The Relations of Central European Countries with the United States
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This edited volume examines the post-Cold War rela- tionship of ten selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries with the United States. It concludes with a summary chapter that highlights the main similarities The Relations of Central European Countries and differences of the ten case studies. The relationship of the United States and CEE states has oscillated a lot with the United States since the end of the Cold War. The disagreements and problems were most evident in the political domain. Due to the institutionalised nature of the military domain, the defence cooperation has been mostly resilient to the fluctuations of the political relations. In the meanwhile, trade relations have never really reached the strategic sig- The Relations of Central nificance that some states might have hoped in the 1990s. The examination of the past 30 years suggests that the defence collaboration will continue to provide a solid ba- sis of cooperation, despite the fact that the asymmetries European Countries with the U.S. are most visible in this area. Due to their limited resources and weak military capabilities, CEE states will continue to rely on U.S. assurances against the security threats that they are facing, while the U.S. will continue to urge the CEE states to take a larger share of with the United States the burden. The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project PACSDOP-2.1.2- CCHOP-15-2016-00001 entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”. THE RELATIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WITH THE UNITED STATES UNITED WITH THE CENTRAL OF COUNTRIES EUROPEAN RELATIONS THE Edited by European Social Fund ANNA PÉCZELI INVESTING IN YOUR FUTURE The Relations of Central European Countries with the United States This page intentionally left blank. THE RELATIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WITH THE UNITED STATES Edited by Anna Péczeli Dialóg Campus Budapest, 2019 The work was created in commission of the National University of Public Service under the priority project PACSDOP-2.1.2- CCHOP-15-2016-00001 entitled “Public Service Development Establishing Good Governance”. Authors Robert Barić Monika Brusenbauch Meislová Gábor Csizmazia Dušan Fischer Slobodan Janković Mark Kogoj Tamás Levente Molnár Anna Péczeli Steven Pifer Tomasz Smura Dražen Smiljanić Mihai Vladimir Zodian Revised by Péter Rada © The Authors, 2019 © The Editor, 2019 © The Publisher, 2019 Reproduction is authorized, provided the source is acknowledged. Contents Introduction (Anna Péczeli) 7 Relations between the United States and Austria: How a Once Special Relationship Descended into Triviality (Tamás Levente Molnár) 11 Relations between the United States and Croatia: Development and Future Perspectives (Robert Barić and Dražen Smiljanić) 33 Relations between the United States and the Czech Republic: From Honeymoon to Hangover? (Monika Brusenbauch Meislová) 57 Relations between the United States and Hungary: Phases and Fluctuations of the Last Two Decades (Gábor Csizmazia) 79 Relations between the United States and Poland: From Enemy to the Main Security Guarantor (Tomasz Smura) 101 Relations between the United States and Romania: Changing Dynamics? (Mihai Vladimir Zodian) 117 Relations between the United States and Serbia: Asymmetric Confrontation and Relation (Slobodan Janković) 135 Relations between the United States and Slovakia: Friends and Allies between 1989 and 2017 (Dušan Fischer) 157 Relations between the United States and Slovenia: From U.S. Adverseness to Acceptance and Cooperation (Mark Kogoj) 175 Relations between the United States and Ukraine: Managing Transitions (Steven Pifer) 197 Comparing Trends in the Relations of Central European Countries with the United States (Anna Péczeli) 219 This page intentionally left blank. Introduction Anna Péczeli1 The current volume examines the post-Cold War relationship of ten selected Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (Austria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine) with the United States. Despite the many differ- ences, it is true for every single state that they have a highly asymmetric relationship with the U.S. The countries of the CEE region are relatively small, with limited resources and weak military capabilities which are insufficient to protect them against outside threats. After the end of the Cold War, they quickly realised that maintaining strong ties with Western powers – especially with the U.S. – was crucial for their defence. As a result of this, the CEE countries are more dependent on good relations with Washington, than the other way around. This asymmetry allows the U.S. to pick the countries with whom it wants to maintain stronger ties in the region. At the same time, the White House can afford to criticise the states which are not implementing the requested reforms fast enough, or which are not spending the required amounts on defence. The U.S. can also exercise more pressure on the domestic issues of its partners. This asymmetry forces the CEE states to be more careful in their criticism towards the U.S., and there have been many instances where they sided with Washington, instead of Berlin or Paris. There are two main reasons why the CEE countries have supported the U.S. even in cases when it was against their own national interests, or when it meant risking their good relations with major Western European states. First, many of them have bad historical experience of being a buffer zone between Russia (the Soviet Union) and Western European states, therefore they are more worried about a resurgent Russian aggression. 