Jobbik - The Movement for a Better Hungary: Statement Made by the Foreign Affairs Committee of Jobbik

Statement Made by the Foreign Affairs Committee of Jobbik
================================================================================
admin on 09/12/2008 10:04:00
 
This conflict has been brought about by the respective elites of the two
countries, each simultaneously aspiring to power yet doing so by applying
diametrically opposed values and policies.
Since the time of regime change, the succession of Socialist / Liberal
governments holding power in Hungary, and the forces in the background that have
supported them, have conspired in: the diminishing of the Hungarians’ economic
and political strength, their culture, and their ability to reproduce; in
destroying their hopes for the future and their faith in themselves; and, in
ridiculing their traditions and their national identity. It is only natural
therefore, that within the climate of such a policy within the Hungarians own
country, that the internal and external forces against which the historically
present Hungarians of the Carpathian basin (outside of Hungary) find that their
survival is pitted, have been encouraged to grow.
In stark contrast, the political elite of Slovakia - a country that never
existed historically - has come to produce in the form of their parties and
politicians a culture of generating and maintaining the most chauvinistic
nationalism and Hungarophobia as the key characteristic of continuing in power.
The emergence of this trend can be dated to their diversion of the Danube,
performed unilaterally in 1993, which signified the violation of the relevant
articles of the Trianon Peace Treaty; to which the Hungarian government of the
day raised no objection.
It is the misalliance of these two trends that have led to those situations of
conflict, that can accurately be described as occurring daily in the life of
Hungarians living in the far North; and in the relations between the two
countries. Given the basic state of affairs, and bearing in mind that the power
aspirations and attitudes of Hungary’s and Slovakia’s political elites
remain unchanged, when viewed from the historical perspective of the 88 years
that have elapsed since the Treaty of Trianon was signed: this conflict must be
regarded as likely to persist for an unknown period of time.
II. However, the timidity that characterises Hungarian foreign policy since the
regime change, has not found itself rewarded for being the teacher’s pet. At
Yalta, Hungary, on the losing side, received the same fate in punishment, that
the winners who also found themselves stranded on the wrong side of the Iron
Curtain (Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania) received as a reward. Now Slovakia,
personified in the trio of Meciar-Slota-Fico, as well as Iliescu’s and
Funar’s Romania, have become NATO and EU members exactly like Hungary; which
in stark contrast has shown itself to be an exemplary democracy, in which the
state has pumped hundreds of billions into the self-determination of its
“minority” communities, who have neither spoken their ethnic languages for
centuries nor significantly practised their culture in any form. (What has
really been the subject of generous financing here is the willingness to ask the
government for a handout.)
It was to be expected that the course chosen successive Hungarian governments
since 2002: including the obvious desertion of Hungarian minorities,
anti-democratic disregard for the system of trans-national
Hungarian-to-Hungarian institutions, the foolish importation of division into
internal politics, the denationalisation policy of “daring to be small”, as
well as the artificial inducement of internal tensions between our own national
minorities and the Hungarians; would only add fuel to the fire.
To add insult to injury, Hungary’s economic position finds itself worsening
by the day, both when viewed in relation to its own past, and the comparative
dynamism of its neighbours.
All of the above, have contributed to a circumstance, in which the reduced
status of the parent nation no longer serves as an exemplar to the indigenous
Hungarian minorities existing outside its home borders. And so, not only has
Hungarian identity lost its appeal, but also the motivation to daily engage in
the practice of Hungarian culture and traditions has receded; the opportunity to
engage in Hungarian-to-Hungarian economic contacts has vanished, while the
prospects for wealth creation for a Hungarian-speaking middle-class have
perished; and this has happened as much for a diminished parent nation, as it
has for ethnic Hungarians in the bordering countries.
Can we blame parents bringing up their children as best as they can, for
thinking that in such an environment their sons and daughters had better break
with their Hungarian identity if they are to get ahead in life? For sending
their children to Slovak, Romanian, Serb or Ukrainian schools, or for
discouraging same-ethnicity partnerships and thus doing without the happy hubbub
of Hungarian-speaking grandchildren? What else can they be expected to do once
their parent country has abandoned them?
