SECURITY
AARMS
Vol. 6, No. 2 (2007) 271–279
The Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
(Security interdependence in Central Europe)
CSABA VIDA
Miklós Zrínyi National Defence University, Budapest, Hungary
The Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex (CE RSSC) is likely to remain
an autonomous regional security sub-complex in the medium term. The sub-complex is
still greatly influenced by the security system constituted by NATO and the EU that
have become autonomous elements (units) of the sub-complex and exert a significant
level of influence over the security structure of the region. On this basis, the CE RSSC
has a structure centralised by international organisations, with a great level of external
influence. The region – along with other regions of Europe – is to become the most
institutionalised region of the world, which could result in the termination of internal
security processes. However, because of the nation state ambitions of the Central
European countries, an end of the RSSC is not likely to be expected in the medium term.
Introduction
Before introducing the Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex (CE-RSSC),
the questions concerning its geographical, economic, and political extension have to be
examined, as the region has no well distinguishable boundaries.1 Central Europe’s
extension is difficult to define along other dimensions2 too as its boundaries have been
constantly changing due to external influences. The region has taken the role of an
intermediate zone where influences from the East and West clash. The intensity of these
influencing factors has continuously changed which affected the boundaries of the
region. Consequently, the boundaries of Central Europe have always changed after
paradigm shifts. Compared to its boundaries, the central (core) area of Central Europe is
much easier to define. The region was constituted by the territory of the AustroHungarian Monarchy,3 while the provinces and countries surrounding the Monarchy
formed part of the region only temporarily. Considering its historical and traditional
roots and apart from the nation states created on the ruins of the Monarchy, in certain
historical periods state formations on Poland’s present territory as well as certain
countries in the Balkans belonged to Central Europe too. As to the economic
perspective, the Carpathian basin constituted a relatively autonomous economic unity,
though this economic autonomy has decreased throughout history, or has ceased
Received: March 22, 2007
Address for correspondence:
CSABA VIDA
Miklós Zrínyi National Defence University
P. O. Box 15, H-1581 Budapest, Hungary
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
because of political influences and the effects of globalisation. Examining the religious
(cultural) composition of the region, we can conclude that Central Europe has
constituted the Eastern stronghold of the Western Christian religion, as towards the East
the Eastern Orthodox Church was dominant and the Islam to the South.4 In spite of the
continuous change and transformation, in certain historical moments countries of the
region constituted a single region due to their similar political, societal, economic
problems and their interdependence.
Summarizing the different aspects one can conclude that Central Europe has had
continuously changing boundaries throughout its history. Nevertheless, the Baltic Sea
and the Polish lowland from the North can define its borders, by the boundary between
the Eastern orthodox and the Catholic religion from the East. From the South too the
advance of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Islam affected its boundary, while it
has been characterised by the Slavic-German and the German-Austrian frontiers in the
West. Accordingly, Central Europe is not situated in the geographical centre of Europe,
as Germany is not a part of the region. Because of this, several researchers call the
region ‘East Central Europe’.5
In outlining the sub-complex, the next step is to examine the factors6 illustrating the
autonomy of the Central European region, that concern only the countries (units) part of
it, as they offer a foundation for the existence of the Central European sub-complex.
The factors characterising the region underwent changes in certain historical periods,
with some of them increasing, some decreasing or disappearing, though the most
striking characteristics appear in historical traditions, culture, societal factors, as well as
in the economic conditions, and there are certain features specific to the region to be
found even on a political level. On the other hand, the meaning of the notion of Central
Europe has to be examined. Possibly the most particular feature is its varied character
that has evolved on the grounds of the mixture of several (in certain cases extremely
different) ethnic groups living in the region as well as the influences arising from the
East, West, and South. This varied character includes a certain division – a confliction
feature – as the competition between the ethnic groups for independence, better
positions, as well as the rule over other ethnic groups led to a continuous fight. The
other particular feature is to be found in the common historical traditions, as the
region’s ethnic groups have co-existed for more than a thousand years, and so they
share its history – and its traumas and successes. The common security, economic, and
social problems can be regarded as a third characteristic as the ethnic groups in the
region have similar capabilities and possibilities at their disposal in an environment that
is homogenous for them all. Also in respect of the security dimension, certain Central
European characteristics can be defined that distinguish this region from other
272
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
European regions. We can regard its role as an intermediate region the particular
characteristic that stems from the region’s existence as a buffer zone between East and
West. Because of this, the region has been regarded as an Eastern security pillar of
Europe for centuries. In spite of the divisions between the countries, nations and ethnic
groups constituting the region, the action against external influences has postulated
common aims and interests. Still, co-operation between the countries of the region has
always been problematic, even though their security could always been enhanced only
by increasing their co-operation. There have been initiatives for co-operation in the
region throughout its history, but because of the confliction nature of the region these
initiatives were either ephemeral or of a low intensity. From a security point of view,
the other specific feature of the region is a constant ‘exposure to influence’ that has
constantly affected the security structure of the region. The intensity of this factor has
determined the security system of Central Europe as well as its autonomous security
structure. External influences could play a determining role in Central Europe because
there is no great power in the region that could have countered the external influences
effectively. It was exclusively the Habsburg Empire and later the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy7 that could partly neutralise external influences.
On this basis, we can distinguish three basic states of the region’s security dimension:
• Firstly, when an external power’s influence is so great that it suppresses security
processes in the region and deforms the security structure of the region, it can lead
to a temporary elimination or final termination of the region’s autonomy (e.g. Soviet
influence during the bipolar world order, the situation after the completion of the
Euro-Atlantic integration).
• Secondly, when external influence does not reach the level to eliminate internal
security processes, but only affects the security structure of the region. In such a
case, external influence only leads to a state of balance between the contending
countries (e.g. the situation between the two world wars or the situation prior to the
successful Euro-Atlantic integration of the region’s countries).
• Thirdly, when the level of integration in the region reaches an extent that a hegemonic
security system evolves. This case can be further divided into two variations:
A hegemonic system based on force, when an empire established in the region
unifies the countries of the region by force (the age of the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy and the Habsburg Empire).
A system of integration by choice, when participating countries (nations or
ethnic groups) can choose freely to enhance their co-operation to the highest
level (e.g. the utopia of the Federation of Danubian Countries).For the Central
European countries, the latter version would be ideal, though it would not prove
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
273
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
to be a long-term solution because of its lack of stability, as external impacts and
internal differences would undermine the durability of such a system. Among
the above-mentioned versions, the first proved to be the most stable throughout
history, i.e. when external influence suppressed the internal security structure.
For the Central European countries, the latter version would be ideal, though it
would not prove to be a long-term solution because of its lack of stability, as external
impacts and internal differences would undermine the durability of such a system.
Among the above-mentioned versions, the first proved to be the most stable throughout
history, i.e., when external influence suppressed the internal security structure.
In the framework of international studies, the study of regional systems gained high
priority at the end of the 20th century, after the paradigm shift caused by the end of the
bipolar world system. Several theories have been elaborated to describe the regional
systems, one of the most significant of which is the Regional Security Complex Theory
(RSCT) of Barry Buzan8 and Ole Weaver.9 The theory provides a possibility to
describe the regional security communities. The authors set out international security as
a inclusive phenomenon, as the actors of the international system affect each other and
depend on each other, especially in the dimension of security. The RSCT was first
published in 1983, and it has been undergone significant changes and modifications
later, just as international studies as a whole. The 1983 version has been regarded as the
Classical Security Complex Theory (CSCT) since then. It applies the classical elements
of the theory of international relations. According to this, the regional security complex
is a group of countries whose security concerns are so closely interlinked that they
cannot be solved independently. This classical theory regards the state as the basic unit
of international relations and it defines security only in its closer, political and military
dimension. Parallel to the development of international studies, new dimensions and
basic units have been identified as well. Therefore, according to the present definition
of the RSCT, the complex is a set of units whose problems concerning security or the
lack of security or both are so much interlinked that they cannot be analysed or solved
appropriately without considering the other. When applying the theory in practice,
representatives of RSCT elaborated its application to all regions of the world. In the
course of its practical application, the definition of a super-complex and sub-complex
emerged. A super-complex comprises several complexes that are in relative security
dependence from each other. Whereas a sub-complex is a small group that generally,
forms a relative security unit within a complex and can be characterised by specific
security features and problems. These features distinguish the states (units) concerned
from other elements of the complex.
