DEFENCE

STUDIES
Special Edition

A Close-Up
View of
European
Security

BUDAPEST 1996

Defence Studies
A Regular Publication
of the Institute for Strategic and
Defence Studies

Special Edition
Edited
Dr. Pter Tlas
Sebestyn L. Gorka

Publisher
Dr. FerencGazdag
Prepared in a 250 number copy-run
ISSN: 1216-4704
ISBN: 963 8117
CHARTA PRESS KFT.

Rudolf JO'

Can International Initiatives Truly

Improve the Position of Ethnic Minorities?

In this presentation 1 intend to examine three points:

l. the objectives of international initiatives
2. the forms and instruments ofinternational involvement
3. the efficacy ofthese initiatives.
1.
After the end of the Cold War, the Pandora's Box of ethnic problems
was reopened in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The aspiration to nationality is a centuries old phenomenon in this region, but the conditions in
which it re-emerged in the '90s were radicaIly new. Over more than four
decades, the Cold War's division of the continent, especially the "Pax Sovietica" in its Eastern part, transformed this historicaIly troubled region into a
"peaceful'' one. But the costs of this stability were considerable, especially in
respect to politicaI freedorns both on the level of the individual and on the
national level: a unilateral dependence within the Warsaw Pact.
After the fal! of the Iron Curtain, not for the first time in its history, the
CEE region found itself in a grey zone from the security point of view. Currently this region needs, more than ever, a new paradigm of international
policy, which in tum implies a change of mentality within the domestic
political processes: peace through coercion (based on oppression) has to be
replaced by peacc through conviction (based on demoeratic consensusbuilding). This change of paradigm is one of the biggest challenges that new
democracies arc facing; and universal success is far from guaranteed everywhere, viz. Former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.
Due to the actual weight of the nationality problems in the rcgion, the
approach of political forces (from the majorityor the minority) to ethnic
issues is highly relevant to the success or failure of the whole transformation
process, within the states and between the states. When talking about majority/minority relations in the region, we should consider two facts. First, none
of the Central and Eastern European countries is totally immune from ethnic

Prolessor. George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.

1(1)

problcms, or from ethnicaIly related historicai problcrns with its ncighbours.

Sccond, these ethnic issues vary greatly from country to country.
In terms of ethnic composition, currently Poland, the Czech Republic,
Hungary and Albania have relatively small numbers of minority members on
their territory (2-3 % of the total population). Slovakia, Rumania and Bulgaria have a larger minority population. Their figures exceed 10% of the
total population aceording to ,official census data. In some administrative
areas they constitute an absolute majority of the local population. Even more
important, in terms of ratio and of domestic politicai significance, is the
essentially Russian minority in of the Baltic states. In Latvia, for instance,
Russians constitute almost half of the population.
.
1 would like to stress, that having a low number of minority members
does not mean that the ethnic issue is unknown for agiven country, as the
existence of the Gypsy, orRoma problem to use the official term, indicates
in the Czech Republic or in Hungary. Obviously, the more the population of
a country is composed of multi-national and multi-cultural societies, the
more complex this issue becomes within domestic politics.
The ethnic concerns of the CEE region are fundamentally different from
those found in Former Yugoslavia and the Fonner Soviet Union, where
violent clashes have erupted between majority and minority populations. A
common denominator in our region is that nationality/ethnicity issues are
addressed through political and diplomatic means: they have not become
violent conflicts.
.
The ethni c and cultural problems between Slovaks and Hungarians,
Hungarians and Rumanians, Bulgarians and Turks, and other nationalities
are sornetimes matters of heated domestic and international debate, but they
are clearly not military matters. They have been kept within the limits of the
political bargaining process.
This is a positive fact, which should not however be taken for granted.
Conditions may change, and they may change for the worse. Consequently,
inter-ethnic relations should be further stabilised by means of carefully considered policies. This is where international involvement can help. It can
prove useful for the following reasons:
1. On an domestic, intra-state level, it can reinforce the general demoeratic structure of government, the institutions of rule of law, parliamentarism and political pluralism, since consolidation of the still fragile demoeratic order is essential for two reasons:
-there is a close interconnection between domestic stability and international security and

110

_ srnooth demoeratic functioning is a precondition for effcerve cxcrcisc

of the minority rights of the communitles involvcd.
2. International initiatives may also contribute to the development of
specific institutions for minority protection and ethnic emancipation. We
should remember that the West has constitutional and political arrangements which are not perfect but are certainly more successful than most of
the ethni c policies already existing in CEE. They work. Consider the multilingual model of Switzerland, or Canadian "multi-culturalism", the evolution of a large-scale cultural autonomy within Finland for the Swedish
population, or in Italy for the South Tyrolian Gennan speaking community.
AJI of these set useful examples which should be studied by the decisiontakers of this region. These experiences can and are projected into the area
through the channels of bilateral and multi-lateral cooperation, as representing western techniques of demoeratic management of ethni c problerns.
3. The third area where international involvement may be usefuJ IS 111
inter-community confidence-building. Here the objective is to change the
zero-surn mentality found in inter-group relations, meaning, the minority's
gain is the majority's 1055 or vice-versa. This attitude sees compromise as a
sign of weakness and not a natural part of the pol iticaI process. Outside
encouragement to inter-group dialogue and communication enhances capacity to comprornise and reinforce participation in joint problem-solving.
NGOs are especially active in this area. Among various initiatives allow me
to menti on for example the Project on Ethnic Relations of the Carnegie
Endowment. In some Central and Eastern European countries it has organised round-table discussions with the participation of politicians belonging
to the different communities. One of such initiative was a meeting of Rumanian and ethnic Hungarian politicians to promote minority-rnajority understanding. Some observers consider these initiatives as naive efforts. Of
course they do not produce spectacular results in inter-group relations. but
they no doubt have an impact in the long-term reciprocal political learning
process. Measures to promote rninority confidence that their cultural, politicaI and other rights are respected, prevent these groups from falI ing into
psychologically distressing situations and from turning to poIiticaI radicalism for a solution.
4. Finally the fourth area where external intervention might have a
positive influence is the broadening of the security community on the European continent through cooperation and integration. At the end of the 20th
century successful coexistence is not possible between minorities and ma-

1II

jorities without the widening of the politicaI horizon of these communities.

When Euro-Atlantic and Western European institutions project their politicai ideals to this part of Europe, they contribute to the development of a
common security identity on the continent. In this way ethnic problems can
receive a multi-Iateral/multi-national
dimension, which may help towards
conflict prevention and the management of an essentially bilateral issue.
NATO and the EUIWEU can use their channels to prevent an escalation of
tensions among CEE countries . This has been demonstrated already, for
instance, in the case of the Greco- Turkish conflict.
There is a noticeable inter-relation between the ethnic problems of this
region and the prospects for integration. Western institutions have emphasised on several occasions that CEE countries should settIe their minority
and territorial disputes before they are allowed to join the integrational procsses. NATO has made it elear that it does not want to see another GrecoTurkish scenario in the Alliance.
Therefore, the recognition of the borders and the fair treatment of minorities - accompanied by other compatibility requirements - can alI be perceived as legitimate preconditions for membership in these organisations.
One should not forget, however, the other side of the story. Integration
may in itself promote better understanding between peoples as it multiplies
channels of communications. This is an important point to take into consideration in any debate concerning enlargement of NATO. In the future, in
Central and Eastern Europe, the politically stabilising function of the North
Atlantic Alliance may be as significant as the traditional collective defence
function it previously had. Even at the present stage, current PfP programmes can help in setting standards and establishing a larger area of
shared values and codes of conduct in Europe, contributing to the establishment of an enlarged security community.
II.
In these questions it is essential to overview the principal legal instruments which set the current international minimum standards for minority
protection.
i.) The UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National,
Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, adopted 'by the General Assembly in 1992. This Dec!aration represents the first document since WWII
having a universal character and referring exelusively to the problem of
minorities. Yet even so, the text demonstrates a substantial resistance from a

112

large number of states to make progress in the international

minority rights.

