Introduction

This issue of the Cross-Border Review has been compiled during a rapidly changing geopolitical environment in Europe and the world in general. The year 2022 was marked by a violent assault on the sovereignty of an independent state by a foreign power obsessed with imperial delusions. The unthinkable and irrational has come to pass and not only is Putin’s war conditioned by imaginaries of (re)creating a Russian Mir in Eurasia, it is also grounded in a nihilistic zero-sum-game geopolitics. It is now not only a question of vanquishing Ukraine, Putin insists Russia is at war with the West, fighting for its survival in the face of NATO and other threats. Even in the best of times cooperation based on a recognition of mutual dependency and targeting mutual benefit was never really part of Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical repertoire. Moreover, pluralistic and liberal political cultures have been targeted by the Russian government as inimical to Russian national interests. The EU is thus an enemy because it propagates values and norms that would supposedly undermine cultural traditions and national identities.

In the face of this situation of aggression, what prospects are there for peaceful cooperation within the EU and between the EU and its neighbours? As this edition of the Cross-Border Review demonstrates, cross-border cooperation and intercultural dialogue are alive and well despite numerous challenges. They persevere not only because of the political commitments of state actors but also because of the activism of civil society groups and individuals who challenge hierarchical power structures and exclusion. Indeed, diversity and inclusion are the enemy of autocracy and anti-democratic forces; they focus on the many aspects of life that connect people across cultures rather that indulging in narcissistic narrations of national exceptionalism and difference. With this in mind, however, caution is advised: democratic values are neither given, absolute nor self-evident, they instead reflect local contexts and conditions. European democracies and the EU are well advised not to lecture others too insistently about what counts as democratic and liberal and what does not. Cooperation, to the extent it promotes inclusion – and thus social integration – should be about mutual learning and the co-creation of democratic values. These considerations are of course highly idealistic if the objective is to achieve rapid progress towards equitable economies, social justice and global governance. On the other hand, the reality of cross-border and intercultural cooperation is rather one of gradual change in ways of thinking and doing things.

In their own specific ways, the various contributions to this year’s Cross-Border Review provide a number of highly salient accounts of cooperation practices and contexts at different spatial levels. They also provide food for thought regarding the complexities of intercultural dialogue as a form of physical, mental and ideological border-crossing. The authors represent perspectives and experiences that range from the conceptual to the very practical, from the normative to the pragmatic and critical. We offer in this issue global, European, diasporic Haitian insights. Moreover, as was the case in the last edition of this series, we showcase research reports from Erasmus Plus projects that link civil society organisations operating in several different countries within Europe. These bottom-up perspectives on cooperation and dialogue provide a stimulating discussion of how horizontal learning processes help build trust and governance capacity.

Overview of this edition

Articles

In the opening contribution to discussion on cross-border cooperation and intercultural dialogue James Scott focuses attention on regional cooperation and the EU’s project of “Neighbourhood”. In doing this, Scott points out some of the concerns that the implementation of Eastern Partnership (EaP) as well as other aspects of the EU’s Neighbourhood Policy have raised. Under the present context of conflict and instability, what can be done to effectively adapt to situations of uncertainty? The main thesis of this contribution is that cooperation based around civil society networks can increase the impact, resilience and mutual benefit of EU-neighbourhood relations. Rather than apply a top-down approach that pre-supposes a specific geopolitical role for the EU within the so-called Neighbourhood, this contribution will suggest a reconceptualization of regional cooperation dynamics and support mechanisms. The essence of the suggested approach is to go beyond traditional models of structured relationships and conditionality and to revisit the idea of regional border-transcending cooperation as the construction of “civic neighbourhoods”. While this approach is not suggested as a cure-all or universal solution to cooperation dilemmas, civil society networks are a necessary resource for the building up of trust, mutual understanding and practical cooperation across issues and actors.

In the next article Aleksandar Pavleski and Rade Raljkovčevski debate the cooperation role of education which historically has been used to both build peace and foment conflict. In this regard, especially in term of their role in promoting peace, educational services are perceived as an integral part of strategic peacebuilding approaches. The connection between education services and peacebuilding strategies stems from the role that education has in the context of transforming hatred, establishing and promoting intergroup communication, relations and identities, mutual trust building and promoting social cohesion as well. They presciently recall Burton’s “human needs” concept, according to which the causes of conflicts can be found in unfulfilled basic human needs of recognition, security, and identity. Within this context the role of higher education cannot be underestimated. As an example, a new interdisciplinary master studies program implemented by three universities from Macedonia and the University of Gothenburg in Sweden is discussed in some detail. This contribution specifically focuses on the circumstances of peacebuilding under which the project has been implemented.

