hungary, “A Határozat) 23.), 1993 OGY Köztársasá Magyar DeclarationFranco-BritishJoint Summit Malo, D (St. onEuropean Defense securitEuropeanthe role “Vatanen the of in Report NATO on UnionParliament. Implementationthe ofEuropean the European Secur on Solana. “Report Union,2008,Javier Republic of (2144/2002. (V. Hungary, Határozat) 6.) Köztársaság Magyar Korm. 2002 “A Republic of (94/1998. “A (XII. Hungary, Határozat), OGY Köztársa Magyar 1998 29.) November 1991. Available at November 1991.Available Nemzeti BiztonságiNemzeti threshold of Stratégiájáról” m the new onthe [Security Brussels: Council of the European Union, 12 December 2003. Available at: EuropeanBrussels: of at: the Council 2003.Available Union,12December Available at Republic of Hungary]. Republic of Hungary]. [BasicBiztonságpolitikájának of Principles the Szóló” Sec Alapelveiről http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm 065e.htm Malo%20Declaration%20Text.html //EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2009-0033+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=- un.org/documents/en/081211_EU%20Security% 20Strategy.pdf http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/78367.pdf %20Solana%20-%20Permanent%20arrangements%20+%20NATO%20declaration.pdf 11%20Berlin%20Plus%20press%20note%20BL.pdf http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/03-11- Available at European at 2008.Available Union,11December Strategy Brussels: of Security a S407/08. the Council in World” Changing –Providing Association, 24April, 1999.Available at Defence Policy of the Republic of Hungary]. Defence of Hungary]. of the Policy Republic Alapelvei”Biztonság- Principles és Védelempolitikájának [Basic The National Security Strategy of the Republic of Hungary]. The of National the Republic Security of Strategy Republic of Hungary]. Republic of Hungary]. [Basic of Principles Honvédelmének National Szóló” Alapelveiről Defenc of the EU,” 28 January 2009; 7.Availableof the EU,” at 2009; 28January . http://www.atlanticcommunity.org/Saint- http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/73803%20- (Brussels: NATO, 2006). http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c911107a.htm . Page Page 73

http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99- . . http://www.europa-eu- . . . . . t t of the Security and of the els, December 2002).els, ecember 1998). aty Association, 8 . . urity Policy of thePolicy urity y architecture e of the ic Treaty illennium: illennium: ság ság g rategy,” . ity ity

. . CEU eTD Collection Berenskoetter, Felix and Bastian Giegerich. “From NATO to ESDP? Trac NATO andBerenskoetter, ESDP? Bastian to Felix “From Giegerich. Beloff, Max. Sources Scholarly Berenskoetter, Felix Sebastian. “Mapping the Mind Gap: A Comparison of US Gap: A Sebastian. of Berenskoetter, Comparison “MappingFelix the Mind RepublicForeign of “European Hungary, of Policy Affairs. Ministry Guid Biscop, Sven and Jan Joal Andersson andBiscop,The (eds). the Joal European EU Security Svenand Strate Jan Biscop, of European ABC Union Strategy: Sven.“The Culture Benchmark, Ambition, Republic of Hungary, 2004 (2073/2004. (III. 31.) Korm.NationalRepublic of“The Határozat) (2073/2004. Sec (III. Hungary, 2004 31.) Booth, Ken. “Strategic Culture: ValidityBooth,“Strategic and Ken. Validation,” Culture:

