Hungarian international development cooperation:context, stakeholders and performance

This paper explores the domestic and international context of Hungary's emerging international development policy. Specifically, it looks at three factors that may influence how this policy operates: membership in the European Union (EU) and potential ‘Europeanization’, Hungary's wider foreign policy strategy, and the influence of domestic stakeholders. In order to uncover how these factors affect the country's international development policy, semi-structured interviews were carried out with the main stakeholders. The main conclusions are: (1) While accession to the EU did play a crucial role in restarting Hungary's international development policy, the integration has had little effect since then; (2) international development policy seems to serve mainly Hungary's regional strategic foreign policy and economic interests, and not its global development goals; and (3) although all the domestic development stakeholders are rather weak, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) still seems to play a dominating role. Convergence with European requirements and best practices is, therefore, clearly hindered by foreign policy interests and also by the weakness of non- governmental stakeholders.

Interregionalism

Interregionalism is deeply rooted in the foreign policies and external relations of the EU. Interregional cooperation today not only encompasses trade and aid but also political dialogue, cultural relations and even security cooperation. Although the EU’s official ambition has been to formalize and institutionalize its interregional relations with other regional bodies or organizations (so-called ‘pure interregionalism’), in practice there are a bewildering variety of interregional or group-to-group relations on display (Hänggi 2006; Baert et al. 2014). The EU is rapidly evolving as a global actor and while doing so it has been trying to export its own civilian and normative values. Interregionalism is an important tool in this process, contributing to the EU’s policy of fostering regionalism worldwide, not only in the triad (Europe, North America and East Asia) (De Lombaerde and Schulz 2009). Through interregionalism, the EU and its regional others enhance their presence, gain recognition, tighten institutional cohesion and define identities. Interregionalism, therefore, occupies a special position in the construction of regional actorness in global affairs (Wunderlich 2012). However, the link between interregionalism and regionalism is both complex and underexplored (Baert et al. 2014; Doidge 2007). Much depends on the type of interregional relations, and the balance of other forms of cooperation, which appears to play out differently in different regions. All this leads to a number of research questions that should be addressed by the academic literature, including is there a preference for interregional relations in EU’s foreign policy? If so, for what reason(s)? What are the consequences of such a preference? What is the role of interregionalism in the broader context of EU’s external policies? How are expressions of regionalism related to expressions of interregionalism? Does the sui generis character of the EU lead to a sui generis character of EU interregionalism? This chapter provides a general overview of the evolution of the field, the key conceptual and analytical debates, as well as the main research questions that drive the research agenda. Emphasis is also placed on identifying the main gaps in the field and suggesting directions.

Failure to relaunch? The United States, nuclear North Korea, and the future of the six-party talks

During the past twenty years, Washington has oscillated between tentative engagement with Pyongyang under the Clinton administration and isolation and multilateralism under the Bush administration. With the Obama administration almost nearing its four-year tenure, the Six-Party Talks have stalled and North Korea's multiple attacks on the South in 2010 have created new instabilities. Why so little results despite promises of a radical departure away from the Axis of Evil rhetoric and hard-line politics? This paper suggests that the Obama administration has utilized approaches that no longer fit current circumstances and hence failed to create an original, coherent and effective foreign policy. © 2012 McFarland & Company, Inc.

Still entrenched in the conflict/cooperation dichotomy? EU–Russia relations and the Ukraine crisis

The article highlights that the traditional conflict/cooperation dichotomy which characterised the dynamic of European Union (EU)–Russia relation during the post-Cold War period has remained stable throughout the Ukraine crisis. It identifies a pattern of continuity rather than change in the main characteristics of the traditional conflict/cooperation dichotomy: the post-Cold War order on the European continent, values and worldviews, perceptions of self and other, and policies towards each other and post-Soviet space. Secondly, in tune with neoclassical realism the article aims to account for the relative persistence of the conflict/cooperation dichotomy. It argues that the dynamic of EU–Russia relations remained rather stable due to the fact that neither the EU nor Russian foreign policy has undergone major transformations (of both power, scope and organisation) that would provide incentive or constrains for a complete overhaul of the conflict/cooperation dichotomy. Moreover, the article claims that the relative stability of world politics since the start of the Ukraine crisis has not given any the EU and Russia incentives – or constrained them – to seek to change the overall dynamic of their relationship.