From: Lubosh <Lubosh.Hanuska@anu.edu.au>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Subject: the "Hungarian" problem
Date: 12 Nov 1992 22:21:09 GMT
Organization: ANU Canberra
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.49.16
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11
X-XXDate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 17:21:15 GMT

Hi Joe,
I don't intend to mess up your discussion with Marian, but let me just
tell you that you are wrong in a few points you made. Apparently you are
one of the people who never lived either in Hungary or in Slovakia
(particularly in a part with mixed population), so I'd like to add the
following comments for your enlightment:
You wrote:

>Most Hungarians understood that statement to be symbolic; an expression
>that finally there will be a government in Budapest that will no longer
>keep quiet when the human and ethnic rights of fellow Hungarians are
>violated in the successor states.  This is in marked difference from the
>previous communist governments in Hungary.
>
>No Hungarian in his right mind understood that Antall statement
>literally.

My opinions on this are supported by my personal experience in Slovakia
(not only to speak about Mr Durray who is just a top of an iceberg):
a/ even if most Hungarians in Hungary understood this statement of Mr
Antall as a symbolic one, most Hungarians outside Hungary did take it
very literally !!! Are you aware of the turmoil it caused in the
neighbouring countries, especially Romania ?
b/ A politician should not use statements which are symbolic without
stating "this is a symbolic statement" ! 
c/ It's nice to talk about those people in their right mind, but there
always are some who just aren't in their right mind in every nation...

>statement is the real danger Hungarians face down South, in Vojvodina.
>The Serbs might extend their "ethnic cleansing" policy to that area.
Just a comment: There are over 50,000 Slovaks in Vojvodina, and I haven't
heard any militant statement from a Slovak official. 

>borders, only those made by war.  The official policy of Hungarian
>government however does not advocate even peaceful changes.  So what
>difference does it make if some officials (and I don't even know what
>officials?) speak about anything.  Talk is cheap, and besides, it's a
>free country.  I am sure there are some Slovaks who also talk about
>things that contradict official policy there.  So what?
This seems to me like saying - let's talk about anything, let's offend
anyone. Are you aware of somethging like a diplomatic ethic ? It is not a
cheap talk ! I know this is many times violated by some East European
country politician, especially because of their lack of experience (this
is especially true about a bit more aggressive politicians like Mr
Meciar). But let me tell you that despite your statement of Hungarians
not willing to change their border there is a lot of expectations to hold
a referendum on the change of borders in areas around Komarno in the
future. Even when there was not an official statement from the Hungarian
government, there is a vcommon knowledge of support of these demands from
some Hungarian officials.

>>   5. Mr. Duray (boss of Egyutelles- magyar party in S) speaks about
>>      ethnic supression everywhere he goes.
>
>The boss???  I thought he was elected into his position.  Can we call
>Mr. Meciar a boss, too?  What's wrong talking about the ethnic
 As I said above, there are many paralels between militant policies of
some Hungarian groups and Mr Meciar's aggresive defence of the regions
with mixed population. However, there are international treaties
protecting the rights of Hungarian minority, and I believe their rights
are protected on a high enough level. Let's just have a look on the
situation of Slovaks in Hungary - they have the same rights, but their
demands obviously are not so huge as those of Hungarians in Slovakia...

Well , if you want, can you tell us a bit about your Christian
background. I personally am a religious person, and I meet people who do
not practice any religion talking about anything with such a *great
confidence*... The apostolic double cross was the symbol used by Sts
Cyrillus and Methodius when they brought Christianity to the Great
Moravian empire in 863 A.D. It was used as the symbol of Upper Hungary
and placed on top of three hills (Tatra, Matra, Fatra). As you can see
the Matra mountains are in Northern Hungary, so there is a "Hungarian"
conection to it. Nevertheless, what was called Upper Hungary within the
Austro-Hungarian empire was formed by what is today Slovakia, and only a
small part of Hungary, so there is no reason for calling Slovakia "Upper
Hungary" today. And as to the most glorified symbol of Hungarian
tradition - yes, it is the Crown of St Stephen, but have a look at the
cross on the top of it, and you'll be surprised that not only it's not
doubled, but it's not even straight.

And to finish - I am aware that there are not many sources to favour a
reconciliation of Slovaks and Hungarians, but I certainly hope that there
will be a way to find a solution to all problems to satisfy both sides.
It just needs a lot of good will on both sides.
Regards,
Lubosh