Tag Archives: refugee crisis

Hungary is unique after all: Pew research on terrorism and refugees

A couple of days ago the Pew Research Center published a survey taken between February 16 and May 8 in 38 countries, asking about the respondents’ sense of threats to national security. People were supposed to rank eight things they consider to be truly threatening as far as their well-being is concerned. Heading the list were “Islamic militant group known as ISIS” (62%) and “global climate change” (61%). Cyber attacks (51%), condition of the global economy (51%), large number of refugees (39%), U.S. power and influence (35%), Russia’s power and influence (31%), and China’s power and influence (31%) followed in that order.

The 38 countries surveyed are widely scattered, and naturally their concerns vary according to their particular geographic and cultural settings. For example, South American countries found “global climate change” a greater problem than ISIS. In European countries the large number of refugees was obviously a greater concern than, let’s say, in Vietnam or Chile. But in all countries, including European ones, the fear of terrorism was greater than alarm over the refugees. There was one exception, not just among European countries but on all four continents: Hungary. Hungarians dread refugees (66%) more than they worry about terrorism (64%). To compare Hungary to some of its fellow EU members, here are some figures. In France, which had its share of terrorist attacks, people rightfully consider terrorism a very serious threat (88%), but only 39% think that the large number of refugees is something one has to seriously worry about. In Germany there is even less anxiety about the refugees despite their large influx (28%), while 79% believe ISIS to be a serious menace. Even in Poland, a country whose population receives similar messages from the government as do Hungarians, the fear of terrorism is slightly higher (66%) than concern about refugees (60%).

The only explanation I have for this phenomenon is the success of the massive brainwashing by the incessant government propaganda against the “migrants” that has been going on for more than two years. The official of the Hungarian Fencing Association who, while visiting Leipzig, saw marauding refugees all over the place was most likely under the influence of this propaganda campaign. All he heard about the German situation at home programmed him to see a country under siege by invading Africans and Middle Easterners.

His case calls to mind an article I read yesterday in The Guardian about the Norwegian anti-immigrant group Fedrelandet viktigst (Fatherland First), which mistook a photograph of six empty bus seats for a group of women wearing burqas. When the group posted the photo on Facebook, racist commenters went wild. One of the more telling comments was: “I thought it would be like this in the year 2050, but it is happening NOW.”

Those frightening burqas

Of course, the Hungarian anti-refugee propaganda is promulgated not only on huge billboards but also in the government media, which by now means almost all print newspapers, especially the regional papers. I think it is enough to point out, as an illustration of the seriousness of the situation, that Lőrinc Mészáros alone owns 200 regional papers, all of which spout the same pro-government propaganda. And these regional papers are still read by large numbers of people.

The flagship of the government media is Magyar Idők, in which I found a typical article by Gábor Czakó, a writer whom the Orbán government found worthy of the Kossuth Prize, the highest prize a Hungarian writer can receive, in 2011. I must admit that I have never read anything by this man, but his name sounded familiar. After a bit of research I found the occasion on which I encountered Czakó’s name. In 2012, in a television conversation, Czakó extolled the habit of men physically punishing their wives and children. He told a family story in which a fisherman, who came home only every two weeks, found that his wife in his absence didn’t do any housework. He finally became tired of the situation and beat her. The beating did miracles. She became, at least for the next two weeks, a perfect wife. As he put it, “she practically begged for the beating.” Czakó, the father of seven, also explained that his beating of his boys was always done with due preparation “because if you lose your head you will beat him until blood flows.”

So, now that you know something about the author, let’s see what wise thoughts he has on the present refugee crisis. According to Czakó, these refugees are part of an army of conquerors who came to wage war “against us and our civilization of thousands of years.” They are colonizers whose aim is to make slaves of the inhabitants of Europe. They came to destroy the nations of the continent. The liquidation of nations is a necessary element of the Islamic conquest, which rests on religious foundations. With the destruction of nations comes “the loss of love, culture, family, and the values of the common past.” Czakó’s projected new world will be devoid of friendship, loyalty, perseverance, self-sacrifice, and bravery. Truth will also disappear. The conspirators behind this invasion are “creating a babelic world without truth.” This image of the Armageddon that will be created by the refugees is meant to be terrify Hungarians, to poison their souls and stupefy their minds.

This is the kind of vision Hungarians have been confronted with day in and day out. And with time the claims of the mortal danger to European civilization become increasingly forceful and harrowing. It’s no wonder that in the Pew Research Institute’s study Hungary stands alone, with an obviously warped sense of reality.

August 3, 2017

What are Soros’s solutions to the refugee crisis? Not what Orbán claims

Most people will be surprised to hear that until now no one bothered to publish a Hungarian translation of George Soros’s article “This is Europe’s Last Chance to Fix Its Refugee Policy,” which appeared in Foreign Policy. This is especially surprising since it was on the basis of this article that the Orbán government declared Soros to be the devil incarnate who wants to abolish nation states, destroy European culture, and inundate Hungary with migrants.

The article was written a year ago, shortly after the Brexit vote and before the rerun of the Austrian presidential election, the Hungarian referendum on refugee policy, and naturally all the national elections in Europe that took place in 2017. Soros looked upon the refugee crisis and Brexit as threats to the very existence of the European Union. He was naturally concerned over the growth of xenophobia and nationalism, with the accompanying rise of far-right parties and ideologies. Under these circumstances, he felt that a “comprehensive policy ought to remain the highest priority for European leaders; the union cannot survive without it.” What followed were his own recommendations for such a comprehensive approach, which would be built on “seven pillars.”

Before he outlined his “seven pillars,” Soros stressed that “the refugee crisis is not a one-off event.” The world must expect high migration pressures in the coming years, and therefore the European Union and other western countries must together work out an orderly and humane immigration policy.

The seven pillars are:

  1. The European Union, like the United States or Canada, should set a limit of legal immigration of 300,000 people a year from countries where most of these refugees and economic migrants are currently. The rest of the world could also take in the same number of people. This would be a high enough number that it would discourage illegal border crossings. Moreover, once this guaranteed quota is in place, those people illegally crossing the border of the European Union would be disqualified from being admitted as legal immigrants.
  2. The European Union must regain control of its borders. The chaos that exists now alienates and scares the public. The remedy is to provide Greece and Italy with sufficient funds to care for the asylum-seekers temporarily.
  3. Funds are necessary for the long-term challenges connected to the refugee crisis, which at the moment are not available. In 2014 the member states and the European Parliament reduced and capped the EU budget at 1.23 percent of the sum of its members’ GDP, which is simply inadequate. Soros thinks that 30 billion euros a year will be needed to carry out a comprehensive asylum plan, which is a lot of money but still less than the political, human, and economic cost of a protracted crisis. How should the EU get the money? “By raising a substantial amount of debt backed by the EU’s relatively small budget.” The EU has a low amount of debt, and “it should therefore leverage this budget like all sovereign governments in the world do.”
  4. The EU must build common mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees.
  5. Soros is against the stillborn resettlement and relocation programs. “The union cannot coerce either member states or refugees to participate in these programs. They must be voluntary.” He suggests a program based on public-private initiatives in which small groups of individuals, community organizations, and companies support the integration of the newcomers. He brings up the example of Canada, which in four months admitted 25,000 Syrian refugees before the summer of 2016 and promised to settle 10,000 more by the end of the year. That number for Canada would be the equivalent of the EU allowing the settlement of 4.5 million immigrants annually.
  6. The European Union and the international community in general should be much more generous in their support of the refugee-hosting countries and African nations which at the moment receive financial aid only in exchange for migration control.
  7. Soros shares the general view that, given the EU’s aging population, it “must eventually create an environment in which economic migration is welcome.” Merkel’s generous act “was not well thought through” because such great numbers couldn’t be properly handled. Nonetheless, in his opinion “the benefits brought by migration far outweigh the costs of integrating immigrants.”

Soros is convinced that “pursuing these seven principles is essential in order to calm public fears, reduce chaotic flows of asylum seekers, ensure that newcomers are fully integrated, establish mutually beneficial relations with countries in the Middle East and Africa, and meet Europe’s international humanitarian obligations.”

©AP / Anja Niedringhaus

It is this article that is the basis of the Orbán government’s accusations against George Soros as the evil manipulator who wants to flood Europe with millions of non-European, non-Christian people, as a result of which Europe would lose its character. But as we can see, Soros agrees with Viktor Orbán on many issues. He thinks that the compulsory settlement of refugees is outright wrong. It is unfair to the local population as well as to the refugees. He also puts a great deal of emphasis on the effective defense of the European Union’s borders, just like Orbán. He, like Orbán, also wants to give more money to countries outside of Europe which are the first stations in the migrants’ journey to Europe.

Viktor Orbán may agree with many of George Soros’s ideas, but when it comes to the immigration of non-Europeans to the continent the Hungarian prime minister is adamant. He refuses to acknowledge the continuing migration pressures that force the EU to find solutions. Orbán’s answer of total exclusion is unrealistic. There is no way of preventing millions of people from entering the territory of the European Union.  For one country to erect a fence is a useless exercise. His boasting about his own fence on the Serbian-Hungarian border, which allegedly defends the whole of Europe from millions of illegal immigrants, is outright ridiculous. The only thing he managed to achieve with the fence was to prevent the asylum-seekers and economic migrants from traveling through Hungary toward their final destination.

Orbán also disagrees with Soros on the beneficial effects of immigration. First of all, he believes that current demographic trends can be solved from within, which, as the trends over the last 30-40 years show, is simply not true. No matter what the Orbán government does to promote higher birthrates, a serious turnabout is most unlikely. But for economic growth you need a robust internal market and a vibrant work force. In Hungary not only is the birthrate very low, but emigration is high. According to the latest statistics, every seventh Hungarian child is born abroad.

