Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:57:06 PST
From:         Joe Pannon <pannon@BCSFSE.BOEING.COM>
Subject:      Re: Slovakia's Hydro-energy Potentials
              Nov 9, 92 8:04 am

Dear Marian:

I'd like to reply to some of the things you've stated:

>   1 In the treaty about Gabcikovo dam system the Hungary recognized
>     the borders set up by trianon treaty. It was the first and only
>     time they do it.

Yes, and the Trianon treaty defined the borders as the MAIN SHIPPING
CHANNEL in the Danube.  By diverting the main shipping channel into
Slovakia, that treaty is unilaterally violated.

>   2. PM Antal cals himself to be "the prime minister of all magyars
>      regardless the country they live in".

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.

>   3. The defence minister said that he will defend all magyars in
>      surrounding countries.

I am not sure of what exactly he said, but I would almost be willing to
bet, that what he meant was this:  should there be a some kind of pogrom
committed against the Hungarian minority in neighboring countries, the
Hungarian government might find it difficult to resist public opinion to
do something about it.  I think what may have given rise to this
statement is the real danger Hungarians face down South, in Vojvodina.
The Serbs might extend their "ethnic cleansing" policy to that area.

>   4. Another hungarian offitials speak about "calm changes of the
>      borders"

As you know, the Helsinki Accords do not prohibit peaceful changes in
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?

>   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
suppression, anyway?  That's what all the black leaders in America speak
about, too, yet I haven't heard that being held against them.
Why is it wrong for ethnic Hungarians ask similar things for
themselves vis a vis the Slovaks, as the Slovaks wanted for themselves
vis a vis the Czech (minus the separate state, of course)?  As they say
around here: What's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

>   This all are points that make the Gabcikovo to be the political
>   problem. But it is not the Slovak side that do it.

Oh really?  I think Patrik M. pretty much gave lie to that theory of yours
in his earlier message.

>   To my best knowledge. The apostolic double cross was always the
> symbol of "upper Hungary"(Slovakia) and the strips were the sybol of
> the south of Hungary. You can see the cross in lot of town's emblems
> in Slovakia. The mountains are said to symbolize the relief of
> Slovakia and the strips are hungarian rivers. The double cross is
> linked to Konstantin's and Metod's arrival to the town of Nitra and
> to the christianization of Slovak's. The colors were changed by the
> members of L. Stur's movement in previous century to fit the Slavians
> colors.

Thanks for that convincing information, though I never heard of the
double-cross being the symbol any more for upper Hungary than for the
rest.  To my understanding the apostolic cross symbolized the apostolic
origin of Hungarian Kingdom; namely, that Stephen of Hungary received
the crown from Pope Sylvester II.  Such kings were called "apostolic" in
contemporary Europe.  But be that as it may, my curiosity is finally
satisfied.

Regards,
Joe Pannon

P.S.:  Let me take this opportunity also to acknowledge the receipt of
Patrik M.'s message regarding recent history to which I'll answer
shortly.  It will be easy, but I need to collect my sources first.  JP
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU