• Nem Talált Eredményt

An attempt at transcending the past: cooperation on what was once the toughest border in Europe

In document andCENTRAL EUROPE (Pldal 50-60)

Regional cooperation has reached, too, the northeastern comer of Europe, creating one of the most interesting euroregions. The euroregion includes a region - bounded by the Arctic Circle and the Barents Sea - from Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Russia.

The territorial breakdown of the Barents region:

A rea, R egion P opulation Area o f th e land

Lapland County (Finland.) 202 000 99 000

Finnm ark County (Norway) 76 000 46 000

N ordland County (Norway) 240 000 36 000

Troms County (Norway) 149 000 25 000

A rkhangelsk district 1 561 000 587 000

M urmansk district 1 135 000 145 000

Republic of K arelia 798 000 172 000

N orrbotten County (Sweden.) 266 000 99 000

Total: 4 427 000 1 209 000

Source: The Euro-Arctic Barents Cooperation

It can be seen that the vast majority of both the population and of the land area - 78.9 per cent and 74.8 per cent, respectively - belong to the Russian Federation.

The Barents cooperation was formalized with the Kirkenes Declaration, signed on January 11, 1993. On the basis of the Declaration, the cooperation has the following objectives:

to secure a peaceful and stable development

to strengthen and develop the cultural ties between the people

to encourage the establishment of new and the expansion of existing bilateral and multilateral relations

to lay the foundation for a strong economical and social development with emphasis on an active and sustainable management of the nature and resources

to contribute to a development which take into account the interest of the indigenous peoples and for their active participation (13).

The deeper meaning and true intent of the establishment of the euroregion is to ensure peace and stability in the northern periphery of Europe. This requirement is justified by the peculiar geopolitical characteristics of the region: the Finnish-Russian border runs at a length of 1300 km, and even the Norwegian-Russian border is several hundred kilometres long. The disparities between the Scandinavian countries and Russia in terms of living standards and the quality of life are all too well known. Naturally enough, this also poses a security policy risk to the decision-makers of the countries concerned. Into the bargain, there was a dramatic rise in the number of border crossings following the political changes: while, in 1990, at the almost hermetically closed border, at

Storskog, for instance, 3,000 border crossings were registered - the majority of these, too, were by Scandinavian citizens - the comparable figure for 1997 was 92,000. The fear, on the part of local residents and of the central governments on the Scandinavian side, of crime, illegal immigration, black market labour, etc. is, therefore, understandable. This is compounded by the shocking state of environmental protection in Russia. The present writer had the opportunity of observing, on the spot, the refuse dumps of the town of Nikkei (a name only too fitting), located some 20 kilometres from the Norwegian-Russian border, and the pitch-black smoke billowing, unpurified, into the atmosphere from the heavy metal furnaces. And all this just a few kilometres away from a country which has one of the most stringent environmental protection regulations in the world!

With all that in mind, it is understandable why the Scandinavian involve Russian participants as well. (Indeed, a quarter of the projects is targeted exclusively onto Russian territory.)

(Continued) environm ent protection

- 9 4 13

health - 7 8 15

com m unication - 3 1 4

inform ation - 1 3 4

inform ation-technology

3 1 4

total: 4 71 55 130

percentage 3,1 54,6 42,3 100,0

Source: Barents Euro-Arctic Cooperation-Norway Project Directory 1997

The most interesting projects - in the same order as categories are found in the chart:

Ad 1. Film Festival in Murmansk, creation/establishment of Kola-Island’s independent environmental protection movement

Ad 2. Establishment of a Russian-Norwegian bilingual school in Murmansk;

scholarship for two Russian students

Ad 3. Training/Education of Russian students in/at Norwegian Colleges or Universities; Training of civil servants, politician and managers who play the main role in local politic

Ad 4. Establishment of a Cultural Institute for Laps, living in Murmansk area, and for Nenec living in Narjan-Mar area; Manager courses for inhabitants;