What is disgusting about the anti-Soros campaign, in addition to its anti-Semitic undertones, is that the government propaganda accuses Soros of things he doesn’t advocate. Most important, he doesn’t support the forcible settlement of refugees in Hungary against the will of the people, as the Orbán government claims. Thus, the whole anti-Soros campaign rests on a lie.

It is high time for Hungarians to read the complete text of Soros’s article which was published in HVG shortly after its publication. I just hope that people will take the time to read it. If they do, they will realize that the Orbán government concocted a whopper of a lie about Soros’s designs on Hungary.

July 9, 2017

Viktor Orbán turns up the volume

Viktor Orbán’s speeches have recurring themes: Hungary’s independence, a European Union of nation states, his opposition to the settlement of alien ethnic groups in Hungary, and his crusade against George Soros. His latest exhortation, delivered yesterday at the close of the national consultation “Stop Brussels,” was more of the same, just intensified. These themes were after all the underlying tenets of the government questionnaire with its spoon fed answers. Naturally, the national consultation was a roaring success: 90% of those who returned the questionnaire wholeheartedly supported the government.

Let’s stand up for Hungary

Viktor Orbán as Saint László

The speech began with a factual error. But what else is new? The Hungarian prime minister, who often portrays himself as a devout Christian, began the prepared section of his speech with this sentence: “Greetings to all on the birthday of Saint László, our king.” How handy, especially since the Orbán regime declared 2017 as the Saint László Memorial Year on the occasion of the 940th anniversary of his ascendance to the throne and the 825th anniversary of his canonization.

One doesn’t have to be a medieval historian to know that we almost never have accurate birth dates of early kings. Admittedly, it is on June 27 that Hungarian men named László celebrate their name day, but this doesn’t mean that King László I was actually born on that day. According to the large 12-volume Magyarország története published in the late 1980s, László was born somewhere in Poland around 1046. The new biographical dictionary is even more cautious; it places the date of his birth “sometime in the 40s.” Some less reliable internet sources, like the Hungarian Wikipedia, perpetuate the myth.

But, even though it is highly unlikely that László was born on June 27, the imagined occasion gave rise to some breathtaking comparisons. “Saint László strengthened the Hungarian state which protected us from external attacks and domestic cabals, secured our country’s independence by conducting realpolitik among great powers. Stop Brussels. He defended Hungarians from the destruction of nomadic peoples. Stop migrants. Following the guidance of St. Stephen, he strengthened the identity of the Hungarian state and the Hungarian nation. Stop Soros. Hungarians have been following this path and from this path we, today’s Hungarians, do not want to deviate.”

Viktor Orbán on German politics

After admitting that German-Hungarian relations are not in the best shape, Orbán recommended a suspension of all serious dialogue with Germany for at least three months because Hungary has no intention of getting involved in the German election campaign. But, he continued, “There are some people who want to drag us into it.” For example, “our good old friend and fan, Comrade Schulz, who, as a real Brusselite, found us difficult to take, or to be more precise, he became ill every time he heard about national independence and freedom. Now that he has returned to Germany and has been stumbling right and left, in fact, faces ignominious defeat, he wants to score points with German voters with bilious anti-Hungarian attacks. This is irresponsibility. A statesman doesn’t do such a thing, although it is possible that ambition doesn’t even figure in this case. We should keep cool; we should behave responsibly and not fall for the provocations of the German left. And at night we should say a quiet prayer for Angela Merkel’s victory. Yes, a personal sacrifice is sometimes necessary in the service of the nation.”

By way of background, Viktor Orbán is no fan of Angela Merkel. His media empire has portrayed the German chancellor in such an unfavorable light that, according to a recent poll, Hungarians have a lower opinion of Merkel than of Putin. One should also keep in mind that Martin Schulz over the years has taken a very strong stand against Hungary’s little Putin, and he swore that if elected chancellor he would not be as kind and forgiving as his opponent. Of course, Orbán would have been happiest if the German far right had managed to gain a significant following, but as things stand now, this is unlikely. However negatively Orbán views Angela Merkel, she is less of a threat than the social democratic Schulz would be.

George Soros and NGOs

In this speech Orbán manifested an intensified hatred of Soros and NGOs. He went so far as to accuse NGOs financed by foreigners of secretly organizing illegal immigration. They are “the Trojan horses of terrorism.” These “so-called NGOs are in fact parts of a mafia network.”

As for the latest Soros bashing, after calling a future United States of Europe the “Kingdom of Brussels,” he claimed that “where a kingdom is being built there are always kingmakers in the background.” They are normally exceptionally wealthy, powerful men who because of their wealth are “endowed with a feeling of superiority.” In this particular case, there is such a man in the background who considers himself to be superior, who is determined, a successful financier. His name is György Soros. “Unfortunately for us he is Hungarian,” and as such he is smart. He wants to bring millions of migrants to Europe. One can forget about the “humanitarian blah blah” because Soros is “a speculator who runs an extensive mafia network that endangers the peace and future of Europe. Migration is good business for him.” In Orbán’s opinion, Soros is angry at Hungary and angry at him because “we stand in the way of his great plan and his business interests.”

