Hungarian American Coalition News, 1992 (1. évfolyam, 2. szám)
1992 / 2. szám
Clinton’s Vision for Himgarian/Ameriean Relations (Continued from page 1) Questionnaire to Presidential Candidate Many observers believe the current Foreign Aid allocation to be inadequate to Hungary’s demonstrated potential to help lead a turbulent region to political and economic stability. In contrast to the policies and practices of neighboring Serbia and Rumania, for example, Hungary’s foreign policy has consistently promoted the security interests and human rights standards set by the United Nations, the CSCE and the EC. The democratically-elected government of Hungary has implemented programs to speed market reform, promote democratic institutions, and reform the country’s military and justice systems. (1.) Considering the foregoing, will you support and implement a foreign assistance program which increases Hungary’s share of the assistance provided to East Central Europe? (2.) Please identify the concrete components of this program, including the proposed level of funding for each component. (3.) As part of the assistance program, will you seek to provide Hungary greater access to U.S. markets? (4.) Given the current situation in what was Yugoslavia, what policy do you support to end the conflict? (5.) Considering the dangers posed by Serbia’s aggression, will your Administration extend security guarantees to Hungary? (6.) If so, what concrete security system do you propose? (7.) What role, if any, do you see for Hungary in NATO? (8.) Will your Administration support the extension of NATO security guarantees to Hungary? Many believe thatU.S. relations with the countries of East Central Europe, including Most Favored Nation status, must be conditioned upon those countries’ verifiable adherence to human rights standards, including the rights of national minorities, as specified in existing UN and CSCE documents. During the Cold War, the United States’ insistence on improved human rights standards in the Eastern bloc served as an important catalyst for the long-awaited overthrow of Communist regimes by the oppressed peoples in that region. An exception, however, was U.S. policy toward Rumania. Between 1975 and 1988, the United States granted Most Favored Nation trade status to the Stalinist Ceausescu regime, whose everworsening human rights abuses included a brutal campaign of forced assimilation against the 2.5 million-strong Hungarian minority. In Rumania, Slovakia and Serbia today government officials continue to systematically oppress Hungarian and other minorities, using tactics such as harassment of minority leaders, illegal court proceedings, neo-fascist propaganda, and violations of basic linguistic and educational rights. (9.) Will your Administration support the right of self-determination in accordance with democratic principles (including the right to political and/or cultural autonomy and self-government) for national minorities? (10.) Do you support an institutional role for Europe’s national and ethnic minorities — in addition to national governments I — at international forums whose decisions will affect these minorities? (11.) Do you support legislation which would make Most FavoredNation trade status conditioned upon specific human rights improvements, including the rights of national minorities? (12.) What conditions do you believe are prerequisite to extending MFN to Rumania? The Bush and Clinton campaign headquarters sent the Coalition their responses, which were forwarded to some of our Board members prior to the election. No response has been received from Ross Perot. The Bush campaign sent us a “Backgrounder” preparedonOctoberó, 1992 entitled “President Bush - Supporting Hungary’s New Democracy.” The backgrounder lists policies which are said to have contributed to the end of the Cold War and emphasizes his support of democracy, trade and investment in Hungary through the Hungarian American Enterprise Fund, Support for Eastern European Democracy (SEED) Act, Trade Enhancement Program, and other programs implemented by the Executive Branch. Copies of both responses are available upon request from the Hungarian American Coalition, 818 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20006. Chairman of the Board Rev. Imre Bertalan President Edith Lauer Executive Vice President Sándor T araszovics Vice Presidents Gabor Bodnar Bishop Andrew Harsanyi Rev. István Mustos Dr, Balazs Somogyi Bishop Zoltán Szucs Secretary Andrew Ludanyi Treasurer Ilona Lang Legal Counsel Géza Kadar, Jr. Budapest Liaison Paul Teleki Board of Directors Judy Balogh, Hungarian Club ot Toledo Rev. Imre Bertalan, Hungarian Reformed Federation ot America Ildikó Bodoni, Hungarian-American Human Rights Council Laszk) Bojtos, Magyar Club ot Cleveland Dr. Edward Chaszar, Hungarian Scouts Association Abroad Paul Fekete, Hungarian Alumni Assoc. - Bessenyei Assoc. Laszk) Hamos, Hungarian Human Rights Foundation Bishop Andrew Harsanyi, Hungarian Reformed Church in America Géza Kadar, Jr. Frank Koszorús, Jr., American Hungarian Federation ot Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Rev. Paul Kovács, Bethlen Home Edith Lauer Andrew Ludanyi August Molnár, American Hungarian Foundation Rev. István Mustos, American Hungarian Catholic Clergy Association Dr. Peter Pastor, Atlantic Research and Publications, Inc. George Pogan, Cleveland Hungarian Development Panel Dr. Imre Schiff, Hungarian-Americans tor Human Rights in Délvidék Dr. Balazs Somogyi, Hungarian Communion ot Friends Zsolt Szekeres Bishop Zoltán Szucs, Calvin Synod of the United Church ot Christ Sándor T araszovics, Committee tor Danubian Research Paul Teleki Peter Ujvagi Nothing printed here is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation before the Congress of the United States or any other legislative body In the U.S. or abroad. 2 • Hungarian American Coalition News • Winter 1992