Artisan courses at Kola-Peninsula; Language courses for Nenec

Ad 5. Potato production - appropriate potato for the weather circumstances of Murmansk and Arhangelsk area; Support of agricultural schools; Support of reindeer breeding at Nenec Autonomy Area; Development of sheep breeding, Modernisation of forestry

Ad 6. Implementation of a new regulatory-system in the field of trade and industry; Revision of Russian constructional regulations/rules; Establishment of tourist institutions at the Russian side of the border; Establishment of a bread making factory/bakery in Murmansk and a sawmill in Karelia

Ad 7. Female/Gender manager training; Establishment of a Crisis-Centre in Murmansk

Ad 8. Improvement of the quality of drinking water in Kola-Peninsula

Ad 9. Medical centre for inhabitants in Lap and Nenec area; Child-friendly hospitals; Improvement of the quality of national welfare; Hospital equipment for the Russian area; Holiday for disabled children in Norway; Anti drug and anti-alcoholism Conferences; Combat against diphtheria

Ad 10. Improvement of the quality of Russian Postal Service

Ad 11. Establishment of Information Centres - providing information on Barents Euro-Arctic Region - in Petrozavodsk and in Archangelsk and a regional secretariat in Murmansk

Ad 12. Popularisation of Internet at the Russian area of the region

It also appears from the project Directory that the targets of the schemes directed at Russian territory are almost exclusively the Murmansk and Arkhangelsk districts, while Karelia hardly gets anything. To get an answer, one only has to look at the map: while the former areas adjoin Norway, the latter is a neighbour of Finland.

To sum up the above, it can fairly be argued that this remote euroregion is an attractive attempt to resolve a serious security policy dilemma.

Hungary and the euroregions

Although the topic of the paper is the experience of the Western European euroregional organisations, it would seem useful to provide at least a rough outline of Hungary’s involvement.

Hungary - known for its instrumentality in dismantling the Iron Curtain - had a similarly crucial role in the establishment of the first euroregion of the region, namely, the Carpathians Euroregion.

Numerous studies have been published on the functioning - or dysfunctionality, as the case may be - of the Carpathians Euroregion (15), so I will not discuss that topic here. However, it might be worth while saying this much as a general lesson - and precisely as a contrast to the Western European development - that the Carpathians Euroregion has, from the outset, had to contend with the conflicting pressures of disagreements at the state policy level, on the one hand, and positive local iniatives and a desire for cooperation, on the other hand. In my opinion, the future of the Carpathians Euroregion - and, for that matter, the future of the other euroregions operating in the region - will be determined by which of the two antithetical trends prevails. Will these euroregions - battling from below, as it were, relying on the strength and solidarity of civil society - be able to secure the possibility for integrated development, as their Western European cousins have done? Or will the political

fears of central governments prevail - central governments that regard regionalism as the first step along the road to autonomy, and autonomy, in turn, as “the thin edge of the wedge” leading to secession?

Beyond the Carpathians Euroregion, Hungary is involved in the operation of several other euroregions.

These - in the order of their formation - are as follows:

• Danube-Maros-Tisza Regional Cooperation (November 21, 1997)

The DMT Euroregion encompasses nine counties and/or provinces from three countries. Its members:

Hungary - Bács-Kiskun, Békés, Csongrád, Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Counties;

Romania - Arad, Hunyad, Krassó-Szörény, Temes Counties;

Yugoslavia - Province of Vojvodina.

The DMT, it seems, has learnt from the mistakes of the Carpathians Euroregion:

it scrupulously avoids the pitfalls of “big politics” - indeed, the events that took place in Temesvár and Vojvodina over the last couple of years have, in any case, served as a warning in that regard - and it concentrates exclusively on the development of truly local or regional ties. According to the wording of the Charter (Protocol):

‘T he aim of the DMT regional cooperation is to develop and widen the relations between local communities and local governments in the fields of the economy, education, culture, and sports, and their cooperation, which leads towards integration into the frameworks of modem European processes.”

• EUROREGIO West/Nyugat PANNÓNIA (October 7, 1998) The partners taking part in the cooperation:

The province of Burgenland, Győr-Moson-Sopron and Vas Counties.

