Discussion Papers 2001.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union 172-181. p.
Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union
0 Edited by Zoltan Gal, Pecs, Centre for Regional Studies, 2001
POTENTIAL POSSIBILITIES OF
TRANSBORDER CO-OPERATION AFTER
HUNGARY'S ACCESSION TO THE
EUROPEAN UNION
Zoltan Hajdu
Introduction
Problems of border regions shows up presently with different functional con-
tent and spatial dimension for the European Union, and these questions will get
new dimensions after the accession of Eastern-European countries. The radical
increase of the extent of territories beyond the border incites political, eco-
nomic questions, and also these of territorial development and safety policy.
Especially after the war in Yugoslavia in spring 1999, border regions would
become more and more organic part of foreign and safety policy, it would be
not only the question of territorial development, subvention and co-operation of
regions situated beyond the border of the European Union.
From the point of view of safety policy, spatial functionality and human re-
lationships, border regions can be analysed from three aspects: topographical
(between settlements — micro-regional), tactical (area) and strategic (summing
up the determining territories and regions of a given country). Depending on
the date and the characteristics of the country's accession (sometime between
2002 and 2006), a forth spatial category may emerge, the structural frontier
zone of the newly joined Central-European countries, because of the transitory
rules these countries may form a secondary integration zone, a group of coun-
tries of frontier character from several points of view.
The treatment of new border regions mean for the European Union an in-
creasing internal task especially at the borders of newly joined countries and
previous EU members, and an external need (forefront organisation, safety,
interception) at the same time. The significance of external and internal borders
will depend mostly on the sphere of the joining countries.
So far as well, the treatment of border regions played an important role in
the EU foreign, safety and territorial development policy; but by spatial exten-
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary's Accession...
173
sion, the political importance of the question will increase with the partial get
in of the eastern well-fare slope, and partly with its increase beyond the exter-
nal borderline (as in the first step the most developed Central-European coun-
tries will join).
Important elements of the EU frontier policy practice so far will remain
valid in the future as well, but new approaches will be needed depending on the
spatial significance of joining and the sphere of joining countries.
In our analysis we did not tend to observe the historical or present day EU
practice, but we aimed to measure Hungary's possibilities after the joining from
its new, potential situation.
Hungary — "a country at the frontier"
Seven neighbouring countries and 2,246 km of borderline frame the country's
territory of 93,030 km2. For Hungary border regions are an essential question
from different viewpoint4
—Due to the borderline changes in the 20 th century, one third of the ethnic
Hungarians live partly beyond the frontier or at the Hungarian border. Of-
ficial statistics of the different countries, data of population counting, es-
timations of Hungarian churches and civil organisations in the given
country vary significantly as far as the years 1990's are concerned: in
Burgenland there are 4,000 Hungarians after the Austrian statistics and
15,000 according to the estimations of Hungarian organisations, in Slova-
kia 567,000 or 750,000, in Ukraine 155,000 or 200,000, in Romania
1,598,000 or 2,200,000, in Yugoslavia 385,000 or 330,000, in Croatia
26,000 or 30,000, in Slovenia 10,000 or 12,000 Hungarians are living;
Most of the infrastructure elements constructed within the border of the
former state territory are cut off by the present day border (rail, roads);
— 10% of the 3,200 localities in the country are in direct touch with the bor-
der, among them several cities;
—One third of the 150 statistical small regions are along the border, several
among them are peripheral and under-developed;
— 14 out of the 19 counties in the country are along the state border;
The seven projected statistical regions are all in touch with the border,
and that was essential at their set up;
The number of neighbouring countries per 100,000 km 2 of state territory
in Hungary — not counting the mini states — is one of the highest in
Europe.
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
174
Z. Hajda
With the split up of the former socialist federations, Hungary's neighbouring
environment changed radically in the 1999's. There are tremendous differences
in the neighbouring and European policy in the newly formed states (Slovakia,
Little Yugoslavia, Croatia, Slovenia and Ukraine).
The Austrian—Hungarian border (356 km) is today the external border of the
European Union, and the only EU border for Hungary; after the joining of the
Central-European countries the Hungarian—Slovene border (102 km) becomes
also an internal EU border. This is highly important for us, because, with the
exception of the Austrian-Hungarian and the Hungarian-Slovene borders, the
great majority of our borderline (Slovakia — 679 km, Ukraine — 137 km, Roma-
nia — 453 km, Yugoslavia — 164 km, Croatia — 355 km, a total of 1788 km that
is 79,6%) stays for a period of time an external EU border after Hungary's
joining. (The Schengen-type of construction of the external border claims 30
billion HUF in the first step according the most modest calculations. Border
guard and control will be claiming significant budget expenses. That is why it
would be lucky if Slovenia joined the EU in the first round as well.)
After the joining external borders may become more diversified than they
are today. If the circle of the present day associated countries did not change
(Slovakia, Romania), Romania's visa exemption would be rational, thus there
would be no decrease compared to the present day situation in the possibilities
of relations towards Hungary for the numerically biggest Hungarian minority.
External border co-operation would keep its present day border-passing char-
acter.
Compared to the associated countries Hungary's development is either
minimal (as compared to Slovakia), or more significant (as compared to Roma-
nia). This manifests not only in the GDP per capita, but especially, in the ca-
pacity of adaptation.
The situation of the not-associated countries (Croatia, Yugoslavia and
Ukraine) differs from many points of view, their policy towards EU is diversi-
fied. The joining of each country does not seem easy or close, but Croatia may
reach soon the elaboration of the association treaty; Yugoslavia's possibilities
or obligations after the war cannot be foreseen today. In Ukraine's case we can
only speak about membership in a historical perspective. These countries' pub-
lic opinion considers Hungary a developed country.
Croatia's catch up may be quick after liquidating the consequences of the
war.
Because of the Schengen treaty of border control and economic reasons,
border passes for small border traffic may close at our future external EU bor-
ders. EU membership may go along with external border traffic limitation or
drive that cannot be foretold today.
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary's Accession...
175
State sovereignty and state border
(Interpretation of certain notions)
In the nation state conscience formed in the 19 th century, territorial sovereignty
and representation of state borders were extremely strong, and still survive
naturally in certain aspects not only in Central-Europe, but in the other parts of
Europe as well. During integration categorical contents may strongly modify
and gain new content. From the point of view of the internal legitimisation of
integration, sovereignty and the relationship to state border remained signifi-
cant up to now.
If we examine regional policy and practise of territorial development from
the aspects of territorial sovereignty and state border, we have to distinguish at
least four situations. These four types express only partially a historical proc-
ess; they might appear simultaneously as well.
a) Border regions
Border regions are defined according to their topographical situation in a
given state. It is up to the sovereign decision of a given state to develop or not
border regions (by orienting resources to territories near the border or to take
away resources in order to reduce population at the border). Development or
regression of border regions is a unilateral, internal decision, therefore a neigh-
bouring country cannot intervene in the border regional policy of an other
country.
b) Transborder co-operations
A co-operation beyond the common state border of two countries is of
common interest, it needs common decision. Set up of border passes, definition
of their character, a potential close of a border pass etc. need always a bilateral
decision, and sometimes a compromise. Neighbouring states define the fre-
quency and location of border passes according to the minimum of their com-
mon interest, so this is a common decision, a common sovereignty practise.
Intensity of Tran frontier co-operation and frequency of border passes ex-
press a wider sphere of relations between two countries. The closer the com-
mon state border is, the bigger is the lack of confidence between the two coun-
tries; the more intense the border pass is, the stronger is a kind of mutual confi-
dence.
c) State border co-operations
We can speak of state border co-operations, when a relationship of great in-
tensity is emerging along the common borderline, a common decision or an
approved one from every aspect is formed in certain fields or determined do-
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
176
Z. Hajda
mains. It results in a possibility of intervention in the direction of processes in
the territory of the neighbouring country. State border co-operations express a
great deal of mutual confidence and a long-term interest.
d) State border integrating co operations
-
We can speak- of state border integrating co-operations when in case of two
countries, territories along the borderline go under identical (integrated) sover-
eignty as far as the most important factors are concerned, so the state border
becomes almost virtual. (It does not disappear, but it's linking and not its sepa-
rating function is determining.)