1 Anna Péczeli, PhD, Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Strategic and Defense Studies, National University of Public Service (Hungary). Email: [email protected] 8 THE RELATIONS OF CENTRAL EUROPEAN COUNTRIES WITH THE U.S. Second, they are more sceptical about the military strength of the EU and question whether Western European states would be willing or able to protect them against a serious military threat. Thus, in the eyes of the CEE states, an Alliance with the U.S. seems to be the strongest assurance for their physical security. Although there are many similarities in the bilateral relationship of the U.S. with the states of the region, there are also many important differences. This is partly due to the differences in size, economic power and military strength. Besides these factors, geographical location is also an important determinant of the main tendencies in U.S. relations with the region. The ten selected countries can be divided into four sub-regions: 1. the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia belong to the so called Visegrád countries (Romania shows a lot of similarities with this group); 2. Croatia, Serbia and Slovenia belong to the Balkans; 3. Ukraine provides a unique example of a country, which is trapped between the expanding NATO Alliance and the Russian zone of influence; and 4. Austria also represents a special case due to its neutral status. These sub-regions have faced different challenges in the post-Cold War period, which left its mark on their relationship with the U.S., as well. After the end of the Cold War, the Visegrád countries were the pri- mary beneficiaries of U.S. financial aid in the region, and their economic and political transition was largely supported by Washington’s assistance programs. The successful implementation of a parliamentary democracy, a market economy, and the creation of civilian control over the armed forces gained them a lot of goodwill in the White House. Although Hungary’s security has been directly affected by the dissolution of the Former Yugoslavia, the main security concern for these states remained the threat of a resurgent Russian Federation. In comparison to the other regions, this created a completely different set of problems, and it requires different responses and assurances from Washington. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the countries of the Balkans faced the dissolution of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), which put the Croatian and Slovenian cases on a completely different path than the Serbian case. While the role of the U.S. in the air campaigns during the Yugoslav Wars created strong anti-American sentiments in Belgrade, the newly independent states of Croatia and Slovenia enjoyed significant U.S. support in their Western integration efforts and they built much stronger ties with Washington. Introduction 9 In the case of Kyiv, the proximity of Russia has the biggest influence on the evolution of the U.S.–Ukrainian bilateral ties. During the early 1990s, the successful disarmament and repatriation of Russian nuclear capabilities from the territory of Ukraine created strong bonds with Washington. Ukraine’s domestic problems and the slow progress of the political and economic transition, however, quickly devaluated these ties, and the U.S. became more impatient with its partner. Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and the problems in the Donbas region have opened a new chapter in the relationship of the U.S. and Ukraine. Washington’s critic over Kyiv’s domestic problems was put aside, and the U.S. has been actively supporting the defence of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and the peace efforts in the region. The special neutral status of Austria was an important asset for Washington during the Cold War. However, in the 1990s it has been gradu- ally devaluated, and it is becoming more and more challenging for Austria to fill its relationship with the U.S. with content. Its neutrality prevents Austria from significant engagement in military missions, and as a non- NATO nation, it also lacks the institutional framework that would create a strong bond with Washington. Another important difference between these states is the status of their integration into NATO and the EU. The membership of these states in NATO is clearly the most important institutional tie with the U.S.