• Danube-Dráva-Száva Euroregional Cooperation (November 28, 1998) The area of the cooperation:

Hungary

Baranya County The city of Pécs Croatia

Eszék-B aranya County The town of Eszék Bosnia-Herzegovina

Tuzla-Drina Canton The town of Tuzla

Of late, two further declarations of intent have been produced on the constitution of euroregions along Hungary’s borders.

These include

• The Ipoly Euroregion (April 14, 1999)

Its extent: the catchment area of the Ipoly, and the area of the Börzsöny, Cserhát, and Karancs Mountains

• The Vág-Danube-Ipoly Euroregion (April 28, 1999) Its area: Nyitra district

Komárom-Esztergom County Nógrád County

Pest County Summary

To sum up, it might fairly be argued, based on what has been said so far, that the euroregions are the most effective form of transfrontier cooperation and of the development of frontier regions. There is a broad consensus of opinion that the euroregions have been greatly instrumental in the unification process of Western Europe. In our region, it is of particular importance that they integrate those - predominantly peripheral and/or severely depressed - frontier regions which, riddled with multiple handicaps, are apt to fall behind.

Later on, in the process of European integration, the territorial differences and the disparities in living standards will probably be reduced both between the euroregions and within the particular euroregions. Thus the euroregion - in addition to its many other important characteristics - is, as a result of the equalizing effect just mentioned, an instrument of reducing differences in the level of territorial development.

Last, but not least, it is, concurrently, a workshop for a local or regional identity that is acquiring a continually increasing role. It is therefore desirable that the Western European experiences be utilized in our region as well.

Notes 1. For more on the same subject see:

- Fried Esterbauer - Peter Pemthaler (Hrsg.):

Europäischer Regionalismus am Wendepunkt - Bilanz und Aussblick. Braumüller, Wien, 1991.

Joó, Rudolf: Ethnie Groups and Regionalism in Western Europe.

2. Winfried Lang: Regionen und Grenzen: Auf dem Weg zum neuen Europa. In:

Esterbauer-Pemthaler (Hrsg): Europäischer Regionalismus am Wendepunkt, p. 145-147.

3. Winfried Lang: s. cit. op. p. 147-154.

4. Illés, Iván: Frontiers and Transfrontier Cooperation in Western and Eastern Europe. Bigis Papers, 1994/1. p. 35—42

5. Illés I. s. cit. op. p. 40.

6. Marian S. Sucha: Euroregions on the Eastern borders of Germany and the European Union, In: Deutschland, 1995. június, p. 28-31.

7. Zilahi, József: The Stages of Cooperation. In: Five Years of the Carpathians Euroregion. Nyíregyháza, 1998. p. 6.

8. Süli-Zakar, István: On Our Euroregion in a Nutshell, s. cit. op. p. 53-56.

9. James Corrigan: The EUREGIO: Policies and Programmes to develop a cross-border labour market - in the German-Dutch cross-border region. Paper to the conference: “Regionalism and Euroregions in Central and Eastern Europe”.

p. 10.

10. Daniel Deckers: SAAR-LOR-LUX. In: Deutschland, 1997/1. sz. p. 43.

11. Georges Pire: The Euregio Meuse-Rhin. 5 Partners, 3 Counties, 3 Languages. Paper to the conference: “Regionalism and Euroregions in Central and Eastern Europe” p. 13.

12. J. W. van der Meulen: Euregio's längs de Poolse grenzen. Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen, Clingen dael’ 1997. p. 17-18.

13. Oddrunn Pettersen: The Barents Cooperation. Paper to the conference :

“Regionalism and Euroregions in Central and Eastern Europe”, p. 2-3.

14. Barents Euro-Arctic Cooperation - Norway. Project Directory 1997. Barents Secretariat, Kirkenes, p. 86.

15. Illés, Iván: The Carpathians Euroregion.

(This study was originally published in Hungarian in: „Globalizáció és nemzetépítés", Budapest, Teleki László Foundation, 1999.)

II. IDENTITIES AND NATIONAL IMAGES

In document andCENTRAL EUROPE (Pldal 50-60)