Another example of higher education as a vehicle for improved cross-border cooperation is provided by Miloš Petrović. In his contribution he provides insights regarding the Central European Exchange Programme for University Studies (CEEPUS) which ranks among the most recognised platforms for international higher-education collaboration specifically aimed at Central and Eastern European countries. Unlike Erasmus Plus, which has evolved from being an instrument for EU cohesion to a more international and even globally focused programme, the geographic scope of CEEPUS has remained limited to the eastern, or perhaps rather, “non-western” part of the European continent. This paper explores the role of CEEPUS in promoting closer collaboration between its two contracting parties, Serbia and Croatia. Despite its potential significance, however, the author argues that CEEPUS has not received sufficient attention in the academic literature, with this contribution the author seeks to address this gap.

Zoltán Hajdú and James Scott follow with their discussion of regional contexts for cross-border cooperation. Here the concrete focus is on the geographical idea of the Carpathian Basin and how it has been employed in post-1989 Hungarian conceptualisations of regional development and territorial cooperation across state borders. As the authors indicate, this is a contested regional idea and their contribution highlights the tensions that have emerged between different and partly competing notions of the Basin as a cooperation space. We find a spectrum of meaning-making that ranges from de-bordering Europeanization to a geographical context that is central to Hungary’s sense of place (and neighbourhood) in Europe. The approach developed by Hajdú and Scott is based on the assumption that links between geography, geographical imaginaries and questions of national identity remain highly salient. The authors take inspiration from traditions of geographical research that emphasize the subjective nature of space–society relations and their representation in geographical imaginaries. The sources used reflect scholarly and political narratives, primarily geographic and regional research, and politically narrated geographical imaginaries. As part of this undertaking, the essay highlights change and continuity in the use of the Carpathian Basin idea from the 1920s to the present. More specifically, the essay considers the consequences of Hungary-centric neighbourhood imaginaries for territorial cooperation as well as the difficulties involved in the institutionalisation of regional ideas.

We move in the next research essay from the geographically focused to the realm of conceptual debates. Federico Salvati critically engages with liberalism as an assumed foundation of international relations. He argues that attempts by the “liberal West” to regain control of the institutional nature of the international system can be seen as a reaction to the perceived fragility of the liberal order. According to Salvati, however, these attempts rest on a biased view of international relations, which tends to see the development of international governance intrinsically and necessarily connected with the diffusion and realisation of liberal values. Salvati’s approach is to explain what kind of theoretical assumptions move the Western strategy and where the perceived fragility of liberal governance comes from. Among others, he discusses how authoritarian and non-liberal actors are resisting the hegemonic universalistic pressure of the liberal world and its attempts of drawing a specific epistemological line which divides the international community into law-abiding-countries and anti-systemic actors. Using discourse analysis Salvati demonstrates how the discussion on the semantics of fundamental regulatory ideas constitutes the centre of a fierce political battle for influencing the future of the liberal system. Autocratic countries like Russia and China, while they clearly do not line up with liberal values per se, do not reject outright either. On the contrary, they try very hard to move their epistemological and linguistic boundaries to be included within the ranks of countries whose behaviour can be considered not only legitimate but even reflect the evolving nature of the international order. It emerges from the author’s analysis that all the arguments made by China and Russia are done in the name of unspecified pluralism. This is in itself a core value of the liberal system and it works as an entry point for Moscow and Beijing in manipulating successfully the semantic ideas they discuss. This is a good example of how authoritarian countries that are more socially articulated are able to learn, use and develop key semantics that allows legitimate interaction with the other members.

After this sobering assessment of the workings of the world system, we move to the realm of everyday border-crossing and migrant experience. Anja Söyünmez provides us with inspirational observations regarding place-making and identity construction as reflected in border-crossing literatures. In her essay Anja Söyünmez focuses on Haitian diaspora literature and examines transatlantic territoriality and diasporic place-making as represented in Edwidge Danticat’s Haitian short story “Children of the Sea” which forms part of her book entitled Krik? Krak! Through the concepts of dyaspora and the wake Söyünmez argues that diasporic place-making is a process of positioning and transformation which marks a space of the in-between, that Danticat defines, locates, and claims. The focus on Haitian diaspora is analysed with the help of Stuart Hall’s essay “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” and Danticat’s concept of the floating homeland. And it is this latter concept that transforms former Haitian citizens into that of the Haitian dyaspora.

Research notes from civil society networks

As part of the 2022 Cross-Border Review we also offer perspectives on cross-border cooperation as reflected in the work of civil society and multi-stakeholder networks operating across Europe and beyond. There are unbounded ecosystems of intercultural dialogue that are often neglected in more official and formal accounts of cross-border cooperation. However, the slow progress of cooperation between public agencies and governments only serve to emphasise the need for horizontal capacity-building and “de-bordering”.

