Brüsszel, 2011. április 19.

Dear Chairman, Dear Deputy Prime Minister, Dear Rapporteurs, Ladies and Gentlemen, His eminence Abram,

I will look at EU-Georgia relations through 2 prisms: as an EU citizen and as a Central-European person.

Of course, I approach all questions in international relations through these perspectives, but in the case of Georgia it is important to emphasise this nonetheless. It is important, because Georgia serves as a kind of test for what we mean by our endeavour for a European consensus (if such a consensus is even achievable). It tests what, if anything, we learned from the history of Central-Europe? Finally, Georgia is an outstandingly important partner of my country, Hungary.

1.

The dilemma from the perspective of the EU citizen appears – but only appears – to be about who is our priority, who is the more important partner: small Georgia, or big Russia?
Naturally, nobody poses this question so openly, that would be impolite, but it is possible and common to phrase the dilemma in a way that in the end this question is contained within. And it not only contains the question, but the answer as well: the priority – seemingly, but only seemingly – can only be the bigger.

There are many, who – with respect to Georgia and many other questions – paint the dilemma as one where we have to choose between pursuing either our interests, or our values.
The only problem, especially for our political family, the EPP, with phrasing the question like that is the „or”. The presumption that we can choose, what is more, are forced to choose between our European values and European interests. As if our values and interests were not closely linked and dependent upon each other!

For what is the function of defining values for ourselves as the European Union? Is this a kind of artistic accomplishment that anyone can marvel at and then do whatever they want? In that case why did we need to elaborate in detail what these values are in the Lisbon Treaty? A treaty that is binding on its signatories!

We needed to do that, because these values constitute an orienting framework for the definition of our interests. It is based on our values that we determine what is right and wrong, what is desirable and what is unacceptable. Whatever is good and desirable are our interests, whatever is wrong and unacceptable are contrary to our interests.

If there can be interests independent of our values, or even contrary to them, then stating our values publicly was simply a lie. Because if we declared the framework we would use to determine our interests and then disregard it, or disregard it in certain cases then we lied.

If the answer was yes, then the signing of the Treaty would be a farce. And then as a European citizen I would have to say the situation is grave, because then the European Union would be based on a farce. However, as a European citizen I think of the EU as my broader fatherland, my home, which I would rather like to take seriously.

Our relations with Georgia are guided by the Common Foreign and Security Policy and within that the European Neighbourhood Policy and within that Eastern Partnership, so all EU policy dealing with Georgia – and in some ways all Member States’ policies as well – is determined by the sentences of the Lisbon Treaty dealing with CFSP.

According to the Treaty the foreign policy of the EU is based on respect for democracy, human rights, the principles laid down in the UN Charter, respect for international law, and is aimed at ensuring the protection of these values along with the interests of the EU.

Therefore if we take the Treaty seriously, then:

• The EU cannot support anywhere (not even in Georgia) – not even indirectly – anything that breaches international law, or threatens peace.
• It cannot support solving problems through violent means,
• but has to actively participate in finding peaceful solution to problems.
• The peaceful restoration of international legality, especially in areas where the EU itself has interests.

Adherence to these principles – also in the case of Georgia – can rightfully be expected from the High Representative for Common foreign and security policy and the European External Action Service.

This is, however, true not just in the case of the High Representative and EEAS, but it is also expectable from the Member States. The treaty lays out clearly in multiple instances that member states must be loyal to the common foreign and security policy, that is if it really corresponds to the goals set out in the Treaty. Their own national foreign policy must aid and complement the realisation of common foreign policy goals. Europe’s actual foreign relations are made up of both these factors – common policies and member state policies.

So in the case of Georgia the policies of the EU cannot aim for anything else, but the full restoration of conditions mandated by international law, namely the Russian occupation of Georgian territories has to be terminated in harmony with the “cease-fire agreement” on the 12th of August, brokered by the EU!

However this has to be achieved in cooperation with our partners through non-violent means by the continuation of EUMM mission and the resumption of the Geneva talks! In pursuing these goals, the EU and the Member States need to make full use of their good relations with both sides – Georgia and Russia – in the conflict.

2.

Second, as a citizen of a Central European country, I consider as a most important reality, that Georgia has a very special place in the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU, being part of the area covered by the Eastern Partnership.

For us, citizens of Central Europe, the Eastern Partnership is not just a rational programme – it is also that, of course – but also an emotional issue.

For all the countries covered by the EaP, during all the history of the last couple of decades, have always been the ones in a bit worse situation than our country. Or in a two bits worse situation. When we were part of the Soviet camp, they were part of the Soviet Union. When we were waiting for a perspective provided by the EU, they could be happy with just regaining their self determination. When we joined the EU, i.e. now, they are waiting for the perspective that the EU provides, EaP.

The freedom fight of Hungary in 1956, the Prague Spring in 1968, the history of Solidarność in Poland in 1980 taught us the feeling of being in a fight for becoming part of the Free World – and also the feeling of being let down by the Free World.

This is why we know from our own experience what it is like to live in the situation of the EaP countries. And this historical experience results in a distinguished solidarity towards them.

And not just towards them. We, Central European countries also live this solidarity towards each others when dealing with EaP nations! A good example of this is the relation between the Hungarian EU Presidency and the subsequent Polish one. Both Presidencies consider EaP as a priority on their agenda. When it turned out that the date foreseen for the EaP Summit during the Hungarian Presidency is unfavourable for such an event, we could pass over the organization of the Summit to the Polish Presidency without any trouble, and without taking the risk of undergoing any alteration.

So we live solidarity with each other in experiencing solidarity towards EaP countries.

3.

As a Hungarian citizen, I see two issues as particularly important ones regarding Georgia.

a.) One of them is that we in the principles and absolutely firmly refuse any solution of any ethnic or national conflict by violence or by encroachment on the rights of any party in conflict.

Based on our historical precedents our view is that the tools for dealing with these types of conflicts in a peaceful and legitimate way exist. For example, through the wide use of autonomies. A solution built on these elements needs to be found, that is by making it the interest of the parties. It must respect the existing borders and address appropriate minority rights!

b.) The other aspect of Hungary’s interest is energy-security in relation to which  we have joint projects with Georgia. I am talking about the Azeri-Georgian-Romanian gas interconnector, AGRI and Nabucco, in which Hungary and Georgia also participate.

This is not only about these four to eight countries, but it is a pioneer project of the EU’s Southern energy corridor and therefore is aimed at the whole of Europe.

But it is ours, and we are proud that together with our Georgian, Romanian and Azeri and other partners we can work together for the energy security of all of Europe.

As far as EaP is concerned vis-à-vis Georgia:

In the Revision of Neighbourhood Policy we have to create an appropriate balance between the Southern and Eastern dimensions.

The unity of the EU related to the revised and enhanced Neighbourhood Policy is the most important test for the post-Lisbon CFSP!

EaP has to become a real political forum when sensitive questions, like democracy, human rights, minority autonomy, or energy-security matters could be negotiated; where conditionality is accompanied by a „road-map” approach, facilitating an ever closer harmonisation between partner countries and the EU!

“Together for Europe” – this should be the essence of the EU’s dealings with Georgia. I am confident that the content of this essence will gradually widen and “Together FOR Europe” will mean the same thing as “Together IN Europe”.

(kormany.hu)