The second round of the MoD’s sectoral Presidency training seminars was organised by the Defence Policy Department on 31st March, 2010.

The institutional changes related to the Lisbon Treaty were examined through presentations given by three well-known experts – Tamás Szűcs, head of the European Commission’s delegation to Hungary, Zoltán Martinusz, Counsellor of the President of the European Council, as well as Egon Dienes-Oehm, advisor to the State Secretary for European Affairs of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. The seminar was closed by a summary given by József Bali, State Secretary for Defence Policy on the future EU presidency tasks of the MoD. The event was hosted by Zsolt Nagy, head of the Defence Policy Department of the Ministry of Defence. Tamás Szűcs reviewed the reasons for creating the Lisbon Treaty and its consequences in his presentation. The Treaty serves as a basis for the European Union to act as a real global player and to face the challenges of the 21st century. According to Tamás Szűcs, the Treaty has brought four main changes for the EU. Firstly, it lead to an increase of efficiency, e.g. by facilitating the decision-making procedures and by the appointment of a permanent President for the European Council. Secondly, he emphasised the expansion of democracy: the clearer definition of the EU’s democratic values and the creation of a Charter of Fundamental Rights the rights of the European citizens are strengthened, the transparency of EU-institutions is increased, and there is a clearer definition of competencies between theUnion’s institutions and the Member States. Thirdly, Tamás Szűcs explained that due to the Lisbon Treaty, the EU faces significant changes in respect of security. This includes the strengthening of the common defence policy and enhancing the EU’s capability in ensuring energy security, the fight against international terrorism, climate change, and organised crime. Finally, he highlighted that the EU has already become a firm, global political factor due to the creation of two new posts: the full-time President of the European Council (Herman Van Rompuy), and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the Commission (Catherine Ashton) Zoltán Martinusz reviewed the effects of the Lisbon Treaty for the European Union’s external relations, then described the main changes regarding certain institutions, persons and procedures in connection with the EU’s foreign affairs. In his presentation, he pointed out the difficulties of bringing the Treaty into effect. He added that contrary to the expectations, the Lisbon Treaty has not made the operation of the EU more effective. In his opinion, we are still living in a period of transition and have to overcome a great deal of obstacles. The permanent President of the European Council and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy still lack experience, and, moreover, they have not yet developed a smoothly functioning institutional background. Furthermore, the Treaty does not clearly regulate the relation between the permanent presidency and the rotating one. Moreover, there are five institutional players in the area of the EU’s foreign affairs. The realization of the Lisbon Treaty also results in several uncertainties. On the one hand, there has been already an uncertainty on behalf of the Member States due to the unpredictability of processes, on the other hand, there is a kind of institutional obscurity since new players have appeared within the EU and some old ones have been given new functions. Because of this, the customary institutional processes often do not prevail. Additionally, the new situation causes uncertainty in the external partners as well. As the system has not evolved yet and the institutional structure has not become any plainer, the partners tend to seek contacts directly with member countries instead of the EU institutions. As to the Hungarian Presidency, it is a disadvantage that Hungary will not play a part in the area of foreign and security policy which would provide her with visible international role. This will change the meaning of success for the rotating presidencies. Another problem for Hungary is that while the Spanish presidency is conducting the transition after the Lisbon Treaty, and the Belgian presidency will close this transition, Hungary will give the first rotating presidency operating in full accordance with the Lisbon Treaty. All this will happen in a period when the EU has not yet accumulated a proper institutional experience as to operating according to the Lisbon Treaty, and Hungary has no practice in connection with the rotating presidency. Finally, Zoltán Martinusz spoke about the tasks of the President of the European Council which is more than simply chairing the European Council’s sessions. One of the President’s tasks is to ensure the preparation and the continuity of the European Council’s work – on the basis of the work carried out in the General Affairs Council as well as in cooperation with the President of the Commission. Creating consensus and cohesion inside the European Council requires severe efforts. Besides, the President of the European Council – in his quality as President and without any prejudice as to the authority of the Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – acts as an external representative for the Union in cases related to the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In his presentation, Egon Dienes-Oehm was critical about the EU’s political objectives. Though the Maastricht Treaty laid the foundation for the Union’s political character, it could not become efficient. The Lisbon Treaty has compensated the failure of the Constitution tht was refused by several Member States. At the same time, he appreciated that it was with the Lisbon Treaty that supranational elements appeared in the European integration for the first time outside the economic domain. (This also stands both for the former second and third pillars.) Though the EU shows herself united to the outside world, she is still not able – for example – to enter international treaties, and the Common Foreign and Security Policy remained at an intergovernmental level. The lack of a supranational institutional character is shown by the fact that there is no political agreement among the member states concerning the foreign and security policy similar to the the free movement of goods, persons, etc. Regarding the Hungarian Presidency, he noted that the main goal is to make the necessary decisions at the Union’s level. We have to subordinate the representation of our national interests to this objective. What the presidency can do is to omit those items from its half-year agenda which are contrary to her national interests. When closing the seminar, József Bali, Secretary of State for Defence Policy, summarized some current issues of the preparation for the Presidency. He reported that the first draft of the Presdiency working programme has been prepared under the direction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The parts related to security and defence policy were jointly elaborated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. These parts fit into the broad foreign and security policy programme. The first draft of the calendar for the CSDP working groups and the presidency events has been compiled as well.

(Ministry of National Development , Department of Communication)