The notional separation contains formal elements, but basically content is
determining, it qualifies situations along the state border, through the border
and in the border zone from the aspect of state sovereignty.
Structural possibilities of state border relationships after
Hungary's EU accession
After the joining, two relationship systems (EU internal and EU external) will
emerge, differing in quality and content. Joining will affect differently certain
parts of the border and the territories.
Topographical (micro-regional) relations
(relations between settlements)
As far as the relationship at and across the border is concerned, micro-regional
levels express physical, geographical distance (depending on the topographical
conditions it cannot exceed 10 km) and social-geographical "visibility". In the
life of localities, communities living at the two sides of the open EU internal
border, the other side might be present in everyday life (co-operation and ri-
valry) in the future. In case of localities along the external border "opposition"
will not involve significant changes.
Micro-regional co-operation along the border has a strong tradition at the
two sides of the EU' s present day internal border. Beside successful co-opera-
tion, micro-regional frontiership involves possibilities of collective or individ-
ual conflicts (If confliction may emerge between communities within the coun-
try, their presence is obvious between two localities at the two sides of the bor-
der.)
To support co-operations along the internal border is not simply an eco-
nomic question — even if it has an important role —, but it aims to dissolve a
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary's Accession...
177
historically developed reserve. It wants to be a tool modifying the image that
people living at the two sides of the border formed about each other.
The relationship between communities living near the open, and, in fact, al-
most symbolic border, their willingness to co-operate, their capacity to commu-
nicate can generate in the long run a frontiership of a new quality.
After Hungary's joining, this type of internal, micro-regional frontiership
may appear primarily along the present day Austrian border, and, above all, not
only bound to the present day border passes, but with a zone character. Trans-
border relations of certain localities are already forming with great intensity,
the diversity of their content will deepen after the joining, weaving impera-
tively the line of the former iron curtain.
At the same time, we have to admit that even today the economically
stronger Austrian part is dominating the shaping of micro-regional relations.
(Austria's GDP per inhabitant was 22,100 USD in 1996 compared to 9,300
USD in Hungary. The difference between Austria's "poorest and the least de-
veloped region" and Hungary's developed western counties is somewhat
smaller, but it still remains quite big.) Even if, in Hungary, the GDP per capita
will rise significantly until the joining, the gap will stay important, if it be-
comes smaller at all. This means that a relatively poor region enters in open
contact with a rich region. This may lead to the lack of balance based on eco-
nomic domination. Its first negative signs have already appeared in the society
of certain settlements at the Hungarian side.
Intense micro-regional relations emerged at the Hungarian—Slovene border
as well, especially since the time when one does not need a passport to pass the
border, an identity card will do. In Slovenia, the GDP per capita was 13,200
USD in 1996 that passed over notably the Hungarian value. If Hungary's and
Slovenia's joining occurs at the same time, a completely new type of border
relation network will emerge at the border of the two countries. In this relation-
ship the Slovene side may be dominant, as the economic underdevelopment of
the Hungarian territories compared to the Slovene side is considerable, even if
we know that Alsolendva and Muraszombat are not the most developed settle-
ments in Slovenia from an economic point of view.
One of the conditions for making profit of the advantages of micro-regional
frontiership along the open, internal EU border is the capacity to adapt and to
communicate of the economically active generations. According to the detailed
regulation of joining, new spaces of working force market, service and con-
sumption may emerge at the Austrian—Hungarian and the Hungarian—Slovene
border that have not existed since the split up of the Austro—Hungarian Monar-
chy.
Conditions of micro-regional co-operation changed fundamentally in the
1990's at the Hungarian—Slovakian and the Hungarian—Romanian border.
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
178
Z Hajda
Changes had political and economic content at the same time. Despite all con-
tradictions, Hungary's bilateral political relations improved notably with these
two countries. The set up and gradual extension of CEFTA intensified in a
strong way the possibilities of bilateral economic co-operation. (At the same
time problems and protestations at the border showed that trade of agricultural
goods could incite oppositions between people living at the two sides of the
border.) Hungary became for Romania a region attracting working force — not
only in the border zone, but also for the whole region inhabited by Hungarians.
Similar phenomena evolved here too as, at the Austrian—Hungarian border, but
in the other way round.