III. Many people think that the Treaty of Trianon and the Peace of Versailles
are unchangeable, though regrettable, events that should be confined to the
pages of history. However we wish to state as a matter of immediacy, that for
such Hungarian minorities this is not a question about a bygone grievance that
should not be mentioned; it is a question of humiliations suffered daily and in
the course of day to day life, of acts of negative cultural and economic
discrimination, of the impossibility of being committed to one’s identity as a
Hungarian and leading a Hungarian way of life.
Jobbik wishes to make it clear, that for Hungarians living worldwide, the
dictates of Trianon cannot be consigned to history. Until the situation of
Hungarian minorities living in neighbouring countries, that total almost three
million (though their number are constantly subject to reduction and
assimilation), is justly and fairly settled to their satisfaction: by creating
an environment, guaranteed by the majority state, that allows them to prosper
economically, to practise their Hungarian culture and language daily, and to
maintain their Hungarian identity in the long run. In the case of Slovakia, the
first step to achieving this would be to invalidate the Benes Decrees, which
legally stigmatise Hungarians as a community through the application of the
principle of collective guilt.
Indigenous Hungarians living in some of the neighbouring countries, particular
in Slovakia, have been forced to accept for eighty-eight years now, a situation
which actively humiliates them and prevents them from living a life in
concordance with their identity, owing to the deliberate economic, cultural and
civil rights discrimination practised against them by the majority state. These
countries have had eighty-eight years to prove that the violent dismemberment of
the historical Hungary was justified, and that the successor states have created
more equitable conditions for their own minorities, than they think they
themselves had when they lived in the historical Hungary of that time.
History has shown their efforts to be considerably wanting, since the fate of
Hungarian minorities living in the present successor states can be said to be
significantly worse when compared to the situation of minorities in Hungary of
the early 1900’s. Not only do they bear an unfavourable direct comparison, but
fail abysmally in the light of the fact that currently accepted standards of
human rights have had three generations to rise to a higher level.
IV. The Constitution of the Hungarian Republic, as proclaimed on 23 October
1989 includes the following sentence: “The Republic of Hungary bears a sense
of responsibility for what happens to Hungarians living outside of her borders
and promotes the fostering of their relations with Hungary.” It is high time
those Hungarian governments in power enforced this constitutional obligation; to
stand up for the interests of our ethnic brothers and sisters living in the
neighbouring countries in a forceful, consistent and resolute manner. All the
Hungarian government need do is cite the whole series of international
agreements proclaiming the rights of minorities, such as:
2.) System of protecting the minorities by the League of Nations;
3.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1946;
4.) UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education;
5,) UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966;
6.) Helsinki Declaration, 1975;
7.) Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic,
Religious and Linguistic Minorities (UN General Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18
December 1992)
8.) European Convention on Human Rights;
9.) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;
10.) Recommendation No. 1201 of the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe, OSCE (1993)
Moreover it is the obligation of the Hungarian government, laid down in
international law, to demand with the utmost resolution that Slovakia should
restore the principal channel of the Danube to its original bed, indicated in
Paragraph 4, Article 27, Part II of the Treaty of Trianon as the border between
the two countries named using the phrase “the principal channel of navigation
of the Danube upstream”. Otherwise it is now the new principal channel of
navigation between the two countries i.e. the artificial channel of Bős, that
should currently be regarded as the border, by virtue of the relevant section of
the Treaty of Trianon! We demand that the first step taken should be the
restoration of water output of the branches of the Danube on the Hungarian side
to their original levels!
V. As shown above, Hungary has the right, laid down in international
agreements, to warn Slovakia that she is obliged improve the situation of
Hungarian minorities. As long as the requirements incumbent upon the two
countries (or in the case of Slovakia, by Czechoslovakia as her legal
predecessor and signatory of these international agreements) continue to be
unfulfilled, Hungarian diplomacy has several international forums at its
disposal for the enforcement of its rights.
However this would require an entirely different kind of government.
Zsolt Varkonyi
Foreign Affairs Committee