Magyar News, 2002. szeptember-2003. augusztus (13. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

2003-01-01 / 5. szám

AN

Tl

1»;

WRITTEN BY LÁSZLÓ FÜLÖP

^ J

Command in Taszár, then - as of February 1997 - in Kaposvár primarily for 25,000 US troops. The airbase at Taszár and Kecskemét in Hungary, provided supplies and security for NATO troops during the various conflicts during the nineties. It established a logistic base at Pécs, a city in Southern Hungary, for Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish and Polish troops.

Refer to

(www.meh.hu/kum/kumwebhr/NATO/hm_ifor.htm) NATO's report for detailing Hungary's substantial commitments. Just to sample this report: "Such significant events included the restoration of the bridge over the river Drava connecting Bares and Terezina Pole designated to become the principal main road crossing point for IFOR/SFOR- forces..." or: "According to registered figures currently at our disposal this has so far meant the movements - that is entry into and exit from Hungarian borders (airspace) of more than 170.000 troops, 4.000 aircraft, 1.200 trains and 70.000 combat and transport vehicles."

One can reasonably infer, that in any major NATO operation the weight of undertaking falls on its members unevenly. At the times of the Balkan Wars, perhaps on account of her geographical location Hungary was one carrying a major burden. The listed examples, a minute part of the list in the report, seem to fall into the category of substantial achievements. Ms.Wallander must not have consulted any of these reports when she wrote her article.

But Hungary's ability of playing a role in the Balkans should be weighed very carefully. Only those, uninformed or oblivious to this region's 20th century history, can expect Hungary to ignore the situation of her sizable minorities under the sovereignty of several Balkan states. Most important of these is Serbia, which was the initiator and perhaps the major perpetrator of the unrest and bloodbaths in the Balkans (Bosnia, Serbo-Croat War, Kosovo). A large Hungarian minority now lives in Serbia (in Vojvodina), where an estimated 35,000 were slaughtered in 1944-45, and it is here that they have been subjected to threats and harassment during the last few

years. Was the Hungarian Government to expose these minorities to additional intimidation and perhaps revengeful bloodbaths by taking an active military role against the aggressor Serbian state? One can be sure Hungary coordinated her contribution with NATO carefully, considering the political as well as the military aspects of her participation. Indeed, it could have been most tempting for Hungary to enter these conflicts in full force in the hope of perhaps reclaiming at least northern Vojvodina in the likely event of winding up with a disabled Yugoslavia at the end of these conflicts. But Hungary - whichever government - wisely refrained from such temptation.

One wonders what Ms. Wallander, or her source envisions as a "non-disappointing role" for Hungary in these Balkan conflicts? Does she know that the war with Yugoslavia - not of Hungary's choosing - cost Hungary over $ 6 Billion? Does she know that the majority of refugees - over 70,000 Bosnians, but also Hungarians, Croatians and even Serbians fled to the north and Hungary's economic abilities were severely tested by accommodating these unfortunate and unexpected people?! Did the country of Ms. Wallander's source - presumably an upstanding member of NATO - rush to aid Hungary, the size of Indiana, struggling in providing humane treatment for the refugees? Or: does she (or her senior source) know that national budget allocations for defense purposes places Hungary (as proportioned to her national budget) in fourth place in NATO behind the United States, Greece and Turkey?

Thus the source(s) Ms. Wallander mentions also appear less than credible. One major source is identified in the article as a "a senior figure in European security", however, it is hardly believable that this statement was made by but a second- or third-line staff, who lacks diplomatic skills. A NATO Supreme Commander, such as General Wesley Clark, or his immediate colleagues would never be caught uttering such statement(s) for public consumption. NATO in the past has not used the press to carry its messages, it is unlikely that it will begin to do so now.

However, these accusations can be either accepted where deserved, or refuted as documented. More complicated is to deal with the charge of anti-Semitism in the Government. Unsubstantiated as this charge is, it has been repeated in several articles in the recent past, without documentation. To be sure, there is anti- Semitism in Europe and also in Hungary and that is disturbing. There are theories why this ugly phenomenon has flared up in the last few years (but I do not delve into these as they do not pertain to our current argument). Lacking documentation for the charges, however, has one major advantage: it is very difficult to defend against them. But lacking precision, lets one

examine the phenomena and its manifestations by inference.

Let's look at examples Wallender conveniently forgets and the inferences that could be drawn if one were to follow the path of unsubstantiated accusations she demonstrates with such ease. In the recent past hooligans vandalized Jewish cemeteries and monuments in France. Do we infer from these that the French people, or the French Government is anti-Semite? Most people did not think so even when the French Government condemned Israel's actions in Palestine. Do we accuse the German Government as anti-Semitic because of destructive acts, similar to those in France, carried out by skinheads. Does this make the Germans anti-Semites? Or, it was reported about 25 years ago that in a Chicago suburb the entire community demonstrated against Jews settling down in their town. Did this make the US Government anti-Semitic? Or at least the State of Illinois administration? Of course, an answer on the affirmative to these questions is absurd. But so are the unsubstantiated accusations she seems to draw, for nothing similar to these events have taken place in Hungary! Not in the last few years, not 25 years ago.

Lets look at a few facts, which will dispel her unsubstantiated accusations:

Hungary has very strong laws controlling anti-religious, or anti-racist behavior and seriously protects the rights of minorities, Hungary has one of the largest Jewish populations (over 100,000) among the countries in Europe. Now when movement in Europe is virtually unrestricted, would they remain there if the government demonstrated anti-Semitic attitudes? Hungary and Israel are important trading partners (that would not go on without governmental approval). The Orbán Government allocated significant funds specifically for support of Jewish schools and education; and there are people of Jewish religion in the Hungarian Government.

Indeed, as upsetting as her unsubstantiated allegations are, it would not merit the time to address them, if one wouldn't sense something that seems to gradually take shape in the press. Articles in the past year in the New York Times (C. Bohlen) and in the Washington Post (Diehl) were just as inaccurate and unsubstantiated, and just as unbalanced and sharp in attacking Hungary as is Ms. Wallander's article. A general pattern seems to be evolving with the aims of dismantling improved relations between Hungary and the United States, something I have worked for in all my adult life. For this reason I felt compelled to respond to the allegations in this article, because Anti-Hungarianism is as ugly as anti-Semitism!

László Fulop Secretary of Minnesota Hungarians Board Member of Hungarian American Coalition Page 3