Booth,“The (ed.) of Ken. Strategic Affirmed,” Culture Concept Carl G in Jacobson Cottey, Andrew. Gaddis, John Lewis.Gaddis, John Giegerich,Bastian. Glenn, John, Darryl and Poore Stuart Glenn, (eds.). Howlett John, Gray, Colin. “Strategic Culture as Context: The First Generation ofS asGray, Theory “Strategic Context: Colin. Culture Howorth, and “ESDP Deadlock?” Jolyon. NATO: or Wedlock Hill, Christopher and WallaceHill, William (eds). Ilgen,Thomas (ed). Kennan,American Diplomacy, 2 George. Iain. Alastair Johnston, ---, Alastair Iain.---, Culture,” Alastair “Thinking about Strategic ---, Alastair Iain. “Strategic Cultures Revisited: A Reply to Colin Gr ReplyIain. Colin ---, A to Revisited: Cultures Alastair “Strategic Power USA/USSR History fourth paper preferencesWar,” de after Joint endinstitutional of the the Cold Security Vol. 36, No. Security 1(2005); Dialogue, Strategies,” 71-92. Hungarian(Budapest, 2007). August Government” Paper No. 16 (Brussels: Egmont Royal InstituteInternationalEgmontPaper of Royal No. 16(Brussels: Affair 1963. version). (officialStratégiája], English ofKöztársaság MagyarStrategy Hungary” [A theNe Republic of (CEEISA), Tartu, Estonia, June 25-27, 2006. (CEEISA), June Tartu, Estonia, aNew Global Routledge, Europe. York: 1-20. 2008; Vol. 2, No. 1 (2005). Vol. 2, No. 1(2005). Security Policy During the Cold War Security Cold Policy the During Security and Defence Policy Review of InternationalReview of Ashgate Publishing, 2004. Ashgate 2004. Publishing, Routledge, 1996. 38, No. 3 (2003); 235-254. 38, No. 3(2003); 235-254. (1995), 32-64. (1995), 32-64. 2006.(Chapters Publishing, Hampshire, 4and 5) UK: Ashgate Studies The United andthe States UnityEurope of

Convention of the Central and East European International of theConvention Central and Association East European Studies , Vol. 25 , Princeton University Press, 1998. , Princeton University Press, 1998. Security in the New theEurope in New Security European Security and Strategic Culture: National Responses the to EU’s National Culture: Security andStrategic European Hard Power, Soft Power andthe Transatlantic Relations Future Power, of Soft Hard Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Appraisal American Containment: A Critical of National Strategies

Cultural Realism: StrategicCultural andGrande Culture Strategy Chinese in (1999), 519-23. (1999), , London: Macmillan,London: 1990. , Studies . Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2006. . Baden-Baden: Nomos, , Vol. 25 (1999), 49-69. 25(1999),, Vol. nd ed., 1985. University Press, of Chicago , Oxford University Press, 1982. University Press,, Oxford 1982. , New York:, New Palgrave 2007. Macmillan, Page Page 74 The Actors in Europe’s Foreign Policy Europe’sActors in Foreign The Neorealism Versus Strategic Culture International SecurityInternational , Washington: The Brookings Institution, Brookings, Washington: The Oxford Journal on Good GovernanceOxford Journal Cooperation andConflictCooperation ay,” Review of International International of Review mzeti Biztonsági mzeti elines of the elines ing German in shifts , Vol.19, No. 4 trikes Back,” livered at the livered s, October 2007). October 2007). s, and European

