X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:56:13 EST
From:         George Antony <gantony@METZ.UNE.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Nationalism and annointed spokespersons
              "HAMMERL@UCS.INDIANA.EDU" at Nov 11, 92 11:30 am

I am irritated by a recent trowaway line to the effect that Joe Pannon would
have presented THE Hungarian stand on the nationalism issue.  He does not
speak for all Hungarians any more than I do.  There is no single and united
Hungarian stand on most issues, least of all on the vexed topic of nationalism.

Thus, without any hope or attempt to "put the record straight", but
emboldened by George Frajkor's call for greater cross-posting to appropriate
mail-servers, I am enclosing my recent article to the list HUNGARY.

Nevertheless, I wish to put the record straight on one issue: Joe Pannon
DOES speak Hungarian.  So, please do try to get the facts right before posting.

George Antony          gantony@metz.une.edu.au

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find the direction of the recurring debate on the problem of Hungarian
minorities in Hungary's neighbours disheartening.

There can be no doubt that in some countries Hungarians are oppressed by
any definition and are in direct physical danger, in some all is well with
minority rights, and the rest are in between.

What is of little help, however, is to bring into this present-day problem
the historical baggage of the dismemberment of Hungary/the reassertion of the
rights of long-oppressed minorities (as Hungarians and their neighbours,
respectively, see the post-WWI border changes), and the issue of historical
rights.  Past is past, dredging it up offers no solutions to today's
problems, and what we need now is solutions, not settling accounts.

As most parts of Europe, the Carpathian basin has been populated by numerous
tribes and peoples.  Their settlements widely overlapped, and all of them
established what could be called "historical rights" to the land. I would
suggest, however, that this is of very limited relevance today.  By the
laws of most Anglo-Saxon ex-colonies of Britain, migrants after a few years
can obtain citizenship and, with it, the same rights as people whose ancestors
came to that land hundreds of years back (I do not wish to dwell on the issue
of the Aboriginals in these countries, as this would take too far from the
current topic).  I suggest that the question of who settled different bits of
the Carpathian basin must be approached on the same basis, that is, the
current settlement pattern.

For sure, the current pattern is the result of much past injustice, but if
one tried to roll back past injustices, where would it stop ?  First give
Kosice/Kassa back to Hungarians, then give Visegrad (Hungary) back to the
descendants of the Slavs who first inhabited it ?  What about the first
caveman evicted by his neighbour ?  Besides, is it not the Serb efforts to
undo the "injustice" of Kosovo Pole that led to the current apocalyptic scenes
on our TV screens ?  Anyone who wants to undo the past is following the same
primitive tribal logic as Milosevic and should be locked up with him, safely
away from people wanting to live in peace.

I suggest that historical rights on the basis of past settlement only extend
to the obligation of the current settlers to respect the history of others
in the same spot.  Therefore, the Albanians of Kosovo/Metohija must respect
the Serbian monasteries and Slovakians must respect such mementos of Hungarian
presence as the one-time Hungarian parliament building in Bratislava/Pozsony.

Where there are minorities, international norms of civilized treatment must
constitute the absolute minimum of official and officially enforced behaviour.
However, to build trust, much more is needed.  Some people will no doubt
find it too repetitive, but I need to refer once again to the example of
South Tyrol where the Italian government delibarately and explicitly gave
Austria almost guardian's rights to represent the local German-speaking
population in international forums.  This part of the world is, not
surprisingly, no longer the problem spot that it was in the 50s and 60s.
In my view, such agreements ought to be made between Hungary and its
neighbours, and in both directions: Hungarians in neighbouring countries,
AND ethnic minorities in Hungary.

It must be seen very clearly that there is a direct correlation between the
situation of Hungarian minorities in neighbouring countries and the economic/
political situation in the respective "host" countries.  I will not make
myself popular among some of my fellow Hungarians, but I am adamant that just
as borders are not the root of the problem, attempts to change them are not
the solution either.  It is exactly those countries where the situation of
minorities (Hungarian or otherwise) is the worst where the mere mention of
a border redraw would trigger the most extreme reaction and would rebound on
the very same Hungarians that some people purport wanting to help.  On the
other hand, where one could discuss, likely in principle but at least
amicably, border changes, is the least need for them.

Therefore, the only responsible stand that Hungarians can take vis-a-vis
the problem of Hungarian minorities in countries neighbouring Hungary is to
support the economic modernization and advancement of those countries and to
support (without the appearance of intervening in domestic political affairs)
those political forces that have a civilized attitude towards the issue of
minority rights.  In an affluent and contented Romania, etc., there will be
no need to use Hungarians as a political football, and it will matter little
where the then almost imperceptible border lies.

Moreover, my personal definition of a "decent" Hungarian is someone who can
see the problems in Hungary also and is ready to take a stand.  It is not only
the Gheorghe Funars that pose a danger: it is distinctly unhelpful to demand a
"Hungarian Lebensraum", etc.; it is a worry if such statements emanate from
prominent politicians of the senior ruling party; and it is outright alarming
if there is no firm rejection of such chauvinistic programmes on part of the
Hungarian Government.  The Hungarian Government cannot afford to appear
anything than sparkling clean in the West: if it loses its credibility in the
West, it also loses the very few levers that it can move to apply diplomatic
pressure on behalf of Hungarians across the borders.  Playing on nationalistic
feelings for short-term political gain is utterly irresponsible: if the genie
of nationalism is allowed to escape from the bottle in the countries of
Central-Eastern Europe, it is down the Yugoslav drain for everybody.

The only way out of the present bind is to create mutual trust.  This involves
a genuine effort to understand the "other side"; to respect, mutually,
sensitivities; and to work together rather against each other.

 -------------------------------------------------------------
 George Antony    (gantony@metz.une.edu.au)
 Department of Agricultural Economics and Business Management
 University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W. 2351, Australia
 Fax: (+61-67) 711531     Phone: (+61-67) 733222 (GMT +10 hrs)
 -------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU