Külpolitika - A Magyar Külügyi Intézet elméleti-politikai folyóirata - 1980 (7. évfolyam)
1980 / 4. szám - A tanulmányok orosz és angol nyelvű tartalmi kivonata
Re^ső Békés: The prospects of European security & cooperation In recent months respected western journalist visiting Hungary have wondered whether Hungarians are anxious about détente grinding to a halt. Are they worried about the setbacks on the road to progress and security and cooperation in Europe? To quote the 1975 Helsinki speech by János Kádár, First Secretry of the Central Committee of the HSWP: “We are convinced that peace is the greatest wish of every nation in Europe. If that were possible this is even more true of Hungarians. Everyone should understand that, for the socialist Hungarian People’s Republic peace, security and cooperation amongst the nations of Europe is not a matter of words only, but of a long-term policy that is based on firm principles and serious historic experience, a policy which expresses the vital interests of the Hungarian nation.” The policy initiated by the Soviet Union and furthered with such staying power, which, for such a long time, eased the tensions between the two greatest powers, the Soviet Union and the US, thus leading to détente in Europe and the whole world, always enjoyed, and still enjoys, a wide mass basis in Hungary. Attacks on détente in the past year or two, as well as American attempts to upset the strategic equilibrium, the huge rise in NATO arms expenditure, and the December 1979 decision concerning medium-range missiles, naturally created unease in Hungary. Hungarians are of the opinion that the Helsinki process had a favoruable effect on European developments in the past five years, and generally on bilateral as well as multilateral relations of the thirty-five states involved. Mutual visits by politicians have become frequent since the signing of the Helsinki Final Document. Cooperation in industry has improved as well as has the possibility of thinking in all-European terms. New instruments are available permitting further improvement and the further development of security and cooperation. True, one cannot expect détente in itself to solve every outstanding international problem, it can, however, facilitate arrangements when the situation is ripe, and ensure that negotiations are given priority over guns. One can, in spite of much that was debatable, say that the Belgrade meeting defended and enriched the process started at Helsinki, helping it on its way to Madrid. Important and well elaborated proposals were made there which are still under discussion. Détente cannot last however, and what has been achieved will also be threatened, if present cold war trends cannot be stopped. We are firmly convinced that the right to equal security can be assured for every state in Europe at an essentially lower level of armaments than the present one. This would also help in the solution of unavoidable future problems, making détente irreversible. European security and cooperation is the cause of Hungary. The country employs an active foreign policy, including diplomatic initiatives, fighting for it in difficult circumstances as well. The Madrid follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe will be a good opportunity for all the thirty- five participating countries to further work towards cooperation, essentially deepening mutual confidence and security. If all participants honestly desire that Madrid be a success, showing themselves ready to strive for a consensus on essential questions by agreeing to mutually advantageous compromises, then every kind of cold war attack can be resisted, and greater security and wider cooperation in Europe can be further extended. László Val ki: The directly elected European Parliament It can be said that the role of Parliament within the Common Market decision taking structure has not essentially changed following direct elections. What matters are not methods of election but the role of the institution. Earlier proposals meant to link direct elections with a major growth in competence. The fathers of such plans had the institutions of bourgeois democratic confederations in mind. One should not, however, fail to distinguish between an international organization and a federal state. Whatever the assembly of an international organization be called—let its name be parliament if you like—and whatever arrangements about direct elections be made, it still continues as a powerless consultative body, and the structure of the international organization does not change. Should on the other hand, such a parliament be given legislative powers and the right to elect the executive, the nature and structure of the international organization would be changed as a result, in other words it would be transformed into a federal state. And this is something that not one of the governments of Western Europe wants at present, nobody desires , a genuine political integration. Governments give preference to a structure which allows them to participate directly in every essential decision, through their representatives. Until governments do not give up their powers—a state that can hardly be expected—one can VI