After Hungary's EU joining, possibilities of micro-regional relations and
their development can deteriorate temporarily at the Slovakian and the Roma-
nian borders.
After Hungary's joining the European Union, micro-regional relations will
develop on an individual basis with a neighbouring country that did not sign a
treaty of EU association. At the Hungarian—Ukrainian border we can speak
about the mass development of personal contacts, and not really about collec-
tive relations, even if the borderline runs through a Hungarian-speaking terri-
tory. At the Hungarian—Serb border, rather personal contacts are determining,
though collective relations recovered temporarily, but the spring 1999 war con-
flict was a break from every aspect, except for micro-regional smuggle. Collec-
tive, economic sectors and a wide range of personal contacts are equally present
in Croatian—Hungarian micro-regional relations. The projected Croatian—
Hungarian free trade agreement can give a new impulse to micro-regional
relations, as well.
Tactical (territorial) relations
From this aspect, tactical (area) frontiership is rather functional and not dis-
tance-specific (more than 10 km) from a physical-geographical point of view.
Area frontiership coincides partly with the administrative spaces of the two
neighbouring countries, and goes to the edges of the first towns along the bor-
der. Co-operation along the tactical border is determined by the fact that the
already efficient regions of given countries participate in the shaping of the
relationship, but the co-operation does not "endanger the sovereignty" of the
core territories or capitals of the given countries.
Tactical frontiership and co-operation provide a possibility for peripheral
regions to use more efficiently their potential and to correct their disadvantages.
We consider as a tactical border relation system the co-operation between
Burgenland and the counties in Western-Hungary. (Of course, co-operation has
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary's Accession...
179
also a strategic importance for the given regions.) Euro-regional co-operation
can play a considerable role in the preparation of the three Hungarian counties
to join the EU.
We also consider the Ipoly Euro-regional initiative as a tactical border rela-
tion that was created with the intention to prepare mostly for the situation after
Hungary's joining.
A wide circle of twin county relations emerged at different parties of the
border. These relations are recorded in contracts, and their great advantage is
that the leadership of the neighbouring territories has comprehensive knowl-
edge about the other side.
Success of border area co-operation may contribute to the improvement of
the situation of peripheral territories, but results do not permit to foretell the
fact if they change basically the development possibilities of a given territory.
Strategic co operation
-
Strategic border co-operation affects considerable, "deep" territories of the
countries in question. Several strategic border co-operation of this type
emerged in the present day EU practise.
As far as Hungary is concerned we can range in this circle the Carpathian
Mountains Euro-region, the Alps—Adriatic Sea working community, the Da-
nube—Drava—Szava and the Danube—Tisza—Koros—Maros Euro-regional organi-
sations formed during the preparation for the joining. We can put in this cate-
gory, even its main content is not frontiership, the Association of Provinces
along the Danube.
Strategic border co-operation — if formal frames get meritorious content —
can contribute significantly to the development of multilateral relations be-
tween bigger territories, independently of the fact whether they are EU mem-
bers or not.
Strategic border co-operation — in the long run — can generate new regional
formations and interests that have not existed so far. If we consider the Car-
pathian Mountains Euro-region, we can see that it may contribute to the deep-
ening of relations at a delicate peripheral region of Central-Europe. The Da-
nube—Tisza—Koros—Maros initiative, and the latest one, the somehow unreal
Danube—Drava—Szava Euro-regional initiative can play a similar role.
Organisations may contribute to the development of peripheral territories
only if relationship systems will emerge and those separated by political bor-
ders will recover. That is why they became peripheral, at least compared to
their relationship to their national capital.
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
180
Z. Hajcla
It would be interesting to know whether this type of organisation of periph-
eral territories, their "get together" serves the interest of central authorities in
the long run, or they feel as if their delicate territories "became independent".
Strategic border co-operation was escorted by questions even in the Euro-
pean Union — despite all central economic and political support —, so a great
deal of patience and endurance are needed for countries in Central-Europe,
inside and outside EU, concerning this level of organisation.
Structural frontiership
The EU — explicitly in its program and partly in finance — validates a certain
conception or policy of structural frontiership. This development-support policy
serves above all the stabilisation of EU' s external forefront. The EU cannot
separate itself from its eastern forefronts either politically or economically or,
particularly, from the point of view of safety policy.
