Tag Archives: Breitbart News

The Orbán government and its American media supporters

While researching media reactions to Jean-Claude Juncker’s state of the union address, I came across Breitbart News‘s take on the speech, which was illustrated with a photo of Juncker in the company of George Soros. Breitbart, as well as other alt-right publications, are riding high on Soros-bashing. What does Soros have to do with Juncker’s vision for the future of Europe? Nothing. The article otherwise was sprinkled with Nigel Farage quotations. In general, Breitbart News is fascinated with both George Soros and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.

I also visited Fox News, where I found an elevating article on the same subject titled “EU power grab: A hunk of Junck” by John Moody, executive editor and executive VP of Fox News. This opinion piece is also peppered with Nigel Farage comments, but Moody also devotes considerable space to Viktor Orbán, who called immigration “poison” and a “Trojan horse for terrorism.” Orbán is Moody’s man, someone who “will not bend” no matter how much he is being threatened by the European Union. “Sounds like a tough-talking populist candidate who bucked the political system in the United States last year. Whatever became of him?” he asks mournfully.

If some of the mainstream English-language newspapers spent as much time on Hungary as Breitbart News does, the world would be a great deal better informed about Hungarian reality. Alt-right publications are indiscriminate supporters of the Orbán regime. Here are a few headlines: “Hungary looks to ‘sweep away’ Soros-linked organizations,” “Hungary: Left-wing EU Soros puppets are attacking us for opposing mass immigration,” “Hungarian PM: We won’t let ‘Europe’s kingmaker’ Soros have the last laugh,” just to mention a few. Many of these articles were written by Thomas D. Williams, Ph.D., the Vatican analyst for CBS, who left the priesthood in 2012 after fathering a child. Two days ago he published an article in which he rejoiced over the fact that “Hungary takes NY Times to school on Europe’s migrant crisis.” He is referring to an article Zoltán Kovács wrote as an answer to a New York Times editorial titled “Hungary is making Europe’s migrant crisis worse,” which appeared on September 8.

Kovács’s answer, which appeared on his official website, was subsequently reprinted in several English-language government publications. Williams located it on abouthungary.hu, and he found Kovács’s answer to the “sanctimonious op-ed rife with errors and misconceptions regarding Europe’s migrant crisis and Hungary’s role in protecting Europe’s borders” to be brilliant.

I took a good look at The New York Times editorial and couldn’t find all the errors and misconceptions Williams was talking about. The editorial bemoans the fact that Hungary, which opened its borders in 1989 because it was guided “by generally accepted international principles of human rights and humanitarian considerations” now behaves very differently. The country now refuses to allow refugees even to enter the country, despite the verdict of the European Court of Justice that found Hungary and Slovakia’s refusal illegal. “It is particularly sad to see countries that so poignantly celebrated the lifting of the Iron Curtain now argue, as Hungary does, that being asked to take in a small number of Muslim immigrants is somehow a violation of European laws and values.”

Zoltán Kovács’s response was titled “The New York Times editors really still don’t get it.” Why did Kovács insert the word “still”? Because Kovács already wrote a letter to The New York Times: “Dear New York Times Editors: You just don’t get it, do you?,” which Breitbart News faithfully reported on at the time. His objections to the Times’s editorial are numerous. He questions the assertion that East European countries “have stubbornly blocked entry to refugees.” He objects to the description of Viktor Orbán as a “hard-liner,” and he bristles at calling Orbán’s demand for EU reimbursement of half of the cost of the fence Hungary built to keep the refuges out “arrogant.” The overarching problem with the editorial, Kovács asserts, is that the editors simply don’t understand the European migrant situation. As he puts it, “Admittedly, it’s not easy to grasp this ‘indisputably difficult problem’ from the comforts of Midtown Manhattan.” However, Kovács is ready to share “some basic facts”–for example, that “Hungary is securing an external border of the 510 million-strong European community,” which is “a meaningful demonstration of [Hungary’s] solidarity.” He objects to the editorial’s references to international law and European values that “appeal to the ‘limousine liberal’ readership of the Times” because there is no international law, no European treaty that gives Brussels the authority to decide on immigration. Kovács closes his response with these ringing words: “As the government responsible for the safety and security of Hungarian citizens—as well as the citizens of Europe—we will not apologize for continuing to assert our right to make our own decisions on immigration and to keep Europe’s borders strong.”