274
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
Based on Weaver’s 1+4+11 theory, the representatives of RSCT distinguish a
superpower, four great powers, and 11 regional security complexes in the world. In
addition, they outlined two super-complexes too, a European and an Asian. The
European super-complex is a security system comprising the European continent that is
basically constituted by two – an EU-European and a post-Soviet – regional security
complexes. The European security complex is one of the oldest security systems that
can be traced back to the Roman Empire. The European security system has undergone
significant changes throughout history that were generally caused by influences arising
from the East. In the era of regionalism, after the Cold War, three security complexes
evolved temporarily: the EU-European, the post-Soviet, and the Balkan complex.
However, at the beginning of the 21st century only two complexes prevailed as well as
an intermediate region between the two complexes, which currently constitutes an area
of expansion for the EU-European complex. As to its type, the EU-European complex
is a centred regional security complex, the internal power structure of which being a
unipolar system. The changes of European security can be characterised by a process of
institutionalisation the central element of which is integration, i.e. the establishment of a
hegemonic system that could as well lead to the abolition of the complex in the long
run. The EU-European regional security complex is the most institutionalised region in
the world. Western and Central Europe make up the complex. The central power of the
complex is the European Union, which is not a regional power but a global great power.
In the EU-European complex, there are several sub-complexes. One of these is the
Central European Regional Security Sub-complex (CE RSSC).
When applying the RSCT of Barry Buzan to Central Europe we can conclude that
considering the region’s security system it forms part of the European security complex.
Nevertheless, because of its characteristics and situation it constitutes a particular subcomplex, as it features characteristics different from the European RSC. Its security
structure and system can be examined as well, though these have shown significant
differences in certain historical moments (between paradigm shifts).
Considering the historical periods of the regions’ examination, in the last two
centuries we can distinguish four periods in Central Europe:
• up to 1919: the time of the Habsburg Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy;
• 1919–1945: Trianon and the Little Entente;
• 1945–1990: the Cold War;
• From 1990: the time of the Euro-Atlantic integration.
The Central European region constituted an autonomous regional security (sub-)
complex in the period of the Habsburg Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
despite the fact that the European security system was determined by alliances and
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
275
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
treaties. In this period, the region had a power potential to determine European
processes that ensured the autonomy of its security structure and the minimisation of
external influences. The (sub-)complex functioned as a centralised system, the great
power of which was the Habsburg Empire and consecutively the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy. The complex had a confliction character, as it was at war with its neighbours
because of the continuous expansion of the Monarchy, and because the wars started in
the name of the European alliances became permanent. In spite of this, the central
power of the sub-complex aimed at maintaining the status quo. However, the
inconsistency of the Monarchy that stemmed from its multiethnic character contributed
to the instability of the region, which was further increased by the creation of strong
great powers in the neighbourhood of the region following the unification of Germany
and Italy, both of which exerted a significant influence on the Monarchy. The elements
of the Central European (sub-)complex other than the Monarchy were the neighbouring
states on which the Monarchy as a continental great power exerted significant influence
in the course of its Southern expansion. Apart from the Monarchy, the Balkan countries
established on the territory of the shrinking Osman Empire (the Duchy of Rumania, the
Duchy of Serbia, and Bosnia), as well as Poland, and prior to the unification of
Germany and Italy the states neighbouring the Monarchy (the Kingdom of Bavaria, the
Kingdom of Saxony, and Venice) formed part of the (sub-)complex too. These
neighbouring countries were held in security dependence from the Monarchy. Further,
at the end of the 19th century, Germany and Italy as Europe’s central powers can be
counted to this complex too. The existence of the (sub-)complex ruled by the Monarchy
ceased with the paradigm shift brought about by the end of the Great War and a new
(sub-)complex emerged, the security structure and basic security features of which
differed from those of the previous ones.
