Magyar külpolitika, 1930 (11. évfolyam, 1-7. szám)

1930 / 5. szám - Hungarian Possibilities in Foreign Politics

24 HUNGÁRIA LLOYD October 1930 rules of Nations. History does noi know of any peace treaty in which the vanquished had noi beér obliged to make sacrifices, bul neither does it know of any in which their acquiescenoe to the imposed conditions had been considered negligible. The Peace Conference of Paris was the firsi which declared in its statutes thai the presence of the vanquished party is not considered necessary, nor is their acquiescence to the imposed conditions of importance, ont of which declaration it clearly follows ihat the Treaty drawn up with exclusion of either of the parties concerned is „unilateral" and theret'ore unjust. The circumstance thai the Hungárián Government has been forced under arms to sign the Treaty of Trianon concluded without their assent, does noi altér the above stated fact. It would be a tnistake to imagine thai everybody abroad is occupied with the revision of the Treaty of Trianon. On the contrary! Trtiths compels ns to state the opposite fact, because in international polities a very few only are concerned aboul it. There is no doubt that Western politieians and Statesmen see only the Germán problem, whilsl it is no fault of Germany that, owing to her size, they cannot see bevond her if regarded from the West. Moreover it is of great importance to the Western States that the Anglo-Saxon Powers should be occupied with their interesig alone i. e. only with the Germán question and not waste their attention on problems which, for the above reasons, they try to represent as non-existent. The Powers do not want slogans but the abolislunent of the incertitude and uneasiness coming from the Balkans which had once before set Europe and the whole world on fire and whieh extended the focus of the War from the Balkans to Central Europe where, according to orders and promises, peace and quietude ought to reign. Having a Treaty before ns whieh has torn to pieces a territory forming an entity for a thousand years, together with all its population, Magyars and Non-Magyars, it is impossible to pretend that such treaty is able to unitié people, because a treaty which has sown the seeds of rupture and hate, of discontent and unrest, cannot be the foundation for a peaceful life of peoples and nations. On the other hand, if a construction is not buill up on the policy of separation but on that of uníty, then one which wishes to secure peaceful future by cheeking natural evolution and by Wanting to substitute violent means for the saine, cannot conipete with the strength of the thousand year old Hungárián past which, for so many years has képi together the Basin of the Kárpál Mountains. This situation has ripened in the public opiniori of the Western States, anxious to see the problem pf Central Europe settled, the idea in which more and more people are beginning to be interested viz: the reason why the population concerned had at the time not been asked their opiniori, in other words, that a plebiscite is considered to be necessary. This weapon may be pointed against both parties, but this would not prevent its being made use of, should occasion arise, provided that it will appeai' i uitable to the Powi rs foi the summary disposal of all difficulties. The weapon tnay, however, be pointed against those who demanded from the Powers Bungary's division by means of the Peace IVeaty who. on the other hand, have noi been able to fulfil their promises to secure peace and order to Central-Europe perturbed population. Bul the weapon may be directed alsó against ns who havi' aised our voices openly againsl the „unilateral" und unjust peace treaty, bul have nowhere to appeal to againsl a plebiscite not in our favour provided that the required formalities had been observed. Therefore, we nuist win the upperhand, otherwise ii would mean the petrification of the 'Treaty of Trianon and the perpetuation of the fighl of eoples and races and the civil war ia Central Europe. In order to avoid Ibi: and to find new possibilities in foreign polities, we musl turn to the thousand year old Hungária,1 past, which has planted in 'he Kárpát Basin millión memories of a life spenl ir oeace and joint well being. Thus, if we wish an ventual peaceful decision to become the justificaion and solemn inanifestation of the Hungárián ast, we musl lift from among its traditions the rnotives which have united the Hungárián soil, the Hungárián Nation and the Hungárián State so thai we may draw again all Magyars and Non-Magyars to the hearth of the Hungárián past offering equal warmth to all who have been lured away by foreign influences and foreign promises and who have noi found in other parts the Warmth which only harmony of a peaceful life may bestow.