Although Kovács thoroughly dissected the text, he ignored the editorial’s reference to “Hungary’s callousness.” Perhaps he decided to ignore the affront since the treatment of refugees in Hungary is widely known to be glaringly inhumane. Unfortunately, it is not only officials who treat them abominably; ordinary citizens also often show them no mercy. Perhaps you recall Index‘s report on an Iranian-Afghan couple with their three children and a fourth on its way. I told their story in a post titled “Life in the Hungarian transit zones” about a month ago. In this particular instance the husband didn’t get any rations because he had gone through Hungary once on his way to rescue his family in Macedonia. The sequel to their story was just published, which is every bit as heart-wrenching.

The Iranian-Afghan couple at the EU-financed refugee camp

After months of imprisonment in the transit zone came a surprising development: the family received asylum. They could go to a refugee camp in Hungary and be safe but outside of the transit zone they continued to receive harsh treatment. One has the distinct feeling that this behavior is intended to encourage even those who receive asylum to move on. For example, throughout the long trip the officers didn’t allow the couple to have baby formula on hand. As a result, the ten-month-old baby cried bitterly for hours. The husband was forbidden to accompany his wife to the gynecologist, although she doesn’t speak any English. They asked for an interpreter; their request was denied. As for the behavior of ordinary Hungarians, the poor man had another bad experience. He and one of his children, who had cut his hand, were taken to the hospital in Győr (18 km away), but they had to take the bus back to the camp. He gave the driver 5 euros since he had no forints. The driver took the money but wouldn’t allow them on the bus. It took them three hours to walk back to the camp.

Two days after he told his story to the reporter, the family was already in Germany. He is certain that he will not be deported back to Hungary because “people abroad know how Hungarians treat the refugees. The European Court of Justice decided in our favor twice. I have the decisions on my phone. If I tell them what treatment we received here, they will not send us back.” And, indeed, Germany hasn’t sent any refugees back to Hungary since April 11. Defending the borders of Europe is one thing, cruelty is another.

September 15, 2017

The Hungarian government was caught again: Police brutality was not fake news

Two days ago I quotedThe New York Times editorial that harshly condemned the Hungarian government’s inhumane treatment of the refugees. The Orbán government never leaves such criticism unanswered. In the past ambassadors or government spokesmen responded directly. This time, however, Zoltán Kovács, head of the international communication office, chose a different route. He published an article on an English-language site called About Hungary, which is pretty clearly the product of his own office. By the way, the amount of propaganda aimed at foreign audiences is staggering. There is already an internet website called Hungary Today, which is allegedly a privately funded publication but in fact is being financed by the government. Just today I learned of a publication called Globe’s Magazine, allegedly published by a company called Globimpex. As far as I can ascertain, it is actually financed by the Hungarian ministry of foreign affairs and trade.

The content of About Hungary deserves further investigation, but for the time being let’s just concentrate on Kovács’s answer to The New York Times. In the article Kovács explains to the editorial board of the paper that they don’t know what they are talking about. He assumes total ignorance on the part of Americans, who need to be told that inside the Schengen Area freedom of movement across borders of member states is unrestricted. “You’ll never hear [the word] terrorism from The New York Times and their ilk. Yes, it’s politically incorrect, but it’s today’s reality.” This last sentence in particular was music to the ears of the editors of Breitbart News. They promptly published practically the whole letter. In this way, given the large readership of Breitbart, Kovács’s lecture to the ignorant liberals who don’t want to talk about terrorism received a wide, and I assume receptive, audience.

Interestingly enough, Kovács didn’t try to deny the cruel treatment of the refugees. On the contrary. “It is easy to be charmed by the human rights nonsense when you’re penning editorials from an office in Midtown Manhattan. But we’re running a government responsible for the safety and security of our citizens—as well as the citizens of Europe—on the front lines of this crisis, and we see this struggle differently.”

This was not the earlier position of the government. On March 7 György Bakondi, Viktor Orbán’s adviser on internal security issues, gave an interview to ATV in which he denied any police abuse of the refugees at the Serbian-Hungarian border. During fairly aggressive questioning by Egon Rónai, Bakondi exclaimed: “Can you imagine that our soldiers and policemen beat these people? Can you imagine that our men lie? Dog bites? There are dogs but they all have muzzles on. Don’t we trust our own soldiers?” They know nothing about any abuse ever happening at the border and therefore there is nothing to investigate, Bakondi announced.