In the first research note, Hannah Heyenn and here colleagues provide an overview of the INCLUDATE project which addresses the EU’s Action plan on Integration and Inclusion 2021–2027 (European Commission 2020). INCLUDATE targets adult education initiatives and is supported by the Erasmus Plus programme. It is implemented by two municipalities and five European NGOs, including two migrant associations. INCLUDATE is thus a transnational project that aims at “Educating for Inclusion”, promoting inclusive societies by empowering migrant associations in Europe and supporting public actors in their policy-making for inclusive, multicultural cities. INCLUDATE will utilise tools of community reporting and storytelling to boost community voices and learn about the experiences of migrants living in Budapest, Copenhagen, Gdynia, Palermo, and Berlin. Now that the stories have been collected, the project will seek to mirror the themes and issues addressed by the residents of migrant backgrounds back to stakeholders on local, national, and European Level. By the end of the project, each participating city will produce action plans and recommendations for more inclusive policies in all participating cities. As the authors indicate INCLUDATE aims to support:

• Migrants and migrant associations in making an impact on their own future
• Cities and other municipalities to integrate migrant needs into policies
• NGOs in collecting and spreading the needs from people of diverse backgrounds to institutions

In the second research note, Krisztina Keresztély introduces us to the EURBANITIES and EURBANITIES 2.0 projects that have been implemented based on an approach linking intercultural dialogue, education and the gamification of urban participation. The two consecutive adult education projects have spanned close to seven years since 2015 within the framework of Erasmus Plus funding. The main objective of these projects has been to empower citizens and NGOs working with them by providing them basic knowledge on the main objectives and tools of citizen participation, as well as on the way how participatory processes are going on in cities and how citizens can make their voices heard and later, collaborate with local authorities and stakeholders for achieving a sustainable local development of urban neighbourhoods. Diversity and intercultural dialogue were an essential part of both projects at several levels: through the partners’ activities, the methods used, as well as in the complexity of the final outputs including case study analyses, training curricula,  online games and a list of policy recommendations. Keresztély’s contribution discusses how interculturality and intercultural dialogue was included in the Eurbanities projects, through the partners’ work, the tools and methods used and the main results achieved.

Book reviews

Finally, two book reviews complete this year’s line-up. Both of the reviewed books deal with various aspects of Slovakian history and Hungarian-Slovakian relations and elaborate highly nuanced perspectives.

György Farkas reviews Leslie Waters’ book “Borders on the Move” which is a partial history of the Hungarian-Slovak borderlands. As Farkas elaborates, the book is brilliantly written and well researched, it represents an important resource for those interested in the complex twists and turns of Central European history and the tragedies associated with the Holocaust. However, Farkas also points to several weaknesses in the book As he notes, one rather puzzling aspect of the book is its exclusive focus on the period between 1938 and 1948 which implies neglect of the momentous events directly after World War I – indeed, everything that occurred in 1938 had a precedent 20 years earlier. Another issue that Farkas raises refers to the tragedy of population changes after 1945. In his book, Waters refers to the population arriving to Hungary as “resettled” and the whole process as one of “resettlement”. However, the fine line between a seemingly neutral concept of resettlement and the more negative connotations related to “deportation” is crossed in this book, perhaps unwittingly.

Teodor Gyelnik provides a review of István Kollais’ ‘Szlovákia királyt választ’ (Slovakia Chooses a King) and argues that a tense dichotomy exists within the Slovak narration of history. In this dichotomy, two profoundly different approaches clash with each other and there is a zero-sum game between them. One is the oversimplified narration of oppression, a “thousand years of slavery” imposed by the Hungarians. This narration became dominant as part of the Slovak national awakening during the 19 and 20^th centuries and was informed by a one-dimensional interpretation of national history and identity, pitting a Slovak “us” against the Hungarian “them”. However, the book also depicts another side of the story as there have always existed Slovak interpretations that underline coexistence and co-influence. As Kollai’s book indicates this more nuanced view of history has been overshadowed by easier, unambiguous narration of victimisation and conflict. As Gyelnik explains, Kollai’s book highlights a more complex picture of history that is capable of highlighting and reflecting situational dependence (peaceful or sometimes tense) between linguistic and cultural groups. In this reading, the Slovak people participated on the everyday life of the Hungarian Kingdom for centuries, but at the same time they preserved their own ethnicity. Hence, there is a clear historical basis for legitimising Slovak claims for autonomy and independence.