In the past, although Soros and his ideas may have been irritants, the Hungarian government didn’t raise objections to him openly. But now Soros has gone too far by financing organizations that transport migrants and a mafia net of human traffickers and NGOs. “This is no longer ideology; this is politics; this is a question of national security. And when the question is about the security of Hungarians, Hungarian families, and Hungary there is no pardon, there are no phony explanations, liberal babble, or philanthropic blah blah. There is only the law, power, and defense. And today we have to defend ourselves with the weight of the law and the power of the state.”

This was the first time that Orbán addressed the issue of possible anti-Semitism in connection with his attacks against George Soros. Naturally, he rejected such accusations. His opposition to Soros has nothing to do with ethnic origins. His government several times declared its “zero tolerance” for anti-Semitism. Therefore, “this swampy terrain should be abandoned as soon as possible,” especially since those who accuse the Hungarian government of anti-Semitism “actually dispatch tens of thousands of migrants” and with them import anti-Semitism into Europe. Orbán’s migrant policies actually serve the interest of the Jewish communities in Europe “even if they don’t stand openly by their own elementary interests and remain silent when unfair attacks are launched against Hungarians who are defending them.” In brief, he is accusing the European Jewish community of being ungrateful for the protection the Orbán government offers them.

Gáspár Miklós Tamás (TGM) called the speech pseudo-paranoid because, as he put it, “no rational man can believe all the foolishness that Orbán piled on his audience.” Surely, he cannot possibly believe everything he says, but “there is the probability that it will arouse real paranoia in his followers and his opponents. And that is distressing.” Orbán is systematically poisoning the souls of millions of Hungarians with outright lies about George Soros’s role in the refugee crisis.

June 28, 2017

The “Let’s stop Brussels” questionnaire: Orbán’s silver bullet?

I haven’t analyzed Viktor Orbán’s speeches for some time, but yesterday he delivered a fairly important speech to parliament. So I think it’s time to take a closer look at the Hungarian prime minister’s state of mind.

As usual, he is on a war footing with Brussels. But if I’m correct, his posture, despite his belligerent tone, is more defensive. His position within the European Union has weakened considerably since the Brexit referendum and the French election. More and more voices can be heard within the European Union calling for financial retribution as a form of punishment for countries that refuse to cooperate when it comes to the refugee crisis. For the time being Jean-Claude Juncker would like to avoid such a drastic step, but the announcement of a looming infringement procedure can be expected any day.

Obviously, Orbán has been expecting such a move on the part of the European Commission. Right now the only bullet in his defensive arsenal is “the national consultation,” with which he wants to “stop Brussels.” But not all bullets are equally effective. The “Let’s stop Brussels” campaign and its imbecilic, deceptive questions have annoyed the Commission from the beginning. I very much doubt that the Commission will be impressed by the responses the Hungarian government received arguing against any interference by the European Union in what Viktor Orbán considers purely national affairs.

Before I turn to the actual speech, I would like to say something about the “success” of this particular consultation. The claim is that the “Let’s stop Brussels” questionnaire was returned by a record number of citizens. Indeed, if we take a look at the Wikipedia entry on “Nemzeti konzultáció,” we can see that this year’s questionnaire was returned by a greater number of people than any of the other five campaigns previously staged. However, we must keep in mind that no independent body counts the returned forms. We have only the number the Orbán government provides.

Given the lack of accountability of the government, I have long had my doubts about the government’s figures in connection with these consultations. This time I’m even more suspicious than before. The consultation drive began on April 1, and on April 19 Antal Rogán’s propaganda ministry reported that 140,000 questionnaires had been returned. But then, on April 25, six days later, Csaba Dömötör, undersecretary in the prime minister’s office, announced that 380,000 questionnaires had been received. Quite a jump, I would say. Two weeks after that, the same Dömötör triumphantly announced that “more than 1,130,000” citizens had already returned their questionnaires. In two weeks the numbers had almost tripled. But if the drive was such a success, why was it necessary for Lajos Kósa, as leader of the Fidesz parliamentary caucus, to ask for an extension of the deadline from May 20 to May 31? In any case, Viktor Orbán at the beginning of his speech in parliament yesterday claimed that 1.4 million people are practically unanimously standing behind the government in its fight against Brussels. This number, by the way, by the end of speech became 1.7 million. So, who knows?

Altogether 8.1 million questionnaires were sent out to all citizens over the age of 18, and therefore it doesn’t matter how you slice it: 1.4 or 1.7 million returned questionnaires, take your pick, shouldn’t be hailed as a great victory. But what is really annoying is that Viktor Orbán blithely turned the official government figure(s) of a 17%-21% return rate into a pro-government response rate of greater than 50% when he said that “the majority of Hungarians think that Brussels is going in the wrong direction.”

What do the government and the “majority of Hungarians” want, according to Orbán? They want “a Hungarian Hungary and a European Europe.” A couple of years ago Jobbik’s Gábor Vona announced with great fanfare that “Hungary belongs to the Hungarians,” and it seems that Viktor Orbán now agrees with him. I wonder what he would say if the prime minister of Slovakia or Romania announced that he wants to have an ethnically pure Slovakia or Romania and the Hungarian minority has only two choices: emigrate or assimilate. I assume there would be an incredible outcry, and with good reason. As for the “European Europe,” we all know what Orbán has in mind. A white Europe.

In connection with the ten-year jail sentence for “terrorism” meted out to Ahmed H. for using a megaphone to call for calm during clashes at the Serbian-Hungarian borders, Orbán accused “Brussels” of supporting terrorists at the expense of the security of the Hungarian people. Bernadett Szél (LMP) said in response that Orbán had “misplaced his medication.” George Soros couldn’t be left out of Orbán’s speech to parliament, and indeed the “American speculator” was pictured as someone who is directing the fate of Europe. The European Commission is under his influence. He asked the members of parliament “not to stand by Brussels in Hungary’s disputes with the European Union.” In addition, the parliamentarians “should stand by the Hungarian people in the battle between the Soros mafia and Hungary.”

Orbán announced that Hungary “can’t accept that [its] future is decided in Moscow, Brussels, and Washington.” As for the future, Orbán made some strange comments. Let me quote one of them. “The French election during the past weekend shows that the revolt of the European people has also reached France.” We know that when Orbán in the last couple of years was talking about “the revolt of Europeans” he was not thinking of Macron’s centrist movement. Macron’s victory is not a welcome piece of news for Orbán, which he tries to hide here. He also seems worried about a possible French-German “experiment to transform Europe,” which may take place after the German election. At the moment, “it is not clear whether these developments will help or hinder the realization of Hungary’s national interests.” Odds are, however, that hard times are coming, and therefore the national consultation took place at the best possible moment.

Let me express my very serious doubts that Orbán’s national consultation is the kind of silver bullet that will save the Hungarian government from the consequences of Viktor Orbán’s antagonistic, confrontational behavior and his flaunting of the core values of the European Union. Surely, in his sane moments he must know that those stacks of returned questionnaires are not worth a plug nickel when it comes to negotiations with the important political players of the European Union.

June 13, 2017

Viktor Orbán stood alone at the EPP congress

Viktor Orbán has been headline news in the last few days. One reason for this sudden interest in the pocket dictator of Hungary is his determination to close Hungary’s best institution of higher learning, the Central European University. The other was his performance at the annual congress of the European People’s Party (EPP) in Malta, where he delivered a speech that went against everything the other EPP politicians stand for.

The new government mouthpiece Origo described the Hungarian leader’s fantastic energy, which allowed him to have so many negotiations in one day in Malta. “Even foreign journalists commented on the Hungarian prime minister’s stamina.” On March 29 he had talks with an Albanian party chairman, a former Macedonia prime minister, the Bulgarian prime minister, the Croatian prime minister, an opposition politician from Malta, and the Austrian deputy chancellor. As for politicians from the European Union, he met with Jyirki Katainen, vice president of the European Union, and an official of the European Council.

Then came the second day of the congress and speeches by European politicians, who all spoke about unity and solidarity. Donald Tusk, who has been highly praised in the international media of late, talked at length about the necessity of a united Europe as the only guarantee of its sovereignty. “For a responsible patriot there is no better alternative than a united and sovereign Europe.” Romanian President Klaus Iohannis showed himself to be a strong supporter of a unified Europe bound together by the basic values of the European Union. Mariano Rajoy, the Spanish prime minister who is one of those few European politicians striving for a United States of Europe, talked about the advantages of integration. Manfred Weber, head of the EPP’s parliamentary delegation, announced that “anyone who loves his birthplace must say yes to a strong Europe.”

Then it was Viktor Orbán’s turn. His speech was described by Bloomberg as a “litany of charges” against migration into the EU, warning of “a dominant Muslim presence” in western Europe in the coming years, and condemning a “leftist ideology” that imposed guilt “for the crusades and colonialism.” Alluding to the Syrian conflict, he said that “if you kick an anthill, we should not be surprised if the ants overwhelm us.” I don’t know how other people feel about this metaphor, but it struck me as crude and demeaning. Perhaps unfairly, it reminded me of Albert Wass’s story of the rats that the farmer allowed to take over his house. Of course, Wass was writing not about the Syrians but about the Jews.

Angela Merkel, who spoke after Orbán, didn’t directly address the Hungarian prime minister but clearly was referring to Orbán’s hard-nosed inhumanity. “Do we just want to say that we don’t have any humanitarian responsibilities here?” she asked. According to Bloomberg, this clash between Merkel and Orbán laid “bare European disunity.” What they should have added was that, of all the speeches delivered, it was only Viktor Orbán’s that went against the consensus.

We are trying to be charming / Photo: MTI

Bloomberg didn’t elaborate on the part of Orbán’s speech that dealt with human rights. Orbán is mighty upset over the European Court of Human Rights/ECHR’s verdict that fined the Hungarian government for the ill treatment of two refugees from Bangladesh. In fact, Fidesz politicians were so upset that they were quite seriously talking about withdrawing Hungary from adherence to the European Convention of Human Rights. Of course, cooler heads prevailed. The hotheads calmed down once the minister of justice said that the government, although it will appeal the verdict, has no intention of taking such a foolish step. But it seems that the Hungarian government is not satisfied with a simple appeal. Viktor Orbán wants “urgent reforms” of the ECHR because “its judgments were a threat to the security of EU people and an invitation for migrants.” It is a mystery why Orbán thought that the EPP’s annual congress was the best place to suggest reform of the court when it functions under the aegis of the Council of Europe, which is a different entity from the European Union.

Orbán also decided to bring his ideological fight to the fore when he called the European Left “fatal for Europe.” Leftist politicians “want to force bureaucratic rules in our labor market, raise taxes, and … build socialism in Europe.” He called on his fellow Christian Democrats to fight these forces. “We are the EPP. We should not be afraid of leftist criticism calling us populist.” According to Euractiv, these words were received enthusiastically, which I find strange because practically no one considers the Christian Democrats populists. We normally talk about them as politicians of the right of center. The label “populism” is reserved for politicians of the far right, for example, Viktor Orbán and leaders of populist parties all over Europe. In this regard, it should be noted, Fidesz’s presence in the EPP delegation is something of an anomaly.

My sense is that because of Viktor Orbán’s behavior in the past few years, Hungary is isolated even within the EPP. For instance, at the congress there were several panels on a range of topics where experts and politicians gave speeches or led discussion groups. There was not one Hungarian leading such a group. Hungary was represented only once, on a panel discussion organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in which János Martonyi, the former Hungarian foreign minister, was one of the participants. Martonyi has the reputation of being a respectable diplomat, and Viktor Orbán usually trots him out when he wants to show the better side of his government and Fidesz.

There was one piece of news from the congress about which the Hungarian government media was silent. The EPP adopted a resolution on “Russian disinformation undermining Western democracy.” We learned about the existence of this resolution from István Ujhelyi, an MSZP member of the European Parliament, who wrote about it on his Facebook page. He pointed out that Viktor Orbán signed the document, but obviously the party and the government were not too eager to advertise this fact.

The path to this resolution started with an open letter by members of the EPP to Federica Mogherini, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. The letter asked her to “Please start taking the Russian disinformation threat seriously!” Apparently, she didn’t answer “nor did she acknowledge what the letter’s signatories seemed to want her to say: that Russian disinformation, as well as the separate but related issues of illiberalism and political extremism, is increasingly becoming a big problem in Europe, and specifically in the ‘Visegrad Four’ countries in Central and Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia.”

Unfortunately, I very much doubt that Viktor Orbán’s signature on this declaration will make any difference in the government media’s pro-Russian orientation.

March 31, 2017

Viktor Orbán turns his back on the Polish government

Although Viktor Orbán’s press conference this morning was anything but upbeat, a few hours later both the Polish left and right in addition to the Hungarian government media were full of praise for the prime minister’s superb diplomatic talents. In a Polish conservative opinion piece he was called the Talleyrand of our times who has been winning every major battle with “raging liberals and the Left in Europe.” He is a man who knows what Realpolitik is all about. Why this praise? Orbán had the good sense not to support the Szydło government in its hopeless fight against the reelection of Donald Tusk as president of the European Council.

Donald Tusk, who served as prime minister of Poland between 2007 and 2014, is the bête-noire of Jarosław Kaczyński, chairman of the Law and Justice party. Kaczyński’s enmity toward Tusk has a long history. First of all, at one point the two men were political rivals. Second, Kaczyński, who is convinced that the Russians were responsible for the death of his twin brother, President Lech Kaczyński, in 2010 when his plane went down in Russia, considers Tusk “politically responsible” for his brother’s death by allowing the Russians to investigate the case ahead of the Poles. But perhaps what is even more important, the far-right Polish government accuses Tusk, as president of the European Council, of wanting to bring down the right-wing Szydło government. The current Polish leadership decided to resist the reelection of the man who dared to criticize the present government in defense of democracy. Mind you, Tusk is not a “flaming liberal.” His party, the Civic Platform, is right of center.

Warsaw put up a counter-candidate–Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, like Tusk a Civic Platform member of the European People’s Party. To understand the dynamics of the situation we must keep in mind that the EP members of Kaczyński’s Law and Justice party belong to the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), basically a Euroskeptic lot. ECR doesn’t have the gravitas of EPP, to which Fidesz EP representatives also belong.

The Polish plan to block Tusk’s reelection didn’t go as planned. As soon as Saryusz-Wolski’s nomination was announced, he was removed from Civic Platform. And EPP removed him from all responsibilities within the party.

After this somewhat lengthy introduction let me turn to Viktor Orbán’s role in this ill-fated Polish political maneuver. Apparently, Warsaw was counting on Great Britain and the Visegrád Four for support. But it became apparent soon enough that neither Slovakia nor the Czech Republic would support Saryusz-Wolski’s nomination. The Polish government still hoped that Viktor Orbán would stand by their side, especially since, as we learned this morning from Viktor Orbán himself, at one point he promised that he would vote against Tusk. Orbán didn’t keep that promise.

As Orbán explained at his press conference in Brussels, since EPP’s only candidate was Tusk and since Fidesz is a constituent part of EPP, he had no choice. This is how the European Parliament functions, he explained. Otherwise, he claimed that he had tried his best to broker a deal but, unfortunately, he failed. He added that a couple of days ago he had informed the Polish government of his decision to vote for Tusk because circumstances didn’t allow him to do anything else.

Well, as usual, Viktor Orbán didn’t tell the whole truth. It wasn’t party protocol that forced him to vote as he did since there was another important European Council vote where he did not support the EPP candidate. I’m talking about the election of Jean-Claude Juncker as president of the European Commission in June 2014. Juncker was EPP’s candidate for the post. At that time David Cameron and Viktor Orbán voted against Juncker, which didn’t prevent him from getting the job. Then, perhaps feeling safe under the protective wing of Cameron, Orbán had no trouble voting against the favored candidate. So his decision had nothing to do with party obligations. Moreover, he could have voted against Tusk as a gesture to his Polish friends because his “no” vote wouldn’t have made any difference: Tusk would have been elected anyway. But, for reasons known only to him, he decided to go with the flow. He even went so far in his press conference as to laud the European Union as the best place to live in the whole wide world. It is a place where people can be truly happy and satisfied with life. A rather amusing comment considering all his earlier talk about the EU being in decline with the attendant miseries for the people.

I don’t want to dwell on the foolish behavior of the Polish government, but I’m afraid the Polish media’s unanimous condemnation of their government’s incompetence is well deserved. The Polish government should be only too well aware of the misfortunes that have befallen the country as a result of the territorial ambitions of its neighbors. Poland is rightfully worried about Vladimir Putin’s Russia. But then common sense would dictate good relations with the countries of Western Europe, especially with Germany. Yet the current Polish government treats Germany like its enemy. Perhaps this disastrous defeat will be a wake-up call, but the mindset of the present Polish political leadership doesn’t inspire confidence that it will happen any time soon.

In addition to the Polish fiasco, Orbán covered two other topics at some length in his press conference. One was the “migrant issue,” which had elicited widespread condemnation in the media and in international organizations involved with the refugee crisis and human rights. It turned out that the matter of the amendment to the Asylum Law came up during the summit. As Orbán described it, he “informed the prime ministers about the new [asylum] law, who didn’t raise any objections and did not protest.” He took this as a good sign, adding that the real fight will be with the bureaucrats of the European Union. Whether this silence was a sign of approval or an indication of a reluctance to get into a discussion of the issue we don’t know.

Orbán then explained the real meaning of the detention centers, which he compared to airports as transit zones. He was again quite explicit about the differences between the attitudes of the Hungarian government and the European Union when it comes to the refugee crisis. Hungary’s goal is not to handle the issue “humanely,” which the EU insists on, but to make sure that the refugees are stopped.

The other topic was the most recent conflict between Austria and Hungary. As is well known, an incredible number of Hungarians work in Austria. In 2016 more than 63,500 Hungarians lived in Austria, in addition to those who live in Hungary but cross the border daily to work on the other side. The Austrians recently floated the idea that Romanian, Hungarian and Czech employees would not receive extra family benefits. The Hungarians claim that as a result of such a new law Hungarian workers would receive 50% less than native Austrians for the same work. This is unacceptable for Hungary. Sophie Karmasin, the Austrian minister responsible for family affairs, visited Hungary only yesterday, and Viktor Orbán set up a meeting with Chancellor Christian Kern while in Brussels. On this topic, Orbán was forceful. He called the issue “a serious conflict” which he will take all the way to the top, meaning the European Commission and even the European Court of Justice. Hungarians cannot be discriminated against. If the Austrians discriminate against Hungarians, “we will respond in kind.” That is, if the Austrians proceed with this cut in family benefits, the Hungarian government will make certain that opportunities for Austrian businesses in Hungary will be curtailed. So, if I understand it correctly, Orbán fights against the European Commission at every turn, but once he feels that Hungarian citizens are being slighted he is ready to appeal for protection from the European Union.

March 10, 2017

Viktor Orbán’s rubber bones? No, his master plan

I thought this morning that I would be original if I wrote about a favorite word of both the Hungarian media and the opposition. The word is “gumicsont,” a dog toy made out of solid rubber or sometimes nylon. “Gumicsont” is used as a metaphor for a communication device that is designed to distract the attention of the public from something much more important. Almost everything that happens in Hungarian political life is immediately labelled “gumicsont.”

It seems that I wasn’t the only to find all this talk about “gumicsont” irritating. Almost a year ago Péter Konok, a historian and political commentator, wrote an opinion piece on the subject in HVG. He, like me, thinks that the Orbán government’s constant barraging of the population with political bombshells are not distractions intended to divert attention from something else. No, Konok says, the Orbán government’s chicaneries are genuine because “they are like this.”

Moreover, says Konok, our views on what counts as political distraction depend largely on what we personally consider important. For example, those for whom having stores open on Sunday is important may well think that talk about the size of Antal Rogán’s apartment is trivial, a distraction. Some people were certain that Viktor Orbán’s shocking announcement about the reintroduction of capital punishment was a “gumicsont” to distract attention from the Quaestor scandal.

One could give numerous examples of this Hungarian habit of labeling an action as a kind of sleight of hand to divert public attention from something else. In Konok’s opinion, these so-called artificially created distractions are unfortunately reactions to very real problems. By dismissing them as merely rubber bones to chew on, the Hungarian public fails to acknowledge that the country is in big trouble and that Orbán’s regime is only a symptom of its woes.

I would go further. Almost all of the political strategies introduced by Fidesz and the Orbán government are carefully and methodically prepared ahead of time, having very specific aims in mind. The latest “gumicsont,” according to some journalists, is the attack on the NGOs. This recent “distraction” is allegedly intended to serve up a new enemy since the migrant issue is becoming old hat and has lost its appeal. Dead wrong, I’m afraid. It is, in fact, part and parcel of the same master plan that has been systematically pieced together ever since January 2015.

The Orbán government has been preparing the ground for this move for a very long time. George Soros has been the boogeyman in Fidesz circles at least since 2010. And as far as the NGOs are concerned, Viktor Orbán made it clear in the interview he gave to 888.hu last year that 2017 will be “the year of Soros,” that is, he will get rid of the NGOs one way or the other. A distraction? A rubber bone? Of course not. It is the next step in consolidating his power and bolstering the popularity of his government.

Some observers even called the “migrant question” a rubber bone, which is total nonsense. This was again a policy initiative that Orbán had carefully crafted with a very specific goal in mind. It was designed as a popularity booster which, as Orbán rightly predicted, couldn’t fail. Just as a reminder, Fidesz’s popularity between October 2014 and February 2015 had dropped by 14%.

Orbán is aware that despite all the propaganda, his government is not popular and that it is only the weakness of the splintered opposition that makes his position safe. So, he is ready with contingency plans, the latest being to incite xenophobic Hungarians to turn against organizations that receive money from abroad. Orbán’s advisers have already managed to make Soros’s name a hated household word. Only a couple of days ago Századvég, Fidesz’s think tank, released its findings, according to which “61% of Hungarians have a negative opinion of the businessman.” Eighty-eight percent of the population—on both the right and the left—consider the use of so-called “soft-power” a violation of Hungary’s sovereignty.

The attack on NGOs is a variation on the “migrant” theme. First came boosting xenophobia and simultaneously elevating nationalism. Now the government is impressing on the population that these NGOs are vehicles of foreign political influence and pressure on the Hungarian government, which is a “violation of national sovereignty.”

Another plan Orbán announced yesterday morning was his defiance of the European Union and his fight this time against any “economic interference” of Brussels in Hungary’s affairs. Every time Orbán announces a new fight against this or that, the normal reaction in Hungary is that the man cannot live without battling against someone. That’s his nature. But what if his duels are not merely the results of personal traits but part of a well-designed masterplan which we, the observers, fail to recognize? We naively consign them to the heap of policy “distractions,” claiming that they are just tricks to turn our attention away from healthcare, education, and general poverty. I think it is a big mistake to think in these terms. We must take everything he says with deadly seriousness. No rubber bones here.

Everything Orbán does is designed to ensure the popularity of his government and his own well-being. Since his talents don’t include an aptitude for good governance, he has to rely on the country’s alleged vulnerability as a crutch. The refugees’ arrival in Europe was a godsend to Orbán. The country, he argued, must be defended against the migrants, against Brussels, against George Soros’s “soft power.” I’m afraid that nationalistic Hungarians lap all this up, including even those who wish him straight to hell. As long as Orbán can harness this kind of nationalism, the Hungarian public will never be able to get rid of him. Unfortunately, I’m afraid, Hungarians don’t see the connection between their nationalistic attitudes toward alleged outside enemies and Viktor Orbán’s staying power.

January 14, 2017