A couple of days later János Lázár and Zoltán Kovács at their joint Thursday performance repeated the same line. They categorically denied any wrongdoing on the part of either the policemen or the soldiers. It’s the refugees who lie. Viktor Orbán basically said the same thing during the press conference he gave in Brussels when he claimed that “we don’t know anyone who became injured in the territory of Hungary.” All injured persons were registered in Serbia. The media again wants to “confuse the policemen and the soldiers.”

A telling drawing by a refugee / Source: migszol.com

It was inevitable that the truth would emerge sooner and later. In fact, on the very next day Magyar Nemzet learned from the chief prosecutor’s office that since September 2015, 44 abuse cases had been reported, most of which were dropped “in the absence of a crime.” In five cases the police are still investigating. Who reported these cases? Sometimes the plaintiffs themselves or their lawyers. Doctors Without Borders reported at least nine cases, the United Nations Refugee Agency presented at least one case, and even the Hungarian police came forward with a number of cases. I assume in this last category a superior officer reported on a subordinate.

Once Magyar Nemzet was on the case, they kept going. The paper soon found out that at least two policemen were convicted in an accelerated procedure of abusing immigrants on the southern border. One of them was fined 130,000 forints, which, given these policemen’s salaries, is a fairly hefty sum. This particular brave policeman, of whom we should be proud according to Bakondi, fired teargas straight into the faces of refugees who were standing on the Serbian side of the fence. His excuse was that the refugee in question was hurling abuse at the policeman’s family and “behaved in a threatening manner.” I guess from across the fence. Moreover, given the language skills of the Hungarian police, the story doesn’t ring true.

The other case was even more serious. This particular police sergeant was found guilty of maltreatment and assault of a refugee, who happened to be sitting on the ground. Without any provocation, the policeman kicked the man’s face with his right knee. He was fined 300,000 forints. So much for the gallant Hungarian policemen Bakondi talked about. And so much for the trustworthiness of the Hungarian government and its spokesmen.

The cruel treatment of refugees The New York Times’s editorial wrote about isn’t limited to physical abuse at the border. It extends to the treatment of those few refugees who have received asylum in Hungary. The Orbán government’s chief argument against accepting Middle Eastern and North African refugees is their radically different culture and religion, which prevents their integration into the European majority culture. The two don’t mix. The Hungarian government certainly makes these people’s integration as difficult as possible. Without some initial assistance, integration will not take place easily. The refugees need shelter, some clothing, and, most important, language instruction. As long as they cannot communicate, they cannot find a job. But since June 2016 the government provides none of the above. Prior to that date a legal immigrant received a monthly stipend and some rudimentary language instruction. Right now they get nothing. Some of them must sleep in homeless shelters where they are not welcome. In this way the Orbán government can prove a point: they cannot learn the language, they don’t even want to, and naturally they don’t want to work.

I did hear about a language course offered by a Hungarian Reformed group. The Hungarian Catholic Church, however, has no intention of lending a helping hand to these poor people. The one notable exception is Miklós Beer, bishop of Vác. He suggested that each family that can afford it should “adopt” a refugee, whom they would help get through the first difficult months. He himself took in two young men. His fellow bishops are horrified. And the government newspaper, Magyar Idők, published an editorial in which György Pilhál, one of the most objectionable hacks in the government propaganda machine, intimated that the bishop must have been drunk to have suggested such an unheard-of act. The title of his piece was “I hope it wasn’t the wine for mass.” It seems that this was too much even for Magyar Idők, whose editor-in-chief apologized a week later.

All in all, Hungary’s treatment of the refugees, both those who are already inside the country and those who are locked up in the transit zone, is shameful. There is no other way of describing it.

March 17, 2017

Sebastian Gorka’s road from Budapest to the White House

A few hours ago Sebastian Gorka triumphantly announced on Twitter: “Well the radio silence is over. Congrats to those who guessed! Honored to be Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States,” most likely on the National Security Council. Faithful followers of Fox News may be familiar with his name since Gorka has been a frequent guest as an expert on Islamic terror. He is one of those people who are convinced that the Western world is at war with Islam, a war that could have been won if the president of the United States had been serious about the mission, as Barack Obama obviously wasn’t. Trump, however, “sees that this is an actual war that he wants to win.” It was this theme that Gorka developed in his 2016 book Defeating Jihad: A Winnable War. Gorka is also a regular contributor to Breitbart News and a protégé of Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s chief strategist, or, as GQ magazine called him, “our president.”

Sebastian Gorka with Donald Trump

Sebastian Gorka’s name is not exactly a household word in the United States, but in Hungary it has a more familiar ring. In the years after 9/11 Sebestyén Gorka, as he was known in Hungary, was a national security analyst who, according to some less than charitable TV viewers, was usually wrong.