Strategic , London: , gy: Forginggy: ,” Egmont urity urity , , Vol. , UK: , CEU eTD Collection Mérand, Frédéric.Mérand, McGuire, and Michael Steven Smith. EUISS PaperLindstrom,Battlegroups,” Chaillot Gustav. the “Enter EU I and FrenchKier, War “Culture before Doctrine World Military Elizabeth. Rieker, Pernille. Kiss, László “Hungary as ‘policyKiss, maker’ and J. ‘policy CFSP/ES taker’ in Korski, Daniel, Ulrike Guérot and Mark Leonard. “Re-Wiring the US-EU RelatLeonard. “Re-Wiring andKorski, the Daniel,Guérot US-EU Mark Ulrike The DevelopmentInterna ofSchroeder, EUUrsula. “Strategy Stealth? by László andPóti, Péter “Hungary A Debate: Tálas. the Trans-Atlantic in Merlingen, Michael. ---, Power of A Dangerous: Critique Normative is Europe,” “Everything Swindler, Ann. “Culture in Action: Symbols Action: in Strategies,Swindler, Ann. “Culture and Lim Strategic forImplications L.Snyder,“The Culture: Soviet Jack Póti, László and Judit Takács. László andPóti, Judit Case “The of the Schizophrenic A Reply the Debate the Context? Poore, onStrate Gray-Johnston to is “What Stuart. Morgenthau, Hans J. Rasa Ostrauskaite.Merlingen,and Michael Toje, Asle. Toje, Asle. “The 2003 European Union Security Strategy:Toje, Asle.European “The Union Security A Apprai Critical 2003 Toje, Asle. “The Consensus Expectations Gap:Ineff Europe’sToje, Explaining Expectations Asle. “The Consensus Policy Enlargemen, after New York: Columbia University Press, 1996; 186-215 New University 186-215 Press, York: 1996; Columbia Review Studies International of Implementation Perspective New York: Routledge, 2008. and Convergence in the Global ArenaGlobal and Convergence the in Katzenstein (ed). Brandeck-Bocquet, ed., London: European Council on Foreign Relations, 8 December 2008. 8 December onForeignLondon: 2008. Relations, European Council Security Identities of the Nordic StatesNordic Security the Identities of Foreign Slovak 2004); 43-47.Position,” Policy Affairs (Spring http://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/05_secstrat_10.pdf (Project Air Force Report), Santa Monica: RAND Corporation,Force(Project Santa September Monica: RAND Report), Air Republic, 2005). at Available forInstitute Strategy Security(Bratislava: of and M Defence Studies of the EuropeanAustria, Republic, Hungary the Czech Context Securi and in Slovakia (forthcoming). (forthcoming). dateLynnecontract for submission manuscript: Publishers, with Rienner Hungarian and the European Security Strategy,” in The SecurityHungarian Strategie the European in Security Strategy,” and Revised. New A. Alfred Knopf, York: 1978. Vol.38, Vol.38, No.4 (December2007). Security Policies Strategies, (eds)Kurowska“ Xymena in Pawlak and Patryk 51 (April 1986); 273-86. 51 (April 1986); 273-86. Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 10 (2005); 117-133. Vol. 10(2005);Foreign 117-133. Affairs Review, Security Dialogue, Vol. 39, No. 1 (2008); 121-141. 39, No.Security 1(2008);Dialogue, 121-141. Vol. America, the EU and Strategic Culture: Renegotiating the Transatlantic EU Renegotiating andStrategic Culture: America, the Europeanizaiton of National Security of theIdentity: Changing The EUEuropeanizaiton and European Defence PolicyEuropean EU Security Policy: What It Is, How It Works,WhyWhat It How SecurityMatte It Is, Policy: It EU Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace for The Struggle Among Nations: Politics , (forthcoming December 2009). December , (forthcoming 2009). The Culture of National Security: National of and Identity World Norms in The Culture Politics The Future of the European Foreign, Security and Defence Foreign, Security theThe Future of European and Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2006; 95-110.Baden-Baden: Verlagsgesellschaft, 2006; Nomos , London: Routledge, 2007. London: Routledge, , The European andthe Union United States: Competition , Vol. 29 (2003), 279-284. , Vol.29(2003), 279-284. European Security Policy:European and Defence An , Oxford Univeristy Press, 2008. Univeristy Press,Oxford 2008. , Page Page 75 , New York: Palgrave Macmillan,, New 2008. York: . New Routledge, York: 2006. American Sociological Review, Sociological American Musterknabe The Politics of European of The Politics ited Nuclear Operations” ited Nuclear Operations” Soft-Atlanticist Soft-Atlanticist No. 97 (February 2007). 97(February No. 2007). Security DialogueSecurity l and Security External l ective Foreign Policy,” . . DP,” Gisela in Müller- I,” Peter in : Comparing: the sal,” European OD of the Slovak the Slovak OD of ionship,” ionship,” December 2009 rs , Fifth Edition, Fifth Edition, , s of the [s 1977. , under Bargain gic Culture,” sic , Vol. , ] ] ty ty , CEU eTD Collection Waltz, Kenneth. Waltz, Witney, Nick. “Re-Energizing Europe’s Security and DefenceWitney, Europe’sNick.and “Re-Energizing Policy,” Security Yost, David. “NATO’s 1999 Strategic Concept,” in Jean Dufourcq Jean StrategicLionel Ponsard David.Yost, (e “NATO’s and 1999 in Concept,”

1979. Defense College, 2005). AvailableDefense College, 2005). at Security the Strategies: United andthe States EuropeanNATO, Union http://www.ndc.nato.int/download/publications/op_05.pdf Council on Foreign Relations, July onForeignCouncil Relations, 2008. Theory of International Politics.Theory International of Page Page 76 Addison-Wesley,Reading, Massachusetts: . London: EuropeanLondon: (Rome: NATO (Rome: ds),