> Felado : 
> : Csaba Zolta1ni wonders why the Slovak-Hungarian basic treaty was any good,
> Now, is that fair? He asked why it should be considered brilliant, or a coup
.
Well, now that you point it out, possibly this was not an entirely fair
characterization of his attitude -- if something was lost in my effort to
compress the dialogue I apologize. On the other hand, I _did_ get the
distinct impression that he thinks the treaty is no good.
> Slovako-Magyars (should that be Hungaro-Slovaks?) were `adversely
> affected' by the treaty, at least in their humble opinions, and the negative
> reports have, I guess, to do with the judgement that the treaty may just
> have been a papering over of differences for the sake of appearances.
Treaties are about "papering over of differences", isn't that the main point?
> : The basic reality against which this Basic Treaty must be
> : measured is the fact that both Slovakia and Romania are terrified of
> : Hungarian agression...
> Mit der Dummheit ka2mpfen Go2tter selbst vergebens.
Yes, but is it strictly stupidity or is it a calculated political strategy
on the part of the political elites? To create/point to an external enemy is
something politicians beset by internal troubles have been known to do.
> Sorry, the Emperor may have a feather in his cap, but he's a long way from
> dressed...
Yes indeed. They have done a lot less than they could have, and there is
little doubt that my favorite SZDSZ is also to blame. Where is the liberal
Media Law? What was this heavy-handed nonsense about the director of
Mu3csarnok? More importantly, what is this stalinist law regulating the
Secret Services? Is Kuncze asleep at the wheel?
Andra1s Kornai
|
Dear Fellow-listmembers,
The recently-signed treaty between Slovakia and Hungary has also drawn
its share of attention here. Here's a summary of a few articles from
the Czech press, it doesn't claim to be complete, these are just the
things I noticed.
The first more lengthy press reaction I saw was a report in _Lidove
Noviny_ on March 20, in which Attila Lova1sz discussed the newly-
signed treaty. He ranked it as a success for Edouard Balladur, who
should be on the whole contented, not just with the signing of the
Euroean stability pact, but with the Meciar-Horn agreement, too. Such
treaties had been called for ever since the old Eastern bloc had col-
lapsed, and, aside from the Gabcikovo affair, the only real issue
dividing Slovakia and Hungary was the minority question, where differ-
ing understanding of international agreements and recommendations,
especially with regard to collective rights, stood in the way. The
speed with which the agreement was prepared and signed awakened fears
among minority representatives that they were being left out; they
wanted to participate in its drafting. Representatives of the
Hungarian parties in Slovakia called for yearly evaluations and some
mechanism of control, or they would work for the treaty's nullifica-
tion. Opposition parties also called for some form of control, other-
wise the treaty would be "another piece of paper which is signed with
great pomp and then quickly forgotten." The Czech republic should be
interested in one aspect of the treaty: minority representatives had
called for the dissolution of the so-called Benes decrees, but that
point had been dropped. The decrees don't have such significance for
Slovakia as for the Czech lands, and Meciar probably didn't want to
jeopardize Czech-Slovak relations (especially in light of the recent
court decision). He then says the ratification process may show just
to what extent this will be a new foundation for Slovak-Hungarian
relations, or another worthless piece of paper.
Directly above Lova1sz's article in the same issue was a brief report
about a demonstration of "several thousand" people in Budapest, call-
ing the treaty "a second Trianon."
The next day, LN carried a summary of Slovak press reactions (a fuller
picture of what the Slovak press is writing can be gained by reading
the full-text editions of several Slovak dailies now available on the
Slovak Document Store in WWW). The pro-government _Slovenska
Republika_ headlined: "Slovakia and Hungary Enter Uniting Europe,"
but also mentioned the note that Slovak foreign minister Schenk gave
his Hungarian colleague, in which the Slovak government expresses
"surprise at the misinterpretation of the text of the treaty from the
Hungarian side with regard to the clause regulating the position of
national minorities." The Slovak side, according to the paper,
rejects the Hungarian position that it had accepted the Recommendation
of the Council of Europe's parliamentary session, No. 1201, in the
sense of allowing autonomous minority self-administration. The Slovak
government did not accept any formulation based on collective rights,
and which would allow the creation of autonomous structures on an eth-
nic basis. _Narodna Obroda_'s headline was: "Bratislava and Budapest
Took a Step in Paris to Historical Reconciliation." _Narodna Obroda_
also carried an interview with MKDH chairman Be1la Buga1r, in which he
said that the Council of Europe recommendation No. 1201 would from now
on have the status of a constitutional, and not just a political docu-
ment as up to now. He did, however, admit that the representatives of
Hungarian parties had several times clashed with Meciar's cabinets
only because of their lack of goodwill, which would allow unnecessary
conflicts to be avoided. Buga1r warned against minority representa-
tives choosing non-participation in the committee overseeing imple-
mentation of the treaty, as a repetition of previous decisions "about
us without us." He left open the question of MKDH support for
ratification. The left-wing _Pravda_ wrote, "On the Seine Good Neigh-
bors Met," stressing the friendly tone of the premiers speeches, and
saying that "Slovakia is an example" of the usefulness of the con-
ference on stability, as a sort of pre-emptive resolver of problems
regarding minorities. "It appears that Slovakia fulfilled its highest
expectations," wrote _Pravda_. It also looked at how much notice the
conference received in France. The opposition _Sme_ called the pact
"historic," and devoted an entire page to Hungarian-Slovak relations,
in which it cited public opinion research showing that mutual
tolerance among Slovaks and Hungarians is highest in the south, where
Magyars live, than in the north, where there are very few; but that
minority autonomy as an idea meets with stronger rejection in the
south than in the rest Slovakia. In commentary, it notes that the
Hungarian-Slovak treaty is "really the only genuine success of the
conference" on the Pact of Stability, where the other Central European
states have not managed to sign the more than one hundred proposed
agreements.