Gorka was born in Great Britain in 1970, the son of Hungarian refugees Zsuzsa and Pál Gorka. The father, according to Sebastian, was sentenced to life in the 1950s and was freed in October 1956. A few years ago Pál Gorka, who moved back to Hungary after 1990, wrote a book about his experiences before and during the revolution.

The young Gorka received a B.A. in philosophy and theology from the University of London and, upon graduation, joined the British Territorial Army reserves, serving in the Intelligence Corps. In 1992 he followed his parents to Hungary, where his meager military training and intelligence experience were sufficient to land him a job in the Ministry of Defense. There he worked on international security issues and Hungary’s future accession to NATO. Gorka spent five years in the ministry, during which time he also earned a master’s degree from Corvinus University in international relations and diplomacy. Later he received his Ph.D. from the same institution.

Anyone who’s interested in the career of Sebastian Gorka should consult his Wikipedia entry which, I suspect, he wrote himself. There is no need to repeat all that information. Instead I will concentrate on his time in Hungary.

Hundreds of articles have appeared in the Hungarian media in the last few days about Gorka’s fabulous career. He and his family left Hungary for the United States only nine years ago, and yet he will be an important adviser to the president of the United States. These articles note that he was also an adviser to Viktor Orbán. Some of the better informed pieces report that he eventually became disillusioned with Orbán and established a party, Új Demokratikus Koalíció. Interestingly, in his many resumés one finds not a word about his position as adviser to Viktor Orbán, which is odd since one would think that it might be a plus for his political ambitions.

Gorka established and was the executive director of a conservative think tank, the Institute for Transitional Democracy and International Security, in Budapest. By 2006 he decided to chart his own political course. In September of that year he gave an interview to Magyar Nemzet in which he explained why he was running against the Fidesz candidate for the mayoralty of Piliscsaba, a picturesque village in the Budapest metropolitan area where he and his family lived. A few days later he talked to someone from the New Telegraphic Agency who complained about the red-and-white-striped “Árpád” flags favored by Magyar Gárda. Gorka explained to him that the flag-wavers “are a soft target, because how do you prove you’re not a fascist?” And, he continued, “if you say that eight centuries of history can be eradicated by 19 months of fascist distortion of symbols, you’re losing historical perspective.” Gorka was a bit off; Ferenc Szálasi’s Arrow Cross regime lasted only about four months.

In January 2007 he and three others established a right-wing party. After Viktor Orbán lost the election in 2006 a lot of people within his own party came to believe that Fidesz cannot win an election as long as Orbán is at the helm. Gorka was one of the “insurgents.” He identified three groups within the party. One was the Orbán-Simicska line. The other was a group led by István Stumpf, head of the prime minister’s office during the first Orbán government, and Mária Schmidt, director of the House of Terror and today the court historian of Viktor Orbán. The third group was led by Zoltán Pokorni which, according to Gorka, was the weakest of the three. It was under these circumstances that Gorka wanted to establish a party in opposition to Fidesz. He added that he was hoping that some Fidesz leaders would join him. He specifically mentioned János Áder, today president of Hungary.

Jobbik, which had just started to become an important factor in the country’s domestic politics, sent an observer to the press conference that set out the goals of the new party. He came away with the feeling that the ideology of the Új Demokratikus Koalíció was confused. The leaders of the party counted on the right-wing followers of Mária Schmidt, the left-winger followers of Gyula Horn, and the “völkisch-national-socialists” of Katalin Szili. No wonder that Gorka’s attempt to establish this new party was a total flop. Most likely it was his political failure that prompted him to leave Hungary and not, as he later claimed, “the chaos created by Gyurcsány.”

The last time Gorka gave an interview to a Hungarian newspaper was in September 2016. The reporter of Magyar Nemzet asked his opinion of Viktor Orbán’s Russian policy, and he was anything but complimentary. He harshly criticized Putin’s policies and found Orbán’s balancing act between NATO and Moscow to be both dangerous and unsustainable. Orbán, he said, will have to decide between the West and the East. Given Gorka’s family background, it makes sense that he would be no fan of Russia or Putin, the former KGB agent.

Hungary might think that it is gaining influence in Washington by having Sebastian Gorka in such a prominent position. But given his low opinion of Orbán, whom he considered already in 2006 unfit to lead the country, the Hungarian prime minister might not get the kind of reception from Trump that he expects.

January 31, 2017