After the joining of Central-European states, structural frontiership can be
interpreted by EU from two aspects: we can speak of internal and external
structural frontiership.
If the countries invited in the first round of extension negotiations (Poland,
the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovenia) join the EU at the same time, a
particular internal EU frontier zone will emerge (by a territory of 505,000 km 2
and 62 million inhabitants) that means a new border structure from the Baltic
Sea to the Adriatic Sea. This zone does not mean simply the postponing of
EU' s eastern border, but also the integration of new types of problems within
the frame of the European Union. The integration process of these territories is
a basic question for the EU and for the countries wishing to join the EU.
From the aspect of frontiership, the dilemma of joining manifests in two
ways: whether these countries join as a unified "block" with a nearly identical
transitory regulation (and, in this case, it is really possible to speak about an
external, secondary integration zone). Or they join in a different structure, with
different conditions, and, in this case, we cannot speak about a unified eastern
border zone.
After the joining of Central-European states, external strategic border re-
gions have to be treated in a different way, as the former Soviet states became
widely the forefront of the European Union. (In the case of Finland there is a
type of practise that cannot be transferred probably to the Hungarian—Ukrainian
border, for example.)
When we speak about EU extension, then we also mean, explicitly or not,
the restructuring of spatial and functional order of Central- and Eastern Europe.
Hajdú Zoltán: Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary’s Accession to the European Union.
In: Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union. Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies,
2001. 172–181. p. Discussion Papers. Special
Potential Possibilities of Transborder Co-operation After Hungary's Accession...
181
The content and the circle of extension will modify deeply the EU and "the rest
of Central- and Eastern-Europe" at the same time.
Conclusion
After the EU accession Hungary will keep from many aspects its "country-at-
the-frontier" nature. What is more, the country's structural frontiership can get
new dimensions.
Border relations and co-operations raise questions of different content after
the joining at the future internal EU border and at the external borders of dif-
ferent status.
In this future situation, Hungary has to think over all potential consequences
of border regions, it cannot consider border regions in a limited way.
After the accession, Hungary could undertake gradually a kind of mediating
role towards EU' s new external border regions. Possibilities of regional eco-
nomic co-operation may widen, as Hungary will not become competitive in
every field in the western territories of the European Union.
References
Association of European Border Regions 1992: Report on Lace Activities, Gronau,
AEBR.
Batey, P. W. J.—Cappelin, R. (dir.) 1994: Regional Networks. Border Regions and
European Integration London, Pion.
Europe 2000+. Co-operation for European Territorial Development 1997: European
Commission, Brussels.
Eger, Gy. 1998: Az euroregio mint az europai integraci6 sajatos terbeli vetiilete. (Euro-
region as the special aspects of the European integration). — Kidpolitika. 4 pp. 76-
87.
Illes, I. 1997: A regiondlis egyiittmiikodes feltetelei Kozep- es Kelet-EurOpaban (Condi-
tions of regional co-operation in East-Central Europe). — Ter es Tcirsadalom 2. pp.
17-28.
Pal, A.—Szonokyne, A. G. (dir.) 1996: Hatciron innen—hatdron nil. Szeged, JGYTF.
Rechnitzer, J. 1997: Euroregio vazlatok a magyar—osztrak—szlovak hatar menti terseg-
ben (Drafts of a Euroregion alongside the Hungarian—Austrian and Slovakien bor-
ders). — Ter es Tcirsadalom. 2. pp. 29-55.
Roch, I.—Scott, J.—Ziegler, A. 1998: Umweltgerechte Entwicklung von Grenzregionen
durch kooperatives Handeln. /OR Schriften. No. 24.
—
Stili-Zakar, I. 1997: A Karpatok Euroregio szerepe a hatarokon atnytilo kapcsolatok
erositeseben. (Role of the Carpathian Euroregion in the transborder co-operation), —
Comitatus. junius, pp. 30-43.
Sztics, T. 1998: Az EurOpai link) kill- es biztonsagpolitikaja. (Foreign and security
policy of the EU). — Eur6pai Tiikor. 5. pp. 39-60.