This article explores whether a new east‑west divide exists in the enlarged European Union by analysing national discourses on European integration in the Visegrad Four (V4) states. Two V4 foreign policy legacies form the basis of analysis: the “Return to Europe” discourse and the discourses around the reconstruction of the historical self. The article gives evidence that the V4 countries share sovereignty in external policies and thus have a distinct European orientation. V4 national‑conservative governments hold sovereigntist positions, however, in policy areas that they consider falling exclusively within the realm of the member state. Comparison with Western European member states gives evidence that the post-1945 paradigm changes were more profound than those of post-1989 ones of Eastern Europe. This historic legacy can explain the more integrationist orientations in Western Europe. The article concludes that behaviour of the individual V4 state seems to be of greater importance for each member than collective V4 group action. Finally, the article gives an outlook on ways in which solidarity between the Western and Eastern halves of the EU can be exercised in an ideologically diverging Union.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Ash Timothy Garton (1993): In Europe’s Name. Germany and the Divided Continent London: Jonathan Cape.
Cabada L. (2018): Visegrad Cooperation in the Context of Other Central European Cooperation Formats. Politics in Central Europe 14 (2). Doi: 10.2478/pce-2018-0014.
Council of the European Union (2015): Council Decision establishing provision measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. Interinstitutional File: 2015/0209 (NLE). Brussels: 22 September 2015. Available at: http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-12098-2015-INIT/en/pdf (10 January 2018).
Court of Justice of the European Union (2017): Judgment in Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15. Slovakia and Hungary v Council. Luxembourg 6 September 2017. Available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?pro=&lgrec=hu&nat=or&oqp=&lg=&dates=&language=en&jur=C%2CT%2CF&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252Cfalse%252Cfalse&num=C-643%252F15&td=%3BALL&pcs=Oor&avg=&page=1&mat=or&jge=&for=&cid=140806 (10 January 2018).
Court of Justice of the European Union (2017): Press Release No 91/17. Judgment in Joined Cases C-643/15 and C-647/15. Slovakia and Hungary v Council. Luxembourg 6 September 2017. Available at: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-09/cp170091en.pdf (10 January 2018).
Diez Thomas (2004): Europe’s Others and the Return to Geopolitics Cambridge Review of International Affairs 17 (2): 319-335.
Dostal Vit (2017): Alleged Czech Discomfort. The Visegrad Group and the Cynic Reality Visegrad Insight 1 (10). Available at: http://visegradinsight.eu/alleged‑czech‑discomfort/ (10 January 2018).
European Commission (2017) Reasoned Proposal in accordance with Article 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union regarding the rule of law in Poland. Brussels: 20 December 2017. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press‑release_IP-17-5367_en.htm (10 January 2018) under bullet point “Reasoned Proposal under Article 7(1) for a Council Decision.”
European Union (2017): The Rome Declaration. Declaration of the leaders of 27 member states and of the European Council the European Parliament and the European Commission. Brussels: 25 March 2017. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press‑releases/2017/03/25-rome‑declaration/ (10 January 2018).
Gallagher Michael - Laver Michael - Mair Peter (2005): Representative Government in Modern Europe. Institutions Parties and Government Boston: McGraw‑Hill.
Hansen Lene (2006): Security as Practice. Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War London and New York: Routledge.
Judt Tony (2005): Postwar. A History of Europe since 1945 London: Penguin.
Kiss Laszlo J. (2004): The Restatement of Hungarian Foreign Policy - from Kadarism to EU Membership. Foreign Policy Review 3 (1): 33-86.
Kořan Michal (2017) Central Europe: The Death of Dreams? Think Visegrad Policy Brief (Brussels: Think Visegrad in Brussels). Available at: http://europeum.org/data/articles/ivf‑koran.pdf (10 January 2018).
Kucharczyk Jacek - Mesežnikov Grigorij (eds) (2015): Diverging Voices Converging Policies: The Visegrad States’ Reactions to the Russia‑Ukraine Conflict. Prague and Warsaw: Heinrich Boll Stiftung.
Tulmets Elsa (2014): East Central European Foreign Policy Identity in Perspective London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vegh Zsuzsanna (2017): Key Threats as seen in Visegrad Visegrad Insight 1 (10). Available at: http://visegradinsight.eu/narrowing‑perceptions‑meet‑sustained‑disunity/ (10 January 2018).
Visegrad Group (2017): Official Statements and Communiqués. Available at: http://www.visegradgroup.eu/documents/official‑statements (10 January 2018).
Walsch Christopher (2014): Visegrad Four in the European Union. An efficient regional cooperation scheme? International Issues & Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs XXXII (1-2): 25-41.
Walsch Christopher (2015): Visegrad Four in Bosnia‑Herzegovina. State‑building and EU approximation from a Central European perspective Society and Economy 37 (4): 427-441.
Wendt Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wittenberg Jason (2015): Conceptualizing Historical Legacies East European Politics & Societies 29 (2): 366-378.