Finally, the weekly _Respekt_ carries an interview with the Hungarian
politolog at ELTE, Istva1n Schlett. It's not directly a comment on
the treaty, but it does have some relevance. The interviewer is
_Respekt_'s regular Budapest contributer, Maciej Szymanowski. His
first question is about Trianon and the current Hungarian public's
attitudes towards the fate of minorities abroad. Schlett replies:
"Our institute recently carried out detailed research in this
area. The following results turned up: right behind Gypsies, the
nation that awakens the greatest antipathy in Hungary, come the "for-
eign" Hungarians, that is members of the Hungarian minorities in
neighboring countries. What does this mean in practice? If, for
example, the situation in Transylvania developed in the same direction
as in Yugoslavia--and given the tension that reigns there in ethnic
affairs it isn't so very unlikekly--and if the Magyars there began a
mass exodus, Hungarian public opinion would react simply, they would
close the borders, dig trenches, in short, drop down the iron
curtain."
[Sz: That's quite a shocking statement...] "Only apparently, in
this part of Europe. Please note how quickly parliamentary democracy
renewed itself in Central Europe. And how terribly difficult it is to
increase the effectiveness of the system of institutions that it
called into life. Our political parties look outwardly just like
those in other European countries. They lack only a minor tech-
nicality, a political hinterland. Approximately two thirds of the
voters change parties from election to election. People have shown
the ability to choose between the proffered alternatives, but they
haven't shown the ability to connect to a party. The main reason is
the absolute atomization of post-communist society. Group solidarity,
even in such a primary form as national solidarity, has survived among
them in a very fragmented form. On the other hand, Hungary already is
dominated by TV democracy. It can't be ruled out, therefore, that
pictures of some drastic scene in Transylvania or Slovakia on the TV
would change the attitudes of the public to the extent that it would
be unexpectedly ready to spill its blood for its oppressed brethren.
Experience teaches us that the simplest form of group solidarity to
revive in Central and Eastern Europe is national solidarity."
[Sz: Could it be a question of the loosening of national, group,
and finally even family ties in the framework of general modernization
trends?] "If at all, then only really minimally. From a very simple
reason. Hungary, like the other lands who were under Soviet hegemony,
certainly underwent a modernization process after World War II, but it
was only a pseudo-modernization. It could be shown in gross figures,
of course, that employment in agriculture shrank by such and such a
percent. It can't be shown, though, that it is a modern agriculture,
since for example many types of physical preparatory labour declined
minimally. It can be shown that urbanization increased. But again it
is not urbanization typical for a modern society. It only looks that
way. It's not enough to start to consider the place people dwell a
city. Certain levels of cultural infrastructure also belong to
urbanization. And besides, what kind of modernization can we speak
of, when in 1938 Hungary represented approximately 70% of Austrian
levels, and today it is only at about 30% of that level. As far as I
know, in the Czech Republic's case the decline is even more drastic.
In my opinion it's a question above all of the atomization
inherited from the former system. It doesn't depend on whether one
presents oneself as "premier of 15 million" like Jo1zsef Antall, or as
"premier of 10 million" as the present prime minister Horn did in his
parliamentary speech, the Hungarian citizen is much more interested in
the rate of devaluation of the forint and the results of the first
football league than in the fate of his countrymen abroad."
***********************************
On a related note, about the Benes decrees: I simply haven't been able to
make the time to go to the library, look them up, copy them, and translate
them for the list. Maybe soon...
Sincerely,
Hugh Agnew
|