codification of

ii.) The Final/Id ofthe Helsinki Confrence, which includes l general

provision concerning minorities, was reiterated later in the Madrid and
Vienna documents and was followed at the Helsinki summit meeting ill
1992 with the creation of the Office of the High Commissioner for National
Minorities.
iii.) The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed 1990, also contains
also sections conceming minorities.
iv.) Finally in 1993, as a demonstration of the increased interest of the
Council of Europe in matters conceming minority issues, the Council
adopted the Vienna Declaration with an annex conceming minorities. The
sa me year the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council adopted Recomrnendation 1201 regarding the rights of national minorities,
The universal and regional documents mentioned evince that internaticnal law as a body has made real progress since 1991 with respect to ethnic
issues, This progress has been made under pressure of politicai and miIitary
cvents, as nationality issues have inereasingly beeome a pre-eminent security
problem in Europe. Nevertheless, when one examines the basic Helsinki
commitments, such as the Copenhagen Document or the Charter of Paris
both adopted in 1990, in the light of the events in Fonner Yugoslavia, one is
left wondering whether some of the international legal attempts to resolve
etlmic conflicts were not simply "too little done too late", This is especially
true with regards to the politicaI designs and plans (the Owen Plan, the
proposals of the Bandinter Group, etc.) which were elaborated in the early
1990s in an attempt to find demoeratic solutions for ethni c co-existence in
Bosnia, or other parts of Former Yugoslavia. There is no doubt concerning
the intellectual and politicaI value of these efforts, but the rapid escalation of
the events in that country unfortunately made them out-dated by the time of
their release.
Other international initiatives, such as the Balladur Plan have produced
only partial successes. The diplomatic preparatory works on the Stability
Pact focused initially in a balanced fashion on the two equal pill ars of regional security and good neighbourly relations, including:
- the inviolability of the existing borders of states and
- the respect for the rights of minorities living in the territories of other
states.

113

It appeared, that the balance between these two elements had been broken by the mid 1990s. The Stability Pact adopted last year by most of the
CEE states provides much less to minoritics than was suggested by the inilia] talks of 1993/94 .. lt has to be noted that in Paris most of the CEE countries also signed bilateral treaties amongst themselves, regulating the basic
principles of their inter-state relations. Treaties containing clauses related to
minorities were elaborated and signed for instance between Hungary and
most of its neighbours (the Ukraine, Slovenia, Croatia and Slovakia). A
similar document has been under negotiation with Rumania for some time
now.
The real value of these bilateral treaties and agreements, and the real
value of any international legal instrument, can be measured by its implementation. These documents have brought about actual cooperation for instance in Hungarian-Ukrainian and Hungarian-Croat relations. Compared to
these, the Hungarian-Slovak State Treaty, although signed and ratified, is
still in a phase of debate over differing interpretation by the two sides.
Finally, allow me to single out two international institutions, the OSCE,
successor organisation of the CSCE, and the Council of Europe. As mentioned above, in 1992 the CSCE made an innovative step in establishing the
post of High Cornmissioner for National Minorities. The High Commissioner is not an ombudsman, nor a speaker for minority rights. The primary
rle of this official is to mediate, to generate dialogue between governments
and rninority representatives. Besides this activity, since 1992, a small team
of experts led by the High Commissioner has been involved in monitoring
minority rights in various countries of Central and Eastern Europe, for example in the Baltic States, Slovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Macedonia.
When we are evaluating the effectiveness of this office, we should bear
in mind that the High Commissioner is part of an inter-state process arnong
. governmental representatives. This fact obviously constitutes a limitation
and it remains to be seen on what path thisbody can evolve.
The Council of Europe should also be mentioned in connection to its
programmes promoting sub-regional and cross-regional cooperation: the
Alpes-Adna and the Carpathian Cooperation Group. As many positive examples within western Europe demonstrate, sub-regional cooperation can
enhance the transparency of borders and multiply the cross-border contact
among individuals, local communities and enterprises. In areas of rnixed
ethni city they may also help national rninorities to increase cultural exchanges across borders.
In conclusion, our initial question was: "Can international initiatives
truly improve the position of rninorities?" One cannot give a clear-cut "yes"

114

" . ',

", .1-

' __ . 't"'!'~.'.. ,,,,

,. " ...,C

or "no" answer to this question. An external, irnpartial interest or concern

expressed through a third party's action can increase the feeling of weIlbcing of minoritics and prcvcnt thcsc groups from falting into psycholegically distressing situations, or from sccking rcsolution in political radicalism. The sarne interest and concern can also prevent representatives of the
majority and the majority government from perceiving subversive tendencies
in every cultural, educational or other request emanating from the minorities. Thus, international initiatives might promote mutual understanding and
tolerance.
ConsequentIy they can occasionally
stabiIise both intercommunity and inter-state relations. At the same time we should not forget
that current international involvement in the interests of minorities faces
several limitations and obstacles. Implementation still remains a major
problem of international law. Hence there are good reasons to criticise the
effectiveness of these initiatives. It is not the international organisations,
however, that should be the primary objects of criticism, but much more the
nation states which constitute the membership ()f these organisations.

115