Budapest is Always Opposed: Hungary’s Role in EU Foreign Policy Toward China
https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2026-17-1-161-173
Abstract
Amidst the overarching imperative for a common foreign policy within the European Union, the long-term challenge to its implementation regarding the People’s Republic of China is the level of intra-Union unity. Special attention in this context is drawn to the case of Hungary, which not only contests the fundamental parameters of the EU foreign policy but also actively develops multifaceted relations with China, formulating its own strategy towards the Middle Kingdom. Furthermore, this strategy of Budapest is implemented within the institutional framework of the European integration project. The aim of this article is to analyze the role and strategy of Hungary within the framework of the EU’s foreign policy towards China. Utilizing the classification of strategies employed by the small member-states within the EU’s institutional environment to maximize their influence, as proposed by K. Grøn and A. Wivel, we conclude that Budapest chooses a strategy of “normative entrepreneurship” when dealing with issues related to Beijing. This strategy addresses two primary objectives: 1) it opposes the dominant understanding of Strategic Autonomy within the European Union; and 2) represents an attempt to establish a foothold for transitioning to a “mediator” strategy between Brussels and Beijing, consequently elevating its status within the European integration project.
About the Author
S. A. Shein
HSE University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergei A. Shein – PhD (Polit. Sci.), Associate Professor, School of International Regional Studies, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies
17, Malaya Ordynka street, Moscow, 115184
References
1. Arbatova, Nadezhda K. “Strategic Autonomy of the European Union: Reality or Good Intention?” Polis. Political Studies, no. 6 (2019): 36–52 [In Russian].
2. Bolgova, Irina V., Yulia Yu. Me’lnikova, and Rafal Lisjakiewicz. “The EU China Policy in the Making: The Role of Central and Eastern Europe.” World Economy and International Relations 66, no. 6 (2022): 79–90 [In Russian].
3. Vartazarova, Ludmila S., and Irina Ja. Kobrinskaya. “Development of EU – China Relations: Expert Opinions and Forecasts, Risks and Opportunities for Russia.” Analysis and Forecasting. IMEMO Journal, no. 2 (2021): 57–70 [In Russian].
4. Perminova, Alexandra A., Samir S. Kadyrov, and Alexandra I. Krivushkova. “Regionalization of the World System: The Case of Interaction Between the PRC and Central and Eastern European Countries in Transport Infrastructure Projects.” Current Problems of Europe, no. 1 (2024): 243–262 [In Russian].
5. Romanova, Tat’yana A., Gleb V. Kotsur, Sergei V. Mazanik, and Evgenii Yu. Treshchenkov. “Strategicheskii suverenitet” Evrosoyuza i interesy Rossii. Ot teorii k politicheskim rekomendatsiyam. RIAC Policy Brief. Moscow: Russian International Affairs Council, 2023 [In Russian].
6. Garcia Herrero, Alicia, and Xu Jianwey. “China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Can Europe Expect Trade Gains?” China & World Economy 25, no. 6 (2017): 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/cwe.12222.
7. Chen, Xuechen, and Xinchuchu Gao. “Analysing the EU’s Collective Securitisation Moves Towards China.” Asia Europe Journal 20, no. 2 (2022): 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-021-00640-4.
8. Grøn, Caroline Howard, and Anders Wivel. “Maximizing Influence in the European Union After the Lisbon Treaty: From Small State Policy to Smart State Strategy.” Journal of European Integration 33, no. 5. (2011): 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2010.546846.
9. Helwig, Niklas. “EU Strategic Autonomy After the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: Europe’s Capacity to Act in Times of War.” Journal of Common Market Studies 61, no. S1 (2023): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13527.
10. Kaczmarski, Marcin. “Non-Western Visions of Regionalism: China’s New Silk Road and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union.” International Affairs 93, no. 6 (2017): 1357–1376. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iix182.
11. Matura, Tamas. “China-CEE Trade, Investment and Politics.” Europe-Asia Studies 71, no. 3 (2019): 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2019.1571166.
12. Pavlićević, Dragan. “A Power Shift Underway in Europe? China’s Relationship with Central and Eastern Europe Under the Belt and Road Initiative.” In Mapping China’s ‘One Belt One Road’ Initiative, edited by Li Xing, 249–278. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92201-0_10.
13. Scott, David. “China and the EU: A Strategic Axis for the Twenty-First Century?” International Relations 21, no. 1 (2007): 23–45. https://doi. org/10.1177/0047117807073766.
14. Shambaugh, David. “China and Europe: The Emerging Axis.” Current History 103, no. 674 (2004): 243–248.
15. Song, Weiqing, and Xiaoqing Li. “‘Eastern Opening’ Policy as Political Marketing: Populism and Hungary’s Relations with China Under the Orbán Government.” Problems of Post-Communism 71, no. 6 (2024): 592–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2024.2329878.
16. Bajerová, Alžbeta, and Richard Q. Turcsányi. “Between Defender of Values and Faithful Ally: Czech Approaches to China in the Prism of Role Theory Approach.” Studia Orientalia Slovaca 18, no. 2 (2019): 93–120.
17. Wagner, Wolfgang, and Rosanne Anholt. “Resilience as the EU Global Strategy’s New Leitmotif: Pragmatic, Problematic or Promising?” Contemporary Security Policy 37, no. 3 (2016): 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13523260.2016.1228034.
Review
For citations:
Shein S.A. Budapest is Always Opposed: Hungary’s Role in EU Foreign Policy Toward China. Journal of International Analytics. 2026;17(1):161-173. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2026-17-1-161-173
Views:
152
JATS XML
Email this article 