The interwar Central European Security Sub-Complex evolved from the peace treaties
of Paris, i.e., under external influences. The central great power of the sub-complex, the
Austro-Hungarian Monarchy ceased to exist and a region emerged that was made up by
nation states created on the territory of the Monarchy. This region can be characterised as
a standard regional security complex because the countries concerned determined the
security structure of the region collectively. The internal structure of the region showed a
confliction character that arouse from the exposure to external influence and the
opposition10 between the countries constituting it. This feature of a standard regional
security complex was further enhanced by the fact that none of the countries in the region
possessed a power potential necessary to dominate the region in respect of its security
dimension. The internal structure reflected rather a system based on balancing that was
meant to be created by the external – influencing – powers. The security structure created
276
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
artificially and controlled under external influences remained unstable despite the fact that
it collapsed and lost its relative autonomy only because of a radical external impact (the
expansion of the Third Reich) and became a part of the European (war-time) security
complex created by the Third Reich.
After World War II, the international community again tried to restore forcefully the
security structure of the inter-war era in the region. However, the presence of the Red
Army as well as the evolution of the bipolar confrontation resulted in a new structure in
which the Central European region became a part of the regional security supercomplex created by the Soviet Union. In the Cold War era, regional systems lost their
importance because of the global conflict. At that time, all security complexes reflected
the global conflict.
The importance of regional systems was highlighted following the end of the bipolar
world order, from 1990 or rather the mid-1980s, as the two confronting great powers –
especially in economic terms – did not wish to be present in every region anymore. The
Regional Security Complex Theory evolved this time.
In the early 1990s, the buffer zone created in Europe by the conflict of the super
powers ceased to exist. After the democratic changes in the Central European countries,
the withdrawal and consecutively the collapse of the Soviet Union, a security vacuum
emerged in Central Europe. As a consequence, the Central European countries created a
new security structure which resulted in a new autonomous regional security complex.
As a result of the new security system, the countries were compelled to co-operate
which included the initiative of the Visegrád Three (Four). The security structure of the
complex was significantly influenced by the ethnic wars and wars of independence in
the former Yugoslavia. The complex reached its highest level of autonomy in this
period (1990–1994). As to its nature, the complex can be characterised as a standard
complex that was made up as a security system of relatively equal actors. In this period,
the actors’ interdependence had a negative impact on the establishment of relations that
were burdened by historical experiences. In spite of the problems, it rather functioned
as a co-operative than a conflictual system, as the countries concerned faced similar
security challenges and problems. The relative autonomy of the complex lasted up until
1994, when the Eastern expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance and the European
Union began. In the period of integration, the Central European security structure
proved to be homogenous as the countries concerned faced the same security
challenges, and also their security ambitions (to be summed up by their wish of a
successful integration) were identical. However, the nature of the complex after 1994
was rather competitive than co-operative, because the Central European countries opted
for competition along with co-operation in the course of their integration in order to
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
277
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
reach accession as soon as possible. Competition pushed also regional fora of cooperation into the background. In this period, the Central European security complex
was made up by the V4 countries. However, after their integration had been completed,
the complex lost even its relative autonomy, as it definitively became part of a greater
security complex, the EU-European security complex, as its relatively uniform
subsystem (sub-complex). The first period of the integration process that comprised
Central Europe took place between 1999 and 2004 but it is to continue in the years
2007–2012 when the Central European sub-complex could further expand.
