Hungarian American Coalition News, 2002 (11. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)
2002 / 2. szám
minority populations of the region, such as the Slovaks, Slovenes and Croatians, exercised the right of external self-determination beginning in 1990, the Hungarian national communities in the region have been denied the right of autonomy or group rights. Romania, for example, has yet to return church properties confiscated by the communists to the Hungarians of Transylvania or reestablish the Hungarian language university that was also eliminated by the communists. Slovakia's Law on Local Public Administration is skewed against minorities and prevents their effective participation in public affairs. After being forcibly silenced by the Soviet Union for over forty years, an independent Hungary began exhibiting self-confidence and sought to extend a helping hand to the Hungarian minorities without impinging on the sovereignty of the countries where they live. Budapest did so by enacting the so-called status measure and suggesting that the remnants of the discriminatory post-World War II Benes Decrees are inconsistent with Western values. Rather than welcome these efforts or address the legitimate grievances of the minorities, some of Hungary's neighbors sought to deflect the international community's scrutiny of their intolerant practices by accusing Budapest of stirring border troubles or nationalism. It is incomprehensible why the Slovak Republic refuses to renounce those provisions of the Benes Decrees which continue to adversely affect the ethnic Hungarians of Slovakia. These measures stripped ethnic Hungarians of their citizenship and civil rights, sent thousands of them to concentration camps, confiscated their property, denied them their churches, and resulted in the expulsion of approximately 12% of Hungarians from their ancestral homeland under inhuman conditions. Borders aren't the issue, people and stability are. Hungary's neighbors and Washington should welcome attempts by Budapest to help minorities overcome the effects of past and present discrimination and thereby promote equality and economic opportunity as a means of facilitating security and democracy. The United States and NATO have an interest in assisting the aspirant countries with Hungarian and other minorities develop laws and practices toward these minorities that are compatible with Western values and advance European security goals. While some NATO aspirants have made some progress in this regard, especially as the Prague Summit approaches, they must accelerate, consolidate and institutionalize this progress. The prospect of NATO membership has motivated these countries to begin to address minority rights - a prerequisite to regional stability. This incentive, some fear, will evaporate upon their joining NATO. To the extent that an aspirant, such as Romania, has not completely guaranteed minority rights, one solution to ensure continued progress is to invite that country to join the alliance at Prague (as long as it has satisfied the other criteria), while delaying or conditioning its membership on its fully satisfying this important criterion. All parties will benefit by this approach to an otherwise vexing problem that will not disappear. Frank Koszorús, Jr. IS SLOVAKIA COMMITTED TO DEMOCRATIC REFORM? Slovakia has struggled to define its national identity since its separation from Czechoslovakia in 1993. At the center of its difficulty to emerge as a fully democratic society have been the intolerant and nationalistic voices of both Slovak individuals and political parties. In the mid 1990s the undemocratic record of the Meciar government resulted in the loss of Slovakia's chance of being invited to join NATO in the first round of expansion. In 1998, however, with the election of the pro-reform Dzurinda government, Slovak citizens, including the 520,000-large historic Hungarian community had strong expectations for meaningful democratic reforms. In a historic gesture the Hungarian Coalition Party entered the government coalition, thereby strengthening the democratic credentials of the Dzurinda government in the West. The HCP entered the coalition even as its partners required it to renounce four of its fundamental objectives: 1. the autonomy of the Hungarian community; 2. abolition of the “collective guilt” expressed by the Benes Decrees; 3. establishment of an independent Hungarian university; and 4. the right to name the Minister of Agriculture. In turn, the HCP expected the government coalition partners to support some of the justified goals of the Hungarian community. These goals also coincide with the needed democratization and integration processes Slovakia needs to establish for NATO and European Union membership. However, while the Hungarian Coalition Party kept its word and has not opened public debate of the four renounced objectives listed above, the Slovak coalition partners failed to support the fundamental issues affecting the lives of Hungarians in Slovakia. 2 • Hungarian American Coalition • July 2002
