Following the breakup of the bipolar world through the dissolution of the "communist system", a number of initiatives have emerged in order to coordinate actions of the former European totalitarian countries on their way to integration into the European and transAtlantic structures. Over several years a number of initiatives and blocs (CEFTA, CEI, etc.) have arisen, but there was the so-called Visegrad Three - a bloc of Central European countries Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary - at the very beginning. Though not everything is clear and transparent about V-3 (later on V-4) developments. We tried to make a small excursion into the bloc history, but also to get opinions on its presence and future through a poll of representatives of the current Slovak political scene. We asked government members and parliament deputies the following two questions:

1. How do you view retrospectively the origin and subsequently a relatively early dissolution of the V-3 or later V-4 bloc?
2. Can the need for or appropriateness of certain forms of institutionalisation within the V-4 be still talked about even today or right today?

Ludovit Cernak

1. I think it still too early to talk about the dissolution of the V-4, its developments remind me of a sinusoid. From its very origins had the V-3 bloc been accepted relatively sceptically by the Czech Republic, namely particularly at the time of its transformation into the V-4. I had the honour to be that member of the Slovak Government who in December 1992 - thus several days before the birth of an independent Slovak Republic - signed in Krakow the Agreement on Cooperation of the V-4 countries. Especially under pressure from the Czech Republic, which felt in 1992 very strong and ambitious for an early admission to the EU and NATO, the Visegrad Four feared to institutionalize the mutual cooperation. There were discussions, inter alia, on the Visegrad Eximbank, but all the four countries took their own way as to the promotion of foreign trade - as at last in the other issues.

From the perspective of V-4 developments, there was for a while a concern that this bloc could act as substitute for the former COMECOM and gradually "snowball" another countries, thereby being an alternative to the EU. This, however, was not identical to the real interests of "Visegrad" nations whose aim was to be fully integrated into the EU and NATO. Not always was this the case in the Slovak Republic. Especially at the time that Slovakia started to become internationally isolated and was beginning to lose her "integration" breath, even Prime Minister V. Meciar several times tried to raise the cooperation within the CEFTA or the CEI over that of the EU. However after the takeover of the Zeman Government in the Czech Republic, but especially the Orban Government in Hungary, the former V-3 countries started to revive mutual contacts and cooperation and thereafter, following the parliamentary elections in the Slovak Republic, they sent a signal on welcoming cooperation within the V-4 also to Slovakia.

Thus the result of the way to cooperation of the V-4 countries was repeatedly up and down. Now it is probably approaching the state in which I experienced the V-4 in signing the mentioned agreement in December 1992. This is the state of a pragmatic cooperation of the neighbouring countries with a common goal: by integrating within the shortest possible time and from the strategic perspective jointly, if possible, into the European and transAtlantic structures. Still, a common 65-million market of the four quarters is substantially larger than the markets of respective countries. It is also proving that the admission of these countries to the EU will not so dramatically fast as expected in 1992. At last, as early as then did many renowned economists talk about what all are now contending: about the need for a closer coordination of cooperation within the V-4 - now already enlarged to include certain CEFTA countries - as preparations for a close cooperation within the EU.

2. I think that in the current situation it is not necessary to set up institutes that would formally confirm the cooperation within the V-4. Democratic accession processes, association agreements with th EU or a close coordination of trade policy within the CEFTA are so much ahead that the institutionalisation in fact no longer makes sense. I could imagine, for example, a common institute for approximation of law five years ago, thus at a time that it was relevant to all these countries. Now, however, each of the countries is so much ahead with working out the approximation that it can only be finalized through their own way.

Brigita Schmognerova

1. I think that we can talk again about the V-4, at last the negotiations of these four Central European states resumed. All the parties involved expressed their wish to continue in this bloc, to coordinate some of their foreign policies steps. So, the V-3 is the past, but the V-4 is already the presence. Needless to say, some time that could be utilised for more orchestrated actions within integration activities of all the four countries has been wasted, but now it can be rectified.

2. It is not inevitable because mutual economic relations among the V-4 countries in a broader sense of word are in fact already institutional in nature and in my opinion such a free cooperation is sufficient.

Miklos Duray

1. The Visegrad Three emerged at a time that new relations started to be formed in the Central European region between the neighbouring countries planning to join the European and transAtlantic structures. Thus the V-3 bloc had met its mission during the existence of Czechoslovakia. This, however, does not mean that it should dissolve or that it has dissolved. During the government of V. Klaus in the Czech Republic the relations between these countries got disordered a bit, since he did not consider the cooperation to be of importance and a cooperation of three countries without the presence of one thereof is virtually no longer a multilateral cooperation. Therefore the situation looked as if the bloc had ceased to exist. Also the breakup of Czechoslovakia brought in a turnabout in the mutual cooperation. Currently it looks as if the bloc is resuming its activity, thereby bearing out that it was not the case of just purposefully combining interests in order to integrate these countries into the EU and NATO. Then and now alike a real need arises for cooperation within the framework of this European subregion.

2. Cooperation of the V-4 countries is first of all a cooperation of a political nature, even if it should also have an impact on mutual economic relations. Unfortunately, it is not yet manifesting itself in the economic cooperation - for instance in simplifying the rules on mutual trade, customs clearance, etc. The forming such relations within the V-4 as would be approximating to those within the EU would confirm the functioning of the idea of a unified Europe

Rastislav Septak

1. In the global economy a principle appliest that the larger market the larger possibility of placing goods. Ekonomic giants merge into even larger units to get the largest possible markets. The same is also true of the V-4 countries, where even Slovakia has her place. These countries should cooperate;'unfortunately, over recent periods only three states have been cooperating, more frequently even each "has played its own side", in particular with the aim of first getting into the EU or NATO. I therefore highly appreciate the current efforts to renew the idea of the V-4. It is necessary to unite, at least in order to expand markets. These four countries should help one another in today's economically aggressive world. Our firms thus far can barely compete with those which have long been adapted to the said aggressiveness, for which we have to pay, for example, through importing surpluses from advanced countries and a shrinking marketing opportunities of ours.

2. Actions should be possibly taken in this direction, even in view of postponing the date of integration of the V-4 countries into the EU. In fact, none of the postcommunist countries is so far sufficiently prepared for the integration and also the EU itself must handle before that its own internal problems.

Roman Hofbauer

1. The Visegrad Three - later on the V-4 - emerged in a concrete period of time with a concrete objective, goal and ambitions. At that time it was a good impulse, a positive incentive and an interesting motivation. It ceased to exist due to a premature optimism on the Czech part about implementing integration steps of respective candidates for joining the EU. After some time it can be stated that the entry into the EU is not by far as short-term and easy matter as the Czech party had expected. Thus the bloc was justified at the time of its origins, yet if failed to make use of its chance - it fell victim to the egoism of individual participants. Each thought that they would singlehandedly gain more, that the others would impede it. Time has proved it a false assumption.

I think that a V-4 resurrection of sorts is basically no longer topical this day. Every community is only of importance as long as every participant benefits from it. On the contrary, if some party feels it is losing rather than gaing by joining a community, it will not enter into such community. For the time being, Hungary and Poland have apparently such feelings toward Slovakia. For what reason would this community be renewed by them in the state where the very Slovak Government is sending to the world a series of impulses on poor economic status of the Slovak economy? Who would unite with such a partner? Moreover, three of these countries have their entry into NATO secured, thus yet another clear-cut stratification has occurred here. Even though the V-4 is today discussed again, it will go to nowhere.

2. Given the answer to the first question, the second question makes no sense.

Slovak Trade FORUM