After the completion of the region’s integration, the question emerged whether the
Central European sub-complex will continue to exist or it will dissolve into the EUEuropean complex. As to the region’s security structure and the security problems of
the region’s countries, we can conclude that the Central European countries still form
an autonomous sub-complex within the EU-European complex. The region still
constitutes a particular security structure as part of a wider security structure (the EuroAtlantic security system) because of its historical heritage, cultural influences, and
economical problems, as the countries concerned have similar security problems even
after their accession. As a result of this, the security interdependence between the
region’s countries is much greater than the dependence from other countries and regions
of the EU-European complex.
The Central European Regional Security Sub-complex (CE RSSC) is likely to remain
an autonomous regional security sub-complex in the medium term too, as it still shows
specific features characteristic only to the region. The sub-complex is still greatly
influenced by the security system constituted by NATO and the EU that have become
autonomous elements (units) of the sub-complex and exert a significant level of influence
over the security structure of the region. On this basis, the CE RSSC has a structure
centralised by international organisations, with a great level of external influence. The
region – along with other regions of Europe – is to become the most institutionalised
region of the world, which could result in the termination of internal security processes.
However, because of the nation state ambitions of the Central European countries, an end
of the RSSC is not likely to be expected in the medium term.
Notes
1. There have been disputes over the very name of the region as well. Bibó regarded this region ‘East
Central Europe’.
2. Apart from economical and political aspects, military, religious, cultural, and ethnic dimensions have to
be considered as well.
3. Prior to the Monarchy, the Habsburg Empire had ruled the region.
278
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
CS. VIDA: Central European Regional Security Sub-Complex
4. Greece is an exception to this statement.
5. Bibó’s position has influenced the spread of the name ‘East Central Europe’. The name East Central
Europe characterises the region not only in geographical terms but in other aspects too.
6. In the framework of international security studies, I outline the dimensions of security according to a wider
notion of security and not its traditional sense. So, the dimensions of security – taking into account the
definition of Barry Buzan – are the political, military, economical, societal, and environmental dimensions.
7. The Habsburg Empire was not able to pursue a politics that could have determined European processes
despite the fact that the Habsburgs were related to most of the royal families of Europe. Milan Hodža
who – in his book ‘Federation in Central Europe’ characterises the foreign policy of the Monarchy by its
dependence from Germany, a central figure to which was Emperor Francis Joseph, best described the
role of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in respect of European politics.
8. Barry Buzan is a professor of international studies at the London School of Economics and project
director of the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute.
9. Ole Weaver is professor of international studies at the University of Copenhagen.
10. The core element of the conflict was the fact that the peace talks of Paris that ended the Great War
ignored the ethnic structure of the region.
Bibliography
BARRY BUZAN, OLE WEAVER, Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security (Cambridge
University Press 2003) – ISBN 0521891116.
BARRY BUZAN, OLE WEAVER, JAAP DE WILDE, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (Lynne Rienner
Publisher 1998) – ISBN 1555877842.
DAVID A. LAKE, PATRICK M. MORGAN, Regional Orders: Building Security in a New World (Pennsylvania
State University 1997) – ISBN 271017004X.
ERSEL AYDINLI, JAMES N. ROSENAU, Globalization, Security and the Nation State (State University of New
York Press, Albany 2005) – ISBN 0791464016.
JÁNOS MATUS, A jöv árnyéka. Nemzetközi hatások biztonságunkra és jólétünkre [The Shadow of the Future.
International Influences on our Security and Welfare] (Pesti Csoport Kft 2006).
OLE WEAVER, Scenarios for the European Supercomplex (Koli Border Forum 2004, draft presentation).
CSABA VIDA, A regionális biztonsági komplexum elmélete és alkalmazása Közép-Európára [The Regional
Security Complex Theory and its Application to Central Europe] (paper).
AARMS 6(2) (2007)
279